Song of The Day: Muse / Endlessly
Word Of The Day: Cryptodynamic / Pertaining to, or having, hidden power

So, if you've read this blog at all, or been to a show you probably know I'm...how to say? Into...language!

Specifically, my hobby is creating a language (mine's called IS), or con-langing as its known in underground geek parlance (constructed-languaging). But I divide con-langs into three categories.

First, when people think of invented langauges, they usually go to Klingon from Star Trek, or some Elven shit from Lord Of The Rings. I'm not making fun of those, but they're retarded. I don't mean cognitively stagnated -Cuz obviously you're the pride of Mensa's Rubick's Cube Club if you're speaking Klingon- I mean SEXUALLY arrested. Hey, that doesn't make you any less of a person, it just means you're less of a sexual person, how would you say this in Klingong? Uh...constitutionally revulsive. Those languages are Dungeons and Dragons stuff, that's sci-fi fantasy fair, and 90% of con-langing is sadly comprised of such I-can't-get-laid-this-life-time laetation. Just kidding you guys! I know you get tons of orkish tail ;-)

Second, the other kind of con-langing is inter-lingua, languages like Esperanto, which are meant to act as bridges between speakers of existing tongues. More respectable. Utilitarian. Esperanto has over a million speakers, so it's got about 990,000 more fans than I do. Touche', Esperanto. Ludovic Lazar Zamenhof should have copyrighted it. However, the downside of Esperanto and inter-linguas is they dilute expression, they go for the wide end of the funnel. When you build a telescope to look at distant galaxies, it isn't much use when you need to examine sub atomic particles 'n split. So, Esperanto is a functional move to encourage cross-culture, inter-linguistic communication. It is its own language, but it is issued from the essential constituents of its (latin based) sources. That's right. In-breeding. Making a new language from Spanish, French, Italian, and English (English is like 60% Latin-based) is like making two Appalachian cousins fuck their brains out until their deformed, satanic baby comes into the world speaking in tongues. New tongues. Voila! Esperanto. And Esperanto, while I grudgingly afford you respect for your popular success, George W. Bush has shown us what Satanic enterprise produces. A net gain in hell realms. Please reboot and try again.

Third category: MY language, IS. Woo-hoo! See? If you invent your own categories you can be in a category all by your self. At any rate, sincerely, my interest in constructing a language is purely as an experiment in perspectives. When I first started getting into linguistics (purely as a lay curiousity, I have no formal training or education, just stuff I've read on my own and learned in confabs with Ken Wilber over the years), I became fascinated with the assumptions we inherit as speakers of any tongue. The language we are born into, whatever it might be, comes with all sorts of filters which influence (often in undetected ways) the way we conceive and interpret reality. Very basic facets, like identity, subject / object boundaries, and meaning. I wondered if I might #1, become more aware of the assumptions built into my native language (English) and #2, engineer a language with different assumptions, better assumptions. Would it be possible to manufacture from the "top-down" in terms of assumptions? I started making IS with that as my question. It's a life-long, on-going experiment with perspectives.

By example, in IS a signifier usually has four directions. I'm not going to be able to write in the IS script in this blog (the blog is not enabled with that font, but there is one which i use on computers, fully functional) So, the word for "Yes" (OH-pah) is also the word for "No" when you phonetically reverse it (AH-poh) and also is the word for "Maybe" (oh-PAH-poh) when you link it to itself. It becomes the word for "probably not" when you link it in the other direction (ah-POHP-ah). Now, that is actually all just ONE phonetic signifier spun in four directions, four inversions.

Inversion one: OH-pah (yes)
Inversion two: AHP-oh (no)
Inversion three: oh-PAHP-oh (maybe)
Inversion four: ah-POHP-ah (probably not)

Now, that's subtle but important distinction from having four separate words in English (Yes, no, maybe, probably not). The first crucial nuance is that in IS, there are not four words. That's the big simple, first perspective shift. It's ONE word, with four directions or inversions. It's not a matter of opposed items, it's a matter of one lens, one filter, and you can "point it" in four different directions with your awareness. But it's ONE THING. The notion is, as a native speaker of IS, the Unity Of Opposites is a built-in assumption. It's a pre-given filter. In fact, it would be invisible to a native speaker, they would not have to "conceive" of the unity underlying opposites, it would be fundamentally imprinted, an ultra-obvious fact of function. Multiply that operation in the (superficial) duality of yes / no by five thousand now. What if every opposite and duality in your field of perception were instantaneously fused with its negative correlate into a phenomenological complementarity? Wouldn't that ACTUALLY, literally correspond more closely to your experience, your deeper experience? What opposite holds up to ultimate scrutiny?

More soon, I have to go to the gym and get all hulk hogan. For now, here's a word in IS for you, from my calligraphy series...