This is one of those sentences which sounds pretty and which I can, if I try, interpret in a deep and philosophical way. But it feels like I have to work slightly too hard at it, or perhaps that it's slightly too open to interpretation.
Originally, the post had a long, poorly written screed which gave context to the line. I wrote it in a fit of philosophical angst, looked at it, decided (rightly) that it was drivel, but decided to keep that one line.
Oops.
yrs-- --Ben
P.S. I was going for something about the improbability of language, and the faith that a listener, somewhere, understands your meaning.
That's pretty much what I'd gotten out of it when I thought about it. Communication is funny stuff; when you think about all the things that can go wrong with it, it's hard to believe we ever get any meaning across, yet as far as I can tell from the evidence, we do it pretty well (albeit with a lot of metaphorical stammering and stuttering and making broad, amusing Grok-want-food gestures).
I'm glad you let the sentence stand on its own, because it holds back from making a value-judgement on "faith".
I sometimes treat words as little daemons I order around to try and affect people (including myself). Sometimes they screw me over and sometimes they form something greater than my initial conception.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
I feel that I can give you some words that are definately not acts of faith. Why, even entire sentences.
But it's a very pretty sentiment.
no subject
:)
no subject
At least mine are.
no subject
At least mine are.
no subject
no subject
Oops.
yrs--
--Ben
P.S. I was going for something about the improbability of language, and the faith that a listener, somewhere, understands your meaning.
no subject
Re:
I sometimes treat words as little daemons I order around to try and affect people (including myself). Sometimes they screw me over and sometimes they form something greater than my initial conception.