To everyone who has posted above, the honor is all mine just to be part of a conversation on this that might have some enjoyable and mind-stretching wings for us all....
Hidden in plain sight... mental stretching... new avenues of thinking ... consciously making time to contemplate... exercise in 'Will' power.... lost knowledge...
You've all said it! There's something very deep about the quiet invitation Shake-speare offers us to use our wills so as to contemplate, hold, weigh, stretch, etc, the multiplicity of intertwined ideas/thought forms/strands, he tantalizingly shares so freely... I can only say from my experience that the regular act of doing this, despite the understandable feeling of ineptitude and the daunting gap between oneself and his offering, that regular practice can and 'will' reap the most amazing rewards as the muscles start to strengthen and respond back to you. I mean when I started out on this path all those years ago I was completely dumb and I had no idea what it was I was doing - and that hasn't changed much in between I assure you! - but I do now know there is a road map, there are a myriad jewels waiting to be uncovered, hidden in plain sight! And they offer nothing but delight and nourishment for the hungry soul (with some frustration and head banging along the way!)
I think Mike has said something important with relation to thought forms being all that exist:
Words are obviously thought forms and I wonder if gravity plays some hidden role in forming/binding them into what we call words...? In that, if we take the C's on face value, it would not be awry to say that gravity is thought form in action... the greatest of binders.
If you think about a word, it's basically a formed package around an energy/information construct... boundary making around an otherwise free wave form that takes up some kind of particle nature by its linguistic definition.
When I've worked with actors on trying to access the fullest possible content of a packaged word, we would sometimes practically/physically play at deconstructing - reverse engineering - a single word to discover the energy and energetic meaning held tight inside the confines of that particular form. One simple way of thinking, for example, would be that vowels represent - or rather contain - the pent up essence of being, of the essential energy of the feeling/emotion around something. Vowels are round, and/or long, and free formed, and in some way endless. They are at the very heart of the energy of knowledge of being; they fundamentally reside in the body and are grounded in the lived essence of being alive. They are then held in check, or shaped, or directed, (or even limited) by the consonants. In English (as well as many classically based languages), consonants are the sound tool of the intellect, the thinking mind's chisel, the 'yes, but'.... they are more rational, more dogmatic more 'scientific'. They carve the free wheeling wave into defined shapes and bind them fast into word units.
Inside the set boundaries of every word there's some kind of a struggle, or tussle going on to find a balance between comprehension and apprehension. Together - vowels and consonants - prompt an eternal wrestle for balance even as though each seeks dominance over the other. This lived struggle in the hands of 'Shake-speare' is a primal tool by which to hold these seemingly opposite points of view in a perpetual dance of reorientation so as to seek out a third possible way - harmony between the fixed and the free. Squaring the circle.
Seeking balance between the fixed and the free; between tight things and loose things.
And through balancing, a third way mysteriously emerges...
This is absolutely at the core of where 'Shake-speare' starts and finishes. If there was just one thing on this subject that I could share and suggest you never lose sight of as being pivotal to all else, then it would be this one.
And we know this because his entire philosophy is based on a practical experiment using a meter construct based inherently and entirely on this precept.
Remember anyone that horrifying phrase from your school days - Iambic pentameter?
That was a great find jupiterbeings, thank you. When you realize that we are dealing with knowledge embedded in something as old as Sanskrit, then we're truly in ancient territory.
A quick crash course that I hope will maybe help and shed some of the shivers around this.
All meaningful poetry, especially that classically derived, works on the basis of a meter rhythm. There are many forms, but it is generally accepted that they probably originated in forms of ritual chanting or marching that held large groups together, creating a semi-meditational state that helped say an army march as one across vast distances. Bring to mind all those US war films of grunts being trained on the parade ground!
As jupiterbeings article talks about, this is normally in some form of exchange between the number of beats (steps) and the contrast between a firm note and a soft note.
When I used to teach acting for 'Shake-speare', the issue of Iambic pentameter was always the very first step. I would get all the actors to jump up and down on the spot like grunts until the pulse/breath was going good and strong and then get them to stop, stand still, close their eyes and put their hand on their heart... and silently feel the beat... (try it at home - its strangely instructive!)
de-DUM, de-DUM, de-DUM, de-DUM, de-DUM....
Its that simple.
The essential rhythm/beat/measure of a unit of a line of 'Shake-speare's' verse is our living heart beat. The beating heart of mankind. The beating heart that goes on every second of your life. It never leaves you until its done.
The body gently takes in blood ('de') and then generates a great pulse (-) before cascading it off with a great force around the body ('DUM') .
de-DUM, de-DUM, de-DUM, de-DUM, de-DUM....etc
An 'iamb' (notice the I Am) is simply one 'de-DUM' - the measure of the beat - a full heartbeat with 2 parts to it (drawing in/pushing off out). Its energy in perpetual lived action. A soft beat followed by a hard beat.
And a 'pent(10)-ameter' is the lenth of the line (meter) = 5 full heart beats made up of 10 unchanging component parts.
de-DUM, de-DUM, de-DUM, de-DUM, de-DUM = a line of Iambic pentameter.
Why 10 beats and not say 8 or 12? Because it seems to be the closest to the duration of a reasonably normal full exhale of breath before the muscles send back a message to take in another breath. And also 10 is harmony; number of toes, number of fingers - its a body natural figure.
There is no intellectual mystery to these biological basic facts. Its not academic. Its our underlying life force!
If they just taught this in schools 90% of the terror would vanish in an instance. An Iambic pentameter is your natural body's language, its naturally given rhythm of life.
The real mystery of 'Shake-speare' is that he takes this fixed point of reference and then repeatedly breaks it's rules. This is absolutely key.
Why?
If all we lived was de-dum, de-dum, de-dum etc we would soon disappear into a bland, sleeping-waking state of rigid conformity. The fixed on its own teaches us nothing. The universe simply doesn't work like that. Sure it has maths but it also has chaos! Everything is contrast. Everything is binary. Everything is either/or. Everything is antitheses.
This is the second vital, if deadening, technical word relating to 'Shake-speare's' greatness. No other artist/thinker has so deliberately sought out every possible opportunity to set one thing up against another. That's what that word means - antithesis = one idea/thought in direct opposition to another.
e.g.
'Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this son of York'
Richard III
The above is a very simple example of an antithesis of ideas and there are thousands upon thousands to be found in his work - but it also functions just as importantly in the underlying nature of the form, the meter itself - for the very same reason. Because if the rhythm were constant there would be a deadening certainty to it all and we would all soon nod off. de-dum-de-dum-de-dum-de-dum for eternity! So he uses antitheses of form to keep you constantly on your toes, constantly alert to an ever changing mood, or energy, or thought process that is permanently wrestling with beingboth fixed and free so as to try to resolve this reality (as well as dramatically realize in action that we humans are in a permanent state of change, flux, contradiction, emotion, etc which he manifests in the rhythm itself).
Taking a few lines at the start of Sonnet 126 as an example:
Do you see how the most informationally full word elements are set to the DUM beat?
Thou... love... boy... in... pow!
They're the powder keg of the energy of the line. You can still sense the key meaning here even though they're stripped somewhat bare. If you say them out loud you'll feel that and I would kind of still understand your essential meaning.
O... my ... ly ... who ... thy
Is the supporting energy - not unimportant but not the heart or meat of the matter.
But is the line an Iambic pentameter? Top marks for those who said no, not quite!
Because although the beat is regular (de-dum ) all the way, there is a rogue 11th beat hanging out over the end - the 'er' from power - making an 11th beat.
So straight up, from our very first line, all is not totally ordered or fixed.
This 11th beat is called a 'feminine ending' by academics (don't blame me!!!)
It weakens the landing place of a normal Iambic pentameter line which should land firmly on a strong 10th beat before launching off to a new line with confidence.
Why does he do this here?
Perhaps it has something to do with the inherent, hidden contradiction of the word power... that the word contains the lack of something as well as the reaching for something... and by placing it at the end of the line, he's amplifying this 'mystery'... he's saying the lovely boy has and doesn't have power... and on with the game...
The most famous line ion all 'Shake-speare' plays the same trick:
He makes the very act of trying to explore through question 'A' vs question 'B', being and non being, something fraught with discovered ambiguity - and its discovered in the very second of saying it - ON THE LINE - IN THE LINE - AT THE VERY MOMENT OF SELF-DISCOVERY - in the very last beat... and as the 'ion' falls weakly away from the 'quest', the character of hamlet (and the listener) should be left with the vibration of discovered uncertainty in his body and in his mind... that the quest itself is not safe!!!
Thats why one of teh greatest actors in this idium, Laurence Olivier, said to actors:
'you have to find the truth through the verse'
Not before it or after it, or above it, or below it - but inside it... going through it as if freshly coined and lived in the moment of discovery.
In the middle of the Hamlet line, perhaps notice the way the heavier DUM emphasis lands on the 'is' rather than on the 'that' which one might otherwise think. This is a direct directorial instruction from him to the actor - he's saying the word 'is' is a better place for you to land, to point up, because in this very second you realize that the quest for what 'is' is what you are actually struggling with right now...
Yes you could argue that it's actually a Dum-de rhythm, that it's really a 'that is' as a stress pattern, which might also point up the idea. But in truth you have to assume that the de-DUM rule is the fixed norm unless you can clearly see by the word itself that the energy is definitely reversed... and the words 'that' and 'is' are too small a power surge to argue that he would change the beat for them... and his choice I think is more lived, less academic and already under the character's self-control... and that's not Hamlet!
All in all, utter, subtle genius...
This could go on and on into millions of directions and examples... but I've already made this a monster and probably fried a few brain cells on the way... but I can't tell you the incredible, nuanced, powerful discoveries you uncover when you start to make this part of your thinking when approaching his work... its jaw dropping in its implications... every word and every choice of word against word is meticulously placed, 'scientifically' designed, in a great linguistic experiment of lived experience...
I'll sign off this with the next few lines of Sonnet 126 as an example - see if you can spot the implications of the iambic rhythm and when he chooses to deliberately breaks it to create counter note...
Metaphorically speaking, I suffered a mental "cramp", because the thinking muscle is not "stretched" enough and this thread is the opportunity to do such an exercise. It is fundamental for the intellect the slightly incomprehensible, because in the process of understanding, the mind gets the energy needed to continue on the path of learning.
much new to think about.
Like so much else in this world knowledge hidden in plain sight. What English Literature in schools would have been like if this was on the syllabus.
But just to say, it's an area that touches a type of intellectual, aesthetic/artistic excitement in me.
And as a sort of bonus, consciously making this time and really reading and contemplating the words, gave me the opportunity to practise a certain kind of exercising will power to stay with the words, the sentences, the contemplations, soaking up what was there, and i thought for me this constituted something like a wonderful meditation.
I wish I had learned this when I was studying Ovid and Shakespeare's works back in school! So much hidden in plain sight. Makes one wonder how much was known about the reality of this world in ancient Times.
Hidden in plain sight... mental stretching... new avenues of thinking ... consciously making time to contemplate... exercise in 'Will' power.... lost knowledge...
You've all said it! There's something very deep about the quiet invitation Shake-speare offers us to use our wills so as to contemplate, hold, weigh, stretch, etc, the multiplicity of intertwined ideas/thought forms/strands, he tantalizingly shares so freely... I can only say from my experience that the regular act of doing this, despite the understandable feeling of ineptitude and the daunting gap between oneself and his offering, that regular practice can and 'will' reap the most amazing rewards as the muscles start to strengthen and respond back to you. I mean when I started out on this path all those years ago I was completely dumb and I had no idea what it was I was doing - and that hasn't changed much in between I assure you! - but I do now know there is a road map, there are a myriad jewels waiting to be uncovered, hidden in plain sight! And they offer nothing but delight and nourishment for the hungry soul (with some frustration and head banging along the way!)
I think Mike has said something important with relation to thought forms being all that exist:
If information and theories on information for the universe forms a key aspect of understanding reality, then questioning and finding answers is an active or activating component of information and fundamental component of reality. Could this active process from 1D thru to 7D be in and of everything as the C’s explain about gravity?
Words are obviously thought forms and I wonder if gravity plays some hidden role in forming/binding them into what we call words...? In that, if we take the C's on face value, it would not be awry to say that gravity is thought form in action... the greatest of binders.
If you think about a word, it's basically a formed package around an energy/information construct... boundary making around an otherwise free wave form that takes up some kind of particle nature by its linguistic definition.
When I've worked with actors on trying to access the fullest possible content of a packaged word, we would sometimes practically/physically play at deconstructing - reverse engineering - a single word to discover the energy and energetic meaning held tight inside the confines of that particular form. One simple way of thinking, for example, would be that vowels represent - or rather contain - the pent up essence of being, of the essential energy of the feeling/emotion around something. Vowels are round, and/or long, and free formed, and in some way endless. They are at the very heart of the energy of knowledge of being; they fundamentally reside in the body and are grounded in the lived essence of being alive. They are then held in check, or shaped, or directed, (or even limited) by the consonants. In English (as well as many classically based languages), consonants are the sound tool of the intellect, the thinking mind's chisel, the 'yes, but'.... they are more rational, more dogmatic more 'scientific'. They carve the free wheeling wave into defined shapes and bind them fast into word units.
Inside the set boundaries of every word there's some kind of a struggle, or tussle going on to find a balance between comprehension and apprehension. Together - vowels and consonants - prompt an eternal wrestle for balance even as though each seeks dominance over the other. This lived struggle in the hands of 'Shake-speare' is a primal tool by which to hold these seemingly opposite points of view in a perpetual dance of reorientation so as to seek out a third possible way - harmony between the fixed and the free. Squaring the circle.
Seeking balance between the fixed and the free; between tight things and loose things.
And through balancing, a third way mysteriously emerges...
This is absolutely at the core of where 'Shake-speare' starts and finishes. If there was just one thing on this subject that I could share and suggest you never lose sight of as being pivotal to all else, then it would be this one.
And we know this because his entire philosophy is based on a practical experiment using a meter construct based inherently and entirely on this precept.
Remember anyone that horrifying phrase from your school days - Iambic pentameter?
Very interesting post Michael. Here's a link that is pertinent I think.
How a poet founded mathematics
Consider the following problem - A musician has to compose an n-beat rhythm. A heavy syllable takes up two consecutive beats, while a light syllable takes up a single beat. How many total rhythms does the musician have to choose from? - HeritageDaily - Archaeology Newswww.heritagedaily.com
That was a great find jupiterbeings, thank you. When you realize that we are dealing with knowledge embedded in something as old as Sanskrit, then we're truly in ancient territory.
A quick crash course that I hope will maybe help and shed some of the shivers around this.
All meaningful poetry, especially that classically derived, works on the basis of a meter rhythm. There are many forms, but it is generally accepted that they probably originated in forms of ritual chanting or marching that held large groups together, creating a semi-meditational state that helped say an army march as one across vast distances. Bring to mind all those US war films of grunts being trained on the parade ground!
As jupiterbeings article talks about, this is normally in some form of exchange between the number of beats (steps) and the contrast between a firm note and a soft note.
When I used to teach acting for 'Shake-speare', the issue of Iambic pentameter was always the very first step. I would get all the actors to jump up and down on the spot like grunts until the pulse/breath was going good and strong and then get them to stop, stand still, close their eyes and put their hand on their heart... and silently feel the beat... (try it at home - its strangely instructive!)
de-DUM, de-DUM, de-DUM, de-DUM, de-DUM....
Its that simple.
The essential rhythm/beat/measure of a unit of a line of 'Shake-speare's' verse is our living heart beat. The beating heart of mankind. The beating heart that goes on every second of your life. It never leaves you until its done.
The body gently takes in blood ('de') and then generates a great pulse (-) before cascading it off with a great force around the body ('DUM') .
de-DUM, de-DUM, de-DUM, de-DUM, de-DUM....etc
An 'iamb' (notice the I Am) is simply one 'de-DUM' - the measure of the beat - a full heartbeat with 2 parts to it (drawing in/pushing off out). Its energy in perpetual lived action. A soft beat followed by a hard beat.
And a 'pent(10)-ameter' is the lenth of the line (meter) = 5 full heart beats made up of 10 unchanging component parts.
de-DUM, de-DUM, de-DUM, de-DUM, de-DUM = a line of Iambic pentameter.
Why 10 beats and not say 8 or 12? Because it seems to be the closest to the duration of a reasonably normal full exhale of breath before the muscles send back a message to take in another breath. And also 10 is harmony; number of toes, number of fingers - its a body natural figure.
There is no intellectual mystery to these biological basic facts. Its not academic. Its our underlying life force!
If they just taught this in schools 90% of the terror would vanish in an instance. An Iambic pentameter is your natural body's language, its naturally given rhythm of life.
The real mystery of 'Shake-speare' is that he takes this fixed point of reference and then repeatedly breaks it's rules. This is absolutely key.
Why?
If all we lived was de-dum, de-dum, de-dum etc we would soon disappear into a bland, sleeping-waking state of rigid conformity. The fixed on its own teaches us nothing. The universe simply doesn't work like that. Sure it has maths but it also has chaos! Everything is contrast. Everything is binary. Everything is either/or. Everything is antitheses.
This is the second vital, if deadening, technical word relating to 'Shake-speare's' greatness. No other artist/thinker has so deliberately sought out every possible opportunity to set one thing up against another. That's what that word means - antithesis = one idea/thought in direct opposition to another.
e.g.
'Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this son of York'
Richard III
The above is a very simple example of an antithesis of ideas and there are thousands upon thousands to be found in his work - but it also functions just as importantly in the underlying nature of the form, the meter itself - for the very same reason. Because if the rhythm were constant there would be a deadening certainty to it all and we would all soon nod off. de-dum-de-dum-de-dum-de-dum for eternity! So he uses antitheses of form to keep you constantly on your toes, constantly alert to an ever changing mood, or energy, or thought process that is permanently wrestling with beingboth fixed and free so as to try to resolve this reality (as well as dramatically realize in action that we humans are in a permanent state of change, flux, contradiction, emotion, etc which he manifests in the rhythm itself).
Taking a few lines at the start of Sonnet 126 as an example:
Do you see how the most informationally full word elements are set to the DUM beat?
Thou... love... boy... in... pow!
They're the powder keg of the energy of the line. You can still sense the key meaning here even though they're stripped somewhat bare. If you say them out loud you'll feel that and I would kind of still understand your essential meaning.
O... my ... ly ... who ... thy
Is the supporting energy - not unimportant but not the heart or meat of the matter.
But is the line an Iambic pentameter? Top marks for those who said no, not quite!
Because although the beat is regular (de-dum ) all the way, there is a rogue 11th beat hanging out over the end - the 'er' from power - making an 11th beat.
So straight up, from our very first line, all is not totally ordered or fixed.
This 11th beat is called a 'feminine ending' by academics (don't blame me!!!)
It weakens the landing place of a normal Iambic pentameter line which should land firmly on a strong 10th beat before launching off to a new line with confidence.
Why does he do this here?
Perhaps it has something to do with the inherent, hidden contradiction of the word power... that the word contains the lack of something as well as the reaching for something... and by placing it at the end of the line, he's amplifying this 'mystery'... he's saying the lovely boy has and doesn't have power... and on with the game...
The most famous line ion all 'Shake-speare' plays the same trick:
He makes the very act of trying to explore through question 'A' vs question 'B', being and non being, something fraught with discovered ambiguity - and its discovered in the very second of saying it - ON THE LINE - IN THE LINE - AT THE VERY MOMENT OF SELF-DISCOVERY - in the very last beat... and as the 'ion' falls weakly away from the 'quest', the character of hamlet (and the listener) should be left with the vibration of discovered uncertainty in his body and in his mind... that the quest itself is not safe!!!
Thats why one of teh greatest actors in this idium, Laurence Olivier, said to actors:
'you have to find the truth through the verse'
Not before it or after it, or above it, or below it - but inside it... going through it as if freshly coined and lived in the moment of discovery.
In the middle of the Hamlet line, perhaps notice the way the heavier DUM emphasis lands on the 'is' rather than on the 'that' which one might otherwise think. This is a direct directorial instruction from him to the actor - he's saying the word 'is' is a better place for you to land, to point up, because in this very second you realize that the quest for what 'is' is what you are actually struggling with right now...
Yes you could argue that it's actually a Dum-de rhythm, that it's really a 'that is' as a stress pattern, which might also point up the idea. But in truth you have to assume that the de-DUM rule is the fixed norm unless you can clearly see by the word itself that the energy is definitely reversed... and the words 'that' and 'is' are too small a power surge to argue that he would change the beat for them... and his choice I think is more lived, less academic and already under the character's self-control... and that's not Hamlet!
All in all, utter, subtle genius...
This could go on and on into millions of directions and examples... but I've already made this a monster and probably fried a few brain cells on the way... but I can't tell you the incredible, nuanced, powerful discoveries you uncover when you start to make this part of your thinking when approaching his work... its jaw dropping in its implications... every word and every choice of word against word is meticulously placed, 'scientifically' designed, in a great linguistic experiment of lived experience...
I'll sign off this with the next few lines of Sonnet 126 as an example - see if you can spot the implications of the iambic rhythm and when he chooses to deliberately breaks it to create counter note...
Attachments
Last edited: