Language

lol, how can I even begin. existence is something we would all love to explain and I none more than others. I can try, but really, when it comes down to it, I don't think I could without some kind of musical accompaniment, which I would gladly use Sigor Ross as my sound track (listening to it right now heh).
When trying to understand how all things fit together, the only way to describe the complexity is to put it to sound. our language fails miserablely. It can only, horribly I might add, approximate the totality that is out there. Of course, you might say to yourself, what am I doing writing it down in words then? I would reply that it's the only medium I have at my disposal to begin to explain reality even if I believe that music is closer to reality... not only music, but the vocalizations of many animals on this planet. When I speak to my cat Mia, he understands something of what I say and I him, only because there are, undeniably, certain vocalizations and sounds, syntactic or not that congure up emotional responses that I can't deny. When Mia is upset, or in need of something, I understand, and when he is happy, I also understand. I don't nescessarily understand the specifics of his request but I do know the basics.
One might ask, why it is that understanding is possible, but when you look at it carefully it becomes clear; i understand him because certain sounds within themselves have meaning. If I try and move towards abstract thought then, yes, I agree, it becomes problematic in the sense that emotional responses are inadequate to explain the phemonema, but that doesn't account for the true and unequivocalble understanding that exists when I hear him ask for food, or for attention.
Why is this important you might ask. Well, the very fact that animals other than human beings communicate is imporatant. If you accepted the fact that chickens or a cow might be saying something relevent to their existence, it would become drastically difficult to dispose of their vocalizations as noise and to assume that perhaps they have something relevent to say in relation to their own existence would become reasonable.
I find it amusing that when you step outside and hear music coming from a few, if not hundreds of birds, you dismiss it as noise, or random sounds. Listen carefully over a period of time and you will come to the realization that there is structure and meaning in their communications. This is not assuming that you will come to understand their language, if you'd like to call it that, but that you acknowledge the fact there is communication occuring.
Is this significant? Hell yes. How could any sane person ignore the fact that other animals communicate to each other. One of the things which troubles me is the gap which has grown between us and the rest of existence on this planet. I'm not trying to make any statements as to vegitarianism or anything of the sort, all I am saying is that the animal kindom, which we are part of, is not as different from ourselves as we might imagine. Our symbology is drastically different from their's and, without equivocation, is more abstract than the average mammalian, however, this does not lead me to believe that a language, which I don't understand, or that which I have come to understand as more subtle or simplistic as my own, is less useful in describing my experience. While understanding this it becomes clear that language is more than syntax. It's not something which is espoused in english, or spanish, or italian for that matter. It's something which is described in understanding.
There is a reason why the civilizations of old thought of ravens as gods. Have you ever listened to them for a period? I have, and they are definatly talking to each other. There is no doubt in my mind that other species on this planet have languages outside our own, and outside our direct interpretation other than on a very basic level that we share with this diffent species, more specficically, on an emotional level.
There is no end to this post, other than I might add that for a complete explanation of the complexity would take a book. Perhaps I'll someday find the time, or words, to write such a treatise, but as it stands for now, I'll leave it too this blog post.

Happiness

It's so nice. Isn't it? I mean, wouldn't you consider part of the definition of being happy nice? I think it is. I don't really have any idea where I'm going with this post, but I haven't posted in a bit so I figured I should say something about something and for some reason that something that came to my head was happiness.

Emotions are hard items to discuss. If there was anything that was subjective it would be emotions. Even though we all agree that to be happy involved certain behaviours, eg., smiling, cooing, purring, laughing, and the like, I think the reasons why we experience the emotion and the congruent behaviour don't nescessarily matter. What matters is the emotion, period, the behaviour is secondary. There are those that take neuronal evidence to disswade us from this conclusion, citing that there is a reaction in the brain which often preceds the emotional response and I don't deny that often it is the case that our emotions proceed the stimuli, however, it seems to me and my own experience, that there are many instances that emotions have been the instigators of my behaviour. It's a never ending ciclic argument, which has not real purpose to the discussion. Emotions exist and they are not subject to behaviour, nor is behaviour subject to emotion, as can be exemplified by my own personal experience again (and I would be very suspect if you didn't agree.)

Now, when talking about happiness (I've already got a grin on my face) I have a hard time narrowing it down. This is because of what I was talking about previously... what I might consider happy could very well have no effect whatsoever on another. Does this matter? no, not really, also because of what i was saying before. However, the emotion of happiness is not something that can be considered a point of perspective. When someone is happy, they are happy, period. There is no arguing that fact. Partly due to us being incapable of catching someone in a lie without expception when discussing mental states.

Now, what does it mean to be happy? This is where it becomes a bit more difficult, because when trying to describe happiness it requires me to talk from personal experience and my form of happiness is by definition not that of someone eleses. Happiness is that state in which you forget the many worries which constantly berrate you. It is the emotion which links a thought or event with what you consider to be a benefit to you or those you care about (this includes comdey, as when a comic makes a joke, the reason for it being funny, is because it has a resonance with you, under one of those two conditions).

Happiness can, of course, be congruent with almost any other emotion, including; fear, anger, joy, love, and the like. I suppose this should end up in a more general disscusion regarding emotions, but that's for another time. For the moment I am going to try and put happiness into words as I would experience it.

Happiness is: a grin which can become a smile, or a hearty laugh. It can be music, or a person's being, when they mix with my thoughts, in such a way as to create amusment. It can sneak up on me, or be something I work for. it can be unwanted or desperately needed. It can leave before I want it too, or last so long it hurts. One thing it is unequivicably, is a presence of peace within and sometimes, on those really lucky occasions, from without.

joy

isn't everything just wonderful?