When words fail, don’t be surprised

wordsssss

COMPUTER boffins will tell you nothing is ever lost in cyber world.
There are indelible imprints of everything you record on computers.

Even if your computer crashes you can often — and for a hefty price — find an expert to recover the information you thought had been lost forever.

Anything you do with digital technology automatically leaves evidence for others to find — ominous news for some and comforting for others.

Our world contains at least 4500 languages. And there are clearly gender and generational differences that confuse the meanings of words in even the same languages.

It is not easy to know what someone else really means, and sometimes difficult to find the right words to sum up what we mean ourselves.

Biologist Rupert Sheldrake observed  that humankind had somewhat lost the habit of using positive words.
“We’re just bitching, cutting each other up and wallowing in our self-pity. Self-pity banishes praise.”

Then there is the special language of music and other arts: seemingly enlightening to some and unintelligible to others.

Beethoven said the silences in music were as important as the notes — and he was right.

The pauses in a rendition of his majestic fifth or ninth symphonies, in the hands of a great conductor such as Herbert Von Karajan, are eloquent reminders that sometimes what we do not say is as important as what we do say.

Of course, there is a reverse to the equation. Martin Luther King said: “In the end we will remember not so much the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”

Words, as vital as they are, are also often inadequate for conveying the precise character of a feeling.

A scream, or laughter can be better than a speech. It is a matter of knowing what is best at the time.


 

Advertisements

33 thoughts on “When words fail, don’t be surprised

  1. Words, music, computer language, DNA, genome, art and others are based on information. Where does this information come from? Who put it there? What about DNA information?
    I can weigh an iPad, fill it with information and weight the iPad again. It will have gained no weight but be full of information.

    The universe is full of information. This information cannot come from just blind materialism. Remember the iPad weighed the same after information input. Information is non physical. Yet it exists. Who put the information into our universe, our DNA and our should?

    We thank God that He did for we would not exist.

    Like

      • I don’t understand that question Alexie, and in any case I didn’t imply anything like that it was important to me whether I do not exist. I asked a simple question to which you probably think the answer is obvious, but putting it into words requires some thought.

        Like

      • Strewth

        “I asked a simple question to which you probably think the answer is obvious, but putting it into words requires some thought.”

        I think you have summed up Alexie’s approach correctly and succinctly. Straightforward questions and comments tend to be followed with responses such as an accusation of insanity.

        Like

      • Again stu does not add to the conversation. His obsession with me is quite cute.
        “I don’t understand that question Alexie”

        Like you, I simply do not understand the question.
        I think my point was made. Stu of course understands little.

        Come on Stu, add to the conversation.
        Why not?

        Like

      • Alexie.

        “Come on Stu, add to the conversation.”

        I don’t think you understand what “conversation” means.

        Like

      • The facts are you do not as you never enter into one.
        Come in get into son. type something, discuss, blog, use letters and words and sentences to make a remark on the thread at hand. Do it! Come on, overcome the fear and step out sonny!

        Like

      • Perhaps Alexie you can start by answering Strewth question. You sort of brushed her off. 🙂

        Like

  2. And Bryan it matters to people who the words come from.
    The perception changes depending of who the the words come from.
    Add to the fact people read their own words into the pieces.
    Then top it off with the inability to confirm they have misjudged due to their own distorted bias.
    A point I proved

    Like

  3. For Stu, maybe you may relate to the content and actually join in with the conversation.

    As you so have proven you like to attack the traits of a person (like myself) as a means to invalidate some argument, sometimes there is no argument as per the previous response. as you have shown not joining in any conversation as similar to the proverb, one does evil enough when one does nothing good.

    But your lack of conversation and over use of trolling and being unkind, more often than not, is a reaction to self-anger or perceived inadequacy. It may possibly be feelings of being unlovable, undesirable, and antisocial, and to need a way to cope with these feelings by giving one an alter ego that deserved to be disliked for reasons not understood on a blog.

    I generally find that people being rude or obsessive towards you are really being mean to themselves. They have likely convinced themselves that they are unworthy of love, and that is the biggest tragedy of all. One only sees the other (Stu) struggling with their own problems, and needs a way to cope with them.

    Is it time for self-reflection. Why do you attack people? What are you trying to protect yourself from?

    Ahh, but to read some conversation, or will you run away again from yourself.

    Like

      • Alexie

        “For Stu, maybe you may relate to the content and actually join in with the conversation.”

        Here’s my approach to conversation in the context of replying to comments on a blog: I quote people directly and respond to the point made as succinctly as possible. An approach you previously described as “insane”.

        Let me provide an example. You said: “…like to attack the traits of a person (like myself)…” and then later “Why do you attack people?”

        Here’s my response:

        1. Please quote me directly, as I have you, with an example of where I have “attacked” you.

        2. Please answer this question directly: Do you consider describing comments as “insane” without specifying which comment or why, constitutes an “attack”?

        My prediction is that you will fail to respond to these simple points and then accuse me of failing to “join in with the conversation”.

        Like

      • You have proven my point. I asked you to join the conversation and you have not. I said to comment on the thread at hand. You rarely if ever do. The comment or thread at hand is about the thread. Then you arrogantly say to me to answer your comment while answering no other.

        I think you have again proven the trolling actions by yourself and it indeed seems true you have many insecurities as already outlined.

        You know exactly what you are doing as I believe you are not stupid. But you may have insecurity and possibly wish to play it safe by not entering in comments about the thread. As in your own opinions about the thread. As you stated you reply to others. This is not a conversation! And not the way you reply. It is very obvious.

        But you will continue your obsession for all to see and I will continue to call you out.

        Like

      • Alexie I think the approach of quoting a person and then stating why you have reached your position is a good one. At the moment you are not addressing what Stu is stating you just trying to dis credit him so you justify not addressing what he has stated.

        Like

      • Alexie

        So my prediction proved to be correct.

        “The comment or thread at hand is about the thread.”

        A thread is not just about the topics Bryan posts on this site. A thread also includes comments made by others, including the swathes of apologetics you cut and paste regardless of what topic Bryan posts. If you are seriously suggesting that I shouldn’t respond to comments you make, then the answer is no. To borrow words from our former PM: I will decide what I comment on and the circumstance in which I comment.

        “Then you arrogantly say to me to answer your comment while answering no other.”

        This exploded my irony meter. I used the word “please” twice to request that you answer simple and direct questions where you had accused me of “attacking” you. How arrogant of me.

        Like

      • Stu,
        You never add to discussion, you just add snide remarks or seek out to point something out but never actually discuss the thread or main remarks. You try to keep things safe. It is fairly obvious. You still have not entered into discussion nor answered my questions so why should I answer yours? Do yours supersede all else, hence the arrogance.

        Dom is also confused. I am still waiting for Stu’s address let alone me address his. Plus there was much more to speak about or possible for Stu to enter into. He again takes the safe road, one that may drive less insecurity for himself. The trolling must continue I suppose.

        one does evil enough when one does nothing good.

        The pile continues to grow Stu.

        Like

      • Alexie.

        “Dom is also confused. I am still waiting for Stu’s address let alone me address his.”

        Ok, I understand. Everyone is confused, and for some reason you’re waiting for my address.

        Like

  4. An example for Stu. Maybe you would to comment to the thread directly and be involved in a conversation. Maybe an opinion on the comments within the thread.

    “Biologist Rupert Sheldrake observed that humankind had somewhat lost the habit of using positive words. We’re just bitching, cutting each other up and wallowing in our self-pity. Self-pity banishes praise.”

    I believe the quote to be true, in politics especially, in life far too many people want to complain and wallow in their own insecurity and self pity. Although criticism of and debate is essential it often does not go that way.

    What is your opinion on this Stu?

    Like

  5. You review music Bryan. Rather than genuflect to other gods, the Russians chose to bring Johann Bach to Palmyra. How intriguing.
    This concert shocked me
    https://www.rt.com/news/341983-russia-gergiev-orchestra-palmyra/
    Johann Sebastian Bach
    They couldn’t exactly erect an orthodox church on this site but invoked “pray for” and played Bach.
    Bach’s , for the glory of God, played at the site teenagers gunned down infidels – for allah of course,. When words fail?

    What Barry Soetoro couldn’t do in a few years of inclusiveness,, the Russians did in 6 months and then chose Bach as their ambassador, without words.

    Christians didn’t want to own their world for Jesus. They were so busy ‘signalling their new age virtue of tolerance’. Why promote communion when you can signal tolerance? No one, and I include my own weekly bible study seems, to get it.

    Anyway, enjoy, the Bach. i don’t think Bach would have enjoyed seeing what Europe has become. So we reach back two hundred years for some evidence of civilization

    Solzhenitsyn is dead.

    Like

  6. Hey Strewth,

    I noticed recently that the Pope is backing Pell to continue as a Cardinal.

    Didn’t you bet the other way ?

    Like

    • Yep memory is a fragile thing. It barely lasts at all. However I thought you were tipping the Pope to accept Pell’s resignation in June. Recent reports have suggest otherwise.

      Like

      • Could that be IF he offered it? Remind me.
        Memory is indeed fallible when in 90th decade. lol!

        Like

      • It’s compulsory on June 8 Pell turns 75.

        Guess we’ll know in a month.

        But my bet would be that the Pope will fully back Pell and his fearless defence of the Church’s money.

        Like

      • “Memory is indeed fallible when in 90th decade”

        Memory is fallible all the time. But most people don’t make it into their 900’s so you’re way ahead of the curve there 🙂

        Like

  7. “Listen to others respectfully, honor their differences, and recognize that others may have different needs and benefit from different teachings and practices,”

    Like

    • Indeed, and more than flesh. All we know of is an expression of God. Through it all things were made; without it nothing was made.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s