We are not so unlike the bedtime playing children of Fellini’s 8.5 and their bed-time game of Asa Nisi Masa – creating their Animas –Jungian symbols. Their thin legs playing, casting shadows on the wall as they play in bed, and like us, they are coy, bashful, too human, simple games, all innocence, still packed with meaning and non-meaning – at least, not any Freudian meaning. Jung knew what he was talking about.
To form dialect, it begins or can begin with the ordinary stuff of everyday. For example: simple gifts may be exchanged between the two (generally small gifts, not grand romantic gestures), and with each gift, a pleasantry is exchanged. This may take the form of a quick smile, a laugh, a hug, a kiss to the cheek, a gleam in the eye, a look that is passed or a gaze that is held a moment too long (oh, how we catch on the hooks of each other’s eyes). It is how we say ‘thank you’ and if we do so in a manner that is inviting – coy or with a come-hither pout or gleam in the eye, then this only increases the odds of upping the ante of tokens exchanged and an expanding vocabulary.
The person giving the gift notes that it is well-received and because the response may even bring color to the other person’s cheeks and see that they have made the other happy (in fact, the recipient may even state quite literally, and truthfully, “you have made my day”), which true, even a simple friend might say, but there is a notable in tone. It may be subtle but you know it when you hear it.
The giver must now continue giving the same gift to reinforce this meaning (which means this moment, which will burned somehow into the consciousness of the two) and becomes part of their vocabulary and also, it is now up to both parties to expand on that vocabulary by a constant exchange of small tokens that are quickly and almost immediately understood and somehow referenced. It may be as simple as a packet of sugar or a business card from a restaurant from where the two had once had tea a few weeks prior (thus giving the gift proving that the other did not forget the date and has been thinking of it).
If the giver keeps giving the same exact gift and the recipient responds not by being puzzled that he or she is getting the same gift, but understanding that there is more at work here than a simple jar of say, jam, that this jar of jam then means that the giver has paid enough attention to the recipient’s reaction (hence, a compliment), they are flattered (that first) and second, they realize that they are forming a sort of code. That jam doesn’t mean just jam – that “jam” means something else. It may mean “I remember that day…” Or it may mean, “I like the way you smile…” or it make be evocative of a specific memory. With each giving of the gift, this meaning is slowly cemented each time the gift is given.
This is a slow process, but over time, the gift slowly comes to mean something. If the gift remains the same thing each time, as is necessary for the equation to work, with each giving of the gift, it the significance of the gift is built for it comes to be associated with the giver more and more and with a memory. With each giving, it becomes an association with the giver.
In a sense, the smaller and more common the gift the better. Let’s say for arguments sake, the gift is as small as a length of a hair ribbon or small jar of jam easily found at any market. Each time then the recipient passes a jar of quince jam in a shop or gourmet shop window, it reminds the recipient of the giver who gave the jam and has positive connotations attached and therefore, is no ordinary jar of jam or ordinary flowered hair ribbon, but becomes an association and memory and affirmation of that person. In a sense then, this jogs the memory of time spent with that other and brings the happy memory front and center. A sort of memory hologram. You were always on my mind, right?
The more times you see a jar of quince jam, the more times you see a grosgrain hair ribbon, the more the person is indelibly etched in your subconscious. You may find yourself thinking of them more, without even realizing why. Further, if you already like the person, you are predisposed to think of them even more and may even find yourself buying jars of the same jam and eating it more often than before in an effort to bridge the gap between you and the other - to feel closer.
You may also keep lengths of ribbon (specifically, ribbon that you know she wore in her hair that she then, as she said, hastily tied your gift with, as bookmarks or simply tucked away in some private place such as a drawer at work. You may, or almost certainly will, find yourself giving tokens of your own which too will be codified gestures and a way of sharing of yourself. One thing that is a certainty however, and this is how you know you are forming a dialect and code is that you keep these symbols to yourself.
You do not take the ribbon home. You do not take the jar of jam or the silver spoon with which perhaps you shared. No, you do not take such goods home. More, you never take the cards or letters anywhere where they may be read by someone other than you. Instead, you bundle them up and squirrel away in a secure place in a drawer. Others: small things – let’s say, for example, a silly thing – let me think – a cork from a bottle of wine let’s say, you do not take this home. You keep it on your desk even though it is just a wine cork, you have ascribed a certain value it and it may be in plain sight, but since nobody but you can sort out that it would mean anything, this is safe to keep out in the open.
The same would be true of any small token then. Let us say that you are given a token and then the person ups the ante and gives you a gift that they have never given or shared with anyone else. A childhood memory gift perhaps and one that they have, perhaps, even told you has significance to them, or you can guess as much.
For argument’s sake, let’s use the fact that this particular gift (in this case, let’s use and example from my own childhood), for example, my collection of marbles (which I do collect, and have done since I was a child – and I love marbles, for I have long been told my green eyes are like marbles, which I have always taken as a great compliment.)
Now, let us say that I have never before given anyone else one of my marbles (I may have lost them in a childhood game, but that’s different.) So – I give someone one of my marbles and, to seal the deal, I decide to give the recipient one of my green marbles, a reflection of my “green, marbled eye,” in doing so, I am thereby giving a piece and/or sharing a piece of myself.
So imagine then if you have too – the recipient then – has a rare eye color or a quality in your eye – let us say for arguments sake that your left eye, and only your left eye is a lemon-lime green like a marble with a sunburst, exactly the color of honey around the black iris and that throughout the green of the iris, there are exactly seven black pin pricks or flecks of black as if drawn by the point of a felt tip, then this is specific to my own eye we have this in common.
One day, as you are looking at the other person’s eyes and they are, remarkably, unbelievably, like your own; what are the odds, you think. You note that their left eye, and only their left eye – is lemon-lime green, like a marble with a sunburst, exactly the color of honey around the black iris and that throughout the green of the iris, there are exactly seven black pin pricks or flecks of black as if drawn by the point of a felt tip.
Not only do both parties notice this strange coincidence, but both acknowledge it openly and verbally, which is that they speak it and say “wow, your eyes are exactly like mine!”, which is a way of saying, or in the modern world, perhaps, “pinging”, to say, “Are you there? I am here?” Asa Nisi Masa… Are you noticing me the way I am noticing you? and more, What are you noticing and how? This is a test of sorts. To test then, let’s say for arguments sake that one party decides to give the other a bag of green marbles – fine cut glass with swirls of delicate green.
I choose just green because I tell you (hence sharing a story) that my whole life “everyone has told me that my life are green and marbled,” so I am sharing my past with you by telling you, and since you have exactly the same eyes, I am telling you too, that your eyes are then, in my view, are green and marbled. To that end then, I buy you a bag of green marbles of the finest quality – each marble hand-picked (not the cheap kind found at toy-stores, but the good kind that must be special ordered) and I make sure you receive them by either 1: Giving them to you by hand-delivery in person, or 2: Sending them through the post, but in a rather desperate way, that is, sending them via express post so that they arrive second-day air or overnight.
It then obviously means something to both (or one of us) that one or the other of us makes a gift of these marbles. I am not only sharing my past, I am asking if you acknowledge this one piece of me that others have found beautiful and also, I am saying that I find this part of you beautiful.
By accepting the gift (in this case, marbles, though note, the gift could be anything that relates back to the personal of the person giving the gift), you are saying ainsi-dire a tacit or implied Yes. That you accept that yes, our eyes are the same; that yes, this means something to you too. In short, what you are saying is that you believe that this is more than mere coincidence (hence, unlike coincidence which is just chance and has no real meaning, these facts have some meaning). Hence, these facts (these things that make we two alike – our eyes, our height, our shared or common ground, or likes – our dislikes, our shared philosophies, our shared taste, and so on (which may or may not be spoken but are taken as understood), all of these things combined make us relatable. In other words, we have found recognition in another that we have not found (or have not found in a long time, in some other.)
Even better, if this occurs and we are not looking for this to happen, the chance or odds of this happening (what are the odds? Slim to none, really), then they give the recognition all the more meaning because it highlights and underlines a meeting of certain fact and mind in such an alike way that the recognition and sameness is uncanny. There is between the two then, a confluence of event and circumstance that compels and draws the two together without the two even ever have tried– it is a force beyond them, out of their control in this way, and in this way, it is bigger than both.
To take this one step further, there is, and this is a philosophical matter and one that concerns virtue. The two have formed a dialect, a language that is found but not sought and thus it retains and remains innocent. Neither really made any attempt to form the language; in all likelihood, it was a slow process of sharing. So then both parties are truly innocent in this deal in that neither had any intent, and even once the dialect or code is formed, they may still have no intent or if they do, neither may be aware of what that intent actually is. Neither sought out the other, yet both were or are drawn in such a way that was almost beyond their control by a series of things that are uncanny.
Of course, the two will continue exchanging small gifts and their vocabulary will then expand. In short then, we have established a vocabulary, commonalities (discovered the physical aspects we have in common – and no need to list them here because we will find others and will keep and take note of them all and see how well we fit together and how unwell then others do not feet, which becomes only a frustration, because then there becomes the If and Only equation and the But…).
They wouldn’t be entirely wrong in thinking or saying this. Much of what I have pointed out, especially the physical things, though many of the similarities may indeed be rare (in some cases, very, rare indeed – almost spookily so), perhaps much of what we have said can indeed be explained by coincidence (let us say, the fact that you both have the same eyes with 7 black dots in the left eye for example, or perhaps you both have a smattering of freckles but only in one place, or that you have similar hands, and the like – these physical things can easily be explained away.).
But the dialect you have formed, the language you have forged is and this was no accident. The two who formed the dialect have to ask themselves why is it that they formed the dialogue in the first place if it really meant nothing at all or if they “just did this with everyone.” Of course, it is a false statement and ludicrous to erase a slow building of language as, “I just do this casually.” No dialect or codified language is formed casually. There is no double-entendre entre-two, a pas de deux, formed by accident.
The slow and subtle exchange of small gifts and acceptance of such as explained earlier and the acceptance each step of the way is deliberate and slow and an affirmation. It is an intense process and one that is singular in that it is shared only by two to the exclusion of others; in this way it is entirely secretive (this is not pejorative – why must we judge a secret as “bad”? , and that is precisely the point. A dialect, a codified language, is intended to keep others out such that we may such that the two may have something between themselves entirely all their own. What they want, if we are to be entirely honest, is each for the other. They do not wish to share the other with anyone else – not in this particular way anyway. They may share – yes, but not in this way. This is all part of the deal. I accept that I must share you, for that is part of the deal – you are not wholly mine - but I accept that I can have you at certain times and that you are mine during those times. The trick is for the two parties then to define how it is they wish to be together – all of this dialect leads to a certain point and puts them down a back, country road lined with raspberry bushes and hidden privet hedges, but where is it going? Is it important to now that right now? Maybe the important thing then is to simply allow it to just be simply because you have no way of truly knowing where it is going. How could you? There is a second party involved.
The trouble only occurs when you do not believe that are allowed to have a thing all to yourself. You feel that you must share every part of your life with everyone in it. The need to confess and speak every little detail of your day or every thought in your mind – to emote, to mentally ejaculate – to verbally tell your other partner (not the partner we speak of her) all of the details that have, until now, remained secret. Of course, you usually do not tell all; but you tell just enough to put the kibosh on the relationship as a way of putting the breaks on it because perhaps you do not trust yourself. Perhaps you are afraid. Ultimately, it is ultimately to yourself that are answerable – and if guilt becomes part of this equation for you, then you need to question why that is. If your dialect makes you feel guilty, then why is that (is there a thought process behind the dialect, and if so, why feel guilty about thought?)
More, what is your responsibility to the other party with whom you speak your private litany? Have you not now formed a connection with that person too? Do they not deserve some answer, or do you leave them in a situation sans issue – without end, without closure, because you are too afraid and unaccountable to give any real answers. That is simply cruel.
Don’t misunderstand; I am not arguing that one gives up virtue here. I am simply saying that forming a private language and keeping it private is not a betrayal and why it should be seen as such or the need to confess or why the American’s need to confess is so absolute in its absoluteness. The answer I will undoubtedly get is that “Well, I am American,” or, “We are in America.” That said, you are still an individual and should or ought act as such. Simply lumping yourself in a population is not an answer. It is an excuse and one that does not wash.
You have ran away, departed like a coward, left the other party with a whole language and code, not unlike the language of clicks, the other then speaking in a code of clicks, tongue to palate, muette – tongue-tied - to which nobody else has the cipher. The only purpose this has served is to drive the other person into seclusion. Worse, the other will not so easily drop their guard (since likely they have not dropped their guard before, for one hardly establishes a dialect with just anyone or at all in one’s lifetime), so they are left with nothing but silence – sous – hiding beneath the self, red-faced from the hard-slap you just dealt whether you see it or not.
What the jam means, the marbles, the other things mean may be lost on others.
Sometimes, perhaps, you and the other do not speak at all. Or if you do, you choose your words carefully or you find yourself ‘muette’ – that is to say, tongue-tied because you are shy, especially around this person because by now your relationship has transcended what you thought only you are not quite sure how to define it, or if it needs defining at all, and even if it did, how would you define it? So you are muette.
Haletement. Gasp. We do overcomplicate even the simplest of things in life. Two share a common language, go out of their way to form and establish a code – a code that both have gone out of their way to keep private (they keep secret), yet this last step, this they fear as if in doing so they have not already established contact. The one person cannot take that petit-saut – that little skip to get close. She or he may be, or both may be, bashful and shy, yet coy and yielding at once, yet not yielding enough. Not yielding enough or forward enough to take that first step forward. Rejection is the watchword of the day.
Contact is important. Each code may vary, but in most, there are lots of ellipses. For example, a letter may read:
Sent: “I thought I understood about the … did I? I think I did, but then…”
Response: “Absolutely. Resolutely. Yes. You understood about the…. oui… we…, that is to say, I mean… we!
In this way then, the senders fear has been struck down, the sender can now rest easy in his or her reassurance, their lover (for they have become a kind of lover by this point, albeit in code) has reassured them. They certainly speak as lovers – and anyone seeing them together would perhaps think them lovers. They speak in code like lovers, or else, why the need for code in the first place? This is the central question – code is a way of removing the two of you from the rest of the group and this is important to note. You only remove yourself from the group if you do not wish them to run interference. You do this if you want something for you and the other and the two of you. Only you.
You want, in short, something doux – sweet – honeyed – comme miel. This is not not virtuous. It is purely innocent. Do not sully it with the details and the definitions of the masses. Would you trust the masses to make other decisions for you? No, I doubt very much you would. So why then do you allow them to gauge this? Think of Ortega y Gassett and his book The Revolt of the Masses and you’ll get my point. The deal of the relationship is that it only works if it is outside of the world and provides some safe refuge. It is, by contract then, not intended to be shared. By it’s very nature, it is solely between two, tacit, sous-silence, and understood – a word, sous silence, I never thought I would share, but there you have it.
What we see are the details – hands, we hold on tight. We squeeze for reassurance. We run across the street through a deluge, but whatever the couple does, they do as a couple. It may all be tacit – it may be unspoken – and if it is spoken perhaps then that ruins the whole thing or perhaps it needs to be spoken only once and only once in order to clarify to make sure that both of you are on the same page and not going completely crazy. I would actually say that the latter part of that sentence makes the most sense. That the two involved parties must, at some point, either verbally in some other manner, make it clear that their friendship has transcended what is ‘ordinary.’
So your dialect is there. You may or may not speak it. You can turn it on or off. It is as they say, if you want that is, une situation sans issue, but dialect, a codified and privileged relationship is not one to be taken lightly or to simply toss to the side – not unless you intend to hurt – and if you decide suddenly and abruptly to cut it off, then don’t tell me you didn’t intend to hurt because that would be to deny the obvious fact of adulthood, to shirk responsibility as a child and this is both weak and cowardly. Of course your sudden and inexplicable about face is going to hurt the one other person who understands this strange language and where do they turn? Who would understand? Don’t tell me you can’t understand the hurt there. It doesn’t even ring true to you - would it?
You leave the only other person who understands the dialect then speechless – maybe they gasp – haletement – gosh – or sigh – a word stemming from the Scottish word Blate that is almost untranslatable. How does one translate pain. A sigh is almost, but not quite, inaudible. We read that words hurt, but silence break the heart. To stop speaking that language then is to keep a forever silence. To take an axe to the glass and pull the emergency lever because of some irrational fear and of what, you do not quite know. You may have done it because you just got ‘spooked.’ Or maybe even you don’t know why. Or maybe you just don’t care. Regardless, in pulling that level, you leave your once loved partner surrounded by no more than screaming silence that is full of words that nobody but you could understand.
How to speak those words then? Who but the other could understand? Your pain then is lost in translation. You are more isolated than ever before.
We expect to get down on our knees and pray, to confess and be absolved because in our minds we have sinned. But what if we have not sinned? How is it then that we have sinned? We say a private litany of clicks and clucks as we put our tongue to our palate yet still we find ourselves tongue-tied – muette. A shared dialect is not a sin despite the fact that it remains strictly between two, there is no compulsory need to confess before all and serve your penance. I can tell you, we find absolution in the strangest of places.. don’t we?
At the end of the day, all we ever needed to say, all we need to hear at some point becomes unspeakable – it is held within a kiss – un baiser.
We’re too grown-up now for bisous. We’re older than that now.
thanks for reading;
home - click here.
