The post-reporter era II

When a print-publication decides to go online, it will face a set of problems that is wholly unique and excluded from the set of problems it will have faced before. Keeping in mind that such an organization functions as a manager of reporters, and that those reporters will have already (hopefully) made the transition from offline-only to online-publishing as well, there is bound to be an attrition between how individuals see their stories and how the organization sees what it can do with those stories.

The principal cause of this problem - if that - is the nature of property on the world wide web. The newspaper isn't the only portal on the internet where news is published and consumed, therefore its views on "its news" cannot be monopolistic. A reporter may not be allowed to publish his story with two publications if he works for either publication. This view is especially exacerbated if the two are competitors. On the web, however, who are you competing with?

On the web, news-dissemination may not be the only agenda of those locations where news is still consumed in large quantities. The Hindu or The Times of India keeping their reporters from pushing their agenda on Facebook or Twitter is just laughable: it could easily and well be considered censorship. At the same time, reporters abstain from a free exchange of ideas with the situation on the ground over the social networks because they're afraid someone else might snap up their idea. In other words, Facebook/Twitter have become the battleground where the traditional view of information-ownership meets the emerging view.

The traditional newspaper must disinvest of its belief that news is a matter of money as well as of moral and historical considerations, and start to inculcate that, with the advent of information-management models for whom the "news" is not the most valuable commodity, news is of any value only for its own sake.

Where does this leave the reporter? For example, if a print-publication has promulgated an idea to host its reporters' blogs, who owns the content on the blogs? Does the publication own the content because it has been generated with the publication's resources? Or does the reporter own the content because it would've been created even if not for the publication's resources? There are some who would say that the answers to these questions depends on what is being said.

If it's a matter of opinion, then it may be freely shared. If it's a news report, then it may not be freely shared. If it's an analysis, then it may be dealt with on an ad hoc basis. No; this will not work because, simply put, it removes from the consistency of the reporter's rights and, by extension, his opinions. It removes from the consistency of what the publication thinks "its" news is and what "its" news isn't. Most of all, it defies the purpose of a blog itself - it's not a commercial venture but an informational one. So... now what?

Flout 'em and scout 'em, and scout 'em and flout 'em;
Thought is free.

Stephano, The Tempest, Act 3: Scene II

News for news's sake, that's what. The deviation of the web from the commoditization of news to the commoditization of what presents that news implies a similar deviation for anyone who wants to be part of an enhanced enterprise. Don't try to sell the content of the blogs: don't restrict its supply and hope its value will increase; it won't. Instead, drive traffic through the blogs themselves - pull your followers from Facebook and Twitter - and set up targeted-advertising on the blogs. Note, however, that this is only the commercial perspective.

What about things on the other side of the hypothetical paywall? Well, how much, really, has the other side mattered until now?

The resolved pleasure of rural journalism

On January 2, 2012, I didn't think rural journalism would be something I could come to like. Being a science nerd, amongst other things, I always thought my heart would lie with the urban side of things: huge laboratories smashing the smallest things together, guilt-spasmed corporations funding obscure research, the grand designs and the fervent pursuit of knowledge, and essentially all things developed. However, meeting with the fishermen, farmers and salt pan workers of Tuticorin, Tamil Nadu, shook the foundation I took for granted enough to have me reconsider my options. At first, at least.

The first sensation that becomes apparent is that, in rural journalism, public participation is much greater than on the urban side. In India, that's just because government policy is conspicuously biased toward the urban populace and urbanization, leaving the rural and the poor to fend for themselves in an economic environment that takes more than it gives. When the journalist shows himself, he finds that his place has already been clearly marked out: adversary to the government, darling of the masses, assumed to be sacrificial and, in many cases, leftist.

For the uninitiated, i.e. me, that's the sort of attention I've to really fight to get when working in science journalism. When reporting science stories, I don't have the assured readership of thousands of people, I don't have the constant reminder that if I goof up somewhere, actual lives and livelihoods will be rattled with it, and most of all, I don't have a fresh crop of stories day after day, week after week. Fortunately, and disregarding all these terrible thoughts (that have only the effect of bogging me down), what reportage in rural India will do best is reinforce your purpose as a journalist. That at the lowest level, journalism is as pertinent and life-changing as influencing economic policy is at the highest level.

At the same time, it becomes very easy to get lost in a sea of the micro: micro-political issues are rampant and most of them are self-limiting, and micro-economic issues often restrict the penetration of "urban goodness". With such regular and close contact with the deprived, most journalistic remediation focuses on the micro-issue of mitigation of the effects of resource theft. What IMHO it should focus on is the mitigation of the effects of improper deployment and administration, which is the root cause of all the theft.

For instance, the Sterlite copper smelting plant situated on the coast, next to Tuticorin's harbour, has been accused of severely polluting the neighbouring waters, depleting the water of the Thamirabharani, and undermining the significance of local and more traditional industries. I don't think that's what Sterlite has done. I think that's what all copper smelting plants do when the government can't step up and do its bit: modify policy perspectives to prevent abuse in the face of demand and have a hand on long-term evolution characteristics, broadly speaking.

However, because of a queasy and money-mongering government, Sterlite operations everywhere will take a hit. People will quote the damage the corporation has wrecked in south Tamil Nadu even if a plant is coming up somewhere where the necessary safeguards are in place. Industrialism is not all that dispensable, if you didn't know, and toying around with it for personal gains is only going to delegitimize its already-pocked facade. This is one of the most important perspectives of rural journalists that needs to be emphasized: that stories extend far beyond the interface of the deprived and the depleter, that just because they're not visible to the naked eye doesn't mean they aren't there.

[caption id="attachment_21204" align="aligncenter" width="266" caption="P. Sainath is an award-winning rural journalist who works efficiently between the deprived and the depleter, but his negligence of remedial measures makes him a cynic-in-power."][/caption]

All in all, I had a wonderful time talking to the people in Vagaikulam, Aalanthalai, Rajapandinagar, Nattaathi, Periyakulam, Subramaniyapuram, Srivaikundam, people employed in paddy-farming and banana plantations, raking salt in the salt pans, fishing, pearl-diving, weaving, and trading, people generous with their food, cynicism, homes and opinions. For a change, it felt strangely good to travel vast distances just to solicit the petitions of a few men and women under the grating January sun simply because there was someone waiting for a listen. That was the moment of (selfish?) pleasure that made the trip worth it.

Taking tech. to the common man the Gandhian way

A lot has been said about technology shrinking the world, bringing its peoples closer and making all information more accessible. However, there are two problems concerning the deployment of technology.

1. Devices that use technological innovation are often functionally inaccessible to certain groups of users. Also, it is often that these are the users who need it the most. For example, when it comes to making life easier, the elderly become the most eager consumers of developments. At the same time, those developments are rendered meaningless if they aren’t user-friendly. This is the “Type 1” problem.


2. Often, the services born of technology come at a price that is unaffordable for those whose productivity can be increased by using them. Tools like computers, the internet, progressive communication systems and mobile telephony can boost our farmers’ crop output as well as keep them up-to-date on the latest developments in the agricultural sciences and government schemes. This is the “Type 2” problem.

On that note, it is heartening to know about the M. S. Swaminathan Research Foundation’s (MSSRF) Village Development Program (VDP) that currently covers over 300 villages, mostly in Puducherry and some in Maharashtra. The foundation, by employing a community-ownership model that increases villagers’ participation, has set up an information distribution network together with the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) and other partners, such as Microsoft and Intel, who also provide some of the funds.

[caption id="attachment_20444" align="aligncenter" width="355" caption="The partners of MSSRF for the VDP"][/caption]

The MSSRF offices in Taramani, Chennai, function as a node for a national level hub that connects various technical, agricultural and veterinary universities across India, apart from NGOs and government offices in the vicinity of the villages. The knowledge these universities wish to share is uploaded into the hub’s content management system, which in turn is monitored by the foundation. The next step is to use the ISRO’s uplinking and downlinking capabilities, provided with the help of some of their satellites, which facilitate data-transfer to and from the node.

The final tier can be divided into two:

1. VRC – The Village Resource Centre (VRC) operates at the mandal level and usually addresses the distribution of information into a cluster of villages. The VRC is operated by local communities. Because of the encouragement of community-ownership, members of the community are involved in maintaining the centre while the partners of the programme provide the infrastructure.


2. VKC – The Village Knowledge Centre (VKC) operates just like the VRC except in that it addresses the needs of one village at a time. In other words, it functions as a sub-node that disseminates local, specific and demand-driven information. The communication between the VRC and the VKC happens through a local area network (LAN).

[caption id="attachment_20445" align="alignleft" width="148" caption="At Thankachimadam"][/caption]

Using this three-tier system (node-VKC-VRC) and by actively engaging with the villagers, the program conclusively addresses the Type 1 and Type 2 problems. By maintaining and running the nodes and data centres, the villagers are acclimatized to technology and technological innovation in a way that directly impacts their livelihood. By teaming up with partners eager to bring technology to the common man, MSSRF has brought the best in the world to the villages of Puducherry and Maharashtra, apart from freeing up their knowledge pool to be accessed by those who need it the most. This goes to demonstrate the importance of efficient and effective deployment of technology in order to make it useful.

The content generated by the universities, agencies and government offices can become overwhelming. Therefore, the effectiveness of the VDP is determined by how quickly and efficiently it is able to get that content to the right people. It must be noted that there is also a content generation process in place at a much more local, and more significant, level. Frequent debates between experts and the farming/fishing/animal-rearing communities are organized, and the questions and answers raised therein are integrated with the existing databases.

Also, apart from the VRCs, a mobile network is in place that delivers five relevant audio messages daily to subscribers of certain networks, including Airtel, Qualcomm and Tata. The advantage of employing mobile telephony is the ability to gather feedback statistics such as usage rates, response rates, etc., which can be used to improve the quality of the services provided. A help-desk has been set up at MSSRF’s Chennai office to address complaints that any users of the mobile communication networks might have.

What about inter-village communication? That has been addressed, and quite thoroughly to note, by a public announcement system (PAS) that incorporates both loudspeaker arrangements as well as a web-based notice-boarding system. In order to facilitate audio-conferencing, a multiple closed-user groups have been created such that calls to other people within the same group are free of cost. Finally, an INCOIS public display board has been installed that can be used with a GPRS device.

At the heart of all of this lies the need-assessment system, a single glance at which summarizes the entire VDP, its principal participants and its goals. While the VRCs are demand-driven and therefore reflective of the villagers’ needs, the villagers do have to be trained and made aware enough to know their rights, what they can and can’t demand, and what their options are. In order to empower them, the MSSRF enables them to interact with stakeholders of the entire program and familiarizes them with the principal tools. At the same time, a farmers’ database is compiled that is shared responsibly with government agencies, local banks and NGOs that have products and services of value on offer.



Essentially, the VDP is a stellar example that neither bargains with nor purchases profits at the cost of technology but engages with it directly to remove socio-economic barriers. It is clear that India’s sustainable development is uniquely tied in with the prosperity of its farmers, at least for now, and these farmers continue to face such barriers. By bringing the farming, fishing and animal-rearing communities together, the foundation has only spotlighted how much we stand to lose if we don’t divert our technologies away from gain.

Taking tech. to the common man the Gandhian way

A lot has been said about technology shrinking the world, bringing its peoples closer and making all information more accessible. However, there are two problems concerning the deployment of technology.

1. Devices that use technological innovation are often functionally inaccessible to certain groups of users. Also, it is often that these are the users who need it the most. For example, when it comes to making life easier, the elderly become the most eager consumers of developments. At the same time, those developments are rendered meaningless if they aren’t user-friendly. This is the “Type 1” problem.


2. Often, the services born of technology come at a price that is unaffordable for those whose productivity can be increased by using them. Tools like computers, the internet, progressive communication systems and mobile telephony can boost our farmers’ crop output as well as keep them up-to-date on the latest developments in the agricultural sciences and government schemes. This is the “Type 2” problem.

On that note, it is heartening to know about the M. S. Swaminathan Research Foundation’s (MSSRF) Village Development Program (VDP) that currently covers over 300 villages, mostly in Puducherry and some in Maharashtra. The foundation, by employing a community-ownership model that increases villagers’ participation, has set up an information distribution network together with the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) and other partners, such as Microsoft and Intel, who also provide some of the funds.

[caption id="attachment_20444" align="aligncenter" width="355" caption="The partners of MSSRF for the VDP"][/caption]

The MSSRF offices in Taramani, Chennai, function as a node for a national level hub that connects various technical, agricultural and veterinary universities across India, apart from NGOs and government offices in the vicinity of the villages. The knowledge these universities wish to share is uploaded into the hub’s content management system, which in turn is monitored by the foundation. The next step is to use the ISRO’s uplinking and downlinking capabilities, provided with the help of some of their satellites, which facilitate data-transfer to and from the node.

The final tier can be divided into two:

1. VRC – The Village Resource Centre (VRC) operates at the mandal level and usually addresses the distribution of information into a cluster of villages. The VRC is operated by local communities. Because of the encouragement of community-ownership, members of the community are involved in maintaining the centre while the partners of the programme provide the infrastructure.


2. VKC – The Village Knowledge Centre (VKC) operates just like the VRC except in that it addresses the needs of one village at a time. In other words, it functions as a sub-node that disseminates local, specific and demand-driven information. The communication between the VRC and the VKC happens through a local area network (LAN).

[caption id="attachment_20445" align="alignleft" width="148" caption="At Thankachimadam"][/caption]

Using this three-tier system (node-VKC-VRC) and by actively engaging with the villagers, the program conclusively addresses the Type 1 and Type 2 problems. By maintaining and running the nodes and data centres, the villagers are acclimatized to technology and technological innovation in a way that directly impacts their livelihood. By teaming up with partners eager to bring technology to the common man, MSSRF has brought the best in the world to the villages of Puducherry and Maharashtra, apart from freeing up their knowledge pool to be accessed by those who need it the most. This goes to demonstrate the importance of efficient and effective deployment of technology in order to make it useful.

The content generated by the universities, agencies and government offices can become overwhelming. Therefore, the effectiveness of the VDP is determined by how quickly and efficiently it is able to get that content to the right people. It must be noted that there is also a content generation process in place at a much more local, and more significant, level. Frequent debates between experts and the farming/fishing/animal-rearing communities are organized, and the questions and answers raised therein are integrated with the existing databases.

Also, apart from the VRCs, a mobile network is in place that delivers five relevant audio messages daily to subscribers of certain networks, including Airtel, Qualcomm and Tata. The advantage of employing mobile telephony is the ability to gather feedback statistics such as usage rates, response rates, etc., which can be used to improve the quality of the services provided. A help-desk has been set up at MSSRF’s Chennai office to address complaints that any users of the mobile communication networks might have.

What about inter-village communication? That has been addressed, and quite thoroughly to note, by a public announcement system (PAS) that incorporates both loudspeaker arrangements as well as a web-based notice-boarding system. In order to facilitate audio-conferencing, a multiple closed-user groups have been created such that calls to other people within the same group are free of cost. Finally, an INCOIS public display board has been installed that can be used with a GPRS device.

At the heart of all of this lies the need-assessment system, a single glance at which summarizes the entire VDP, its principal participants and its goals. While the VRCs are demand-driven and therefore reflective of the villagers’ needs, the villagers do have to be trained and made aware enough to know their rights, what they can and can’t demand, and what their options are. In order to empower them, the MSSRF enables them to interact with stakeholders of the entire program and familiarizes them with the principal tools. At the same time, a farmers’ database is compiled that is shared responsibly with government agencies, local banks and NGOs that have products and services of value on offer.



Essentially, the VDP is a stellar example that neither bargains with nor purchases profits at the cost of technology but engages with it directly to remove socio-economic barriers. It is clear that India’s sustainable development is uniquely tied in with the prosperity of its farmers, at least for now, and these farmers continue to face such barriers. By bringing the farming, fishing and animal-rearing communities together, the foundation has only spotlighted how much we stand to lose if we don’t divert our technologies away from gain.

Why Quentin Tarantino is wrong

(This article involves a prelude that I insist you read.)

It's important to understand that technology does not, and will not for a long time to come, replace emotional expression and emotional honesty, and that's where I think the great Quentin Tarantino could be wrong. He once famously stated that,

"You can't write poetry on a computer."

I appreciate his loyalty to the ideals of romanticism but, looking at it axiomatically, he chose to say "computer" and not anything else (although don't ask me what "anything else" could be). What does a computer do to effectively reduce the "poeticness" of a poem? What is it about an electronically supplied numerical input and an electromagnetically generated visual output that is beaten by a leaky fountain pen and paper that crumbles at the lightest touch-or should I say that it is a matter of individual investment and computers limit that when they shouldn't? I don't agree. If anything, typewriters and computers make it easier to compose real poetry: poetry that is completely independent of its medium, poetry that finds it rational to reflect only the literary prowess and emotional content of the individual (objective) and not his/her association with the oldest form of literary communication (subjective).

Poetry, you see, is an abstraction just like beauty and justice are, and if Tarantino thinks he can't find them in a computer or only on a piece of paper, then it's also unfortunately obvious that his films are a product of iconoclastic ideals and the chance of the occasion that I was to be born in 1988, and that doesn't happen often.

Our individual attitude towards technology does not change the way technology itself behaves; it only changes how much we think it can do for us when we take to it-and this applies even to the tech that is constantly being upgraded and modified to satiate different needs. Similarly, poetry that requires a "non-computer" to be realized is not poetry but what we think is poetry: it is subjective interpretation, one that fails in the face of the slightest opposition, and therefore cannot withstand the test of time.

Why Quentin Tarantino is wrong

(This article involves a prelude that I insist you read.)

It's important to understand that technology does not, and will not for a long time to come, replace emotional expression and emotional honesty, and that's where I think the great Quentin Tarantino could be wrong. He once famously stated that,

"You can't write poetry on a computer."

I appreciate his loyalty to the ideals of romanticism but, looking at it axiomatically, he chose to say "computer" and not anything else (although don't ask me what "anything else" could be). What does a computer do to effectively reduce the "poeticness" of a poem? What is it about an electronically supplied numerical input and an electromagnetically generated visual output that is beaten by a leaky fountain pen and paper that crumbles at the lightest touch-or should I say that it is a matter of individual investment and computers limit that when they shouldn't? I don't agree. If anything, typewriters and computers make it easier to compose real poetry: poetry that is completely independent of its medium, poetry that finds it rational to reflect only the literary prowess and emotional content of the individual (objective) and not his/her association with the oldest form of literary communication (subjective).

Poetry, you see, is an abstraction just like beauty and justice are, and if Tarantino thinks he can't find them in a computer or only on a piece of paper, then it's also unfortunately obvious that his films are a product of iconoclastic ideals and the chance of the occasion that I was to be born in 1988, and that doesn't happen often.

Our individual attitude towards technology does not change the way technology itself behaves; it only changes how much we think it can do for us when we take to it-and this applies even to the tech that is constantly being upgraded and modified to satiate different needs. Similarly, poetry that requires a "non-computer" to be realized is not poetry but what we think is poetry: it is subjective interpretation, one that fails in the face of the slightest opposition, and therefore cannot withstand the test of time.

The Voice

There are many different kinds of voices. Some you can hear, some you can't, some that seem to boom into your cavernous head from all sides, some that seem to sprout from the centre, some that come and go as they wish, some that you bump headlong into like an innocuous but ubiquitous lamppost. Then, there are those voices that are not inside your head at all, but at the other end of the phone call you're attending to right now.

These voices have bodies, I'm given to believe, something to which a head is affixed to, and through the head, words are spoken. For the record, I don't like spoken words. One moment they're there, the next moment they're gone. I hate that kind of indecisiveness - unless of course they're forced into a small box called a "voice recorder" or if they're carved into stone by a manic engraver. The voice in my earpiece is now telling me about what a bad morning it had.

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="300" caption="Early morning... blues?"][/caption]

How do voices have bad mornings? Are they blown out into the world through a snot-smeared windpipe? Or do they bear messages as murky as the mind that conceived them? Actually, the voice in my ear seemed to be suffering both maladies: expletives four to fourteen letters long were clamoring for an audience with blatant disregard for the Doppler effect, and the immutable moss-green of the phlegm I could almost hear.

Whether voices can have bad mornings or not, I can. I was having one then and there. First call I get in the morning is from a "friend" complaining about how her HDD crashed and how I could be responsible for it. I was stupefied when I heard that, and when she went on to inform me that the catastrophe befell her after I forwarded an email from Reuters, I snorted. That was the signal, I'm thinking, for the barrage of mucosal sludge.

Even so, I don't like being looked down upon or frowned upon for hitting out at a messenger who's brought me bad news. That is unfair, to expect a receiver to receive all kinds of glop and remain silent. Come to think of it, that'd be the psychopathic silently-thinking cold-bloodedly-conspiring contemplatively thumb-twiddling Mephistopheles down the hall. An honest man should be allowed to lash out, to have it over with. The mistake lies with the dolt who set the messenger on his journey. He didn't sponsor any armour.

What can you do against voices? What can you do against something that seems to come from a head far, far away? You can shout back, sure, but that's head versus head. Can you trap voices in small black boxes? I don't think so. What's going to be in the box when you reopen it later is a rant without beginning or end, eviscerated neatly out of a morning it had sought to destroy but now, doing nothing to the evening.

How do you knock the serrated stiletto out of a voice that's waiting to stab you in the back?

The Death Of A Blogger

More so than using WP's Plinky to find something to write these days, I go through the archives of my oldest blog, more often than not finding not just badly written posts but also lots of good ideas that I find hidden between the lines but, back then, was digressing too much to focus on them. While I can safely say that I have matured as a writer, I know the difference between the earlier "me" and the present "me": I used to write because I felt like writing something. Now, I write because I have something to write about.

That's not a desirable part of the maturation process, nor is it undesirable.

That feeling of "wanting" to do something because you like doing it and not because it has become a medium to express something is what I miss, though not too much because I could only have written so much meaningful or contributory pieces before starting all over again. Writing for writing's sake has an expiry limit. We're all humans and our mastery over something is automatically succeeded with our employment of that same thing.

What prompted me to write this post was that, when I was sifting through some old notes on the blog, I found a particular WP user who had left comments on almost every post for a period of about four months. Whensoever I used to put up an article on anything, he had the habit of finding something wrong with it, and we would get into a lengthy discussion. I would comment on his blog, he would respond on mine, it was such a good experience, of finding a friend out of nowhere.

I found a link lying around to his blog and decided to pay him a visit, but this is what I saw.

[caption id="attachment_509" align="aligncenter" width="520" caption="Interrupted."][/caption]

One blogger has disappeared. In his place is an emptiness that cannot be filled because it is still so full of memories. Another blogger has died. In his place is a man who wants to write something only because he has something to write about and not for writing's sake. 'Ars gratia artis' is not impractical nor is it unreasonable as an expectation, but it has its purpose, a time and purpose to practice it. Being an artiste non gratis is not condemnable. What is is the idea that art is what it is and cannot be anything more.

Related Articles

• The Mystery Man & Reflections On Writing (enderanimate.wordpress.com)


• The Writers' Bloc In India (enderanimate.wordpress.com)

Why A Language Resembles Physics So Much

Here's why a language is like physics. It's common knowledge that both of them help us understand the world: physics is a study of the physical word, a methodological inspection of every phenomenon we encounter, every experience we are affected by; language is tool of conveyance, and the passenger borne is meaning, and so by speaking in a language, we are only trapping the meaning of out thoughts in words and setting them afloat in a sea of communication. However, the world of physics is split into two distinct factions: the wave theorists' and the particle theorists' factions. How does this bode for language?

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="300" caption="Particle detection in a cloud chamber"][/caption]

The particle theorists see the world as being composed of discrete packets of energy that are, all of them, bound inexcusably by the law of conservation of energy and all the laws of thermodynamics. The wave theorists see the world as being seated on manifestations of energy being propagated as a continuous wave; in other words, the discretion as particles is discredited even though the law of conservation of energy and the laws of thermodynamics still hold.

Amongst particle theorists, all the energy that is present in this universe is a constitution of a very large number of packets, each of which contains a definite amount of energy that is unchanging over time. If a space contains twice as much energy as another, it does not mean the packets are twice as voluminous, it only means there are twice as many such packets. When we look out into this universe, all that we understand or all that there is to be understood at all can be done so if only there is an "amount" of meaning attached to it. Our interaction with this meaning is possible only through a tool that allows us to exchange meaning in the process - a tool like a word. A word can be said to contain a discrete amount of meaning. Even though different people may see it to be different amounts, the innate value of that meaning does not change over time. The adjective "beautiful" ascribes different amounts of beauty according to different people, and to each person therein, the amount of beauty the word describes is the same. However, "beautiful" never does come to ascribe ugliness to an object - apart from signifying its absence.

Words are discrete, like particles of meaning being strung together to create a large volume of meaning called a sentence. Sentences are then strung together to create a larger concatenation of meaning: it could be multi-dimensional, too, because a paragraph might discuss the properties of different objects through different adjectives and, in the process, create an array of meaning, so to speak. Now, if we were to zoom out to view the bigger picture, what we see is a language: there are grammatical rules that are the thermodynamic tyrants of communication, and then there are various other principles and theories that lay down how meaning is generated as well as understood - the "laws of conservation of meaning".

Even though we have described words to be discrete capsules that contain a set amount of meaning, it doesn't mean that the language as such prevents us from ascribing some amount of meaning to the gaps between these particles. Between one word and another, there is a boundary that prevents the spillage of any semantic entity, a boundary that holds it within a space in the confines of which it exists and can be understood. At the same time, with the combination of words, we create a "wave" of meaning that is present everywhere - even unto where "beautiful" and "pulchritudinous" can't reach, thereunto does "of a winsome exquisiteness surpassing the glow of a young star".