Nelle sue multiformi evoluzioni il linguaggio umano ha raggiunto forme sempre più complesse, consentendo, a chi sa utilizzarlo con appropriatezza, di esprimersi nella maniera più precisa possibile. Ci sono, is true, of cultural differences: for example some cultures there are no words that indicate the color green. We may seem absurd to them that maybe they live constantly surrounded by nature green is a foregone conclusion.
However, excluding these mismatches, we find, within every language and every culture, at least a few words which is clearly meaningful, concrete or abstract, which is: something very self-explanatory, requiring no further explanation. And a number of other terms that, albeit misunderstood, placed in certain contexts are much less. Obviously, a similar argument could be made for the gestures, for symbols, and for all that is communication.
Here is the question that fascinates me: it takes us, despite this specialization of language (which should correspond to a qualitatively higher efficiency in terms of understanding, and quantitative, in terms of time to understand) to repeat ?
We see for example this poem by Corrado Govoni, Little things :
Everywhere campaigns
play at noon, as soft
zane
wishing rock day. In the old kitchen
pendulum
clicks. The cat went f uori.
Down the street, a f ruttivendolo
screams "good apples, cabbage f Iori!" The dark of the fireplace
listens to his top of chalk.
My mother is making the bed.
I got up now.
And Saturday, the eve of Sunday
. The r Agios the sun fade. The timetable
r I note the day before. Skip
a bi r Western. The glass abbrividiscono.
play at noon, as soft
zane
wishing rock day. In the old kitchen
pendulum
clicks. The cat went f uori.
Down the street, a f ruttivendolo
screams "good apples, cabbage f Iori!" The dark of the fireplace
listens to his top of chalk.
My mother is making the bed.
I got up now.
And Saturday, the eve of Sunday
. The r Agios the sun fade. The timetable
r I note the day before. Skip
a bi r Western. The glass abbrividiscono.
There is an early form of repetition, explicit, constituted by the system alliterazioni "internal chain" between adjacent lines ( I have highlighted with bold black , in explanation, only two, distant from each other and thus can highlight: the f in the first half of the poem and the r the last three verses). The reason for this choice, anticipated from the title, is clearly in tune with crepuscularism author to focus on "trivial" little things, corresponding precisely to positions with different words similar in the verses.
But there is also another form of repetition, less noticeable, looking at the words highlighted in ricostruiamola bold red .
La relazione tra "zane" e "cullare" è chiara: si evita la cacofonia (in questo caso, la ripetizione di "culla" e "cullare" che, confermando le mie aspettative di inizio post, risulterebbe appunto eccessiva, fuori posto), rinforzando l'attenzione su un oggetto e una situazione decisamente comune... e ci ritorna su una terza volta con il "pendolo". Perché? Perché il richiamo qui non è il suono, non è la sinonimia, ma è l'idea di un movimento: si enfatizzano oggetti di uso comune ripetendone l'idea Motion , namely rocking of the cradle and the pendulum (and who knows what the mind of the poet has not shown even an assonance between "swing" - in fact implicit in the idea of swing - and "pendulum." I came immediately to mind).
a repetition, even in the latter case, which emphasizes and reinforces . A common choice, in essence, that in context - in this case - it enhances the expressive possibilities of poetic language in common use.
We think now it to another fruit of the human intellect, namely Bolero of Ravel . In this case, the continuous repetition of two themes that compose it is certainly due to the hypnotic state that the author seeks to reconstruct (see for example this interesting interpretation and this note on musical language ), array erotic hypnosis if we think that originally the ballet for which the Bolero was composed as the fulcrum of the situation provided a seductive female figure intent on dancing on a table while the other players on the scene (men) will progressively tighten, more and more fascinated, around her. In this case, however, notes the author's biography are intertwined with those of music because, in hindsight, the composer suffered from that evil that only later would be diagnosed as Alzheimer .
Acquisisce allora, date queste premesse, una nuova sfumatura la ridondanza sonora così come nasce nella mente di Ravel, prima ancora di come viene eseguita in pubblico: un anticipo della ripetitività, e della sostanziale staticità, del suo pensiero o, detto altrimenti, un'anticipo "creativo" dei drammatici disturbi cognitivi a cui andrà incontro . Ripetitività, in sostanza, come imago mortis .
Può far strano ricondurre qualcosa che prima facie calls the move - the more so if the music composed for a ballet - a Quas the death instinct. Yet how to treat a end in itself proved to be repetition, if not as a fake dynamism and fake as much as the dynamism of a purely mechanical puppet (in this case the death as the end of a process but as the mere absence of life is clearly present)?
In our immaginario collettivo (incluso quello di derivazione letteraria) la marionetta, figura che ripete i movimenti di esseri umani vivi, veri , richiama alla mente - che sotto sotto non si inganna! - assieme all'idea del piccolo prodigio, un non so che di strano, innaturale. Esattamente come avviene per la larva di petroniana memoria : un non morto che può ripetere (anche all'infinito) le stesse azioni dei viventi, esorcizzando così la paura della morte.
O, still, Baudelaire, just to return in poetry, calls the idea of \u200b\u200bdeath through the image of the threads that hold the body of "repeating" par excellence, the puppet: Plus encore que la Vie , The Mort nous tient Souvent par des liens subtils .
No extraordinary revelation, the truth is: any body vivo would not need to repeat the lives of others, could agirne an original, created by itself.
Yet, how many situations do not create artifice to make us live a early death own through repetition? Think of the cramps' s epilepsy: a repetition of the same act fast now be explained as a neurological disorder, but definitely in the past inscrutable. Once again: excessive, unnatural. The ancients solved the issue transcends the incomprehensible, and so in many cultures epilepsy became the sacred disease.
The point is not to arrive at an interpretation that is only rational or irrational, only the issue of repetitiveness. "Our" (contemporary Western) patient with dementia, for example, when asking questions repetitive exceed in reality is a problem of management of the mnemonic ' anxiety, which in turn is defined as "fear of loss of control": the classic sense of being "in bilico",o di non percepire più il confine (ad esempio tra l'essere-sentirsi vivi e tra l'essere-sentirsi morti), che è, in ultima istanza, anche un problema metafisico .
Anche in questo caso c'è un'evidenza lapalissiana: la morte è davvero ineluttabile solo per chi è vivo! Da questo punto di vista l'ansia di morire, e la gestione della stessa attraverso la ripetitività, sono un buon segno: del fatto che siamo vivi, ad esempio.
Ma neanche questo ci rassicura. Forse perché nella ripetizione c'è, per dirla con Freud, indeed, perhaps a bit 'better Jentsch , something uncanny . At least until our mind is not deceived very, very well (see the studies in this regard on the cd area or disturbing uncanny valley ).
In essence, where there is no premeditated intention to repeat something to get something else through the artifice itself, our mind (our survival instinct? Live our immortality? Need in order to make real a vision in white and white?) presents us with an either / or : true against imitation, repetita versus unique . And not just in the reading of reality, but also in the conscious management of our lives, in our confirmation, as perishable, primarily live. In the words of Simmel "only what is unique and unrepeatable can really die. "
