Martian Elephants

      I exhibited Martian elephants, at the pleasure grounds 

      where the bands and circus played.

      No clowning for us, but a great feat of science,
      from dream to plan, with tool and appliance,
      some 25 years of traveling in place,
      then a carbon-based Elevator to take us to space.

      Geodesic dome-home and dust-devil friends,
      six-eighty days (or a year) (it depends).

      Then found them! and quickly discussed guest disgust:
      No hunting, no chains; their family united,
      no cages at all, for they were invited.

      Between worlds we flew, and, taking our cue,
      planetary break, from red on to blue 

      Greatest Show on Earth! The posters went up.
      One time only! A mile from this station!
      Free parking, free programmes, three groats a head,
      fifty pence extra to see them all fed!

      St John, Old Bill, and The Queen's PCA,
      Sol with his hat on, to brighten the day. 
      Pleasure to share miracle existence!
      From fields of Mars: pieces de resistance!
      
     The gates opened at ten to the sound of...
     ... cricketers, playing just over the boundary.

     Nothing, nobody! Greatest No-show on Earth!
     Not one single person can value their worth?

     Baffled, and boiling with anger and rage,
     What madness of crowds keeps wonder encaged? 
     Thirsting for knowledge I went into town, 
     to stop shopping pachyderms, glazing around, 
      

     Their answer they trumpeted, happy and clear:

     Mate! cease your questions! and be of good cheer!
     calm down and allow us a word in your ear:
     we've all seen elephants before, round here!

The Invisible Collage : how language is pasted onto the most basic surfaces of our thoughts.

col·lage

 (kō-läzh′, kə-)

n.

1.

a. An artistic composition of materials and objects pasted over a surface, often with unifying lines and color.

b. A work, such as a literary piece, composed of both borrowed and original material



   What?

                                                                              

                   

Which.....?                                           What kind of....?                      

Who?               Where?

Whose?   



How?



 Why ?

           To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour
                                       
                                           - William Blake

       
      The astonishing worlds and heavens and infinities of human  language  araise from very simple materials on a very simple canvas. So simple, in fact, that we all, as children, take these materials and proceed to produce fine art  upon the canvas without ever being formally taught what to do. This innate capacity for the magic of creativity tells us what we are, while also explaining why the power dynamics of human cultures has traditionally tended towards inhibiting our most basic abilities.
     That this human capacity is within everybody and is responsible for the everyday miracle of human communication, the staggering sorcery that small children produce with a wave of the tongue, has largely been ignored, and much of linguistics has tended towards the mechanical and easily observable.  The invisible collage that we actually use to paint the world remains hidden behind curtains of verb phrases and Umberto Eco's arras.                       

    The fact that human beings are born with both the capacity to ask questions and also answer those questions is a truth so self -evident that the study of language has tended to ignore it and focus instead on the refined and fancy parts of speech like articles and particles, as well as the grand and clever-sounding concepts of such well respected members of the academy as semantics and semiotics.

     However, much as if the study of how human beings walk had decided to focus exclusively on skin and muscle whilst ignoring bones and the brain, there is a lot to be gained from peeling back all the nouns, verbs and discontinuous signifiers and having a look at what lies beneath, and where the connections lead to.

 

   



     Whoever you are, and whatever language you speak, you share with everybody else on the planet the same basic communicative step that starts with birth*:

                    (something) ----------> (what?) -------------> (something)

    The world is full of stuff, so the first thing we need to do is sort things out. The way we do this is by considering anything we encounter in terms of : "What is it?" and then assigning it some designation of (something). It is interesting to note that both nouns and adjectives fall under the idea of (something) so clearly figuring out what things are and whether they are good/bad or scary/frightening are high priority. It is fair to suggest that all young living  creatures have the same basic prorities, and express their ideas in similar ways. A human baby, trying to work out if a person is to be trusted or not, is going through the same mental processes as ducklings, except that the human baby will, given time, have ideas  beyond that of the duckling's: (something) ----------> (what?) ------> (moving, sound-making thing I shall trust with my life.)

    The importance of the concept of (something) is that this is the most basic thought we all have, and wherever we are born, we are provided with an already established language that we can use to express our ideas of (something).

     For example, in English (something) is, for example, (a book), whereas in Japanese (nanika/なにか） is, for example, (hon/本）.  It is important to note here that, whereas the english contains the article "a", Japanese does not, and the most basic reason that "a" is there in English is because it is a part of (something), and this is how native speakers understand it. Yet, in 25 years of teaching English in Japan, I have never encountered a single student who has been introduced to this most basic concept.**

    Enter the Which!

   After we know what (something) is, we can then move to consider if (something) is specific or general. To discover that, we employ the questions Which....? or What kind of....? 　(as previously seen in the more appealing**** terms of Which-finder specific and General Whatkindof.)

  Also, (something) may be just an adjective, for example: big, small, good, bad, or cromulent,

and these ideas are generated by the basic question of : What kind of...?

   The Sentencing.

  As soon as you have the information of (something) and the idea of (something), you can make a sentence. In English, it is basically like this: (something) is (something), for example: (a dog) is (an animal). In Japanese it is like this: (なにか/nanika) は/wa　（なにか/nanika) です/desu. For example: (いぬ/inu) は/wa (どうぶつ/doubutsu) です/desu.

     On the surface these sentences are different, but at their most basic level they are the same, in that eash sentence takes information and idea and explains their relationship.

      When we don't know, or are unsure of, the relationship between information and idea, then we must ask and check in order to get a better understanding of their relationship.

                                 information ---------------------------> idea

                           (something)   --------------------------->   (something)

                            

                              (a hotdog)   --------------------------->   (an animal)

              is             (a hotdog)                                             (an animal) ?

                            ( nanika/ なにか）　　　　　　　　　　　　(nanika/なにか）

　（hottdoggu/ ホットドッグ)                              (doubutsu/どうぶつ)

（hottdoggu/ ホットドッグ)  は                         (doubutsu/どうぶつ) desu ka?

 

  

    Nobody teaches children how to make a sentence. Consequently then, it must be an instinctive skill, like walking, or breathing. As such, although everybody can do it, there is not much thought given to how we do it, or why we do it.

    Most basically then, we make sentences to either (a) describe and explain the relationship between information and idea, or (b) ask and check the relationship between information and idea.
   So that:

              Information         ----------------------------->      idea

                   (something)                                                      (something)

                    (something)                         is                          (something)

                      is        (something)                                            (something)?          Beyond (something), a young child will, at the same time, be also pasting their native language onto the most basic concept of (someone) --------> Mum/Dad/Sister/Brother/Person/Known person/Unknown person/Scary person/interesting person.
          After that the concepts of (sometime), (somewhere), (someone's), (somehow) and (some reason) will all pile up to form  the most basic questions of Bela Lugosi's pyramid:







                These are the most basic questions, linked to our most basic concepts (something), (somewhere) etc. For any native speaker then, the information of any of these questions triggers a range of basic ideas, for example:

         

          Who?              ----------------------->       You, me, a woman, Chinese people, Stanley Rous,
                                                                         representatives of Illinois' law enforcement community.

              When?     --------------------------->  Today, sometimes, next week, February, Thor's day,
                                                                                 Thermidor, 1999, never, the Age of  Enlightenment


              Why?      ---------------------------->   It's good, I like it, it will rain, it's very funny, God,
                                                                         evolution, explanation of choice. Thor

Cleopatra, a cowboy, then screaming!. - How we understand things.

“We, ignorant of ourselves,
Beg often our own harms, which the wise powers
Deny us for our good; so find we profit
By losing of our prayers.”   

             “Finish, good lady; the bright day is done, And we are for the Dark. ”

― William Shakespeare, Antony and Cleopatra





  Cleopatra, a cowboy, then....screaming!
      Presented with this information, how does the brain deal with it? Necessarily, the brain must deal with it as it does with all information:

                                Information -------------> Idea

       Consequently, you might sort it out like this:

                       Cleopatra   --------------> Queen Of Egypt
                       A cowboy   --------------> Tom Mix

                      Screaming! --------------> Expressing a strong emotional state

        And then, in an example of the fundamentally creative aspect of basic communication, our brains start to fill in the blanks, to describe and explain the connections between things:
                       Cleopatra is showing her asp to Tom Mix.
       Or:           Mark Antony has run through Tom Mix with his sword!
       Or:           Cleopatra and Tom Mix are enjoying some how's your father.

       And that is basically how we understand things. We understand things by understanding connections between things. Our brains make connections automatically, so if we make efforts to ask and check, we naturally stand a greater chance of understanding things better.

                And so:

                       Cleopatra --------------> Queen of Egypt?
                       A Cowboy --------------> Tom Mix?
                       Screaming! -------------> What kind of screaming?

                 And to answer:
                    
                     Cleopatra ---------------> A movie title
                     A Cowboy  ---------------> A movie title                                                                          Screaming! ----------> A movie title

                  If you are British, forties or older, and the kind of person who can recite F.A. cup winners, or who knows where you can find Tom Mix standing next to Oscar Wilde, then you probably stand a better chance of recognising that the connection between these movie titles is that much-loved British institution: The Carry On films.


 

Something's afoot, in Carry on Screaming!

           
                Very simply, if we can not connect idea(s) to information, it means that we don't understand the information ( but your brain will plug it in somewhere anyway...)
             For example, presented with the information of a dog it is easy enough for most people to go to the idea of an animal. The information of a small dog will probably lead to the idea of a chihuahua etc.
             It is when we encounter information such as a gold dog that our connected ideas can become shaky and unsure. Is it a golden retriever ? Is it a statue ? What kind of dog is it?
             However, as can be clearly seen from our example, when we are unsure of the idea, we start to ask and check. In fact, it is fair to say that the only way we can better understand anything that is a little difficult for us is by asking and checking.
              When we ask and check, we are looking for information that helps us to fill in the gap(s) between Information and Idea. Our bicameral brains are so good at filling these gaps automatically, that, in a very real and practical way, we may think we understand something when we have completely the wrong idea. If our sense of correctness is bolstered by other information such as: the approval of others, prevailing cultural ideas, and being the products of cultures where communication must be, to some degree, inhibited to protect the current system, then we may start to think that, say, A President Bottom Burp, or A Prime Minister Knob are great ideas.
                   Here is an example of what ordinarily happens:

                 Information ---------------------------------> Idea


                Boris Johnson ------------------------------> Acceptable leader


   So, how does this step happen?
               Any and all information is always dependent on context. The context of any and all information is, generally, all other information within the universe, but it is specifically our own context, the way we as an individual connect to the universe, that has the strongest effect on our own ideas. So our ideas are brought up from the well of our own experience, washed in the water of our previous ideas. (Or possibly, caked in the sludge that collects at the bottom of wells that are dry.)
              How, erm, well...our own personal well of thought is connected to ground water, open to rain, or even if it is has been made accessible for strangers to tip buckets of liquid of  unknown provenance into, is due to both our own efforts, and that matrix of ideas that we are all inside and is known as culture.
          

When Sheriff Earp hears the word culture...

           We all grow up surrounded and saturated by ideas. The strongest are embedded within ourselves, those instincts that we are born with. After that, we are provided with ready-cooked ideas from family, friends, country and local and international culture. The human brain being so good at processing the information of these ideas, that we can happily be a fully functioning repository of other peoples' ideas without pausing to consider if that is what we might actually want. Without doubt, there are many systems of culture, and especially education, that serve to inhibit those natural abilities that allow us to understand things beyond dog-level.  Why else would there be a bizarre glorification of children being able to spell words they will almost never use, hear, or read, while so little effort is expended on encouraging them to practice asking and checking?
          
           It would make sense, especially at this point in human history when there is access to information like never before, to acknowledge that we should no longer try to inhibit our most natural abilities but rather encourage them. Especially as our context is now changing dazzlingly, dizzily fast, yet our governments and institutions are insistent and largely dependent on preparing people for contexts which have disappeared, or bear no resemblance to what went before.
          A determination to step into the past has marked recent political developments. And to secure that about-turn, the old ideas of Empire and Exceptionalism, those ideas from the 19th and 20th centuries, are printed, bound and distributed to the frightened.
           However, we are in most need of new ideas, just as we always were, rather than the old ideas we seem to be increasingly clutching at like a baby chimp with a comfort blanket.

Us; increasingly so recently.

           And just for good measure, the story of the neglected little soul in the photograph re-emphasises the more obvious general point: that it is only by connections that we can develop and flourish....everybody instinctively knows this, and people will generally only give up human companionship for sitting up a mountain with the promise of becoming best mates with God...so why are we doing this to ourselves? Why are we choosing to neglect ourselves and each other and deliberately sitting in our respective cardboard boxes, clutching our cloth gods, keeping ourselves warm with fantasies of Albion, Abraham and Asgard, afraid of the future knocking at the door, refusing to engage with it, and so causing this inevitable visitor to creep in when we are least prepared, as we, now terrified, think it no longer a necessary traveling companion but an enemy to be held down, choked, and murdered with excuses?
            

          Why? Because the culture demands it. A bloated rotting ghoul, stumbling with running sores, it shambles from one old haunt to the next, desperate to avoid the natural light if it is to continue to survive in its darkness; twitching and fearful of the dawn, it cowers in the sewers with its children.
           Carry on screaming.