WORDS ABOUT WORDS – PART THREE: WORDS FOR THINGS UNSEEN AND FORGOTTEN

I've invented a few words in my time. Words for unseeable conceptual things I've noticed or sensations I've felt that don't have names. Urnk, fweelt, huphtink, and schwelpt - that's just four of them. There are lot more. I have them all listed in a journal. Sometimes I forget to write down what they mean and when I make that mistake it inevitably leads me to forget the thing I invented the name for even exists in the first place. I'll try and make myself clearer: Imagine you noticed the sensation of feeling at ease. You noticed that everyone seems to undergo this sensation at times. You start to recognise it in others, a gentle smile and unguarded body posture. So, imagine you decide to name this sensation of feeling at ease. For the sake of simplicity, let's imagine you call this sensation 'comfort', a word that, along with any possible synonyms for the same sensation, has heretofore not existed. Now imagine you write the word down. Now imagine that you return some time later to discover the word 'comfort' in the place you wrote it but you have forgotten what it relates to, what it means, and you have forgotten that 'comfort' ever existed. Can you imagine something like that? Well, that kind of thing happens to me all the time. Unseen things only exist when named. If you forget the names of unseen things they vanish from your mind. I mean to say, they are still there, it's just that you can no longer perceive them.

If we all forgot what the word 'comfort' meant we would forget we even feel it or have a need to feel it. We would live in near perpetual discomfort, only occasionally experiencing the unrecognised sensation of 'comfort' quite by chance. We wouldn't discuss it or anything. We'd probably never mention it. You might doubt this. You might say that we would eventually put a name to a sensation if it was something we felt. 'After all', you might say, 'we do have names for unseeable sensations and concepts'. You might apply this logic and say that it proves my postulation invalid. However, if you were to do such a thing I would be forced to point out that you seem decidedly underschwelpt. This would make you confused. You would not know what I meant but this would only be because you would not recognise the unseeable truth I would have described. You'd have no idea what I am talking about but believe me, your obvious lack of schwelptness would be showing and you would be risking absolute huphtink.

So you see, a great many unseeable things have yet to be named. A great many others have been named but those names forgotten or what they mean has been forgotten. We should really keep an archive so we don't become unaware of more of these unseeable sensations and concepts. Some may be of great significance. Some may define fundamental aspects of human experience. It would be a tragedy to lose more of them. For example, can you remember what it is to chizzet? No, I thought not. Sad really. I think it is high time we catalogued these words in journals - perhaps in alphabetical order with the meanings of the words written next to each entry. We could call these journals Lexiconicons or Wordadoriums. What do you think? Really? I think the idea is pretty fweelty myself.

I'll conclude by making a prediction. Have you noticed how the word 'morality' is being used less and less these days? It is, really. You tend to find other words in its place. Words like 'practicality' or 'realpolitik'. Soon we'll stop considering the concept of morality altogether and quit discussing it or aspiring to it. We'll forget that morality ever existed but, you know, maybe it never did. Maybe this is one case of a word that is best left to oblivion. Maybe 'morality' is just used as an abstract excuse for other things or maybe it's too vague and subjective and impossible to objectively quantify. Maybe we never should have believed in it in the first place. Maybe this word is a word for an unseeable thing that actually doesn't exist. Yes, maybe we should forget it. Maybe it's just a silly word. Maybe it's just a load of urnk.

WORDS ABOUT WORDS – PART TWO: WORDS WITHOUT MEANING

In the future, everyone will continue to use words even though they will have forgotten their meaning. This will be thanks to innovations like Facebook and superficial people taking over culture and and things like that. It's already beginning to happen. People are using words without knowing what they really mean. Take the word 'awesome' for example. 'Awesome' used to refer to things that inspired a feeling of awe, like seeing an eighty tonne blue whale surface next to your boat or watching the aurora borealis streak and shimmer across the night sky. These days however, the word 'awesome' is employed as an expression of approval, often mild, as in:

Man: 'There's a two for one on bottles of ketchup in Lidl until the end of the week.'

Woman: 'Awesome.'

'Like' is another example. Instead of being something you feel, 'like' is now something you do. You do it on your computer. It just takes a fraction of a second. It's a thing you do to oblige others in the hopes that they will oblige you in return by 'liking' something of yours. It's a kind of conditional quid pro quo transaction. You contribute 'likes' and collect 'likes'. It's similar to philately, only less interesting. Liking things, on an emotional level, is no longer relevant. 'Liking' is now an activity. Everyone is gradually forgetting what it actually is to like something but no one has forgotten that it is important to be 'liked'.

Despite the excellence of the above examples, you still mightn't think that people have forgotten what some words mean. You mightn't have noticed because, despite having forgotten what certain words mean, people still remember the facial expressions and mannerisms that go with these words. Take 'happy' for example. 'Happy' has the smiley emoticon face. Likewise, 'angry' has a frowning emoticon. People use these emoticons when they are online and facially imitate them in the offline world. The protocol associated with certain words is retained but the actual meaning of them, the feeling of them, what they represent on an emotional or visceral level, is long gone.

Now that I've pointed it out, you'll notice this phenomenon more and more. You'll get that 'in the uncanny valley' sensation. It's the feeling you get when you see a creepy mannequin or android that is just about lifelike but not quite. Near human but inhuman. Seemingly alive but obviously dead. It looks happy. It looks sad. It smiles at you. There is something deeply chilling and repulsive about the attempted emulation. You'll get this same feeling when you notice people using words they no longer know the meaning of – a deeply chilling repulsion.

Has a psychopath ever told you that they love you? If this happened you would know that the psychopath does not love you. You would know that the psychopath just needs you for some reason and that is why the psychopath is claiming to love you. The psychopath says they love you in the hopes that you will love them back. Like anyone, the psychopath needs love but, unlike almost everyone, the psychopath cannot return the love. The psychopath does not want the love of someone the psychopath loves, no, the psychopath wants the love of someone the psychopath needs – so they can feel validated, or progress in some way, or survive, or maybe even destroy. The psychopath is an ego without real emotions. The psychopath knows the protocols but has no real idea what they represent. The psychopath is just making use of these things. The psychopath is leading the way. Don't forget to give the psychopath 'likes'. You should subscribe to the psychopath's channel. Why not follow the psychopath on Twitter @psychopath #pretending. 

WORDS ABOUT WORDS – PART ONE: THE LONG WORD

(pictured: an extract from The Long Word)

I've invented a new word. It is an unsayable word. It is actually impossible for a human to say the word. This is because the word is very long. So long that I can't type it here, it would hog up loads of the blog. While saying this word you need to inhale but you can't because you are saying the word. You die from lack of oxygen before you get to the end of the word. Even if you somehow devised a means by which you could take in breath whilst saying the word it wouldn't help because it takes longer than the average lifetime to say the word. This is ironic. The irony being that this long word I've invented is a synonym for 'why'. You never get the answer. You never even get to finish asking the question. You may as well not bother and that's probably the point.

MONEYMONEYMONEYMONEYMONEYMONEY

We need some money. Have you got any money? We've run out of money. If we have no money we can't give you money so give us some money. Have you got any money? We're nothing without money. If we have no money then you'll have no money and you're nothing without money. You can't have a home without money. You can't have a family without money. You have no shoes on your feet without money. Education costs money. Health costs money. Justice costs money. You have no rights without money. You are not a proper person without money. If you want to have money you'll have to give us your money. I mean, can you imagine a world without money? There would be no money. You can't have anything without money. Everything costs money. Ideas cost money. Innovation costs money. Self-expression costs money. Art costs money, lots and lots of money. Work costs money and leisure costs money. War costs money and peace costs money. Even air costs money. We have to clean the air by spending money because we made it dirty while we were making money so now even air costs money. Money doesn't make sense so to make money make sense we need to spend money. The problem is money but the solution is money so give us some money because we ran out of money when we were trying to make more money and we need money to make more money to get back the money we lost making money. So it's all about money. We need some money. Have you got any money?

SUCH SIMPLE THINGS

(pictured – our simple man in simpler times ...with a simple general)

I hear that he is a man of little want, just a few simple necessities, an exemplar of simplicity. A simple man who sleeps in a simple bed and cooks at a humble stove. A humble man, an advocate of humility. Not one for largesses or adornment or any of that, he is just a simple man with a simple cross around his his simple neck. I heard a story, an anecdote, that stood to his unostentatious nature. He once wanted a cup of tea but instead of asking some woman to make it he took to his feet, crossed the room to where the kettle was, and made it himself. Yes, he made his own tea. He made his own tea that day and drank it from a modest clay cup. He imbibed the tea, silently enjoying the beverage, and when he was finished he took to his feet once more and crossed the room. Observers did not know where he was going but it was toward the sink that he was headed. He reached the sink and placed the cup into it and ran the tap, rinsing the cup beneath the flowing water. He then placed the cup on a draining board that lay to one side of the sink and he left it there to dry. He did all these things and he did them himself. It was not some woman or drudge that did these things for him.

He travels on public transport too I hear. No chauffeur or the like for him, no, just change for the bus or a tram or some such. Unlike the man whose name he took, he indulges the modest comfort of wearing shoes upon his feet but I hear that he puts these shoes on himself and also removes them. Yes, he does all this himself. He does not get some woman or skivvy to do it. He puts on and takes off his own shoes. Who amongst us can say that? Who amongst us can claim to not just put on but also remove our own shoes? Not I. The Mother does that for me as I am sure your mother does for you, or your wife, or some woman.

I heard too of a time he encountered a child. He encountered a child upon a back road in Buenos Aires and he did not fondle that child. I heard there was no one about, at least not many, and despite this the child remained completely unmolested. Who amongst us, in all truthfulness, could say they would have passed up such an opportunity? A vulnerable child, alone, a tender seductive peach. Can we claim that we too would not have taken 'a bite'?

Indeed the Holy Ghost chose wisely on the 13^th of the 3^rd 2013. The Holy Ghost chose wisely via the conscientious consciousnesses of that conclave of noble men as they selected the conduit by which the divine will be known upon this material plane. This conclave of men acted on behalf of the Holy Spirit. They took this duty upon themselves. They did not ask some woman to do it. Indeed, there were no women present. Women are not even permitted into the chamber as the choice is made. Just men, men who selflessly surrender themselves to God's will. These men selected the right man and now that man shall lead us all. He shall lead us all and he alone shall lead us. He will not ask some woman to do it. Indeed, no woman will ever do it, they are not allowed, but they can follow, and wait, and serve. Yes, if they be asked, women can serve but they will not be asked by him for he is a simple man who does things himself. He will make his own tea and put on his own shoes and he will lead his flock further into the 21^st century. He will do this and he will do this himself, unaided by some woman or drudge or skivvy, for he is a simple man. Yes, he is a simple man of simple means and simple belief and he will simply lead his simpletons and they will simply follow, even the women and the tender seductive peaches that are the children.

And what of those who simply will not follow his simple path? Well, it is worth remembering that this is a simple man who helped a simple dictator make people simply disappear. But shush, for this is a happy time and we simply will not hear speak of such simple things.

UPDATEUS: FRANCIS PONTIFEX MAXIMUS

Francis Pontifex Maximus Homophobeus Fascismo novus fructose l.casei immunitas – Molestus, Molestus.

SAINT MALACHY MALARKEY

Seeing as there is all this palaver over the resignation of the Pope and the appointment of his successor, I thought I'd check out the prophecy of Saint Malachy - the 12th century Irish archbishop who foresaw all the popes to come, from his days to the last. I have to admit, I was more than a little shocked at what I read. Here's what he had to say in full...

'Scarlet and purple pontiffs of the paedophile protectorate dither and deliberate all you will, it makes no difference for your days of luxury, hypocrisy, and simony are at an end. The Terrible Judge is cometh and the city on seven hills will be laid low. Even a dancing puppet of a John Paul II 2.0 couldn't help you now. You conclave of curs. You preservers of inequity. You propagators of prejudice and of shame.You least loved by He who loveth even the least lovable of things. You sucklers of Babylonian whore tit. You gelatinous celebrants of secret sem(e)nary trysts. You hateful birds in unclean cages. You foul spirits in a habitation of devils. You tabernacle befoulers. You covert worshippers of the Beast. You appalling shower of cunts.

The Terrible Judge is coming. He is coming and He has got His boots on. The earth shall shake a warning beneath the feet of all nations. Heed too the herald Pan-STARRS above for lo' tis with the fiercest of lightening you will soon be struck. Ecclesiastical arses will be booted skyward and the flock shall gasp and weep but then cheer upon enlightenment. 

Admonito! Admonito! Novus Pontificus Maximus Diabolus - Petrus Romanus - Decepticon Megatron. Optimus Prime shall be amongst us anon.

The End!'

Now, as far as I can make out, this means that either End Times are immanent or Transformers 4 is going to be really really fuckin good.