Maybe the only way that you ever have a chance of ever knowing who you really are is to shut up and stop talking and just listen? Strange advice for anyone who dares to continue on in words after voicing that premise? Yet if you come upon someone by themselves babbling away it is not uncommon to make assumptions either positive or negative about what they seem to vocalize? If it has some coherence it may be judged to be precocious drama. If no one can understand it then a form of mental dysfunction. If acclaimed by the right faction of society before the media microphone, possibly undiscovered ‘genius‘. Maybe some fertile field for harvesting a meme? And that magnification by boosting the volume may be why the well-culled collection of verbal outbursts that reflect humanity are ultimately off their rocker. Stability being defined like a cannonball in flight being legitimized by Newton’s second law of choosing the arms that flung it. The old, ‘repeat something enough times and people will believe it as gospel’ type of idea. That may be why the truly intelligent say as little as possible reserving their response to one of a direct action? The proverbial strong silent type. of the movie ilk of yesteryear as a Gary Cooper or in the general persona of a man with no name, ala Clint Eastwood?
The current generations are awash in words to the point of nearly drowning in a virtual quicksand of them before they can ever take action? The idea of consensus powering the idea being legitimizing it through the use of an echo chamber. ‘Trending‘! Three billion Chinese can’t be wrong about the topic of procreation, right? How can one have an independent impression in such a shit storm? There is no certainty so much as the application of the force of personality founded upon a readily available mentally fielded verbal acuity. If the somewhat familiar sounding facts and figures stream in your direction then they carry the central premise along with it. Sort of like a gun connected to an inexhaustible supply of shit aimed at a Teflon wall. Eventually, through the exhaustion of the material’s properties something will invariably stick. That is the power of society that is irresistible. See someone pontificating in this vein enough times and they become an unconsciously reliable pundit. That is until you become aware by a direct experience of the resultant fallout find that it is just a bunch of shit. Then their ‘meme’ shifts to the opposite. All the while you have engaged in the inevitable internal war of words.
Wordplay adjudicates the process suggesting that the war of words can be moderated to become reasonable to accommodate some facets of the premise that it is being formulated to advance or defend. Most time’s in the course of conversation being revealed by the interchange’s final conclusion as being a ruse or possibly a trap. The logic employed by the speaker to invite the listener synchronize with them a method to numb the inner sense of how things are perceived. in this case Hemingway’s assertion about distrusting adjectives as being superfluous may be ultimately correct. “Hot seat” versus seat or simply a chair. What power of external persuasion does the former imply versus a simple description of the implement? If you want to go straight to the point behind the assertion you don’t have to ask more about the story inferred behind the reference. But then, that is the game! Keep the mind moving, disoriented, ever having to continue asking questions, and enmeshed in the dialogue that ‘you‘ frame for them. Instead of course simply viewing it directly for themselves and acting upon the raw evidence of one’s senses. That does not infer reality or coming to a mutually agreeable conclusion of course. But one instantly begins to develop a sense of their own inherent point of view by comparison of how one’s own action is perceived in public. Hopefully, not a Shakespearean diatribe ala Richard the Third?