The Language of Music

Hey guys, it's been a while but I was doing an awfully written paper for my Psych 3700 class and 

decided to post it. It's a conceptualization of music as a language and explores the ways in which it \

functions similarly to language in our lives. Enjoy!

The Language of Music

Music has been used by humans as a mode of communication for centuries. From the original Gregorian chants, to Mozart, to contemporary pop, music has served innumerable roles in human history. However numerous the roles though, at it’s core, music is communicative. Certainly, lyrical music has stories to tell. Even beyond lyricism, the very structure of music mimics the ways in which verbal language is structured. In the 19th century, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow called music “the universal language of the people”. The profound truth of his words wouldn't be uncovered until later, but they have profound implications. Music can be viewed as a language in its own right, based both on its structure. Furthermore, the neurological effects of music on the brain have profound implications; especially where memory is concerned.

In order to assess music as innately linguistic, we must first explore what constitutes a language. What are the common structures? In language, the smallest unit of sound that changes the meaning of a word is a phoneme. A phoneme, from the perspective of an English speaker, may consist of a single letters, or a pairing of letters which constitute a single, unique sound. The musical equivalent of this is a note. Just as everything is built upon phonemes in traditional language, everything is structurally dependent on notes in music. Likewise, both language and music are capable being manipulated in endless ways to form larger structures. Languages make use of letters or symbols to form words, and subsequently,  sentences and paragraphs. In music, eight different notes form an octave, which is then repeated in higher or low pitches. This octave structure can be worked outside of to create melodies, harmonies, and songs. There’s also a certain logical component to both language and music. Under each structure, a sequence of sounds can be heard by a listener as either “right” or “wrong”. In language, this would be the difference between hearing sensical and nonsensical words. In music, some note sequences sound pleasing and right together, and some do not. It’s worth noting that this interpretation of right and wrong sounds in music can vary culturally.

Key to both languages and music are the systems’ infinite generativity. Infinite generativity is “the ability to produce an infinite number of sentences using a limited set of rules and words” (Santrock and Mitterer 2001). This generativity is immensely important in the classification of both language and music as tools. They're similar in the mode of function. Much more than a fixed structure, both are fluid, full of potentiality, and adaptable.

Sound elements are yet another important piece of language and music. The major sound elements include pitch and timbre. According to Zhang, “both music and language make use of pitch contrast” (Zhang 6). In most cultures, a rich pitch contrast is the major device is the creation of music. In some languages, pitch plays a significant role in meaning (tone languages) whereas in others, pitch contrast does not infer lexical meaning (non-tonal languages). Next is timbre. Timbre is the character or quality of a musical sound as distinct from its pitch and intensity. In music, timbre would be the device by which we are able to distinguish the difference between different instruments being played or a voice singing. As Zhang cites, “Pitch contrast is the main device in most musical systems, while timbre contrast is the prominent device in language” (Zhang 8). There’s a bit of a gap in the literature regarding musical and linguistic timbre perception. There have not been a significant number of studies conducted in the area. Regardless, both pitch and timbre are salient techniques in the expression of both language and music.

So now we’ve outlined some ways in which language and music are structurally similar, but what about functionality? What purpose does each system play in our lives? This is where there are some larger observable differences between the two systems. Language’s primary function is that of communication. It’s essential for the creation of social bonds. Without it, life as we know it would not be possible. While music is functionally similar, it’s not quite so essential to our societal systems. Music can certainly be (and is) used for communicative purposes, but communication is not, generally speaking, music’s primary function. It’s primary purpose is more often for entertainment or personal expression. Expression is essentially communication, but the difference with music lies in the urgency. We use language to communicate things with immediacy, whereas musical expression is typically for more secondary emotions, thoughts, and desires. The driving force behind musical expression isn't survival or the every day. It’s for the profound. It’s for emotional release and identification. I would argue that a lack of music would also render life as we know it impossible, as the emotional release and subsequent audience identification is essential to the mental health of millions of people. If we view music also as a cultural conversation, one could argue that the sharing of emotions involved in music function as an expression of a very natural social urge. The disconnection of emotional identification with one another in this way would have serious societal consequences.

Another way in which music and language are related is in the area of production. There is a wide range of production ability in language. Most people are fluent in a language, or can communicate using language of some kind. Some people are very limited in their means of communication. Others may be proficient in several different languages. The same holds true of musical production ability. There is certainly an overall lower level of musical production ability than there is language production ability. This goes back to the functional difference in which language is more essential and music is more secondary. However, one may observe the same level of variability in musical production ability. Many people have no musical production ability. Not everyone can sing, play, or write music, which differentiates from the way in which most are able to express some language. Indeed, one could argue that, given a cultural emphasis on musical production (or, if music were to be essential for our daily functioning) then we would see a similar level of widespread musical production ability as we currently see with language production ability.

A significant way in which language and music are at odds are with regards to interpretation. To interpret a language means to understand it. The mark of an effective language is understanding. Ideally, a spoken word or sentence will mean the same thing to a multitude of people. After all, how can we communicate if we’re not on the same page? To interpret music, in contrast, does not call for an understanding of music, as there is no one culminating meaning for a piece of music. In music, an interpretation may be as simple as performing or producing music. The same notes may be played, but not everyone will have the same interpretation of the piece. This has to do with the ways in which music serves in part as expression. Just as human emotion is dynamic and irreducible to concrete answers, the same is true of music.

Now that we have an outline of the ways in which music behaves-- and does not behave-- as a language, the question becomes one of applicability. What do these similarities tell us? When Henry Wadsworth Longfellow called music “the universal language of the people”, he had no clue how correct, scientifically speaking, he was. More recent studies have illustrated music’s cross-cultural applicability. Others provide strong evidence that music may play a role in memory and development.
One recent study set out to observe similarities in musical interpretation between two dissimilar cultures. The experiments were conducted in the Congolese rainforest with an isolated population of Mebenzele Pygmies without any exposure to Western music and culture. The second set of experiments involved Western listeners with no prior experience with Congolese music. Each group listened to music from the culture of the other group. "Subjective and psychophysiological emotional responses to music from two different cultures were compared within these two cultures" (Chuen et. al. 2015). Clearly, the reactions of each group to the music was not always true to the original intent of the music. However, the "results suggest that while the subjective dimension of emotional valence might be mediated by cultural learning, changes in arousal might involve a more basic, universal response to low-level acoustical characteristics of music" (Chuen et. al. 2015). So clearly there's always going to be a certain degree of cultural barrier that affects the interpretation of music across cultures; particularly when the two cultures in question have no prior experience with each other. This aside, the fact that there was a base level reaction to the unfamiliar music, along with an attribution to a specific musical characteristic, is huge!
There's been a long and winded debate in the field of linguistics about whether or not language is innate, and now it appears that there's some relation in this argument to music. Not only can this response to music contribute to the innate language ability debate, but it can help further determine just how linguistic music is. The music had to have communicated something in order for there to have been a cross cultural base level emotional response to it. And if there's communication, it logically follows that there are commonly understood structures at play between these very different cultures. The evidence continues to point us towards music as a universal language.

Music clearly runs deep. It’s also recently come to light via various studies that music is heavily related to memory. One study by Hans Baumgartner on the phenomena in which “a piece of music becomes associated with an event from a person’s life so that hearing the piece of music evokes memories of the original experience” (Baumgartner 613). Participants in the study were made to fill out a questionnaire in which they were asked about a particular song which they strongly identified with a personal experience. The results conclusive. The majority of participants recalled a song that they associated with a lover or relationship, or with friends and family. The experiences were a range of positive and negative, but the majority of the participants said that the song strongly evoked the event which they associated it with. According to Baumgartner, “The recollections triggered by the music were described as vivid and emotional as involving a reliving of, and being accompanied by imagery descriptive of, the original episode” (Baumgartner 620). This is an extremely powerful reaction to music that appears to be common. In fact, it’s so common that researchers like Dan Cohen wondered why it hadn’t been applied to certain problems earlier.
Cohen took it upon himself to explore music's powerful association with memory and apply it where it was greatly needed-- with dementia patients. He has documented much of his work in his movie Alive Inside: a Story of Music and Memory. In it, he travels to many different nursing homes across America. He is, rightly appalled by the conditions he found. He found that senior living today is filled with sterility and inhumanity, with many unhappy patients. He set out to provide music and some life to dementia patients in these homes. He brought them music that they would have listened to in their youth, and the results were profound. Patients who were usually minimally responsive came to life. They were capable of remembering events and people that they had believed long lost to them (Cohen 2014). Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia are widely feared. The public as a whole generally sees it as a living death sentence. After all, who are you without your memories? The fact that music alone was and is capable of pulling so many people out of such a deep darkness is a great testament to its psychological and communicative power.

Reconceptualizing music as a form of language, or language-like in significant ways, has led to some interesting research with strong results. The research into the implications of music’s innate power has only just begun. Music therapies are already helping so many people. With further research, and enough public attention, perhaps music therapy will gain high enough regard to be considered a relevant treatment. If we, as a nation and global community, funded music therapies widely. we could potentially create a lot of joy and health for millions of people. A language that’s open to interpretation puts the power in the hands of the individual while maintaining a cultural cohesion. Maybe what we’ve been missing in our healthcare equation is just that.

Works Cited

Alive Inside: A Story of Music and Memory. Dir. Michael Rossatto-Bennett. Perf. Dan Cohen. 2014.

Baumgartner, Hans. "Remembrance of Things Past: Music, Autobiographical Memory, and Emotion." Advances in Consumer Research 19 (1992): 613-20. Web.

Egermann, Hauke, Nathalie Fernando, Lorraine Chuen, and Stephen Mcadams. "Music Induces Universal Emotion-related Psychophysiological Responses: Comparing Canadian Listeners to Congolese Pygmies."Frontiers in Psychology Front. Psychol. 5 (2015): Web.

Santrock, John W., and John Otto Mitterer. Psychology. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 2001. Print.

Zhang, Shuo. "Music and Language: Current State of Research." University of Pittsburgh (n.d.): 1-32. Web.

Song of Solomon Extended Quote

I had to read Song of Solomon by Toni Morrison for my Creative Writing Workshop. Needless to say, I neglected to start it in time. I read 95% of it the day before (the other 5% the day before that). It. Sucked. It's not a bad read at all, it's just a bad read when you do it in one night without breaks. But I'm sure that's true of lots of books. Anyways, I just wanted to post an excerpt because it really struck me and I do what I want.

***

Truly landlocked people know they are. Know the occasional Bitter Creek or Powder River that runs through Wyoming; that the large tidy Salt Lake of Utah is all they have of the sea and that they must content themselves with bank, shore, and beach because they cannot claim a coast. And having none, seldom dream of flight. But the people living in the Great Lakes region are confused by their place on the country's edge-- an edge that is border but not coast. They seem to be able to live a long time believing, as coastal people do, that that they are at the frontier where final exit and total escape are the only journeys left. But those five Great Lakes which the St. Lawrence feeds with memories of the sea are themselves landlocked, in spite of the wandering river that connects them to the Atlantic. Once the people of the lake region discover this, the longing to leave becomes acute, and a break from the area, therefore, is necessarily dream-bitten, but necessary nonetheless. It might be an appetite for other streets, other slants of light. Or a yearning to be surrounded by strangers. It may even be a wish to hear the solid click of a door closing behind their backs.

-Song of Solomon Chapter 7 Opening

***

I don't think I really need to explain why this speaks to me.

Peace,

Lo

Miss Representation

My last post was about a feminist book that just missed the mark for me. And now I bring you: a feminist documentary that I completely loved. It's primarily focused on the representation of women in the media and how that reflects/shapes women's role in society. The title is Miss Representation (as the post title indicates), it's available on Netflix, and you should definitely go watch it right now.

For those of you that don't know, there's actually a test to gauge the gender equality in works of fiction. It's called the Bechdel test, and it seems like every single time a movie or show passes the test, no one shuts up about it. What  requirements are there for passing the Bechdel test?
1. There are at least two women (generally they have to have names)
2. who talk to each other
3. about something other than a man.
Now, how sad is that? The fact that fiction which passes the Bechdel test is so highly praised implies that it's a feat; that it's difficult. It really shouldn't be, but if you look at the number of top-grossing movies that pass (roughly half for 2013, although some calls were dubious) you might appreciate it a bit more.

This just goes to show that women aren't shown as complex human beings in popular works of fiction. They're objects, they're sidekicks, they're there to stand and look pretty while the lead male saves the day. On a side note, go watch Orphan Black if you want to see the standard roles completely reversed. It's my favorite show and Tatiana Maslany is an incredible, badass actress.

Miss Representation conjures up an important question. What responsibilities fall to content creators? So much in our culture revolves around the media and the media helps shape attitudes on many fronts. Should content creators be held responsible for cultivating equality? The documentary seems to swallow that fact readily. I'm not so sure. Yes, it's important and I'm not going to deny that I would love for content creators to be more socially conscious-- even if the consciousness were legislated. But not everyone has the same drive for equality. It's a job, not necessarily a soapbox. So as much as I think that corporations and the media should use their power in the name of equality, I'm not sure it's entirely right to demand it. However, I'm not a demanding person in the first place.

In what I thought was an amusing turn of events, the movie addressed some traditional Men's Rights Activist (MRA) concerns. Proving, once again, that women's rights are human rights and feminists aren't man haters whose dying wish is to enslave or kill all men. Women's rights and men's rights are closely linked; as annoying as it is to type the phrase 'men's rights'.

The movie ends by strongly advocating leading by example. Show people that you're a complex woman. Raise your children to question the way they see women represented. An overall, just be the change you want to see. If generations of children are raised to respect women and view them as equals, there shouldn't be a problem. Gender equality will be just another fact of daily life.

Book Thoughts: The Time Machine by H.G. Wells

Holy wow. This is most definitely how you do a time travel/science fiction book right. My thoughts are stars I cannot fathom into constellations right now, but I'm going to try my best. If you haven't read it, you might not want to read on, because this blog is about to get fairly spoilerific. 

Narration is something that I'm always hyper-aware of when reading. I seem to be more drawn to stories in which the story is told from the perspective of someone listening to a story teller for the majority of the story. It always makes the story seem so much more lively. The tale being conveyed has purpose, there isn't need for awkward "Oh yeah, you're reading a story still. Hi, I'm breaking the fourth wall." moments which takes me out of the book, and the story teller is telling the story because they're very excited about the events or they must pay penance for their actions (see: The Rime of The Ancient Mariner by Samuel Coleridge) which ensures that I'm going to care about the story and that it will hold my attention. 

Oh, and this style also leaves the author free to kill off/do bad things to the story teller, whom is usually the main focus of excitement and mystery. The listener of the story can simply take over, as they were in the background conveying anyways. This is the way The Time Machine was narrated, which delighted me. 

I was initially disappointed with the time machine. The disappointment stemmed mostly from my love of Doctor Who. The time machine in the book was just a time machine, while the T.A.R.D.I.S is, as we know, is for Time and Relative Dimension in Space. What can you learn from travelling through time in the same fixed position? A surprising amount according to this book.

The book gave me a lot of pause about the concept of "Peace on Earth" and progress. We're in a constant struggle for something. Women's rights, LGBTQ rights, economic equality, and human equality in general. I've always thought that this was a noble struggle. One that I will not live to see the conclusion of. So I never thought to ask, "What then? What happens when there is equality?" As Frederick Douglass said, "If there is no struggle, there is no progress." Of course, in the year 802,701, there is still struggle. However, this isn't immediately evident and there was apparently equality at some point. 

So the Eloi are free to frolic and giggle. They appear unconcerned with most things, are amazed by fire, and have short attention spans. Whenever I give any thought to the distant future, I don't think of regression. I think of people utterly dependent on technology. I consider that human kind as we know it may not even exist in favor of AI (I got this notion from Skinned by Robin Wasserman and thought it seemed fairly plausible). Yet here they are. They don't even know what fire is. It's as if society has come full circle, which is further confirmed by the Time Traveler's voyage to the end of the Earth. This circle seems fairly likely. Maybe my imagination just hadn't stretched past all of the technology and equality to what would happen after. 

I still don't entirely buy the idea that technology, written language, and ambition would so profoundly just...die out. Especially when there is a museum...18 miles or so away from the Eloi that the Time Traveler found. And why is the museum mainly filled with items that we could just as easily see in a museum today? Apart from the machinery that seemed new to him, the natural history and archaeology sections seemed profoundly lacking once you take into account how many years in the future they are. Why have the super ancient things preserved, but not the slightly less ancient ones? 

And then there's the genetic mutations, evolution, social castes, and segregation that had to take place to create the distinct Elois and Morlocks. In many ways, this book was a commentary on the world as 1895, when it was published, knew it. It also, like most enduring books about time travel and the future, is a still-relevant commentary about society today. We're still struggling towards equality slowly. We're still facing a future that we can only guess at. And the funny thing is, it won't affect us. It will affect our descendants in ways that we can't possibly imagine. I'd love to think that the effect of equality would be nothing but positive, but that's an unrealistic expectation, of course. Nothing is so black and white. Hopefully, any future state of equality will be more beneficial than harmful. I guess that's really the best we can hope for. 

I've told many people about the importance I place on endings. I'm admittedly predisposed to unhappy endings (they're more interesting) but as long as the ending is fitting, I'm fairly happy. I'm not even sure why I was so happy with this ending. It's probably to do with the element of mystery. Where did he go?  Why didn't he return? Is he dead or imprisoned? It's up to the reader's imagination, which is wonderful. The book makes you consider new possibilities by leading you to its own conclusions, and then cuts you loose to come up with your own. 

Overall, this was just a wonderful read. 

Kill Your Darlings

I've been lost in my personal sea of summer music/shows/movies/books and forgot to keep updating this.

I also never told the world about my undying love of the movie Kill Your Darlings. To all of the people who ask, or will ask, about my favorite movie, this is the one. Subject to change, of course.

Now, I'm going to assume that about 90% of you haven't heard of this for quite a few reasons. It's about the lives of A group of Beat Generation poets, whom the majority of people don't know or care much about. Daniel Radcliffe played the main character, Allen Ginsberg, and he doesn't really light up on non-Harry Potter radars. There's quite a lot of gay-ness and sexuality in it, which society at large is dismally uncomfortable with. Aaaaand it wasn't marketed much or released in theatres widely. It's basically a hipster's wet dream. Oh god, am I a hipster? I should see a doctor about that.

So why is it worth your time? Honestly, I think the reasons that most people haven't seen it are enough. They're the things I love about the movie. Literature mixed with history mixed with actors I love and beautiful writing. I don't know if it's 100% historically accurate, but it feels like an extremely honest portrayal. It's intense, dramatic, and full of epic quotes. Here, read some.

• "No, we're not going to kill him. Even better. We're going to make sure nobody remembers him."
• "Another lover hits the universe. The circle is broken."
• "And like all lovers and sad people, I am a poet."
• Lucien Carr kissed a woman out of nowhere, so Ginsberg asked "Do you know her?" to which Carr responds, "No, and I don't plan to. She tasted like imported sophistication and and domestic cigarettes.

Just the right amount and variety of pretentiousness. Anyways, you should go watch the movie before I quote the entire thing at you.

Where can you find it? It's floating around somewhere online, I'm sure. Or, there's also the revolutionary notion that you could buy it and support great art. Of course, the actors and most of the people that brought the film to life probably aren't in need of more money. Unless the money benefits other things I'm not thinking of. Christ, I don't know where my movie money goes. It's all very confusing. But you wouldn't steal a tv! Unless you would, then I guess stealing movies is fine and it's all justified.

If you need me, I'll be contemplating the economics of movie buying and the ethical implications of strange anti-pirating commercials.

Book Thoughts: The Book Thief

I was reading a book the other day (not a surprise at all). I use ripped up Post-it notes as bookmarks pretty often. So, seeing one on my desk, I grabbed it to use. Then I noticed that it had writing on it. This was weird because I don't usually write on them.

It said: "I am sitting here in my bed, warm. I have water beside me and I've just finished reading the book in my lap. What gives me the right?". Reading that hit me really hard. I remember writing it. I had just finished reading The Book Thief (which I wholeheartedly recommend) and it had gotten to me.

So this is what I meant: Countless people throughout history have had terrible lives. They've had terrible things happen to them. They don't have enough food or clean water. They can't even think about sitting down and reading a book for entertainment. They don't have the money for the book or the time to read it. So what gives me the right?

The answer is nothing. Absolutely nothing gives me the right. Basically, life isn't fair. It's funny, no one tells you that life isn't fair when it's unfair in your favor. They only tell you that when it's the least helpful. You only hear that when you can very clearly see that for yourself.

The follow up questions would then be: What can I do about this? How can I make life a little more fair?

I don't think that the answer is wealth redistribution, or raising the minimum wage. I think that the government is attempting to treat the symptoms to no avail. The real problem starts with individuals. Other people having more means that I have to give up some of what I have. You know what? That is completely fine with me. But it's not fine with everyone, or even most people. I can't force others to change, and that's also fine. I'm just going to focus on what I can do to help others how I can.

If the government wants to do some real good, they should focus on making college education free for everyone and give people the skills they need to provide for themselves. Oh, and cut defense spending. But that's my own personal rant that doesn't really belong here.

The bookmark gave me the idea for Book Thoughts. Instead of writing book reviews, I'm going to start writing Book Thoughts blogs. Anyone can read a book; or a summary of one. I've heard the expression "Books belong to their readers." often. I both agree and disagree with this statement. However, I do think that multiple perspectives on books are interesting. I think that the way someone reads a book, or the thoughts that a book inspires in someone says a lot about them.

They shouldn't contain spoilers, although I will make sure to give a spoiler alert if they do. I would like to hear your recommendations, if you have any. Just keep in mind; I have upwards of 20 books that I've neglected reading so I might not get to them. If you have your own book thoughts on any of the books I post, feel free to post them in the comments. I would love to talk more about them. Happy reading!

Living in The Moment OR Personal Ramblings...

Growing up, adults were an enigma. To me, they seemed like solid, amorphous blob. Adults were almost all the same person to me. They were the “them” in the “us vs. them”. They were the ones that told us “No.” and “Eat your dinner” and “Be quiet” and that “The adults are talking”. The rift between us and them was clearly marked and maintained by both sides. The adults made sure to condescend, and the other kids made sure to call kids found conspiring with the adults teacher's pets and goody-two-shoes. 

The fact that, one day, I would be a “them” instead of an “us” never really occurred to me. Or rather, I wasn’t concerned about it. It was too far in the future. Life is long and once you’re an adult you’re basically dead. So why worry about it?

No, I’m 100% sure I never thought those exact things, but that was the underlying sentiment.

The thing about my life is that I set up moments. These moments always mean that my perspective will change. My turning points so far have been: going on a People to People trip, transferring to public school, losing my religion *guitar starts playing*, going to college early, driving, *redacted for personal reasons*, and turning 18. There are lots of smaller moments, but those are the big ones.

 I suppose that my moments are what people would call epiphanies. I don’t call them that because it’s a lame word.

But this is about my turning 18 moment. I knew that it would be a change for me in a your-life-will-never-be-the-same way. I didn't know how. It was when several looming truths all came together for me.

•       I've always had the thought that as I got older, life would continue to get better and more exciting. It was an empirically proven truth. I still want it to be true. However, I've also realized that life is more of a roller coaster than I would like it to be. Life doesn't get better and more exciting because we want it to. It gets better and more exciting because we make it happen.

•        People are boring. Maybe that’s why I like reading books so much. I can predict people’s secrets. They can be so painfully evident. I want the people you read about in books. The ones that you never know what they’ll say or do next. Or the ones that will do something embarrassing in public because they don’t care what anyone thinks of them. Where are the people that just live? Why can’t people just do things because they feel good? Why can’t people do things for the experience?

•       If you’re looking for some grand, ultimate meaning in your life, you’re probably not going to find it. You can’t live every day looking forward to the day when suddenly, your life matters. Some people just want to be a hero; whatever that means to them. Some people want to be remembered. I think we all want something, whether we admit it or not. But the meaning is in the little things, and the little things are the ones you’ll miss if you’re looking at tomorrow or yesterday instead.

•       Which brings me to yesterday. The past can be addictive. There are things there we will never have again: certain friends, loved ones, places, and memories. Remembering is not inherently bad, but when it becomes an obsession, or when you constantly feel the need to deny it, it becomes a problem.

•       Live your life today and make vague plans for tomorrow. That’s my goal. Do you really want to look  back in 5 years and remember obsessing over the past/future? I don’t.

       Living in the moment always gets a bad rap. I don’t know why. I think that living in the moment is potentially one of the most beautiful things you can do. It’s freedom. I think when people condemn “live in the moment” mindsets, they think of recklessness. People who live in the moment recklessly aren't living in the moment; they’re dying in the moment. There’s a good chance that they’re using it as an escape. Living in the moment just means enjoying where you’re at now. The future’s not here so I’m not going to concern myself with it too much.

I don’t know if I’m talking to you or myself anymore. I also don’t know what to make of all of this. I don’t think that I need to know right now and I don’t know that I need to make anything of it. Some things just are.