Meaning Making

So far this week is high on the "oddest week ever" in Silvey-town's life. I'm loathing that sentence with a harsh "eye squint."

I shouldn't be referring to myself as a town. Or should I?

And with that nonsense...


Last year, through studying too much theory on writing composition, I began to allow my mind to see the world in shades of gray (vampires you have ruined it all! I would never read in a thousand years such horrible, pedestrian rubbish!). Pardon my obscure interruptions this evening. Back to the point, rather than the beautiful gray one sees when things are a more "depends" outlook, I think I was lacking in my ability to accept the meaningful aspects of life and instead seeing theory to depict the often too familiar scope of "does anything really mean anything at all?"

With all the connections I'm seeing on a social scale add up with my own "A", "B", "Q" and "Z" plots, I am accepting meaning again. The universe is made more of dark matter than actual matter; I believe we are finding that the universe is actually in a black hole. I think ideally everything would be in light, and therefore everything would have reason and meaning. However, we are not in that universe so a great deal of life cannot be reasonable. Also, trying to figure out what the ideal universe is and if it even exists is one of the more profound quandaries that our minds are even capable of trying to solve. I'm more fascinated by what is meaningful in the midst of a great deal of darkness in the present than descending into the darkness and only accepting the meaninglessness as the frame to which we would paradoxically exist. I'm not a nihilist; I'm venturing not to be a sophist either. One ray of light in a field of darkness can overpower such a space.

Now that we've got my late night ramblings out of the way, lets apply my thoughts to writing. I think the responsibility of the writer is much greater than perhaps writers acknowledge. Writing to prove a theme of meaningless is counteractive; sure it's been done, but how do you even authentically gain this narrative when plot would still have to be present? If you have no plot then you have no meaning. Stories that are about meaningless, I think, are more about one's lost perspective. Writers are supposed to go through all the systems of pattern we experience (and potentially don't experience) and help organize these concepts into language so that these words give clarity. A graduate assistant I know once said, "It's through literature that I am able to frame and understand the events that are going on in my own life." We're not just placing down words. Words are labels placed over concepts, and these words have more meaning then that because they indicate social context through communities who share these words, and I'm sure a great deal more. I've said it before, and I'm probably repeating myself years later, but the goal of writing is to go out into the field of dizzying darkness and find the best pieces of light to bring back to the table; it's not just a matter of storytelling, it's a matter of problem solving. Through the written language we are able to dissect the great question of: "what is happening", to intimately understand "what is happening", and with great hope make the best educated guess on that pesky, eternal question.

Why do certain pieces of writing have lasting effects over generations? I think it's because they held such great meanings in theme that it touched our most needed aspects in the heart. Shakespeare is bloody confusing, but we buy into it because of how great his themes are and as we come to understand what exactly his plays were intending to say in theme we begin to see those 16th century situations still in motion today -- why else would we have West Side Story? I do believe in universal themes. Those are probably some of the strongest themes of all. Sure, there are idiosyncratic themes in generations. Then again, I question this because many times it's all the same formula but with different variables -- if the variables are different but end up with the same conclusions we've always had, then does that make themes the same regardless of variable or is theme in the variable? I believe theme is not in the variable but in the conclusion.

I know many want to explore space. I don't think we naturally are intended to since it wreaks havoc on the body, not to say though that we can't change our bodies so as to be able to explore space, but is this really progress or escapism? We can visualize and take care of space in our minds in just the same progressive and escapist way -- and it definitely has it's benefits so perhaps, in this riddled up mess I'm writing, we do need space travel. I think we operate on far more dimensions than we know. I'm thinking there's a possibility of infinite black holes and we are somehow within the black hole of a black hole of a black hole and so forth. Depressing thought, right? Or is it flat out cool? Light at the end of the day is far weirder still than darkness -- even if we are in multiple black holes. We like to consider ourselves enlightened when we gain knowledge, which to repeat once more, knowledge comes from years of language development in organizing and communicating with each to find truth.

Enlightenment is about finding meaning. Plot is about enlightenment. When we seek plot in our own lives the dots, rather constellations, will come together. Perhaps like a pulp where certain things come together more wholly than others, while the rest freely moves (thank you, Pulp Fiction). I think when we descend into darkness we fail to see how the dots connect. And there we have our thesis point... insubstantial plots don't have enough light. The light in it needs to be matured.