36 Symbols – Hey, Circumlocution

We introduce our 36 Symbols series, whose name was inspired by the manifesto from the team at 37signals, along with their book, Rework. The style and content of 36 Symbols is motivated by Ernest Vincent Wright, the author of the short novel, Gadsby, which contains no instances of the letter ‘e’. This ingenuous writing exercise reportedly required the author to tie down the corresponding key on his typewriter and to leverage circumlocution – the fine art of talking around something.

Circumlocution is often cited with respect to operational security (OPSEC) when people ostensibly communicate without revealing sensitive information by talking around classified. In movies, books, and intelligence reports, such circumlocutions create tension-filled plots — in life we mundanely refer to decoding circumlocution as “reading between the lines”.

Thus, each post in the 36 Symbols series ostensibly involves restricting ourselves from using one of the twenty-six letters in the English alphabet or one of the ten Arabic numerals. Each post also attempts to contain a circumlocution within a circumlocution in homage to the movie, Inception, or dreams within dreams. In this first post, we eliminate the English alphabet’s famous first letter, ‘a’, while musing on how we’d live without “just one more” post, tweet, link, or option. Now, enter the circumlocution zone…

36 Symbols — Hey, Circumlocution

How does the writer convey truth without using the first letter in English writ? With the utmost difficulty. Why would the writer try, unless ensuring some other word rhyming with hungry does not enter the written prose? For without being empowered to use every symbol, how could we then explore the who, when, how, why, where, while forever foregoing the fifth ‘w’ question on every inquiring mind?

To the who, we consider the mob, the endless crowd whose juicy bits of gossip yield interesting insights into our lives. The mob, with its effervescent froth of noisy wit, who is our friend dispersed in those ever-evolving interconnected networks of people? Must we network with every who, must our lives  hinge on the insight of every person who might possibly provide some inspired insight?

To the second question of inspection, these objects filling every moment of our lives, in which bits flit, bits fly, to the bit bucket in the sky. We fill our lives with this noisy stuff, yet do we ever stop wondering if we received enough bits, bytes, or words to live our lives or to select our choices? Do we lose ourselves in these endless efforts to commune signs or hints of thought?

To the when, simply now, some written note there, some phone discussion there, the twittered flood of feeds intruding on our lives everywhere. Time spins on, the endless dimension, yet how much time do we spend not living without? Is our clock spinning without us, does time slip by while we monitor every feed, digest every post, or sup the slop of endless re-tweets?

To the where, will our lives be better by knowing everywhere we’ve been to include when we’ve been there? Should we record every where with every when? Do our lives need to be so monitored? Do we need to know where our friends or those with whom we engender common bond by blood were most recently? Will our minds now stop wondering who, when, how, or why if we know the where?

To the how, through those huge high-speed pipes now common in coffee shops, homes, businesses, in which we find ourselves, to include flying through those friendly skies. How did mom or pop ever survive without the Internet? Were they bored, their lives unfilled – how is it possible for such people to experience fulfillment devoid of moment-by-moment inputs?

To the why, there is the question. Do we need those electronic notes, those mobile discussions, those twittered floods of common mindless drivel, those flowing intersecting currents, the endless news feeds of no terrible consequence? Do we seek these inputs due to the effect such inputs imbue upon our minds — is it impossible for us now to end which is now begun?

To the future, the trickiest of outcomes to pursue. For in quenching our undying thirst for seeking some elusive input or exploring just one more option, we risk losing ourselves. Like muses often express — junk in, junk out — we justify we must find ourselves wherever our presence is, in this moment, seeking  some key element of knowledge or must-do experience.

Could we live without the first letter in English writ? Yes, difficultly. Should we live with less difficulty without exposing ourselves to every other thing, thought, or input? Might we possibly live life fully with one less tweet, shorter notes, or briefer discussions? Come, enjoy, enter into the life of something without, right now, beginning where you be — delete those posts, empty your inbox, find yourself.

So there it is, folks – one post written with much difficult while trying to use circumlocution twice over. Hopefully future entries in this series will consist of better nuggets upon which to circumspectly reflect. We request respecting this prose for its essence of existence — writing to divert the mind from becoming filled to the brim by being overly technology-focused. Thoughts welcome!

Related posts…
1. Dilly-Dally Dither Dance
2. Silent Media – Social Squeegee?
3. Perception, influence, & using social media responsibly