We humans communicate with each other in a variety of ways: bodily, sensually, mentally, linguistically. All human communication involves highly evolved and complex processes. To me, language is particularly interesting because it can be expressed both in verbal and written forms, and both are powerful tools in our communication arsenal that we all too often take for granted.

To me, the way we use verbal and written communication is bipolar; both can be either spontaneous or measured depending on the way we use them and/or upon our circumstances. In social conversation, most often the spoken word tends to act as a vehicle for spontaneous communication which reveals our innermost feelings, motivations and thoughts, and reflects what is on the surface of one’s mind. However, in a court of law for example, every word uttered by the officials must be measured, as justice and law depends on semantic accuracy. Largely, this isn’t relevant and doesn’t apply to the tacit rules of social conversation. So, it seems that context has a pivotal bearing on how we use language, written or verbal.

Let’s look at the way we use language in a social way.

Take the phrases “I love you” and “I hate you”, for example. Whether spoken or written, these two simple, yet powerful, phrases differing only by one word, illicit an immediate, emotional response, each poles apart in meaning, and can have a deep and lasting effect on the psyche. How would you feel if someone spoke these words to you right now? Most of us have probably either said or been on the receiving end of each, but our reaction depends on who the person is, and the context in which the words were said, and how they were said. Again, context.

If it’s someone you care about, the words “I love you” will fill you with joy. If you love the speaker back, hearing those special words amplify the love you feel inside and you’d probably say “I love you too”.

But, with “I hate you”, if you hated the speaker, you’d probably say or feel “I hate you too”.

This is interesting because although the words are different, the level of emotional mental response is/can be equal. “Love” and “hate” are extremely powerful words.

To me however, uttered with the utmost depth of sincerity, the words “I love you” is the greatest message one person can send to another, except perhaps, an unknown sacrifice.

Further Reading

For a refreshing look at how language can be used in a positive way, check out Words Can Heal. Or for a spiritual view on language and its ethics, The Unfolding Script of Speech and Language, Part 2.

Harry's Fish Pie

My fish pie is rich, healthy (only mildly!), filling and packed full of exciting flavours, textures and aromas. I could eat it any time, but it’s especially satisfying on a cold, winter’s day. It takes a while to prepare and cook, but boy it’s worth it! Great to put in the middle of the table so that everyone can dig in. Just make sure you get your share though!

Pie Filling
(measurements are approximate as I do it by eye really)

25g butter
2 shallots, finely chopped
250ml dry white wine
250ml dry Vermouth
500ml fish or chicken stock
500ml double cream
1/2 tsp English mustard
400g mix of boned, skinned white fish chunks (cod, haddock, pollack, monkfish)
400g boned smoked haddock chunks
200g raw peeled king prawns
200g cooked, shelled mussels (optional and the fresher the better and none of that jarred nonsense)
1 lemon
Handfull of flat leaf parsley, chopped (chop the stalks as well as they’re tasty and add extra texture)
Freshly milled sea salt and black pepper

Pie Topping

5-6 large Desiree (Maris Piper will do) potatoes, peeled and chopped into 1 inch cubes (they’ll cook faster)
Large knob of butter
100g grated mature cheddar
Milk (optional)
30g bag plain crisps, crushed (optional)
Dash of Worcester sauce (optional)

How to do it!

Heat your oven to a medium heat (180C or gas 4).

Heat the butter in a saucepan and gentlr fry the shallots. Don’t brown them.

Add the wine and Vermouth and reduce.

Add the stock and simmer until it’s reduced.

Add the cream and on a medium boil, reduce to a thickish sauce.

Strain the sauce through a sieve. If you like your shallots don’t bother.

Stir in the mustard, season with salt and pepper to taste, cover the pan and turn off the heat.

Poach the fish until half cooked then drain.

Add the fish chunks, prawns and mussels into the sauce and mix through gently.

Squeeze in a little lemon juice, add the chopped parsley and mix through.

Boil the potatoes in salted water until soft.

Drain then mash the potatoes (or use a potato ricer if you want it really smooth) with some butter (milk and dash of

Worcester sauce optional) until smooth.

Put a shallow pie or gratin dish onto a baking tray (in case of any bubbling overspill).

Spoon the filling into the dish so that it’s about 2 thirds full and the fish and shelfish all covered by the sauce.

If there’s not enough sauce, just add a little more cream or milk. If there’s too much, keep some back and use as a warm dip with some warm, crusty bread as a snack.

Spoon the mash evenly over the pie filling right to the edges of the dish.

Sprinkle with grated cheese.

If you want a nice crunchy topping, cover the cheese with the crushed crisps.

It should look something like this right before it’s ready for bunging in the oven.

Fish pie ready for the oven

Put the pie in the oven and bake until you see it bubbling away and/or golden brown on top. Best to check after 20 mins then 10 min intervals. If it’s bubbling furiously and not brown, put it under the grill to brown and crisp up the topping.

Piping hot fish pie, ready to eat

Serve with spinach or buttery peas. HINT! Put some fresh mint leaves in the water you cook your peas in. They’ll taste even more amazing.

That's one mighty portion!

Enjoy!

“See it all, till tomorrow”

As a keen watcher of golf, I am relishing four days glued to my TV to watch sportsmen at the top of their game exhibit their prowess (and see how they fare against the legendary Scottish deep rough, which is sure to yield plenty of shankers), as well as beautiful scenery of Turnberry with its coastal views, especially of Ailsa Craig.

I checked out the official Open Golf website and was bowled over by the video content available portraying The Open Championship; and the tournament hasn’t even started yet!

They’ve got online videos of press conferences with the golfers, the organisers, helpers such as the Met Office, the course and its environment. Now that’s what I call not just a service to golf fans, but to the web.

Of, course, I’m aware of the phrase “too much information”, but if the information’s available, it’s open to people to provide it, then for individuals to find what is useful to them whilst filtering through the junk. That’s the beauty of the internet, and also the human mind.

Unbeknownst to most web surfers, the world’s most powerful search engine, Google, has the ability to search audio content embedded within Youtube videos with a system called GAudi (Google Audio Indexing) which is currently in beta. When you search for current events topics on Google, Youtube almost always appears on the first page of search results. Ever wondered why? Well, now you know why: Google not only indexes Youtube’s video titles and captions, they search through their audio content to identify keywords and phrases and match them to their users search terms. The most popular and relevant search words and search terms appear higher in the search rankings.

But back to the golf. I like Tiger Woods and wood (sorry!) love to see him smash some records, but I also love it when a rank outsider bags the most prestigious of golf tournaments in spite of the bookie’s odds. Golf’s an awesome pursuit and like a true neutral I’d always say that golf’s the winner. But…

…Go Padraig Harrington! 3 in a row. It’s never been done before!

Having been to the Scottish Open at Loch Lomond a few times I know how exciting (and sometimes relaxing) attending live golf tournamant can be. However, I’ll be glued to my TV or watch the highlights online. Even though it’s only 60 miles down the road from me, I can’t face the traffic or the parking.

“See it all, till tomorrow”

Pork and Veg Leftovers Stirfry

This is a delicious, filling, incredibly quick stir fry I made today from fridge and freezer leftovers that’ll satisfy for lunch, dinner, coming in from the pub, or (if you’re as twisted as me) for breakfast (next-day curries are WAY better though).

Total time spent, including raking about in the fridge and freezer was 10 mins and if I was to guess the cost it’d be £2 at an absolute maximum.

What I Had As Leftovers

1 pork loin chop
A handful of beansprouts
1/4 onion
2 spring onions
1 red birds eye chili
3 slices sandwich ham
1 takeaway-sized portion boiled long grain rice (I make mine in batches using my awesome microwave rice steamer from Lakeland. No fuss, 10 min perfect rice every time).

How To Do It

Prep Work (2 mins)

Cut (forget knives, kitchen scissors are better) pork loin chop (or any leftover fresh meat) into 1 inch strips. HINT: cut the strips perpendicular to the grain of the muscle as the meat’ll turn out more tender.
Wash beansprouts
Roughly chop onion, spring onions and ham
Finely chop chili (I kept the seeds in to add more heat)

How To Cook It (4 mins)

Heat a little olive or ground nut oil (I added a dash to a bit of fat and juices from some sausages I’d just cooked a minute earlier) in a large frying/sauté pan or wok.

Once the oil is smoking, add all prepped ingredients except the rice.

Stir fry for 2 mins.

Add rice.

Stir fry for two mins.

Add a dash of dark soy sauce (optional), serve and enjoy.

“See it all, till tomorrow”

A colleague of mine once uttered these words. I don’t believe he intended them to become legendary, but within my circle of friends they most certainly are and, I think, rightly so.

What is a word anyway?

Words are abstract constructs. Their substance has no relevance to their meaning. By that I mean that a sound, letter, phoneme, morpheme or word has no intrinsic meaning attached to it save that which the human mind attributes to it. “Walk” could mean the same as “run”, but why doesn’t it? It’s because we have created a different meaning for each. As we grow up from childhood, we learn that different sounds have different meanings, and so we accept these sound-meaning relationships without question. When we learn a language, we are conditioned to associate certain sounds with certain meanings.

Some words are spelled and pronounced the same but can have many different meanings, for example, the word “bank”. How we differentiate contextual meanings with multi-meaning words is an on-going hot topic amongst linguists and lexicographers, but that’s for another post…

Although words are abstract constructs, the association between the sound of a letter or mixture of letters (words), has become entrenched in our understanding of words and how they are used in conjunction with each other to form meaningful sentences, which in turn help us to convey ideas and concepts, although the extent of how much we can convey meaning is extremely limited. This process forms the basis of all our written and oral communication.

Certain words, regardless of language, are similar in different languages.

How can this be? All languages are categorised into families and hence, have hereditary traits. For millennia, people have migrated from country to country, continent to continent. During this, cultures mingled and languages merged. There is no such thing as a pure race. We are all of each other.

Because of this migration, neighbouring cultures share similar language traits. The scale of this is huge. For example, some members of Siberian tribes crossed over the ancient land bridge between far Eastern Russia and Alaska and migrated to South America, and now some South American cultures share some language traits with those still spoken in Russia.

However, this epic fact doesn’t negate the fact that words are dodgy things. What does dodgy mean? Well, it can mean “deceiving”. We may not mean to deceive when we use words, but it is often an un-meant and un-desired side-effect, even when we think we have chosen our words with care. Like it or not, this is inevitable, so it means we have to take special care in choosing the words we use.

As I see it, every human being likes and deserves to be treated with decency. Isn’t this a basic human right? The words we use go a long way, and their impact is vastly underestimated by many people. We shouldn’t think just of how we think we would like to be spoken to, but, more importantly, how we think someone else would like to be spoken to. To achieve this demands supreme concentration and dedication. This one of the reasons why Gautama Buddha rated Right Speech as one of the most important things a human being must pay special attention to and try to master. Try it for just one day and you’ll soon see how difficult it is. You will feel a sense of achievement even in trying. But, persevere: you and those around you will benefit enormously. For my partial take on Right Speech see Part 2 of my article The Unfolding Script of Speech and Language.

One problem with words is that once we crystallise our thoughts into words, the subtleties of meaning become lost or distorted very easily. When we speak or write, how often are we happy that what we have communicated is what we were really thinking? Once we communicate via words, we are, to a degree, at the mercy of the listener or reader’s understanding and perception.

From my point of view, this goes right to the heart of the problem of language: language, written or spoken, plays second fiddle to thought. Thoughts are far superior in accuracy, potency and meaning compared to written or spoken language.

So how is all this relevant in our daily lives?

For most of us, not a day passes when we don’t use either the written word or spoken word. Imagine you had only 100 words (it may seem a lot, but it really isn’t) to use, either written or spoken, each day.

You’d soon learn to choose them pretty carefully.

“See it all, till tomorrow”

An English professor wrote the words:

‘A woman without her man is nothing’ on the chalkboard and asked his students to punctuate it correctly*.

All of the males in the class wrote:

‘A woman, without her man, is nothing.’

All the females in the class wrote:

‘A woman: without her, man is nothing.’

I’ve been planning to write a post on the importance of spelling and punctuation for a while, and this has spurred me on to get it written and posted, so stay tuned!

But until then…

As I read and re-read this anecdote, I got thinking about how we punctuate not just our writing, but also our speech. How would you speak both of the above lines to convey the meaning of their written punctuation? Try speaking both out loud to someone and see if they can grasp the different meanings you’re trying to get across.

OK! Technical stuff coming up!

The key lies in emphasising specific morphemes**,  where to put pauses and how long to pause. It’s got to be perfect, like comic timing, for it to work.

When we speak a polysyllabic word, we can emphasise whatever morpheme or syllable we choose to change the importance of what part of the word we are speaking. It can even change the meaning of an entire phrase, sentence, or diatribe.

The simplistic beauty of this is that the meaning of the word as a whole remains intact, but that meaning is altered subtly but powerfully by what morpheme we choose to emphasise.

This is a very strong force in speech. Whether we write or speak, to quote Obi Wan Kenobi in Star Wars when about to enter a dangerous scenario, “we must be cautious.”

*The use of the word “correctly” in this anecdote is interesting. There is no correct punctuation unless we know the context of the sentence. Without context, it’s entirely open to interpretation.

**A morpheme is a part of a word, often a syllable, that has meaning and also forms a part of a word. I couldn’t be bothered thinking up my own example, so here’s an explanation I’ve adapted from Wikipedia:

The word “unbreakable” has three morphemes: “un”, “break”, and “able”. Each one has a different meaning, but when put together in this order forms a new word.

“See it all, till tomorrow”

I was trying to get across the idea that personal connections and communications in real life are a very important but perhaps dwindling phenomenon, and it tends to get left by the wayside if internet communication takes over.  Locked away in our houses, so many of us habitually “plug in” to the internet and close the doors to the outside world and our fellow man. Oft-times, internet communication can be a fairly inhuman, unemotional affair.

However, that is not always the case.

I hate the internet. But, I also love it. Why?

I hate it because it can be so impersonal; meanings get distorted, it’s a melée of irrational, irrelevant information (a bit like our everyday thought processes actually), and it’s addictive.

I love it because it’s a wealth of information available in seconds, it avails us details not covered in the mainstream, and it helps brings people together.

So, what has this got to do with the fellow that said “hello” to me?

I have friends that live many thousands of miles away from me. But when I get an e-mail from them I rejoice. An e-mail, or instant message can be just as powerful emotionally as a face-to-face encounter. They can uplift us, inspire us, or just simply make us feel connected.

Of course, I’m not alone in this as most of us who have internet connections are used to it now (believe it or not, there are those in the world who don’t!). But, I still get a tingle sometimes when I get an e-mail from a friend in California or New Zealand (I’m in Scotland.)

So, I’m not dissing internet communication or advocating ditching it in favour of going out for a walk and saying “hi” to everyone you meet.

Anything goes!

The key is striking a balance.

“See it all, till tomorrow”

The written equivalent is the simple question mark? However, there is a world of difference between upspeak and a question mark.

Upspeak forms part of “Valley Speak” or “Valspeak“, which is the colloqiual language or sociolect originally spoken by residents (mainly teenagers and 20-somethings) of California’s San Fernando Valley. It originated in the upper-middle class, yet now it is a worldwide speech inflection.

Language constantly evolves, and so it should. We use it to express both our deep and surface thoughts. California rides the crest of a wave in that it is one of the most cosmopolitan regions of the world and hence, is prone to many changes.

What interests me is how a spoken sentence can be changed from a statement into what seems like a question. An upspoken sentence is not really a question (at least not consciously), nor is there any questioning intent (or is there?). There is a discrepancy between word order and meaning and how the words are delivered vocally.

Here’s an example.

Let’s take the phrase “so I said I would do it” (”so” is so a Valspeak word). This written sentence is not a question. But in Valspeak it can be. Just raise the pitch of your voice at the end. This is actually a common verbal tool. This technique has been appropriated by proponents of Valspeak and integrated into popular culture. So why do it?

If you want to make a verbal statement, why not just make the statement? Why turn it into what sounds like a question? Well, I think the upspeak part of Valspeak may be an exaggeration of the ancient art of rhetoric, which is commonly used by modern politicians and speakers. It has been used since ancient Grecian times as a form of oratory persuasion; a subtle way of making a statement and asking a question at the same time, as well as being a tacit call to action.

Spoken rhetoric and upspeak illustrates the versatility of language in that its spoken form, it can negate the use of the 5Ws (and 1H (although I would add in another W: which)) who, what, why, where, when, and how, that are the classic precursors to a question and used for gathering information. The 5ws were made most famous by Rudyard Kipling in his poem “The Elephant’s Child.”

Nobody deliberately decides that they are going to create a way of speaking. It is a natural emanation of human needs and expression. That’s why I think that upspeak is ok, even though I don’t use it or like hearing it (I think it’s cheesy).

However, I think the key to understanding the difference between upseak and political rhetoric lies in intent. Rhetoric is designed to ask questions and provoke a response, whereas, to me, upspeak just makes the speaker sound like they are either unsure of what they are saying or beause they are, consciously or unconsciously, following a vocal fashion.

Am I opposed to upspeak? Absolutely not. It’s a part of modern speech, and I embrace change.

I’ll sign off by saying simply “Upspeak is ok?”

“See it all, till tomorrow”

Zen Buddhism doesn’t have any formal sacred texts. It has no equivalent of the Bible or Qur’an. So how do Zen Buddhists learn? Well, Zen is about experience.

When ideas are written down, they immediately lose their power. That’s not to say that the written word isn’t powerful; it is. But the initial idea, the spoken word and hearing it is more powerful.

Traditionally, Zen monks travelled the countryside in search of masters. This was a main part of a Zen student’s path. Like a tumbleweed, once a source of nutrition (or wisdom in the case of the Zen monk) was found, he would put down roots and stay a while.

In modern society, this rustic, nomadic type of searching for knowledge is rarely possible. But, thanks to intuitive, resourceful people we now have the internet. I think the internet is a natural evolution for us homo sapiens, in that it is a device to compensate for means of learning, experience and communication we used to have in ages past, but are unable to use presently. We constantly adapt and find ways to push ourselves on in areas that need a bit of work. On the internet, we find websites that nourish us intellectually, add to our bookmarks, and peruse them as part of our daily routine.

The internet’s great! But there’s more to life than plugging ourselves into the Matrix. By all means, use it. You’ll learn a lot and it’s an exciting feeling being part of a global community.

But it is habit forming, and real life social networks, especially the family, can break down if surfing the web becomes a barrier to communication.

Yesterday evening my wife and I took our kids and the dog for a walk at a local beauty spot. Fatigue set in and I said “you walk ahead, I’ll wait here and catch you on your way back.” So, I sat by the river’s shoreline and enjoyed the peaceful ebbing sunlight reflecting off the flat calm salt water and listened to the newborn lambs bleating vociferously in the field behind me. It was a pleasant mix of rhythmic, lapping water and changing light, with commentary from little fluffy sheeplings.

I saw a couple walking towards me on the path. I continued to enjoy the tranquility. As they passed me, the fellow said “hello” so I returned the pleasantry, and sensed he was enjoying his walk, free for a while from mundane anxieties. I felt a warm feeling in me. That chap was relaxed and open enough to extend a greeting to a stranger, and I felt privileged that he should.

I’ve had this simple, spontaneous thing happen to me many times, but every time it happens, it reinforces to me the beauty of friendly connectivity and communication between people.

It’s makes me feel alive, free and happy.

This is what Zen is all about.

“See it all, till tomorrow”

I’d just casted out and was reeling in when a seagull swooped down. I knew what was about to happen and shouted out “Oh NOOOOO!” I felt a tug on the line and thought the worst. It thought my lure was bona fide food. But, as the gull lifted into the air, minus my treble-hooked spinner attached to it, so did my heart.

I didn’t relish the thought of having to wrestle a “live kite” to the ground with a fishing rod, then have to put the poor bird out of its misery in front of my young son.

So, now when we see gulls or gannets circling overhead, or shags, guillemots or eider ducks diving, we just take a breather from fishing and watch the birds show us how it’s really done.

“See it all, till tomorrow”