Orality as lived experience—not declarative
The power of speech contains emotions and intention. We talk with tone and rhythm. Speaking does not require signifiers. It is obvious if someone is sad or angry by their tone. People speak methodically to convey their points. Emotive feeling is part of the terminology. Words are laced with feeling. Words are never bland, never robotic. Even dispassionate speech provides emotive access. The disinterested remark coneys spite and coyness to the other.
Speech is a holistic exercise that gives the self to the other. It is the self proclaiming himself to the other. The verbal exchange places context to the situation. All the variables are present. Speech is an all inclusive expression. It involves the mutuality of the self and the the other. The other is the intentioned subject concentrated. Speech is situational and complex. Speech is historicised and eternal. Its paradoxical nature is marked by its phonology. Clarity to the listener is beyond the words. The intention of the speaker. Words mean certain things but it is what is beyond them that is important.
Speech requires another. It is formidable in its connective ability. It binds people by comprehension and cohesion. Words are necessarily implanted to gain but also to bond. It links people in an experiential presence. Stares are only surface complexions. They prey on our social sensibilities. We perceive stereotypical and shallow influences. A true experience can only be explored post speech or with sufficient concentration. An encounter without speech is surface level communication. Words need not project interest but body language limits experience. Reduced knowledge reduces intimacy reducing experience.
Speech entices the other into a frame game. The game is directional and concentrated. The frame fixates the speaker and listener in dichotomous positions. The speaker is the initiator and the listener the respondent. There is reactionary reversals but that follows the speaker’s words. The frame establishes “ground rules”. A listener can only respond to what he has heard. He may interject but he can only reply to a statement. Each has a part and plays it to perfection. Communication is an exercise in connection. Reacting to one another is enclosed to the game’s boundaries. An overhearer may interrupt with a comment but they lack the experiential centrality. The lack of the speaker’s directed intent devolves the comment. Yet the overhearer’s speech becomes experiential if internalised by the listener.
The other is engulfed in the words of the other. Speech is a hypnosis galvanising engagement. Speech draws in interest. It is the listener’s participation encouraging the storytelling. It is a narration in unbridled territory. Words culminate in a mutual factory. The presence is heightened by considerable impassioned commitment. Words are linked succinctly as an experiential pattern encompassing the listener. The duo are placed on a higher plane with a secret code. The words may be mundane but the flow of information is “metaphysical”. It is sacred transmission of knowledge binding the speaker and listener. The speaker has disarmed himself by eluding to privy knowledge while the listener graciously accepts. The listener grows from an ignoramus to intelligent.
Speech unburdens oneself and tearing down the walls. It is a release of self defence. It allows the self to open up to others. An internal expression breathing with sounds. Feelings are uncategorised uncompiled unstated hyper thoughts with no direction. They are bouncing off the walls. Speech provides structure to those words. They are expressed openly and internalised in the speaker’s mind. The sounds are aligned in sentence syntax. Words form language rules. It is the chess options of language that visits the frame. It enables flowing thoughts coherently. Bottled-up feelings are exploited in framed comprehension. Feelings are intimate and do not generally see the light of day. Speech is the vehicle to exploit the internal sceptic. Confidently opening up to others is a measure of maturity. Words formulate the pleasure to communicate the dark innards to the world.
Shy people carefully conceal their speech. A foreigner thinks deeply before articulating. Fluency garners confidence. The message to convey needs to be precise in word and tone. It is not simply the sounds but their melody. It is less about contribution and more about embarrassment. Speech is a public expression. It is scary to the rarity. Those who do not frequently talk are shellshocked. Too frozen to act. A guy who sees a pretty girl at the other side of the room stop in his tracks. Startled with emotions swelling he forgets to breathe. His ability to talk clearly turns into gibberish muttering. Heart racing hoping to impress he is stuck in his head instead of his words. Fearful of his response before she even replies. Stop thinking stop worrying and start talking. It is not an easy task. Emotions influence his actions. The curse of embarrassment will pass, regret may never. Let the emotions to flow and concentrate o speech. Let your emotions fall to waste side as he opens his opens himself up to her.
Overthinking is the antithesis of speech. It collects the mumbo jumbo of the near future. What will happen next? Pondering endless possibilities. Mitigating the worrisome willy collaborates the divergent potentialities in selected boxes. Overthinking does mix with speech. Yet at least spoken out-loud either diffuses the ridiculous scenarios and places the others in realistic opportunities. It is an external reminder to the self. The step forward is placing the thought in context. The internal idea is a floating hub of cynicism. It is the word manifesting the uncensored. The abstract becomes concrete; the ideal becomes tangible. Realistic investigations nauseate the impending multiplicity. Action is primary. Yip yapping may come off sly and dry but it is the intention to impress and influence that demands coherence. Giddy movements stalled by composure comprehensively evince linearity.
Linearity is mustered courage. It is straight arrow phonetics. Syntax and semantics surge in the face of emotional discombobulation. Providing rationalised elucidation to the unstable uncertainty. A calming version of the abstracted ideal. Sentences can be riddled with emotional overhaul. Feelings leaked out immobilise the perfect intent. The vision is marred by the mental state. Immeasurable consequences result from diverted target. Distress messes with focused aim but it also allows those to come out. Emotional response may be the intentioned mode. Anger and sadness are mental reactions that blur speech but they are purposeful replies. The mental state overwhelms the verbal fluidity with rhythmic overtones. It alters the pitch and duration of the speaker in ways unimagined. Goals are subverted by mental strain. The brain sensing trouble transmits anxiety stifling a clear response. Anxiety is a state of panic obscuring the main focus to speak.
Emotive response is not a lonely wallowing. The listener is affected by the speaker’s sorrows. His reply is a verbal acknowledgement of the sensation. His reaction is mutually inclusive. He cannot feel the speaker’s physical pain but he can feel it in his tone. The physical cannot be transferred but the emotional can. It cuts deeps and brings about physiological manifestations. The brain’s anxiety sends messages to the body to act in a certain way. Emotional impression can be gestural or speechless. Facial expression “speaks” to the onlooker. The onlooker is a listener even if he has not heard. Facial expression can articulate guesswork, only words can verify it. Speech is the precise utterance of internal feelings. The onlooker becomes a listener when he responds. He isn’t technically a listener when he asks what is wrong. There is no speaker here, only an actor. The listener uniquely comprehends concisely the speaker’s motive.
The listener is in a unique situation. Unlike the onlooker, the listener internalises the intimacy. It is not a plea but a request. A directed individual is contacted for deep connection. The speaker is placing their problem in the other’s hands. He is giving over himself, his own privacy is now privately transferred to the other. Unlike an internet browser, this knowledge is encrypted. Though it is possible that given surveillance and potential bystanders, the information could be public but for the most part this is dark web-like messaging. The password protected program is conversationally confidential. The message is for the intended ears only. Even onlookers who may hear did not listen. They were directed and thus missed cues. Language is contextual: missing the full conversation, the tone or remedy will result in a miscommunication. Dozing off will do the same. It is a concentrated exclusivist club. Only the speaker and listener are aware of the info and feelings about the info. A secret handshake with a sacred code.
Dialogue is a mutual agreement. The speaker entrusts his privacy to the listener. The rules monitor loyalty and the parameters of the social contract. Selfishness brews distrust and isolation. Unpopularity is the key consequence for terrible secret-keeping. Even if unintentional is betrayal. What is said in confidence remains in confidence. The inexperienced will to mistake the sacred from the profane. Tweeting secrets against the speaker’s will. No knowledge shall be passed to another without the speaker’s intent. Even if unspecified without consent, it is betrayal. The full range of the transferred info provides the key to permission. Ideally the third party has no stake nor credibility to hear the information. Going to a third party is sacrilege. The experiential dialogue does more than exhibit information, it is the measure of that information. The intent shines in the emotive magnitude. The listener internalises the clarifying message. Without the storyteller present the message is featherless.
Overhearing a message is inevitable. Our ears pick up sound frequencies unconsciously. We make out parcels of the communication but not enough to fully comprehend the message. We may attempt to eavesdrop on the conversation. Our greedy desire to know compels us to interfere. Yet that which isn’t directed can easily be misconstrued. The totality of dialogue is a powerful message to the receiver. The listener can be an overhearer. A backgrounder, a prying busybody. Yet he is not the aim. The receiver is the speaker’s target not the extra listeners on the periphery. The listener could be an eavesdropper but the listener is really a hearer. The difference being the hearer makes out sounds but does not internalise the message. He cannot since he is not the intended target. He wishes to pry but only makes out noise. It’s a commotion of babel that misses the key aspects surrounding the verbalism.
Sometimes there are no listeners. At least no people present. Many may see talking to yourself as weird or mentally troubling but it is indeed an empowering exercise. Though caution, speaking aloud in public, stares with peculiar expressions will frequent. The meditative spirit of reflective unison. The introspective origin is the profound analysation of the self. The speaker and the listener are the same person. The self is refracted as an external entity. A hologram reflected with A.I. technology. The self is evaluated and speaks internally. The self is its own game of solo table tennis. The backside is bent up vertically and a volley proceeds. Self-talk is an exercise to remind oneself and ponder possibilities. Prayer is at times designed as a memory game. Reminding oneself of what is important. It is a codified valuational daily lesson. A few moments of introspection bewilders the expansive extensiveness of the self. The self is exposed to a depth analysis.
Self-talk is a targeted reaction to the self. The self is filled with the totality of the self as it perceives from its own external perception. Simultaneously speaking and listening is a twofold job. It requires honest evaluation of the self. The entirely of the self is responsive to the steel-manned self. The speaker is filled with biases yet experientially he must distance himself from himself. the speaker must disassociate from the self. Rational argumentation devoid of emotional static provides unbiased conclusions. It is not entirely unavoidable and the emotional elements is necessary but not as the self’s feelings. The response cannot eliminate yet can mitigate. Talking aloud forces the internal communication to becomes an external conversation. Talking in the concrete world. It is not internal commotion but syllogistic analysation. Once the dialogue exceeds the self’s mainframe to the real world, it becomes a dialogue with the other over sensible feelings. The thought transforms into a speech. Speech not only standardises the discussion but also conceptualises the realistic consequences. Speech is fluid but codified. It is not an afterthought, a lucid dismissive idea. Instead the dialogue is constructive and debated in the open.
Otherness is a looking past the selfish motivation. Speech is directed even towards self being. It is directed content in verbal mastery. The words cut deeper in an enduring dialectical debate. Verbalism even to the self accords some sort of “objectivity” to the relational dialogue. Intent is necessarily imperative. The speaker and listener are bound by the experience. The experience is the absolution of the speech internalised by the reader. The overview of this communicative force brings the other’s force In the mini-universe created in dialogue. A reality is created words are cemented in the sphere. The mentioning is embedded in the face of cognitive reliance. The speaker and listener are intertwined in a temporary conversation that ceases momentarily but lasts forever. The long time memory holds onto this conversation, forever engraved in man’s soul. It lacks the forefront memory but is eternally manifested. The world onto itself constructed in the chess-like language game has accepted parameters. It follows the engaged beings in a profound measure of resilient formidability.
No comments:
Post a Comment