Learn to Swym

David Cowles
“Language Endures. We Don’t” – now that is a bumper sticker!
If we’re lucky, we learn to swym at an early age. What’s that? No, you don’t have to live near water. I’m not talking about aquatics. I’m talking about swymming (Saying What You Mean)!
Working this morning on a future post for Thoughts While Shaving (TWS), I noticed I had typed the words (it doesn’t matter the context), ‘can be added to the pattern.’ OMG, I was horrified! How far that was from what I’d meant to communicate!
Philosophers (Freud, Derrida, even Pontius Pilate) hold that people say what they say, say what they mean, mean what they say, mean what they mean, - not quite a bumper sticker…maybe a billboard?
Accordingly, people who insist on a distinction between speech and meaning are said to be living in bad faith. What you say is what you mean. Unless you’re deliberately lying, there’s no other way it could be. Accept it!
If I say something other than what I think I mean to say, we call that a Freudian Slip. What you said is what you meant, even if you don’t think you intended to say it.
Are the philosophers right? Do I always say exactly what I mean and mean exactly what I say, even if I don’t realize it at the time? I think I meant to say, “add to the pattern,” rather than “can be added to the pattern”. But did I?
Wait, hold up, you’re asking me to read through this entire essay knowing that it is devoted to the difference between “add to the pattern” and “can be added to the pattern”. That’s 15 minutes of my life I’ll never get back.
I understand, but yes, that’s exactly what I’m asking you to do. Stick with it! I think it will be worth your while.
So, what is the difference between can be added to the pattern and add to the pattern? Only everything! By writing “can be added to the pattern” instead of “add to the pattern,” I did three momentous things:
I created an entirely new entity out of thin air, The Pattern Maker, an imaginary entity as it turns out. (I imagine him with Chaucer’s gang on the famous pilgrimage to Canterbury! I wonder how the Pattern Marker’s Tale would have read…but I digress.)
I transformed an organic Pattern (subject) into an inert product (object) of the Pattern Maker’s praxis.
I sacrificed something organic and potentially alive, consigning it forever to Hades, the Realm of the Inert (Shades), Dante’s Land without Hope.
Using language, I can literally play God. The 20th Century American poet, Ezra Pound, wrote at the very end of his Cantos, “I have tried to write Paradise.”
I wasn’t necessarily shooting for ‘Paradise in a TWS post,’ but I had not intended to re-write the Inferno either. Short of divinity itself, language is perhaps the most powerful tool in our environment.
I had wanted to say that the Pattern is real, preeminently so; that it is a process, that is in process, that spatial pattern is a temporal process; that it’s growing and may even be alive. But I didn’t get there, did I? How come?
Even Pontius Pilate said, “What I have written, I have written!” Can’t I be at least as truthful as Pilate? He didn’t set a very high bar after all, but it’s a bar I can’t reach! On the cosmic stage, I must take a seat behind Pilate – not what my parents hoped for when they brought me home from the hospital, I’m sure.