 |
| HOME by TuBearStudios |
I spent way too much time last night reading various online articles at the Wall Street Journal, Drudge Report, and even Fox News (shh!) in regards to the notorious 22 year old Tucson shooter, Jared Loughner.
I shied away from addressing much in relation to this national tragedy until I had the time to gather as much reputable information and confirmed facts as possible.
Well, there was plenty in Loughner's writing to mystify even the most creative thinkers amongst us. In my early academic career, I started out as a Psych major.
Having successfully completed Advanced Placement Psychology class, I was feeling hungry (thirsty?) for more detailed study and research into the workings of the human mind.
From the reports I have seen based on Loughner's scribblings, public outburts and online rants, he appears to be (and to have been) suffering from either genetic or drug-induced mental illness and probably has been for quite some time.
This, of course, does not excuse ANY of his actions in any way whatsoever.
However, I think his prophetic Q &A session with Gabrielle Giffords back in '07 touches on an interesting point in spite of himself. And, actually, one which actually serves to work AGAINST his hare-brained paranoiac ideology.
"How do you know words mean anything?" Loughner asked.
Giffords thought for a moment and then responded to his inquiry in Spanish.
As a linguist, translator, interpreter and ardent francophile, I would have had the biggest smile on my face had I been there to see this exchange. If you just don't get it, perhaps you never ever will.
How could words NOT have meaning?
And which definition of 'mean' is one attaching to what is required for a word, or words, to, well, mean something?
Confused yet?
See, if you're like me, you take one too many philosophy classes and start sounding just as obscure as those who are unitiated into the complexities of language, thought, and etre.
So, today as I logged on, I saw an AOL article about Sarah Palin and her use of the 'blood libel' rhetoric in her eight minute speech.
This terminology incensed language scholars, speech writers, and anyone with a keen interest in history and the 'historicity' of words.
You see, Gabrielle Giffords is of Jewish descent and the choice (willful or willfully ignorant, you decide) to employ said words recalls painful reminders of anti-semitic sentiment when Jews were accused of using the blood of Christian boys in religious rituals.
I don't want to point too harshly at any one political figure, but seeing how neatly these two stories tie in to ongoing debates about free speech, fighting words, and calls to action, well it feels very a propos.
Couldn't resist!
Moreover, and this is only a reminder, but it must be stressed that words are things, my darlings, albeit in a figurative sense.
Their form has the capacity to produce action, provoke reaction, and recall regrettable precedents that mean any number of things to each individual according to their unique reception of those words.
That reception does not always end in pleasant, intended, or desired results.
Now, if I can take off the academic cap for a moment, I'd like to toussle my hair, recline on my couch, and return to the kookysexybeautiful girl beneath the sheets and on the other end of your screen.
Let's relax and have a beach...Life's a beach, is it not?
Oh, and reeden iz funduhmentuhl.;)
Until next time.
And hope I didn't bore you all...
I can be quite boring sometimes, indeed.
Sandra LONDON
P.S.: And that's the word.
No comments:
Post a Comment