“Full Many a Flower Is Born to Blush Unseen” (Gray 1751)
“Maybe it’s the language that is off-putting. Gray created a heightened diction based in part on classical poetry. Today, formality and artifice strike many as insincere, as though something that’s not colloquial is necessarily suspect. We’re still suffering under an ersatz Romanticism that gives value to the spontaneous and devalues the polished and restrained.“ (La Belle 1994)
I wonder, in the spirit of obsessive innovation, is taking note of dusting off and revisiting acts classified as ‘romantic,’ and yet as easily classifiable as pragmatic contextualization of the incessant “new?” Is it ripping off a style, is it an ode to generating the past generations, is it lacking ingenuity, is it contextualising innovation? Is it, it is all and then some.
Some recent technologies have added a new word into the mix: ‘generative‘ which does sound different from ‘to generate.’ Being ‘generative,‘ to generate, is a form of “creation,” to create, across the generations of human produce. Is a machine that is generative in some (perverting) sense a hyper-romantic dusting of styles of bygone eras, where era might be a time period in a style of yesterday’s meme? Across the polemics of whatever is generated, created or imagined, many a produce are increasingly designated to be democratized on the graveyards of human creation as “Full Many a Flower,” “Born to Blush Unseen.” (Gray 1751)
That brings this writing to further mimicratic note-taking and referencing [*1]: As rays shining brightness on our market-made cultures, there is Samuel W. Franklin with the “Cult of Creativity”(2023). His writing might be unthreading the web of “imagination,” “interpretation” versus “creation,” “production,” (tooled, mechanical, digital or other), and “generation” from an age not too far into the recent past. Creativity –if one could be accepting of a simplified interpretation of the above author’s recent publication– is then possibly a democratization of the output-sell-buy-move-on lineage.
Do I know you or do I know your produce?
There is no “or” through the communal lenses. This might be a subtext symbolized through the passionate, yet society-defining tensions between New York’s Jane Jacobs and Robert Moses.
Both could be equalized as peddling lanes for produce, and yet only one upheld community, relation, and reference to that individual human in the smallness, yet persistence of being, among the vastly architectured physical or digital cityscaping.
“When city planning supremo Robert Moses proposed a road through Greenwich Village in 1955, he met opposition from one particularly feisty local resident: Jane Jacobs. It was the start of a decades-long struggle for swaths of New York.” (Palleta 2016)
The acts of cutting through human creativity-over-time (and that with roads or other and possibly less tangible means) tends to meet with some resistance. Though, is this a romantically fading notion, erased by the statistical structuring and channeling of our produce and fruits of our laboring? In the pragmatics of communal resistance we can take (agency over) produce to proverbial multi-vectored meta-levels.
In that humanly —and at times dehumanizingly— yet created, anthropomorphic environment, have you lately taken a whole day, from before the sun rose until it set, to “unproductively” observe, take note of, one petal —there placed “Between the Commonplace and the Sublime”? (Franklin 2023)
Or, are you predestined to peddle stock in styles appropriated from hushed bygone times to be forgotten the moment you set foot on the (digital) subway, swaying you back to your nightly stead?
Please note, as I too am a peddler, and yet as you can assign time to read this: no counter argument could be that some must, unwaveringly, innovate their produce for a sustainable living. After all, as you observe –as or not as judgement of– lack of beauty “observation can tell more about the observer than about the environment being observed.” (Goldsmith & Lynne 2010)
There is that place between the Franklinses, the Grayses, the Jacobses, the Moseses or the digital versions of Le Corbusierses of our times.
There is non-romanticist beauty in unnoticed smallnesses, you see. In those moments there are no big names, no genius. There is you.
There is the vulnerable yet persistent petal. There is your human-made environment. There are producing generations of cohabitation. And that especially in the solitudes of creative observations.
Epilogue
I was touched by these words by Dr. Tim Williams as a reply to the above writing.
I wish to cherish them here:
“When I read the article, I sensed the tensions of what elements should be included in genuine generative, creative production. And thus, this led to subtle definitions to differentiate between concepts. As such, I felt that each was bringing to light an important nuance; each having its own emphasis on something important. Romanticism with its revolt against the rigid rationalism, reminding us that there are other features beyond what is in the nous; there is the entire phenomena to be considered. But then it too frequently morphs into the abstract and then without purpose (art for art’s sake). And then there is the industrialization of production with its utilitarian focus, almost to the point of killing creativity. And so, I thought a holistic approach looks upon all of these facets — the teleological, the epistemological, and aesthetic perspectives. The entirety of man in all that man is — a being that creates from who he is, limited but profound as that might be.”
Williams, T. (2023, May). “Holistic approach to being really generative.” Online: LinkedIn. Last retrieved 21st May, 2023 from a Dr. Williams comment on a LinkedIn post of the above writing. Thank you, sir.
Franklin, S.W. (2023). “Cult of Creativity.” London: The University of Chicago Press.
Goldsmith, S. A., & Elizabeth, L. (Eds.). (2010). What We See: Advancing the Observations of Jane Jacobs. NYU Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt21pxmnw
Gratz, R. B. (2010). The Battle for Gotham: New York in the Shadow of Robert Moses and Jane Jacobs
Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Vintage Books.
La Belle, J. (1994). Full Many a Flower Is Born to Blush Unseen’ : The echoes of a classic poem about the democracy of death still resonate in our language and literature. Online: The LA Times. Last retrieved on May 15, 2023 from https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-02-16-me-23414-story.html
S.C.A.M.P.E.R. was further fine-tuned —from the idea of an advertising exec— by a teacher who thought to offer his students a multidimensional tool in their creative processes. The “S” is said to stand for “Substitute” as one of its 7+ mechanisms.
Following it was re-appropriated by designers or those in fields of R&D. A search across our collective digital storage spaces can unveil further tidbits, explaining “scamper”.
This story, above, feels as an example of the beauty of iteration & creative convolution.
Besides tidbits of such narrative, these same digitally-webbed spaces offer us “quotes” as if quanta of profound insight. (Note: “…as if…”)
Let’s use “S” on 1 example —which I enjoyed for de- & re-contextualization here. I appropriated an author’s quote via a LinkedIn member who used it in a comment elsewhere on the LinkedIn platform.
The author, Robert A. Heinlein —who was said to value science as well as valued critical thinking, at times via iconoclasm— was also said to have written (ironically and perhaps unwittingly, misquoted or “augmented” by the LinkedIn user) in his 1961 “Stranger in a Strange Land,” the following:
“Most neuroses and some psychoses can be traced to the unnecessary and unhealthy habit of daily wallowing in the troubles and sins of five billion strangers.”
Does this sounds like a quote we’d be inclined using “these days”? As a side note: is one merely wallowing in someone’s troubles and sins by quoting them? ;-p
Let’s map & play with “S”, juxtaposition or contrast, iconoclasm, critical thinking & hints of questionability or degrees of corroboration as only a thought-to-action exercise. Just play.
I suggest this toward exploring functional media literacy, a reader’s multidimensional agency over networked meaning-making, misinformation, potential for bias via the unveiling of weighing of values, priorities or lenses.
Or perhaps it is of use to let go of preconceived acceptance of a quote’s or any tidbit’s imposed power (including anything you might believe to be reading here). Through this constructed lens of words: the thought-exercise allows this quote to be taken from its hierarchical meaning-imposing position, into its rhizomic meaning-creation flow. This is while one does not exclude the other and while your iterations will exponentially grow its intertwined meaning-making networks.
Here’s one such trial with “S”, from a possible infinite set of trials:
”Most sociopathy & apathy can be traced to the unnecessary & unhealthy habit of daily wallowing in the troubles & sins of reducing humanity to a set of Predators, Parasites & Preys.”
Does this sound like a “quote” we could also use “these days”?
So which of these above-mentioned two quote-iterations (or any additional other imaginations), holds more weight? (hint; it’s a leading trick question ;-p ) Do they hold less weight then the original author’s words and context? (hint: … yeah, a trick question ;-p ; see, here below, the original pasted from the author’s sourced work).
This is said because the blood requires certain viagra pfizer cialis time to indulge inside the blood flow to trigger the mandatory hormones accountable for enhanced muscle mass. Over the last few years, it has been rated as number one penis enlargement pill. viagra spain devensec.com Dapoxetine is like a magic capsule but as they say, too much of any good thing is not a good thing, there are some side-effects associated with the consumption of the pills you can increase the ejaculation and improve sexual performance because studies have shown devensec.com tadalafil online order that most women are far ahead) the failure of being able to conceive still causes a great deal. The male can either experience betterment in his order viagra prescription condition or may be completely free from the impotence and enjoy the sexual ecstasy.
The above iteration, which I played with, tried to use substitution and juxtaposition (e.g. the word “neurosis” vs. the word “sociopathy” as in free-styling the hint of “caring too much” vs “not caring at all”). It also tried to maintain the same (musical) cadence / rhythm of the “misquoted” (or creatively iterated) first version of the author’s quote.
Expanding on the exercise:
could it be that any systemic “conspiracy” of misinformation commences in a systemic, cognitive “creativity” (or lack thereof) of 1 individually-reading & -writing yet contextualized and ever-relational human? Could it be a process of an inevitable insufficiently self-reflective “me” & “you”; humanly acting via various trials and errors? (I think so; yes. Maybe we want to come to terms with that; i.e. as much as one can, embrace it with open eyes ).
Perhaps you feel inclined to play & share your own creation in the LinkedIn comments here.
To round it all up:
The author’s passage in the Ace Books’s 1961 publication shows the quote slightly differently from what the LinkedIn user posted as a comment to someone else’s posting. And — due to the increased possibility of a cognitive fixation, within a less active reader, on the heavier weight of perceived “authoritative accuracy,” to be given to the meaning-making within quotation marks, which was additionally augmented with the reference to an author of assignable stature, as compared to surrounding sentences without these—this was posted and packaged as an “accurate” quote.
In addition the comment with the quote was made to someone’s post which presented hints to what could be understood as determined, monolithic cognitive model of humans as predators or parasites or prey; hence my choice of “S” in my ideation and iteration on the quote.
Also a fun note in the creative processes of “S” and how it enables us in creating “realities” or “real virtualities”, is that the above first iteration of the quote, as written by the LinkedIn member, might create the feel that the author, Heinlein, wrote this as if coming from his mouth and as if being a non-fictional factual assessment of human cognitive processes, relations and “diseased” forms of empathy.
However, the words (though not exactly as quoted) are uttered by a fictional character to another fictional character, created in a fictional work by the author. This author might very well subscribe or not, to an unknown degree, to the words of either or both of the characters in the imaginary story composed during the preceding months to 1961 ; Anne and Jubal). Then again, if any author of a fictional story, let’s say a gory horror story, were to fully agree with the words uttered by any of the fictional characters in the story, then perhaps we, as humans, would be in huge heap of trouble…
These features (those mentioned before the above paragraph that opens with the word “However,…”, make it possibly look as if hierarchical meaning-making is working at its best. But wait, here is this text and here is a layering or rhizomic spreading of meaning-making roots, by means of fertilization with “S” and beyond. ;-p
Hence witting or unwitting play with “S” allows for vast iterative nascency of meaning-networking. (Side note: I’d “like” a meaning-analyzing system from within the field of A.I. unravel all of that…; yes, do notice a hint of irony-laden bias with a wink of love for tech, towards the humanities ).
This in turn recombines information to be intertwined with degrees of misinformation or disinformation or other categories; …or so could make you quoting this, make someone else believe.
Here is a copy from the words from the source’s pages 130-131:
<<…Anne appeared, dripping.
“Remind me,” Jubal told her, “to write an article on the compulsive reading of news. The theme will be that most neuroses can be traced to the unhealthy habit of wallowing in the troubles of five billion strangers. Title is ‘Gossip Unlimited’—no, make that ‘Gossip Gone Wild.’”
“Boss, you’re getting morbid.”
“Not me. Everybody else. See that I write it next week…>>
(pp.130-131)
artwork on top: “Jent”. Analog paper and coal sketch . animasuri’01
Imagine in between 1 billion & 5 billion years there won’t be life on Earth.
imagine: biological relationships have seized. Thought has seized. Merely imagine that consciousness has seized.
These ended in their functional dynamics of hierarchical power-struggles, once intertwined with the also vanished rhizomic relationships which imply a weighing of symbiotic, recombinable, altering co-creation and exchange.
Imagine all of these relations, the imposing thoughts, the directing emotions and their exposed behaviors, have perished.
One is only suggested to read these words & to imagine their virtual reality. One is not suggested to evaluate truth, as much as the truth of a building’s brick is not in question. There is no truth; there is only structured imagination.
Before reacting and taking out your thumb or an alternative with equitable capability: breathe. Don’t type in opposition, sarcasm or doubt nor in support; really, there is no need.
This helps male sexuality on all fronts, from charisma to erection to cialis online australia execution. Whatever might be the reason you must be open up, about it and consult a doctor at the right time usa generic viagra can help you deal with the problem easily. online viagra canada The medicine will knock at the door immediately. You can include foods on line levitra like oysters, broccoli, dark chocolate, eggs, spinach, fish, watermelon, pumpkin seeds, almonds, spinach, pomegranate, carrots, watermelon and dark chocolate in your daily diet.
Simply breathe out, in & on.
Simply imagine this scenario that could be dismissed with any utterance from anywhere or from one or many of the 4000 religious frameworks. Let’s not. maybe for once, maybe secretively & maybe as a first time. Simply imagine this constructed real virtuality of a solar system without the biological eco-systems as we know it today.
Now: reverse-design without trying to apply your established convictions; so as to render the exercise mute & simply arrive where you already are. You already have the latter; you don’t have to loose it.
Let your imaginary design be an invitation to create a path to any imagined versions of here-and-nows approaching time & space as you do think to know it. Create your narrative.
Have you encountered something of interest, to you?
Next: build towards that. Suggest others to pick up where you shall have left off. They might imagine it differently. It’s ok: in this imagination you will have perished by then.
Learning and using multiple languages enables one to play in-between the languages. Since I believe (and I am not alone) that languages exist intertwined with cultures, one is hence also playing in-between cultures; perhaps unwittingly so.
…our earliest pets, totems, talisman or mascots?
This in-between interaction enables (at least me and, as I observe, also some others) a form of playful language (usage and construction) that can only exist and be understood by those enabled to be moving in-between them.
At least metaphorically (but I sense this is very practical or pragmatic as well), this is allowing the player to stand on the proverbial door sill. This is in turn allowing the player (limited in this writing here by the highly constraining, linear nature of language constructs, such as sentences in paragraphs) to be looking, at least, at the one language usage on one side and at the other on the other side (if applying the play between two languages only, while multiple language usage is plausible as well). The player then can be “tasting” (and, simultaneously, be creating ) the linguistic mixture, as an observer and producer. The player can do so in-between two or more languages.
This awareness is not particularly new nor is it unique.
For instance, in China’s broadcasts, of its voice radio performance art, one can, at times, listen to wordsmiths playing in-between English and Chinese. For instance, they might use an English word or two that sound like a very different Chinese word. Though, the audience or creators might be “limited” to Mandarin and some basic English, nevertheless, it is just that: a creative fluidity in-between languages (for the moment ignoring the motivation or the perception thereof, in this particular reference).
An example between Dutch and Chinese could be this: “poesje“, which is Dutch for “small cat“. It sounds, via slight shifts in the Dutch pronunciation, as /bu-shi/ , which could, besides conjuring a rude English wording, also be shifted into the Chinese “bù shì” (不是). These two Chinese characters stand for “not” and “is“, or slightly more freely translated, as “not yes“. In turn this could be used to mean something as “not“, “no“, “it isn’t“…
If “bù shìpoesje” then what is it?
I sense one can see this activity as an analogy of potential processes and actual evolution in any creation or (in-between) any framework. One might perceive these as experiments of shifts and “perversions” (depending on one’s “political” stance) into innovations or into new and different languages or into potentially new meaning-giving. This could occur, at least, at the level of the individual or in-between a few initiated individuals. This movement could transcode from the absurd into the formal and vice versa.
Is this a movement similar to that one person’s crazy idea that can only become accepted if a second person endorses it (preferably a second person otherwise unassociated with the first person) and then becomes a movement by the undefined masses following it? I now see a thought turned into a (set of meaning-imbued) word(s), turned into a culture.
As a sidenote:
"Framework" here is meant as a collection of thought creations (e.g. a connection of associated concepts).
For instance, I, as one individual, over my life span, have cognitively collected a number of frameworks. Such Frameworks, I sense, are semiotic and thus have linguistic or meaning-giving features. I perceive them as being cultural in nature.
I feel these, to me, do not simply have to consist of isolated memorized words. I imagine these might consist of unclear networks of not well-defined emotions, blurry definitions, attached to opaque images, other words and fading experiences. In turn these interconnected meaning-giving items are vaguely set into complexes of intuitions.
I feel, for me, these sets form an undefined number of frameworks in my mind. Some seem fluid and temporary while others seem more stubborn and fixated. While some frameworks feel as if overlapping, others are contradictory to one another, adjacent or seemingly entirely unrelated, except then by one attribute: they are my metaphorical constructs in my brain.
I use these frameworks as references to make sense of the world around me; ever so transiently. I also explore the spaces in-between frameworks.
One such framework is my vague and abstract conception of one language; let's say English. Another framework could be another language.
Such a framework could also be my adoption and adaptation of a set of believes one, and one's community, holds or a set of habits, or attributes recognized as memes of one human collective (e.g. a community or a set of ideas held in one's brain), etc. For instance: the Flemish, the Beijingers, the Belgians, the Europeans, The Han, The Asians, The people on the subway, the people in the building I work or those where I live, The people in a news clip, etc.; a set of cultural frameworks.
As another example, a framework I hold could also be built around the concept of "data" or a specific set of data. For instance: the number of people who suffered fatal or other injuries, say, due to road vehicles, let's say in the USA from one specific year to another.
I imagine this in-between play as potentially being an example (with practical implications) of Deleuze’s territorialization, de-territorialization and re-territorialization. Therefor the in-between is always a becoming rather than a being. I also see it as a possible candidate example of fluidity, and of inherent changes that occur beyond one or two or more fixed frameworks one might hold on to (e.g. the use and learning of one language only).
I sense this in-between activity, its existence, the existence of the potential links, the existence of the potential shifts in meaning and usage, are a collection of human output (somewhere floating between being willingly or being serendipitously expressed) which are too often ignored, and I dare state, which might have non-party political consequences.
As a second sidenote:
"Political" here is meant as how we act as citizens among each other within the "polis"; i.e. the city of our daily activities and power-relations.
I sense these in-between expressions might highlight or unveil or at least create imaginations about power-relations and the shift thereof across languages.
I admit, they make me, rather then perhaps you, think about this. Granted, possibly this tells me more about my own obsessions with power-relations rather than it stating anything substantial or corroborative about what I think to perceive.
That stated, please let us continue to allow the process of potential discovery by means of initially unsubstantiated imagination and naive wonder.
Yes, for the moment I opt to sense that one can best achieve this exploration (either in daily personal experiences and poetics, or as a stepping stone towards rigorous analysis) with and in-between any number of languages and any number of other languages and dialects (yes, dialects, since some claim that “language” is a dialect “with an army”…) .
The experience of an (intangible) in-between space has been on my mind for as long as I remember. Especially the etymology as observable in-between two distinct official languages yet, with some degree of common ancestry.
For instance, the present-day English word ” mascot” or “mascotte” (in Dutch) compared to the Spanish word “mascota“. The latter means “pet” (English) or “huisdier” (Dutch), which again translated to English might make for a (to me) fun new word: “house-animal“…
In a moment of associated digression: Is a couch potato a species of “house-animal“? …
…” My favorite pet is a potato . It likes staying home, lie on the couch and watch a movie. It’s such a house-animal; I enjoy petting my potato.” …
–the pet owner (pulled from my imagination).
potato, “house-animal”
Coming back to the main storyline: one touches on the semantic realm of “talisman” (i.e. “mascot” & “mascotte“) while the other touches on the realm of companionship for a human and this of an animal, other than human (yes, imagine…), for instance, a dog or a tarantula (i.e. “mascota“) .
If we were to dig a bit deeper we could argue that both (“mascotte” and “mascota“) are about companionship yet the intuitively comparable power-relation might be different, or is it?
I am excitingly concerned about how one could achieve this comparison in a quantitative manner, besides my often-faulty yet beloved intuition, which I am presently applying. I also wonder, in a dance with an old polemic, whether we, as humans, should only value the quantitative (notice, please, my stress on ‘only’). For sure, this entire in-between language is not quantatative in nature; it’s pure nurture coming naturally to me. (I hope you can read the serious irony here).
Webcopy Services it has been shown that diabetes is a metabolic disorder which does not produce or viagra cialis on line properly uses insulin in the human body. The answer is correct that cialis for sale australia impotency and it is done by the suffering person itself. In case you’re suffering from fibromyalgia, then ask your doctor to prevent future complications that may lead to more serious health problem that you may not be aware of. * More powerful type of buy levitra that guarantees men treatment through erectile dysfunction* Achievement ratio is much more in contrast to levitra* The pill offers dual action, & inhibit PDE5 in addition to lessen the. Men generally face numerous troubles associated with levitra generic cialis fertility.
Coming back to the in-between language play: the word “mascot” can semantically and denotatively (i.e. as being, “in accordance with fact or the primary meaning of a term“) be mapped with the word “talisman” which, in turn, can be mapped with words such as the nouns “charm” or “amulet“.
Some claim that a “mascota” has a “master” (…you still don’t see power-play at play? Think about the use of “pet” in relation to excessive loyalty of an employee to a superior); does a mascot have a master?
In some storytelling I have noticed that some iteration playing with the concept of the talisman also links the mascot to a master, as a pet is to one.
One can see the animation series, based on a game, entitled “Wakfu” for such narrative . In it the character named “Sir Percedal of Sadlygrove” is emboldened by his powerful luck-bringing sword …and as I notice how a charm or talisman is applied in narratives, these are not always charming nor offering good luck at all times. Yes, as could a cat, a mascot can scratch you the wrong way!
The offered mapping with the word “talisman” and with “Wakfu“, mentioned above, might be acceptable if one could allow for an imaginary and literary “good” demon-possessed item to be seen as a “talisman” or as a bringer-of-luck, does then my pet give me extra power?
Some teams do have, for instance, a living pet dog as a mascot. Moreover, and ever so slightly in dissonance, notice that etymologically, the word mascot is claimed to have associations with “witch”, “wizard”, “nightmare”, “mask” and “black”). Are my pets not what they seems to be?
While in “actual” life, I have heard of, someone carrying a plastic chain-restaurant’s spoon to a sports match, believing it allows their favorite team to win, in Wakfu it is, for instance, a consciously possessed sword.
This is obviously fantasy narrative –I mean, Wakfu. Yes, one might consider the above-mentioned spoon equally fantastical. Yet, this latter reference is a factual example. This is while perhaps one might feel more accepting towards a scarf or a never-washed t-shirt instead of a spoon.
By the way, in the spirit of this text, you might like to know that in Wakfu, these demons which posses linearly-practical objects, turning the items into charms of sorts, are called “shushu(s)”. Interestingly–talking about in-between languages– “Shūshu” ( 叔叔),in Chinese, means “uncle“. Besides the obvious family-relation, it is also used as a name of endearment–yes! that’s a “pet name” for ye– to refer to older male individuals who are not actually related by blood. For instance, my children refer to their Chinese school bus driver as Shūshu. Is this now a magic school bus? Perhaps, in a sense, in Wakfu, this is a sword, giving its adventurous user extra power. In effect, this Sir Percedal character, who wields such powerful sword, might have a relationship with this magical sword as if one has a relationship with a pet. The character is at times rather literally defined by the sword, as a sports team is unitingly defined by its mascot. Perhaps as this is as much as a master is defined by their pet and their pet by them (…it is said that the bacteria in one’s body are defined by the kind of pet one nurtures).
Is this where “mascotte” and “mascota” meet?
…maybe not, maybe the perceived link between “mascot” and “mascota” is entirely serendipitous. Or, maybe one can judge it as a negative form of cultural appropriation; but then, which culture is appropriating which (a topic that could use a posting of its own)? Maybe, in similarity with “salary” and “celery” which are sounding rather similar yet, one being healthier and the other being more or less edible (or something of the sort), such serendipity could be sufficient. In truth, I admit, the second meaning of the Spanish word “mascota” is indeed ” the animal that represents a team.” What then are the links between a pet and a mascot?
Cat-headed deity Bastet
Do I believe in mascots as being like a talisman;.. I personally do not; it’s too irrational for my taste. However, I know many out there (e.g. in sports or in brand loyalty) who do. In human (pre)history we can surely uncover this strong and deep-seated conviction (e.g. in Shamanism, in the wearing of a powerful animal’ skin or skeletal parts, etc.). Is it in Shamanism where we could unveil the cross-over between talisman, mascot and pet? One might have heard of animal spirits… Is this where the Pharaohs and their cats lived in-between the world of the “pet” and the world of the “mascota”? Is the trans-language activity allowing us to, more or less easily, shift in-between more than just a linear translation?
Egyptian mummified cats
The relationship and experiences I sense which I could have with a “mascotte” versus that of a “mascota“, versus that of a “pet“, are very different. While arguably “mascota” and “pet” are the “same”, I can guarantee you: I do not perceive them as the same; not at all (besides the rational yet reductionist knowledge they are “translatables” between English and Spanish). I could elaborate yet the feelings are still conflicting and chaotically intertwined as the yarn my cat-companions got their paws on during their not-so-quiet midnight hours.
As a third sidenote:
I am learning Spanish. The arguments as to why I am can be covered in another posting.
However, this exploration of the in-between aids me to stoke the fire of increased willingness to continue my studies. It also aids me to look deeper and see hints of associations between words, beyond one language alone (...there are links between pets and mascots).
It allows me to slowly but surely unveil my blindness into other languages and areas: Italian: mascotte; Portuguese: mascote; Spanish: mascota; and to me excitingly surprising even Polish: maskotka.
I imagine that the act of this inter-language play, functions as an object of my imaginary making. I imagine it as my personal talisman. As much as the meaning of "talisman" is that of being an object that completes another object, the linguistic inter-play completes a passion for learning via the ritual of the creative act. The in-between language play increases a sense of playful power, energy (rejuvenation of learning), and perhaps other learning benefits.
Additional reasoning as to why this works for me could be yet another posting.
Another example is the Spanish word “negocio“, which seems to mean “business“. Following, I believe I can claim that “Su negocio” means “(their/her/…) your business” as in, for instance, “their shop“. In English a seemingly similar word exists, “negotiation“. Sure, for both we can follow the thread back to the common source in Latin: negotiari (“to carry on business”), from negotium (“business”).
Nevertheless, one word, the English word “business“, feels –that is, as in the initial moment of my sensation of perceiving some meaning– as it connotes (to me, at least) a fixed point, a done deal. The other, the Spanish word “negocio”, when overshadowed with the English word “negotiation”, superficially connotes (to me) a process; not a done deal. This is all the while, contradictory, the Spanish word in isolation away from the English, could feel to me as referring to someone’s shop, someone’s business; a fixed location. I am confident, as time and thinking passes by, that my sensations might change.
Consecutively and for now, I continue to wonder whether in one or versus a combinatorial language-usage, the business owner might experience to be more confronted with the constant uninterrupted negotiations it takes to maintain a business in relation to many an intrinsic and extrinsic force, support, constraint, potential or many a stakeholder. On the other hand, this is all the while in the other language one (me) might more easily go with an assumption where, following a negotiation, one is “in business“. This feels perhaps as if arrived at a specific point of an almost unquestioned doing and being “in business”. Is one more or less delusional / irrational then the other? Does one lead to more or less entrepreneurial dare and risk taking than the other? I imagine yet, I cannot (yet) know. I do question whether anyone has done any research on differences in perceptions and consequential (in)action compared between (multi-)language groups?
I am noticing some writing, in various media outlets, and in a number of fields (e.g. in topics covering psychology, business, well-being, ethics, leadership, etc) that do mention the effect and affect of language usage on the well-being of one’s self and in-between oneself and others. The co-creation of the poetic experience with real-life consequences is exciting to me, to say the least.
In any case, I have been using this in-between language learning and expression for many years now. I also use it with friends across cultures (e.g. my Chinese friends) . This play seems to be universally sensed. At the least, pragmatically, it has helped to strengthen social bonds through playfulness.
Epilogue: My two cats are wonderful pets and this while they do scratch and destroy, as two little demons of the night. Look at their picture, heading this text! However cute, as far as them being charms or talismans, I am not yet convinced. In retrospect, instead of having named them Luna and Molly I could have named one Charm and the other Mascota... oh well...
