"Just the facts, ma'am."
... Sir Arthur Conan Doyle embodying Sherlock Holmes (widely
attributed erroneously to Jack Webb embodying Sergeant Joe Friday,
Dragnet)
Plain speaking, simple speaking, bland speaking isn't
always deployed as the
coin of the realm
of the sports bars nor of our day to day conversations. It's seldom
heard in water cooler chit chat or in
locker room banter
or at cocktail parties. When we talk, we're thrown to
calling for attention, to making an impression ie to looking
good, and to exchanging signals, more than we're thrown to
generating
who we are
as
our word.
There's
nothing wrong
with that. Really. Nothing. In fact arguably until
honoring your Self as your
word
is distinguished, that's all we'll ever deploy talk for: to call for
attention, to make an impression, and to exchange signals. Indeed,
until
honoring your Self as your
word
is distinguished, calling for attention, making an impression, and
exchanging signals through talking is arguably the sole
purpose of language ie it's all we ever use language for.
If I remove all the embellishments from what I say, if I drop all the
flowery decorations from my speaking, if I leave out all the
dramatic inflections from my tone of voice, if I omit all
the cleverness from my discussions, if I cut out all the
one-up-manship from my idle chatter, if I excise all the
shields and protections from my verbalizing,
if I erase all the exaggeration and
significance from my accounts and descriptions, if I forgo
all the
gossip
in my interactions, if I stop manipulating through
who I am
expressing itself as
my word.
To permanently transform my speaking this way, to speak the
Zen
bland
"what's so"
truth, to speak simply as a matter of Self expression and not deploy
talk only as a means to garner kudos or bravado by
attempting to sound intelligent or hip, and to get
language as more than merely a medium in which and with which to
exchange signals, is an exercise in and of itself. It ain't easy.
Talk isn't cheap.
But we sure know how to
cheapen talk.
The exercise starts with considering the possibility of
(and then making the shift from) language as conveyer of
content to language as context. Language as context
is already there. Rather than requiring creating, language as
context is already there, requiring little more to presence it than
simply to notice it's already
what's so.
Then, rather than language being a vehicle commonly deployed for
exchanging signals pertaining towho you are,
your circumstances, and the events in your life, language (in this new,
shifted, transformed paradigm)
iswho you are.
In this sense, the distinction bland, when it's applied to
language, yields interesting results. Language as context, language as
who I am
requires no embellishments, no flowery decorations, no dramatic
inflections, no cleverness, no one-up-manship, no shields and
protections, no exaggeration and significance, no
gossip,
and no manipulating. All of the above are simply add ons
and plug ins, additional devices we put on top of language when
the distinction
honoring your Self as your
word
isn't present.
Bland language leaves nothing but
presence of Self
in the space. Bland language (the way I'm distinguishing bland
language) doesn't mean no communication. It doesn't imply no exchange
of signals and ideas. Rather, bland language, the way I'm
distinguishing it, allows
who we really are
ie
Self
to be present as the context for communication, as the context in which
the content of signals and ideas are exchanged. Language which
only conveys content without enlivening
context is what I'm refeRring to in this conversation as
non-bland language.
All well-intentioned attempts at being the life of the
party aside, non-bland language only seems to get in the way
of, only seems to interfere with
Self
presencing itself. Please notice I didn't say non-bland language
interferes with
Self
presencing itself. I said it seems to - in my experience.
As for whether or not it does for you, that's a distinction worth
looking at for yourself. Well ... does it?
Definition
bland
(USUALLY DISAPPROVING)
adjective
not having a strong taste or character or not showing any interest
or energy
<unquote>
There's part of what I require in this dictionary definition of
"bland". I've also found part of what I not only don't require but
which also gets in the way of my particular use of "bland" applied to
language. The "usually disapproving" qualifier may not
work or be appropriate here, and neither will the "not showing any
interest or energy", although the "not having a strong taste or
character" is bang on the
money
for the way I'm using "bland" applied to language - as in
Zen
bland.
Dictionaries, given the
inexorable
advent of transformation in the world, will eventually need to be
re-written, given the seamless relationship between transformation and
language, and between language and dictionaries. Transformed language
completely
recontextualizes
dictionary defined language.
Eventually
I'll rewrite some of these definitions
myself. In the meantime, what interests me is the possibility of
Zen
bland language as context, without embellishment, without flowery
decorations, without dramatic inflections, without cleverness, without
one-up-manship, without shields and protections, without exaggeration
and significance, without
gossip,
and without manipulating.
In other words, what interests me as a possibility for language, what
interests me as a possibility for language as a context for
presence of Self
is language which is
Zen
bland, which creates a context for
Self
to be present while blandly communicating just the facts ma'am (as
Sherlock Holmes may have said) so the content doesn't get in the way.
