In Other Words
BETWEEN THE WORDS
As I am moved by words,
and thus trapped therein,
(as are you in reading this)
and thereby driven to fine nuance and selection
of those that combine a fine sense of passion with
connotative limitations of mind and education,
I occasionally have a revelation --
or mental indigestion,
one.
I, by choice, looked up the word "encourage" --
mindful of requests for courage and insight
in dealing with the veracity of life
and the eternal verities
which plague us so
in actualization
of spirit swing
and humanity.
By chance (or intervention)
I read instead the next definition
in order on the page and was tossed adrift
by a maelstrom of conflicting thoughts
and contradictions of hand and heart.
This definition clearly stated,
(for 'encourage' by intent)
"to intrude gradually or insidiously
upon the domain, possessions or rights of another."
There cascaded such a tumult of lost memories,
dilutions and even sin -- fire-struck by terror
that I may have been actually doing harm
while pursuing a thought noble art.
Quickly I recovered;
my soul only slightly singed,
for surely this cannot be right --
it passes no screen of logic nor possibility
of 'heart' found in 'courage' and extensions
of faithfulness and resolution.
I searched again, with glasses on and clearer vision,
and found this word of dread and foreboding
to be "encroach" -- ah yes!
While pondering in a more peaceful state
I wonder at it all -- musing to be correct.
Where else is there to be found
two words in such natural reading flow
that are so intrinsically opposed?
A universe of ethics and spirituality
exists hidden in the space between these words,
and I am drawn to contemplate my actions
that may be intended as one and be perceived
as the other -- (which for which is for you to ponder).
How often then do we in faulty reading or listening
connect the wrong definition with intent?
If this perception serves to support our plan or passion
then we have found a friend who may be far from same.
If the interpretation makes no sense in time and place,
then we perhaps project some judgment on another
and in doing so lose a friend by condemnation.
If each of us, in modeled life and work performed
are but separate pages in a book --
or two words in a dialogue of Source and all,
then is the purpose of our being so
to form sentences of beauty and awe
out of our seeming contradictions?
It is friction, after all that kindles a flame --
not the stroking of scented perfumes,
or 'singing to the chorus',
on Sunday afternoon.
posted by Anonymous @ 6:54 PM
2 comments
2 Comments:
An interesting ‘accident,’ my friend. I think my favorite part was “I searched again, with glasses on and clearer vision,”and of course that is only from extreme familiarity with the plight. I was just thinking the other day about the fact that I am always ‘preaching to the choir.’ I find myself holding forth on some subject at great length, only to realize that the person I’m ranting at agrees with me. They are certainly two interesting words to be placed right next to each other. Encourage. Encroach. To place courage in another. To . . . croach? Invade. Trespass. Fascinating.
I promise this does have something to do with the subject at hand, though it will take a while to get there. Here is one of our favorite games. It is called “Zit.” Zit is best played with the really big (and I mean REALLY big) Random House Dictionary, the one that is so big you have to put it on the coffee table to use it. Zit can be played with a smaller dictionary, of course, but the bigger the dictionary, the more fun. The person who is ‘IT’ sits, with the coffee table (or with the dictionary on the floor) where he/she can’t be seen by the rest of the group. ‘IT’ chooses a word and begins reading the definitions out loud and the rest if the group tries to guess the word. To get the word right, you have to say “Zit” before the word. For instance, if the word is ‘Sanity” you have to yell out “Zit Sanity,” just saying “Sanity” will not work. If you do, someone else will add the “Zit” and they win. Guessing correctly sounds easier than it is. The dictionary (especially the big one) has multiple definitions for each word, some of them are archaic, some of them you have just never heard of before.
One of the things we have discovered is that there are a lot of words in the English language that have definitions that contradict each other. I don’t remember ever running into one quite as alarming as encourage and encroach, but it still happens. Of course the game gets more interesting as the ‘flagon’ goes around and the night gets old or the morning new. It has been intimated that my personal genius at this game has to do with the fact that I can’t drink. This dismissal is purely a case of sour grapes, however. Oi. There is a double meaning in that! I will admit that it is a challenge to play Zit with certain Shakespearian scholars I happened to have given birth to, as they know all of the archaic words from context. Did you know, for instance, that the word ‘stale’ not only means ‘unfresh’ but also an unvirtuous woman and horse piss? That is all in Shakespeare, and there is even more in The Random House . . .
Post a Comment
<< Home