Revised First Description:
The talking stick bears a dimension that is roughly the stretch of a matured individual’s arm, the willowy cylinder of its physique culminating in a swollen sphere at its head akin to a clamped fist contesting towards the sky when raised. Yet, when elevated, it commands more potent attention to itself than what it is parallel to. From the outstretched fist being perceived to the talking stick. Must we change the construction of an object meant to command respect so that communication regains its utility? As I confront this tool intentioned to designate control, instead a feeling of defenselessness devastates me. A feebleness forged in the face of a failure to uphold equitable dialogue in its humblest form, from inside ourselves and our own limbs rather than within an instrument constructed by the hand it is meant to replace the occupation of.
Its body is dressed in minuscule beads, each of which on its own could be cleared off a table in the manner of dust, but when arranged together demand recognition. The dyes of each bead, largely unseen to the eye when isolated, become both clear and vibrant in their harmony while the significances meant to be embodied by each shade emerge. Further, the unity of these beads is stabilized by a core fragment of wood. In considering this form, the structure of human society is shouted to mind, with the lone technique of perceiving meaning and understanding in one individual necessitating seeing the entire crowd while perceiving that of the entire crowd demanding bringing together all characters along our shared roots.
In ultimately realizing the outsized globe capping the head of the stick, the most arduous aspect of nourishing communication is spoken: although the core wood of our collective roots and the myriad of beads and colors of our divergent opinions must constitute the build of conversation, a leading spearhead seems to still be obligatory to finalize the object’s true form. Yet, the talking stick resists the scepter in that it is not itself unless it is spread from hand to hand, permitting influence to be held by and instilled in all and any who grasp it.
Perhaps this device need not then be condemned for its substitution of the up-stretched arm, but rather should be realized as an impermanent, yet crucial tool with the resolve to retrain our sense of how that which it mimics should be utilized most constructively in communication.
Re-written Description:
The talking stick could be said to resemble the raised hand, calling for attention, or perhaps the elevated scepter, silently commanding authority, yet it is neither, so what makes it itself? Further, what constructs the purpose of “talking” in this object – what transforms the humble fragment of wood at its core, an object which is constantly existing around us yet often unnoticed, into a tool?
It is in essence a device of allowance, a stick which intends to permit conversation to unfold in a fruitful, equitable method. The natural wood is thus dressed in a particular manner to command this effect, just as the fleshy body of a person can suddenly give off the effect of authority imaginably through the adornment of a crisp suit. Beads so small that they are almost indistinguishable making up segments of unified, vibrant colors are what the talking stick wears to work each day, topped with a dark, globular mass of a hat. This human-made arrangement on the naturally born form of wood seems to speak to its societal purpose, to what we see that we can impress upon the natural world so that our human world can function.
The bulbous sphere at the head of the stick is what foremost grips my attention, acting as the core of the object’s meaning even in the face of the wood being the core and origination of the object’s physical form. Its dark and heavy mass fills me with a mixture of admiration and fear, in imagining the hand that grips it lifted towards the sky this orb would shout for enlightened conversation, but if that same hand were to throw it down, it could become a weapon.
Although the hand which seizes this object could alter its reality, on its own it seems to aim towards the upward motion of non-violent, tolerant interaction. I say this in considering its base, a cylinder adorned with the aforementioned beads. Each bead is small and ordinarily unseen on its own, as our own voices are when we do not bring them into conversation with others. Following that, although the similarities in the beads’ structure allows them to form a clear image when arranged together, it also allows their differences to appear, with divergent colors meant to represent distinctive values adorning the finalized talking stick.
Thus, in considering this object as a whole, it seems to be structured in a way that represents its purpose of promoting productive conversation. A foundation of strength in unity being instantiated in recognizing both our differences and similarities when we come together can be uncovered in the arrangement of the beads, which uplifts the mass of leadership at its crown, pleading for it to remain uplifted and non-violent in its use and exchange.
Process Notes:
When I first glanced at the directions of this assignment, I was confused and under the false assumption that my perspective of my chosen object would not be drastically altered over such a process. While I did come into this in alignment with the shared belief and “vertigo” mentioned in Exactitude that the “possible variants and alternatives” in relation to an argument give me a certain anxiety about what I choose to include and leave out in conversations and descriptions, I had not fully considered the importance of how emphasizing certain parts of an object above others can truly transform essential opinion. After reading Mr. Palomar, I decided to put into practice the act of closing my eyes and looking at the object anew various times throughout my writing, and, in doing so, I noticed a dramatic shift across my revision and re-writing.
Chiefly, I noticed that I without hesitation approached the analysis of the object from opposite standpoints than I had started with in my final re-written description. In considering my object of choice, a talking stick – speaking to my desired goal of discussing how we can better educate ourselves on healthy communication, I first analyzed it from the bottom of the stick up and from analyzing the outside decoration and how it clings to the internal structure, yet in my re-write I transitioned to describing it from its head to its tail and its internal wood to the external decoration that dresses it. The transformation of order in how I addressed these same relationships allowed me to discover potential functions and feelings that the object could produce that I had not originally been aware of.
Following that, I also noticed that in my re-write instead of focusing more so on the similarities between my object and alike others to define it, I began focusing on the dissimilarities between my object and those akin to it which make it uniquely what it is. This reminded me of the discussion concerning Musil in Exactitude in which he is said to have considered how particular ideas or solutions can be brought together to form a general idea or solution. By acknowledging how parts of my object relate to particular shared aspects of other known objects, I could at first give a general understanding of what I was discussing, but in the rewrite I found the importance of pointing out differences from known particular concepts in defining my object so that it could be seen as distinctive.
Lastly, I was in admiration of the way in which William Carlos Williams breathed life into the “inanimate” crimson cyclamen in this week’s reading and felt as though it was easier for me to connect with this object when its description shared qualities that I can or do bear myself as a person. Thus, I attempted to give human-like character and occupation to my object to gain a deeper personal insight into its workings, but I found it difficult to assign meaning to something that cannot speak for itself. However, in taking a class on The Myth of Reality this term, I have learned the importance of understanding that each of our own realities is based on biased perspective and experience and although not necessarily universal is still a reality; when I embraced this concept and the notion that my description is true, “real,” and “exact” even in the face of it perhaps not coinciding with some universal definition, the anxiety I had experienced throughout this assignment seemed to fade.