Of Paradoxes And Parallels, Pigs Who Fly and Men Who Lie
By: ~Matt S.~
(My thesis, perhaps, for ... Uh ... Something?)

What makes a language, any language, that built of numbers or words, touches or glances, skin cells or brain waves, color or line, any language, great, powerful?

Length, width, and depth. How wide is the language's spectrum, how deep can it delve, and to what length can this be expanded within the language?

(These are the three dimensions we have come to know and live by. However ... We know these are not the only dimensions. There are more. Is there a language that is also four-dimensional? Or more? What would it be like? Do you think we are already using one, or rather, using one, but not fully? How could we utilize it more? Do you see more to it already, than the length, width, and depth I've thought about?)

I will mostly address the scope of computers and technology, but this is only to give a small bit more of focus; I speak of things more broad, in actuality.

For computers, and their languages, since they were not made by themselves, it was humans who made them ... What are it's parameters? I feel this is fundamental to my ability to create with it, because I believe, that to be able to create with a thing, you must first understand enough of it's nature to do what you wish to accomplish, if indeed, the thing you wish is able to be done at all within your medium ... You must know a thing, through and through, it's nature as a whole and as individual makeups, to manipulate, shape, and create with it ...

If computer language was written by humans, was the person who wrote the majority of code esoteric, and unto himself? Did anyone else grasp what he was doing? How it worked, if it could work? What language did he speak? It is based off of logic, but different cultures and even individual minds, follow different logic paths often times. From the language of the originator, he expresses his perceptions of the world, how he sees it, how he imagines to shape it. Say, for the sake of my sanity, that it was originally written in British English ( as an aside, I originally wished to use American english as my example, but our language is made of so many others that it really cannot be an effective example, so, we will use the Brits' form of it, which has fewer roots in other languages). Would a person who speaks a dissimiliar language, perhaps French, German, Latin (another now-dead language?), have trouble working with one written by an English writer?

How much does the computer really understand? How much can we assume it will be -able- to understand? How can you tell, if what you see in your mind, so clearly, the computer understands? Perhaps, the language the computer uses, isnt 'powerful' enough for what you wish to do? If you present all logical arguements to it within it's scope, and it still fails to understand, then, what happens? What if you try to expand its syntax, within it's own limits, and that expansion puts it beyond its comprehension? Example, being, perhaps, an analogy. People, with imagination and hypothetical thought, can often grasp new meanings and concepts, but ... How do you do that for a computer?

How does one write a new language? The computer still needs to understand the language you are writing, and it cannot, essentially, 'learn', atleast in the sense that I know. Therefore, and, yes, this is a great leap of logic ... Are you merely showing it what it already knew, something you werent aware it knew, and thus, is not novel at all, but exists within some other language you know has black holes, and unused commands? Are they similiar to the Olympian rings, connected, all of the same string, but different, even as they share parts of eachother?

Logic is universal, when spoken from one person to another of sufficient intelligence to comprehend it within the same language and explained, defined, properly **debate-able**. Why, then, is there no universal computer language, since it is all based off of the same numbers, and letters, and symbols? Have we simply not discovered it? Is it in use already, in some simplistic form? Being universal, should it not already be in effect, whether or not it appears to be present and/or useable? How well exactly, does one language translate to another? For example, in some cultures, and languages, there is no word for lying, or falsehood, of any kind, and the concept is, essentially, an alien thing. How, then, would one pose arguements for such a language? Would you pose one at all, or perhaps use a different factor, some other way to reach a conclusion or perform an action, or understand? If you did so, and used something else, could that same principle be used to expand other languages? Are they deficient in something, simply because they didnt know it existed, even if they were functional and powerful before? Does this new thing, perhaps, set all, or even some, of the arguements before it, in precedential contradiction? We know there are other things that affect thought and decision than arguements and logic ... For example, morality, and ethics. Emotion is perceptual. Logic, can also be perceptual. A great many things, can be perceived at angles, presented at angles, in different lights, at different times and places, painted to look one way or another; Perhaps, even changed to -be- one way or another.. And, now, I pose this question to you: Can a person, who possesses both logic and emotion, morality and spite, truly ever divorce each from another? Can you truly keep the tiny voice in the back of your head, that asks you to rail against a wish simply to be spiteful, and never look at that option out of the corner of your eye and influence your final answer, or even come to that final answer with even more conviction, just because that option to spite exists, and your morality flares in clashing with it, while your emotion tries to decide which to believe, and as it slips it's pleading arms around the stoic form of logic? I dont know. Uncertainty, is the product of many such convergances. But ... Would you really want to become a creature who decides upon one form of evidence alone? I would never wish to be free of emotion, morality, logic, or spite, no matter what it costs me to have it and each of the others. Spoken and written language, side by side with art, of some of its many forms, are powerful beyond measure, for I believe there is nothing greater than they, to take their measure.

And now, as a smile draws across your face and mine, we are brought to another question ... By always wanting to compare ... Are we missing something? Great or small, subtle or imposing, it may change everything. We, are oblivious creatures of limitation lain on us only by our infinite imaginations.

A girl killed herself yesterday, by, as I hear it, overdosing on several different drugs, and then drowning herself in the local pond. Today, it was announced during third period, that she "passed away" and they wanted to stress that "no details are known" so as to "crush any rumors" ... There were clergy and councilors available in the office. I saw the list of people leaving school, and it included less than 25 names. I left during my last period, a study hall. I couldn't sit there anymore. Her name was on no-one's lips. I listened for it. Laughter and life as it existed in school, progressed as routine. I'd known her during the sporadic soccer practices and games during my 7th and 9th years of school, for the YMCA. She was the only girl on the team that I held in any regard. She was one of the few women who bothered to disgregard the foolish feminine stereotypes, and live life as she wished; She'd play, and be competitive, even if she wasnt aggressive. She was stunningly beautiful, with a lovely form, sharp, bright eyes, and graceful, deft hands. Her name was on no one's lips.

Intellectually, I know she is gone; I could hear the uncomprehending sorrow in the person's voice that told me so, a voice I trust; I heard how she died; she wasnt walking the halls with everyone else, talking or laughing. But, I dont feel it emotionally. I had to will myself to cry for her. I willed it so, because she deserved the tears, and infinitely more; also, because I desperately wanted to feel something. I've never faced the death of anyone that I knew terribly well, aside from my uncle, Rick, who lives in California with his wife and two of his three children, who's life was destroyed by kidney cancer, a month or two ago. I wrote him a poem. It was never read aloud to my knowledge. I've never felt the effects of losing someone in my life, any part of my life. I don't want to be numb or unresponsive to this. Emotionaly, there is no response but what I will to happen in my emotions. Emotion, is a thing of itself. I should feel ... SOMETHING. That, too, scares me. But, only intellectually. Where has my heart gone? Why ... Was no one talking about her? Why were there no thoughts of her in people's eyes, that I could see? They were in mine .. I know they were. And I didnt even truly know her. I only breathed across the surface. Not so much as a ripple. I wish she'd've left something. I hope she did. Something cryptic. Something to muse over. Something hateful. Something to sorrow for. Something, to evoke something. I miss her. I don't even kow her. Where is everyone's sanity? Mine is lost. There is little that brings light to my days ... For her, every passing day, hardly more than a blink, will be the black of endless gray. If my heart refuses to weep, I will still be sure that tears are shed in your name, if from no eyes but mine. Sweetest dreams.