Art exchanges
part the fourth
From one of my other texts (I quote)
“I have (and this is a by-story) said occasionally that reappropriation ALSO takes a physical form of appropriation of the holy. As you can se this adds or tallies with the idea of the dark room or ‘other’ or the holy as a factor in history. See e.g what were the first Christian temples, yes they were heathen temples reappropriated — today the ‘reappropriation’ of office space is perhaps a more secular move of resources inside the ups and downs of the economic landslides of our modern society (as of summer 2021). I imagine even the start of the Normans as the reappropriation of the ‘holy’ in Normandie — I admit I have hunched my way to this conclusion more than anything else, still such an effect matters in the shifts of history (as a take on McLuhan’s hot/cold dichotomy). I have mentioned this many times before, including of the reappropriation of abandoned or decrepit castles in the Mediterranean by Normans in the 1000s AD (see my The Geeks, here at Medium.com). Notably this idea was used in relation to my rather ployish idea of SUPERMODERNITY to describe sudden shifts inside a culture of what must seem superhuman qualities (in comparison to the supposed backwardness of that culture, e.g the vikings/Normans, other examples can be made).” (end of quote)
Once again from its lodgings in my story numeral 26 of Oh that it should come to this (here at Medium.com).
“This has everything to do with monoliths/neolithic remnants or holy landscapes. This discussion also has two different parts, the idea that psychotypes appear in history is one, the other is how sacred spaces were reused. Lilla Uppåkra was the first Lund it lies 1 kilometre south of modern day Lund which during the Middle Ages certainly was the centre of the Danish kingdom. The shift of location to Lund was ALSO the very sudden relocation from one site to another, but to suppose that this site was virgin land is preposterous it was more than likely a ceremonial landscape of huge proportions. Not only is this a likely truth there is in association with the Cathedral at Lund a story which must be seen as telltale of a neolithic past. There is a story that a Giant called Finn threw the rocks or carried them to help build the new cathedral he is even depicted inside the crypt which dates to the 1100s or slightly older. To sum up this incredible idea, that history jumps forward inside a context of ‘destroying’ the previous religious structures (is this a larger theme in all European history?) seems to fit snugly into this postulation of mine. I am NOT saying I went there first it’s just that this whole theory of mine is different from others who imagine a much more incremental step by slow step process — as we have seen with Pompey (hallowed be his name) symbolic collapse seems key to similar events of the Roman period (Pompey defiling Delphi/ appropriating it). As far as Viking society informed by an almost Spartan logic, there is more than enough evidence to support the deliberate breeding of a race of warriors. Trelleborg which is a town in southern Sweden even carries the name of a castle from wood (tree plus borgir, at its base meaning perhaps ‘defence’ or ‘protective enclosure’), but other borgs are known, two or three in Denmark and at least two in Souther Sweden (Borgeby — lit. the village of the borg or enclosure, and Trelleborg as mentioned). If one of these was to be found at Lund we may have a more clear case of this, still the whole area of Denmark is concentrated any way and quite small. See also Niel Price on the issue of life inside these enclosures and other matters concerning Norse religion (cf. Niel Price, several titles). At least for some part of society a warrior elite of ‘vikings’ was created perhaps not unrelated to a sort of tyrannical reform of semi-spartan substance.” (end of quote)
As this reuse is considered another anomaly may be considered as well.
I aim to say things about history, but in music history my ideas, or even in the study of literatures, my notion of morphology is trite. The idea of morphology bewilders, but the unasuming is sometimes very difficult to see, one example might be how literature and for that matter art as Hegel interpret these are subject to mysterious shifts and twists of style over the hundreds of yrs. This will perhaps (the reader must decide) to music as well. We must consider here complex morphologies, or cacaphony if one can imagine such a thing. Gospel was created out of intellectulism in the production of music (Dorsey), and the old tradition(s) going back to the chain gang (cf. Black Betty) and even further into spiritual hope in singing and song. One might even suggest how the piano is largely ‘to blame’ for the creation of gospel. I have destroyed the notion that periods are easy, for is not the time of Shakespeare a time of transition (SYMBOLIC COLLAPSE) in all manner of ways. But going back to gospel its changes leads to Jazz to Blues and onwards to Elvis. But much like the late Middle Ages looks back in agony to the past and recreates it (gin sling principle) as in a last gasp, is it NOT (my good reader) something of a similie of what we see in Elvis Presley who looks back to gospel (as if he tries to prevent time from escaping our grasp). This illustrate the next level of morphology which dallies in mixed forms and resucitations of older forms. For as a cetainty cybernetics is at bottom morphology and as surely as I am a cyberneticist I will dally in a manner simply the same as morphology, still what cyber adds is an attempt at understanding thinking. Hence its view of the world is of this kind (reader(z) beware!), and its theories are attempts at constructing notions based upon changes in the turns and twists of a MIND which it proclaims is of this sort (a half-truth at best, yet an attempt at introspection). The story of the Baltic littoral is a melange of cultures, still historians wish for it to contain ‘clean’ categories, and even if my theories are half-true, this ‘morphology’ of the Baltic is itself unsafe and wobbly and a certain set or unclean categories (Poles and Danes being one, Finns and Swedes another). The domination of Germanic speaking peoples along the south littoral of the Baltic (excluding Denmark) was predominantly slavonic if this had been different in the past we can never find out (it changes in the 13th century). How we interpret history is questioned by this.
The notions we share over culture are accepted ideas, the Gospels were part, as we noted of a mixing of various ideas (hollowing out of Abrahamic Law to others) — but let’s make it simple; rhetoric is the ‘first’ fiction, that is to say faith (as such we may imagine it but it was a new concept) was conveyed by factualness mixed with moral tale and convincing rhetoric (eulogies). To compare it simply to the printed book does NOT survive the criticism, which explains why writers of this era relied on ‘honest’ recopying or reading, in sum we may think of a mix of science fiction soap opera and philosophical tract, mixed in with some honest references to mythologies and astrologies known to knowledgeable people at the time — we must see how Lucian gives us keys to start our notion that this was an era of experiments and flux.
The gin-sling principle is the end of a cycle often returns to older themes, which we see in how Joseph Tainter (cleverly) separates society from civilisation (cf. Tainter, The collapse of complex societies). At bottom I am saying these ‘biblical’ or hellenic writings point to something, we are wrong if we think they are a business as usual literature, their start or impetus has some kind of origin, the boring origin is the demise of order and structure in society (contradictory since the Roman Imperial grasp seems to us rather waxing) in a reaction to circumstances we must try to suss out those circumstances says I. See you in our next!
Get Jesper Andersson’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Don’t read this (etymology of Englisc)
The ‘morphologies’ of English must appropriate words as an information network, new theories in linguistics point to how deep syntactic structures are shared in Norwegian and (not Anglosaxon) English of today. At the mere surface level some key words (till, are, they/their/them etc) point to this idea of how Norwegian is a super-key to Engliscan sprakan, but they have been known for ages many languages ‘loan’ words and that’s the end of that. Still what prepositions and personal pronouns scream is something deeper going on, namely that a mechanic went down into the tool shed and started rigging some extra somethings and some trappings to go on the main engine. This has gone unnoticed for ages, another way to look at this is intuition, for to me the words TUFF (tough), GAIN (gagn) or LOAN (although less surprising, cf. lån) would never be thought of as Nordic in origin, they however attestedly are (as we saw so is ARE, in Norwegian er, Swedish är, to be/do — attesting to the real reason some funny guy made up the following (Vonnegut); Socrates to be is to do, J-P Sartre to do is to be, F. Sinatra do be do be do). On a more serious note a list reveals the numbers of weird connections GAIN (gagn-a, i.e an advantage/advance move), TOUGH (toff, adj.), LOOSE (loss-ae, lös etc), HUG (>? haugr), COSY (gose, gyse, jaese, i.e this latter ‘to ferment’), AWE (akta, aktning, I believe the complete muddle here is attested in what I call unicorn words, and how awning /balcony cover is one of these, i.e one of my theories associated with my white whale theory of sociology/epistemology; awning is Irish/Occitan/Saxon and Norse!!!). Award and aware tell a similar ‘story’ of the etymology(i.e history/morphology) of the adjective AWE. The study of etymology is about to topple and explode I imagine!!! I think finally we can see how the confusions over loose - lose came about!!!(!). These many things older lingusits, inclusive of O. Jespersen (1930s), have hardly gone by unnoticed.
My cybernetic mind can see the unlimited connections as revealed by the strobe-light of two cultures crashing or melding, we should realise it takes two to tango and custom (i.e SITTEN, ways or modes of culture) was exchanged as well as attested by the word ‘hug’ (you figure it out). A clue is many of these words have another meaning in Nordic languages. I can only think of how varaieties of Tulips or dogs or horses acquire or lose traits when mixed. Morphology is the science of the future and will bring us back to basics.
The interminglings of cultures often leads to confusions (aka symbolic collapse). My thinking goes like so; JÄSA means to ferment as in yeast, cosy in English was acquired by/from the vikings. We must ask how (in the name of) can to ferment (beer presumably) can have any relation to cosy — I think you know (or ken, from Nordic kenn-a/känna) how so!!! The word to this day of a thriller is ‘gyser’ in Danish/Norwegian, still the child ‘gos-er’ that is pushes around in the bed, the couple in love sitting close will ‘gose’ as well. The word ‘hug’ (in English) is mysterious, and may be related to ‘hygge’ (i.e to sit together). What if we are just like another tribe, the denotation/connotation distinction is in some senses being threatened here…
Some of the ‘genious/genius’ of scotts and Scottish intellectuals has a direct link to handeling of language, the ‘deconstruction’ of morphemes is evidenced by Cat Stevens — his activities are not a far cry from how Anglosaxons and Vikings muddled their respective languages (in a creative cacaphony), a person fluent in Scottish/Irish/Welsh is able in some sense to perform the disassemble/reassemble process of Engliscan sprakan and its marriage to Donskr tonga (i.e English/Danish interbreeding(s)).
The claim here is two-fold (or three-fold); 1) changes in semantic meaning are too large to allow for a translation, 2) the ‘thick description’ of cultural interaction may point to a relatio to feel good and alcohol, as in we get together and throw a wild one how else do we explain k (COSY) < gose/kose ?, I think this translates, but how about HUG? is there an origin? No there is NOT! My thinking goes words are ‘created’ differently from what we think, ‘unicorns’ such as ASTYS (city-dwelling i.e ‘superior to’ in Attic Greek) point to AWE as well, but more than likely a ‘mogrel’ or pidgin language (now lost) was developed. Astute has origins in Latin and/ OR Greek (experts cannot tell, they point to be skilled in old French, not unrelated to tetu, astucieux (from testa, i.e head in Latin???), but AWE asd applied to AWNING may prove another unicorn and other will be found I have foretold, once again aspect in mathematics relates to all of this in considerable ways (A many languages do not separate verbs from adjectives from nouns, B loan-words are retrofitted onto a corpus of known language ‘morphology’ or at times (often enough) a dialect in touch with the foreign element and enters the language in mysterious, i.e happenstance ways) — the notion that Frankish itself was mongrel come easily into play in this transitional phase of English and/ OR French… The 3) is a COMPLEX origin(s) of language, and at a minimum one that takes social interactions into account as well as linguistic foibles.
Oh, and check out my other stuff here at Medium.com
TO BE CONTD.
Spanxxx for reading!
