‘I am structurally special.’

So I said a few rude words and then I got over it.
I So I said a few rude words and then I got over it.
I love structure that is clear, that informs; where I find this lacking I need to create a structure that is clear for me. But in doing so it still needs to make sense to others. I need to start taking ownership over the language that I choose to use to explain ideas; to define for myself terms and be able to justify the definition in order to talk with authority. In doing so, my structuring of spoken sentences needs to be concise. Anything less suggests that I am a fraudster, even if I know the theory and practice inside and out. Presentation is performative. If I frame a toilet I can call it art because of the attitude in which we look at it but if the toilet is not framed, it is just a functioning part of a WC, no more, no less.

The written word differs from the spoken, because it disassociates from the authors bodily attitude towards the text. It is content and fails to reveal the immediate context of the time of writing. It is therefore necessary to explain how you are using words in footnotes or parenthesis. The act or writing forces you to slow to the speed of typing, or of placing pen to paper. It is an action that has a physical limit to its speed. It has visible structures that can be edited. The immediate spoken word differs. With it comes the context, the facial expressions, the conscious and unconscious bodily movements that stresses and adds importance to words. Yet with this, my mind races and finishes sentences before they have started. The result is a mess.

If Dr Joesephine Machon suggests that a synaesthetic play text is one that joins the word with the visceral body, then can the structures used to create this joining be adapted to real time speech and would this be useful? I don’t know. My mum used to say that you should engage brain before speaking, slow down and enunciate but what if it is not this that I need to achieve from speech? What if words quantify meaning instead of qualify meening. And yes I mean quantify. To quantify I assert a definite meaning, a limit to the possibilities of what it could mean. Quantify suggests numbers. I have one conker. This cannot be misinterpreted to having two conkers. But by saying conker you could imply a number of metaphoric things that you do not mean. Meaning is not qualified it is quantified. If speech acts in this manner, is this the most effective way to communicate?