WORDS

"WORDS HAVE NO WORD
FOR WORDS THAT ARE NOT TRUE"
- W.H. AUDEN



Descriptive in nature, though depending on which side is used to interpret it, the brain or the heart, or possibly a balance of both - words either have the power to complement what it stands for, or utterly overtake it. And yet, both can be necessarily true. In understanding lie many meanings, and it cannot be defined to a singular. That would be foolish and greatly limiting to the point of debilitating what the word originally stood for. In observation, it has been a force of habit or misunderstanding by our society that just because a word, one word has been put in place to easier define an action, an object, an event, or an idealism, we also must attribute that it therefore has only one meaning. This way of thinking is very flawed, though not necessarily wrong, for like Auden had said, words have no word for words that are not true, it just means that we only know of one truth that such word stands for, yet we still have to widen our perspective on said subject.

Take for example the word "love"... love is ambiguous in nature for it is probably the quintessential example for a word that cannot be defined to a singular meaning. It is all encompassing. How so you ask? Well take this application of the word love, one can use it to profess their adoration for an object:

"I love Converse Sneakers"

and at the same time, one can use the very same word to express their feelings for someone:

"I love my girlfriend"

They mean essentially differing things yet at the same time they are both true, no lie or fallacy can be found in these statements. Love can take every form, but because of 4 letters joined together, which if left all alone do not mean anything by themselves, now the letters L, O, V, and E have meaning. And Meanings ultimately hold truths.

"I love Huntington Beach"
"I love Writing"
"I love Valentines Day"
"I love Love"
"I Love"
"I"

Notice how I have stated some of the things that I hold dear to my heart, slowly breaking it down to the word "I". You may wonder why I have done so, but the purpose for such a deviation is because I would also want to explain the command that the speaker of the word holds to the meaning and gravity of the word that has been uttered. All of those statements up above are true, true to my own, for it is the only way I can relay to you how much I like each of these things on pen and paper.
Though at the same time, speakers can lie, yes I will not discount that. But that is when words are bunched up together for a greater meaning not true to their own original intentions. Whatever do I mean by that? Take for example:

"I hate Writing"
or even
"I do not love writing"

My lie is exposed but it is not the words fault that made such statement a lie. Take the word hate or love out of the body of speech up above and it will still remain true to its meaning. I wanted to clear up that meaning and intentions are never the same thing, though at times their goal may be one and the same, but they are never synonymous.

Words are powerful yes, and their meanings are honest and sincere if not interjected with wanton intent. Conversely, intent is what influences words, how we use them as well as what they ultimately mean. Words alone cannot hold a conversation - but with intent; words plus intent = message, no matter how true may it be or deceiving.


-chrissanjose