It’s a Bird, It’s a Plane, No, It’s SUPERBITCH!
I don’t know why I’ve been so grumpy lately but it’s getting worse by the second. Actually, I do but I’m not telling.
I feel so dis-interested in everything that’s going on, despite the fact that I’ve formulated a top secret plan for world domination. At least one that will get me my own little private tropical island. I think that’s part of my superbitchy streak, at least it’s a significant contributing factor: the performance of the stock market as we know it. It’s back to the old euphoric days and I feel a bit like I’m along for Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride.
I had a conversation the other day and I happened to use or hear the words “serious mental thought” which really sparked me to think about what that means. I suppose it’s safe to say that serious mental thought is the state of mind when you are thinking about something but not actually doing it. I read an interview with a musician who was imprisioned but emerged years later still able to play. He spoke of practicing, of playing, of making music “in his head” and how it wasn’t all that different from “with his hands.” One could claim that “serious mental thought” is actually the opposite of “lip service.” In one case, you are thinking about something without paying it mind or speaking of it while, in the other, you are talking up a storm but not really mentally attending to the details. I’ve been doing a lot of both lately, not surprisingly, on very divergent topics. It’s kind of like the old joke “may I please be escused, my brain is full?”
In a separate but equally significant conversation, I garnered some insight into contextual meaning. It’s been said that we (humans) are capable of defining things contextually. That is to say, for example, you could define “love” as being a state somewhat stronger than “fondness” but not quite as severe as “stalking” perhaps. It’s the notion that you could if you were so inclined, define green as “the color betwix yellow and blue” without really assigning semantic meaning to the endpoints (in this example, you don’t have to define green or blue, just use them as reference points to assign meaning to green.)
As humans, I would speculate that we strive for semantic meaning but settle for contextual meaning when we can’t get the good stuff. For example, if somebody were to speak a word you did not understand you might approach a dictionary or ask directly the meaning. If the blunt approach failed, you might then fall back upon the old “can you use it in a sentence” type of approach. The dictionary is the purely semantic, while the “hum a few bars” is really the contextual mechanism for gathering meaning.
So what this leads me to is my question for the day. Given the assumption that you can define things contextually, how do you define yourself?
Where do you start and you end? What are your contextual boundaries? If green is between yellow and blue, what are you between?
Interesting contemplation, wouldn’t you agree? Perhaps, one day soon, when I have released myself from my superbitch state of mind, I will divulge my context.
Until next time, this is Carol, the Carol in “Carol’s Little World” signing off.
