Reply to comment

"Back to frog brain writing, and what we expect of it, how we identify it. That's a set of questions where I'm hoping neurobiology could learn something from world literature as well as vice versa. Yes, I think "syntactical structures and rhythmic repetitions" are relevant. But my guess would be that "thematics" is not irrelevant, that one can identity themes like, perhaps, temporal persistance and things grading into one another."  

I appreciate this rich dialogue and the invitation to join it, which I do here, wading . . .

Things grading into one another, via processes and with results not readily or fully articulable, in a context where things (i.e., species, eras) are not distinct as they are in consciousness: Is this a definition of change?  With such a definition in hand, could people more usefully prompt and explore changes?  More easily live without defending against them?

I'm interested in possible reciprocal learning between neurobiology and world literature.  What would happen if we called it "language" or "writing and speaking"  instead of world literature?  I'm wondering about how words themselves are free agents, dancing shadows (to use Wai Chee's term above) -- continuous with our frog lives, baby lives, animal lives . . . , and with the sounds of others.  that in a sense, all writing is frog brain writing.  Every word a metaphor, every metaphor a toy, every pun an opening of space between.  In the space is everything and everyone -- and the cognitive unconscious is alert to this?