amiranna (amir_ana) wrote,
amiranna
amir_ana

MY INTERNET INTERLOCUTOR

  Now I'm asking myself  if I actually have one. Recently I've been internet-communicating with X who was supposed to be my interlocutor. But was he. From the point of view of understanding he was not. Which really frustrates me. And who or what is to be blamed. The wrong choice?  But  I wanted to share...Or it might be the specification of the Internet communication. First it's written. Though "A word is dead when it is said." No real silence. Only breaks. "The true call of the desert, of the mountains, or the sea, is their silence - free of the networks of dead speech." And  no doubt - the body language. The expression of a man's face is commonly a help to his thoughts. No "speaking countenance " in this case. The eyes of  men converse as much as their tongues, with the advantage that the ocular dialect needs no dictionary. "Not spoken in language, but in looks/ More legible than printed books." Words, whenever they cannot directly ally themselves with and support upon gestures, are at present a very imperfect means of communication. "There are certain combined looks of simple subtlety, where whim, and sense, and seriousness, and nonsense, are so blended, that all the languages of Babel set loose together could not express them." So much can be put forward to justify my failure. But it seems the explanation can be looked for along absolutely different lines.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments