My writing is heading toward total, wall-to-wall idiom. Think of language as tiles and every space as walls. Perhaps this can be seen and shown in my recent posts, especially the ones not explicitly about idioms. The point here is create a language that will remain so ergodically sealed as to be generative without limits. That last sentence is one “material witness” regarding how to proceed. Normally, one would assume that “ergodically sealed” and “generative without limits” are opposites—they either exclude each other, or they must be “balanced,” or they oscillate with each other (the more sophisticated approach). So, here’s a rule: place opposites in causal relations with each other; figure out how they lead into and convert each other. Do that before you have the “ideas” all worked out—only by creating the new relationship will you work out the ideas. “Ergodism” is itself a framing, not an observable “fact”; the same, for that matter, goes for the opposing claim regarding the infinite possible linguistic combinations enabled by grammatical rules. Insisting on ergodism leads you to see and accelerate the recycling and recirculation of phrases, including in your own writing, once you’ve accumulated enough to start cutting out fat. It will also alert you to forms of repetition that are tied into chains of “as I’ve said” and being thus alerted institutes a distance between the “I’s” saying these things and hence a kind of deliberate selving.
Imperatives for Idiom Creation
Imperatives for Idiom Creation
Imperatives for Idiom Creation
My writing is heading toward total, wall-to-wall idiom. Think of language as tiles and every space as walls. Perhaps this can be seen and shown in my recent posts, especially the ones not explicitly about idioms. The point here is create a language that will remain so ergodically sealed as to be generative without limits. That last sentence is one “material witness” regarding how to proceed. Normally, one would assume that “ergodically sealed” and “generative without limits” are opposites—they either exclude each other, or they must be “balanced,” or they oscillate with each other (the more sophisticated approach). So, here’s a rule: place opposites in causal relations with each other; figure out how they lead into and convert each other. Do that before you have the “ideas” all worked out—only by creating the new relationship will you work out the ideas. “Ergodism” is itself a framing, not an observable “fact”; the same, for that matter, goes for the opposing claim regarding the infinite possible linguistic combinations enabled by grammatical rules. Insisting on ergodism leads you to see and accelerate the recycling and recirculation of phrases, including in your own writing, once you’ve accumulated enough to start cutting out fat. It will also alert you to forms of repetition that are tied into chains of “as I’ve said” and being thus alerted institutes a distance between the “I’s” saying these things and hence a kind of deliberate selving.