‘dyslexia was the first general term used to describe various learning problems’ (Ron Davis: 1996)
I am not sure how this my understanding of the word relates to its semantic derivation. I have come to recognise it as being the result of a perceptual talent and a self-created condition.
??? :)
Hay I have been a way a while … so I haven’t been bothered by it going off topic. Well probably because it hasn’t: poetry and dyslexia are both things that seem to be buzzing about.
Have loads of work to do so I am shooting.
TH
Timihim, my apologies. This started off as a thread that made no sense whatsoever to me, and it's getting worse. As I understand it, dyslexia is a learning disorder marked by impairment of the ability to recognize and comprehend written words.
If I'm correct in this - and I'm not saying that I am, but that it's just how I understand it - then I fail to see how someone who struggles to recognize and comprehend written words can write so eloquently as yourself.
Not once did I infer that Dyslexics can't be educated - far from it. And I certainly never suggested that women shouldn't be educated. That was an uncalled-for remark from yourself.
As to my Stephen Hawkins remarks, I'm willing to allow that they may have been uncalled-for also. However I stand by my opinion that it serves no purpose to write in such a way that the majority of readers will find it hard to comprehend.
I'm not allowing you to not make sense if you talk to Hawky (your words). I'm merely suggesting that when you talk to Hawky it may not make sense to the rest of us. And that you may choose to use different language when conversing with high-brow professors than with a simpleton like myself.
Let's keep this into perspective. I don't wish to fall out. I'm just trying to understand. (And unfortunately I won't be there on the 20th as I have other plans).
joining this late I find I had the same problem as Karl. It seems we have different ideas of what the word means. I thought it was commonly accepted that it was a word/letter recognition problem as Karl said.
I just heaved out my very old two volumes of shorter oxford dictionary (1975) and it is not in there.
my concise oxford (1988) says this:
dyslexia. word-blindness; hence, dyslectic.
from G. dyslexie (as DYS-, Gk lexis speech, IA)
whatever all that means.
didn't see perceptual talent anywhere though. I'm not being sarcastic ... I just don't understand what you are trying to say.
am in agreement don't push it too much take time out now and again ..... :-) .....oh and here's a :-x (kiss)for both of you ..... take care good friends
i'm new to this board..not even sure where i am..guess you could say the fates delivered me here.. but i'm here and i must say i am appalled at some of the attitudes i see expressed here..
since when is it an impossibility for dyslexia and an extensive vocabulary to co-exist? dyslexia simply and literally indicates difficulty with language.. it by no means identifies an individual as having no comprehension of language or no ability to grasp it..just difficulties with language as the statistical majority defines it..
yet other languages exist beyond the ones most widely known.. for instance, there is pictoral language which paints the message with words but needs not to be interpretted word-for-word.. many dyslexics are fluent in this language, in addition to the extreme effort we put into decyphering common english (written or otherwise).. yet a nondyslexic admits that he can't or won't work that hard to gleam meaning from a message.. i find it hard to relate to one so lazy minded..
go ahead and call me a pretentious b!tch.. i don't give a sh!t because the fact is i can read better with my eyes closed than many can read with eyes wide open because i can read between the lines.. i believe that timihim is quite understandable.. i had no difficulty following.. anyone who does is as dyslexic to pictoral language as i am to linear language.. it is in that sense that we have more similarities than differences and are all equal parts dyslexic and non..
you go timihim! i hear you loud and clear! as you and i both know and others need to learn..dyslexia is not a disease..it is a gift!
Thanks for that, 'thia. I found nothing pretentious in your posting. It's a lot clearer now that you have explained in everyday language. Perhaps if timihim had explained himself in similar terms we all might have understood more easily. But now I get that he was perhaps doing it deliberately, to make the point about the difficulties faced by dyslexics.
I am numerically dyslexic (there IS a name for this but I can't remember it). As soon as I see numbers something inside me seems to switch off and I cannot find the logic tools required to deal with them. Is this how a dyslexic feels when faced with words?
Perhaps 'thia would be so kind to explain ‘perceptual talent’ … ??
Thanks for the apology Karl… though I still think your understanding of dyslexia is tremendously wrong but seeing as I am having difficulty being understood an explanation is redundant. Thus, I don’t apologise for not writing in what you conceive as ‘everyday language’ because, my friend, this is mine. If you don’t understand it, it may well be my bad. Thank-you for pointing that out.
I continue to believe, however, that it is better for dyslexics and nondyslexics to be more allowing of each other. That is, try and be open minded about language/the structure of language that is less familiar to themselves.
There are several principles by which I stand, that assert there are multiple reasons why it may be an advantage. The point regarding ambiguity in light of Kapoor’s work was for one … but I have the feeling you have heard enough. I am not in the business of insult or intimidating for fun.
I conclude: I do not write to deliberately confuse, but instead, I feel it is possibility to assert - that in its unavoidable eventuality - that my writing, ebbed with confusion, does have the added advantage of being actively illustrative of what it is like for me, as a dyslexic reading words that are designed for the mind-type of a non-dyslexic.
And, finally, I know there is a number-dyslexia though I don’t know what it is ('thia?). I am also unable to deem whether we would experience similar things. However, I think I can be sure in saying that we do in terms of being subjected to a particular condition, of which people are ignorant of and at times, bigoted and prejudice.
This is what I hope to change through writing ‘dyslexic poetry’.
:)hi again:) i'm glad to know i did not come across as hostile.. when i first posted, there was an error on the page and i was only able to read half the messages.. when i saw the second half which showed a shift in attitude, more openmindedness and a willingness to try to understand, i felt a twinge of regret.. i still would have posted my opinion and it would have been the same opinion, but i would have been more objective and less in the attack mode had i seen the apologies and such:)
i agree that using this pictoral language is indeed a good way for nondyslexics to put the shoe on the other foot so to speak.. dyslexics are what is referred to as "visual spacial" learners, or picture-thinkers.. i don't claim to speak for all dyslexics, only myself, but the tendency is to think in pictures rather than words; so communication, written as well as spoken, requires inward translation from one mode to the other.. where some may have an angel on one shoulder and a devil on the other, i have an interpreter on my shoulder whose job it is to change the pictures into words and visa versa before my thoughts can be written/spoken in a way that can be understood by others.. (i'm not sure who/what is on my other shoulder, but i think his name is chip:)) i sometimes write in a similar language to what tim uses in poetry, which is why it is not over my head.. not because i feel superior, merely because it speaks my native language.. words are like a second language.. most dyslexics in time become bilingual and learn to use and/or control words since that is the language of the majority and if you can't beat 'em join 'em..
as long as i have the floor, what the h3ll, i may as well try to clear up some misconceptions.. anyone not interested can ignore:) there is so much more to dyslexia than the words and letters getting mixed up on the page.. a question was asked about it being a perceptual strength rather than a weakness (as it is commonly yet wrongly known as).. the thing is, dyslexics tend to see things from several angles at once.. this happens both figuratively and literally.. when it happens literally, yeah the letters and words get a bit mixed up because we are seeing letters at every possible angle imaginable (often simultaneously) and words in every possible arrangement of the letters.. it takes great concentration to distinguish which of these perceptions is the one which is actually on teh page.. again, this is just my own experience.. each individual is unique..
i think this is why i too easily get a chip on my shoulder about others not wanting to take the time or effort to try to understand a message whose meaning is not readily apparent upon its initial perusal.. because this extreme time and effort is something i go through each and every time i communicate with somebody who is not dyslexic.. yet so few "nons" will offer the same curtesy, or will think i am intentionally being cryptic so that i can monopolize their time in trying to decypher me and they decide they don't have time for such games.. it is not a game.. sometimes i speak in riddles because i think in riddles.. plain english is what riddles me.. i may or may not speak for tim or other dyslexics.. this is just me..
oh, by the way, "numerically dyslexia" is called dyscalcula.. it may be similar to dyslexia in its visual aspects of transposing numbers, but each mind works in its own way.. generalities often do not apply.. my son for instance can tell you off the top of his head what the answer to a math problem is, but cannot show his work in writing because his wheels are spinning faster than his pencil can keep up with.. this is due to a combination of dyslexia and dysgraphia (diff with writing) and maybe this is part of dyscalcula too? i don't know.. everyone has their own unique blend of characteristics.. there is no one profile that would fit everyone under one umbrella..
but yes, i for one can relate to the "switching off" thing.. it is called disorientation.. when we are faced with a prob which is not easily solvable by our default mode of problem solving, it can leave us at a loss.. therefore when forced to solve a math problem "their way" instead of how it comes naturally to you, i can see where such disorientation could occur, as similarly when i meet a word that cannot be seen in picture form, it can throw me off..
anyway, enough said for now, but again i appologize if my first post was inflamatory:)
Timihim, I too had difficulty in understanding your first 2 postings.. Found I have followed more the reasoning of your subsequent ones..
What has changed I wonder, You or I?
and thanks.. I have learnt a bit more about dyslexia and certainly want to know more.. (recommend any books?)
ps to timihim.. i see that my post follows a new one from you.. just wanted to say i was not ignoring you.. we were apparently posting at the same time:) your message is well said and well heard:) peace:)
help, i'm hogging and i can't quit typing:) good books? the gift of dyslexia by dr. ron davis, you don't have to be dyslexic by dr. joan m. smith, learning outside the lines by jonathan mooney and david cole, the mind's eye (author unknown).. also try running a search on dyslexia 'cause there are some informative sites out there too:)
'thia and Timihimi,
Thanks for taking the time to try and clear things up. Am I right in assuming - and I get this from 'thia's first posting - that dyslexia concerns language more so than words?
If so, this would explain my misunderstanding.
I concur with 1Leg, Timihim. Your recent postings make a lot more sense to me than your first two. And I congratulate you on making the effort to "reach" the rest of us.
when literally translated it means difficulty with language.. most interpret it as difficulty with reading because if it is not their own experience they can only interpret it from the manifestations that can be outwardly seen.. it is said to be a "disorder" and most accept this as accurate because it is all they ever hear, but it is not a disorder.. it is a statistical difference.. twenty percent of the population thinks in pictures and therefore has difficulty with words.. this is not a disease in need of a cure.. it is a mindset that differs from the other 80% of the population but is equally "normal".. when i used the word dyslexic to say we all are in equal parts, i meant by its literal translation, that we all have difficulty with language.. those who are labelled dyslexic have difficulty with the language of words.. those who are considered "normal" have difficulty with the language which uses words but does not depend on them.. if you do not understand, i don't hold that against you, but i see it as a case in point.. by the most widely known definition of dyslexia, it does concern the language of words.. but my point is that by its rawest definition it could apply to anyone because others are no better at reading me than i am at reading words.. this is a simple matter of individual strengths and weaknesses.. i do appreciate those who take the time to see this perspective.. i appreciate it on a personal level but i also appreciate it in the wider context that it helps others understand what i (and others) encounter on a constant basis, the ammount of effort we extend which goes unnoticed.. most of us spend a lifetime learning to conform to the linear language of the majority because we're not given much choice.. the majority rules.. so it is refreshing when i am met halfway by someone who is as willing to bend their frame of mind towards mine as i am towards theirs.. meeting halfway.. that's all i think anyone asks for.. nothing more, nothing less.. thanx:)
You're welcome, and thanks once again for making the effort to clarify the issue.
The one point, however, that I will challenge you on is where you say 20% of the population thinks in pictures.
I hold a practitioner's certificate in Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP), and a large proportion of the "techniques" we were taught and practice involve visualisation.
People are either visual, auditory or kinesthetic thinkers, although all of us operate on all of these thought-modes at different times. However, the majority of us are visual thinkers. Those who believe they aren't, just can't "hear" what the rest of us are saying, or can't "get to grips" with our feelings on a certain matter.
My opinion then is that the majority of us think in pictures. Unfortunately, I don't know the exact percentage claimed by the NLP founders, and of course it would serve no purpose for me to discover this because it may limit my belief in a client's ability to visualise. Everybody has THE POWER to visualise, while the majority of us THINK visually.
the 20% i refer to is that studies have shown that dyslexia affects between 15 to 20 percent of the general population.. each individual has a blend of strengths and weeaknesses, and usually do have a prominance of whether they think/learn best by visual, auditory, kinetic etc and dyslexics as a rule are gifted at visual perception.. i must disagree that everyone (or even most) can think visually.. there are many who when asked to "picture" something in their mind's eye cannot do so, and rely instead on inner dialague consisting of words.. but my intention is not to quibble about statistics or norms, simply to speak my mind from my own personal perspective and experience.. so sorry that i am not rising too eagerly to the challenge you propose.. i don't wish to become argumentative or make a huge debate about it.. i am only speaking my opinion based on my own day-to-day reality and my own research:)
pioden.. you're so sweet!:) x and o to you too:) and a nongripping brush of fingertips through the looking glass for timihim:) i do understand and respect the need for and power of protective glass:) (a computer screen, for instance:)) (:peace:)
Fair point, 'thia. Many people do rely on auditory dialogue. Princess Diana, to name but one. If you ever get the chance to see her famous interview with that Bashir bloke, her eye patterns jumped to auditory dialogue (bottom left) before answering any of his questions. In other words she was going over in her mind exactly how to answer the question before speaking.
There's nothing wrong in this, of course. It's just a natural reaction. Mind you, if her eye patterns went to visual constructed we may have had cause to think, but they didn't.
However, as a therapist I have to believe (and prove) that everyone can visualise. I'll do this by saying, "Close your eyes. Now tell me what colour my shirt is. And what colour are the walls?" They need to go inside and visualise in order to answer the question, which they do.
Now here's an amusing paradox. I'm in danger of being guilty of the very "crime" I accused Timihim of - writing so that people have to work too hard to understand. My apologies to all who've stuck with this fascinating thread.
I couldn’t log on all yesterday afternoon/evening, which was a bit annoying.
‘thia, I really like what you have to say and you taught me some interesting stuff.
Karl - Neuro-Linguistic Programming – I have never heard of this, though I probably should. Sounds fascinating. I can’t work out though, is that what you used to do cause you say you are a councillor now? I am probably being naive and should really look it up somewhere but I can’t be bothered and would rather ask you straight.
I am really interested in cognition patterns, but not as a singular entity, I trying to correlate and write about notions of consciousness, as being part of differing linguistic structures.
That is badly explained – I mean looking at text and supposing that you could apply a concept that supposes that you relate to a type of consciousness – that is contextual abstracts – rather than registering tones and context, it is facing discourse realising it as being self aware, from the particular viewpoint of a dyslexic.
Thus supposing dyslexia is a self created condition it is registering the social reality that the words condition, in the supposition that, you may deduct from this certain tendencies to remove weight from language (linguistic rules/grammer/synxtax etc) and thus you can apply from one perspective Kristeva/plato’s theory of chora. With the intended affect that in practice, dyslexic inclination will oscillate to reveal something about consciousness ...
Hay I don’t expect it to make much sense at this stage, I am throwing some ideas about. Trying to formulate them firstly, through the practice of poetry writing and objectifying my own writing. secondly, relating tendencies to a wider frame, and in that process, writing and revising notions that I think can be learned and taught.
Bit too much for a Saturday morning? I think so.
Hay thanks for putting together some really interesting perspectives Karl, ‘athia - and Karl, would love to know a little more about what you do …
Thanks. TH
This is a very enlightening thread. I think the initial problem was that writers tend to be supersensitive to what they consider to be 'overblown' and 'pretetious' language. Thanks for dodging the flak timihim and 'thia, and for persevering with your viewpoint. I will certainly look at dyslexia in a new light from now on.
As a dyslexic who was dianosed firstly by an eye speicalist .... I've found this whole thread of great interest ..... I did try to post before but the site went down .....
One of the most daming things that occurs to me is the way in which people naturally assume things about subjects they have no knowledge on ..... I have always loved playing with words .... strange as that might seem .....
but when I read or have people say that we are illerate .... it gets right up my nose .... I get the impression from some that as a dyslexic I am not allow to have an imgination nor experiences that for some reason I am a blank space .....
why cannot a dyslexic be a writer..... poet .... we have stories and tales to tell ...we make put them over slightly different but our reality can be so near to the spot that it hurts .... as I found from reading some of the stuff written by other dyslexic's ...... espeically those who have written about their experiences into the written world .... much of which has not been published because they don't meet perfection ..... but isn't a lot of writting about imperfection anyway?
:)hi again:) i had the same frustrations with proxy errors yesterday:) i agree with the point that most if not all "can" visualize.. i think, though, that some do so naturally as their default way of thinking and therefore without any conscious effort, where as others have to concentrate to make the switch from words to pictures or ideas because although it is possible for them it is not the frame of mind they fall into naturally.. in the same way, dyslexics certainly can learn to read, can learn to understand linear language, can have an intelligent conversation with full comprehension.. but this is not without effort..
the dominant characteristic in dyslexia, though, which makes it difficult to explain or for others to understand, is that it is not a visual weakness.. it is a matter of perception.. i don't know if i was previously able to clearly define "perceptual talent" or not.. a case in point of this paradox is that test scores in visual spacial comprehension are statistically above average to superior (if not gifted, genius, or even off the charts).. but in the same individual, low scores will be found in visual attention span.. reading comprehension can be at a college level in an elementery aged student, yet while reading one word at a time, they are seeing letters transposed and having difficulty knowing which word it is when not in the context of a sentence to support it.. for instance, i am a speed reader.. i can read an article in no time flat with full comprehension.. but i am taking in full sentences at a glance, not moving my eyes from one word to the next in a left-to-right linear fassion.. i can read left do right as i have been trained to do, and will take the time to backtrack and do so if i miss something significant, but it does not come naturally to me.. my eyes track faster than the words could be spoken because my mind moves faster than the spoken or written word can keep up with.. i call it "cognitive hyperactivity".. the wheels spin faster than can be kept up with in words..
the bottom line is that dyslexia is not a synonym for illiterate.. it is not an inability to read.. it is a difference in how we read.. and reading is only one of many aspects.. it is hard for others to understand how we are able to grasp words and language that is not coming at us in the "correct" order, because they only know their own perspective from their own experience.. my son's tracking problems are suspected as being due to poor muscle control (eye muscles) and that the way his eyes dart around may be due to involuntary muscle spasms.. yet the same neuropsychologist who made this discovery was amazed that even so he had the highest visual spacial perception scores that she has ever seen.. therefore, dyslexia is not a disorder.. it only hinders us when we are forced to conform to linear confines.. although the words, letters, and everything else, may present themselves to us in random order, we still make sense of it because our minds are designed to take in various points from across the board and pull them together into a comprehensible whole.. the way we see things does not make things hard, because that is the same way we process what we see, our minds darting around until the whole picture takes focus.. it is only when we are forced to look at one step at a time, or one word at a time, that we have difficulty, because i for one am not a single minded person.. i have to see something from every possible angle.. if only "one right answer", or one way of arriving at that answer is required, it goofs me up.. this is why dyslexics have difficulty in the classroom and may appear to have poor intelligence or learning disorders.. but when left to our own devices, we prove this wrong..
ask whoopie goldberg, tom cruise, jay leno if dyslexia hindered their success in the long run.. or if they were still living, we could ask einstein, edison, divinci, or yeats how they could contibute so much and still be dyslexic.. they would tell you that they were the trailblazing creative thinkers that they were not in spite of dyslexia but because of.. sorry to have written so much, but it is nice to find somebody interested in seeing my perspective.. i spend far too much time trying to explain it to those who do not want to open their eyes and therefore never will.. it is refreshing to discuss this with those who do want to understand and are beginning to:) this has been quite a thought provoking discussion.. i appreciate all the imput from various perspectives:)
am not working too hard just am having problems getting onto this thread (as in getting it up on my screen)... r u?
i am being easily distracted at the moment and being sneaky and going to France tomorow for the weekend to celebrate my birthday ... how cool?
hope you are both well ... TH
134 – a very sincere thank you
pioden – I think one of the main problems with being able to write ‘dyslexic poetry’ is that dyslexics, are still slightly ashamed of the way they perceive things – unsurprisingly after all the flak we have had for all this time, under the eye of misconception. Thus the people that have achieved well tend to consider themselves writers and only put dyslexia in brackets, just in case it changes peoples view of their writing (which proves the authors not dead … will come back to this).
Additionally, it is impossible – I feel - to define ‘dyslexic writing’. this is because there is nothing permanent about its style – nothing you can identify it with as a universal phenomena. Thus it just comes out an ‘inferior’ type of language.
However, there are two things that we can do: firstly, we can define our writing by its binary obligations i.e. it is dyslexic because it is not undyslexic (lexic)
And secondly (and here comes the continuum I referred to above) assert that: the author isn’t dead.
In other words, we take back from the postmodernist graveyard the conception that works do not belong to the author. Clearly, the ‘death of the author’ is only really useful for white, middle class men … you don’t see feminist writers or postcolonial writers harping on about what a great concept it is, no. The author is and should be authoritative. Whilst I do not think that their interpretation is finial I do think it is important to unite literary and artistic concepts with linguistic i.e. assume that all work is self conscious and contextual thus, each piece of work is connecting with a particular mental framework.
It is through this that we can relate and ‘unite’ dyslexic writing. Thus, there doesn’t have to be a particular physical marker that suggests dyslexic trait but instead, it is the consciousness of the dyslexic - only defined in terms of the particular conscious traits of the author (that may not transpire to manifest onto paper) - that define dyslexic writing. However, we must remember this can only occur in realising it can exist –– as one end of a dichotomy … again … it is only dyslexic thinking/writing because it isn’t nondyslexic/lexic.
Consequently, I think there can be such a thing as a DYLSEXIC writer - that is apposed to a writer (who is dyslexic) – but we have to assert a theoretical point of view to help nondyslexic access our discourse. As, like I have discovered here, there are many misconceptions that transpire from the style itself, which only add to the myths about us that already exist, which in some cases, haunt our daily lives.
PS ‘thia … can feel the support oozing from your dyslexic thinking … cheers, big time … for both your insight and your support. (dyslexics unite/untie – eh?!)
PPS I wanna read some dyslexic poetry … under what name can I find your poetry ‘thia/ pioden?
:)hi:)
i think that whether a piece is "dyslexic writing" or nondyslexic has much to do with the "voice" of the writer, rather than (or in addition to) whether it is written in a linear mode or in pictoral language.. what i mean is, dyslexics (speaking for myself at least) learn to "use" words as a vehicle, but not rely on them to be the message in and of themselves.. dyslexic writing as i define it is when a picture is painted with the words and the reader sees or feels something that is implied rather than clearly stated.. when they can sit back and absorb the meaning and have a clear picture of the meaning of the message even if they did not understand the words.. i have recently read and written some dyslexic poetry, and if i had wanted to make sense of it word for word i would have needed to get out my dictionary.. but instead, it was refreshing to be able to read it by my natural tendencies, to gather meaning in spite of the words, not because of them.. so instead of looking up the words, i scanned at a glance and then closed my eyes and let it sink in.. when i responded to the writer, i was reassured that i did indeed gleam the intended meaning from it.. this left me wondering, am i dyslexic or psychic? but it also helped me realize that it is possible to read emotions, to read "vibes" if you would, and i know it is possible because i have experienced it.. this is what i mean by "reading between the lines" which is something that all the dyslexics i know are very talented at doing.. not just reading the words, but hearing what is unspoken as well..
no prob, tim.. it's been my pleasure to "ooze":) i have a confession to make when you ask under which name you can find my poetry posted.. i have not registered or logged onto this site.. i'm not even sure where or how to post any poetry here aside from quoting some here on the discussion board.. what the h3ll.. i don't know if the following is dyslexic or not.. you be the judge:)
wild thing>>
some would proclaim me the next emily dickenson
with the hundreds of poems hidden under my bed..
but they would not find in them the sweet song of crickets and
an ode to the blue sky that's over my head..
maybe if i'm lucky, then one in a hundred
will have something inspirational to say..
but if a positive message is what is most wanted,
then ninety-nine under my bed must stay..
too morbid for my own good with pen in hand,
but damned if i know why my thoughts are so dark..
like blake, i comprehend but i don't understand
why attempts to be poetic are just a lark..
but they are.. no sparrows or mockingbirds
will you find but those shot or who sh!t on the pages..
you'll discover no beauty of nature in my words
nor a reason for them to persevere through the ages..
so why do i keep writing? what is my purpose?
why do i keep producing such rubbish and rot?
because i'm a slave to my heart, at its service
to force thoughts into words, because i can't not..
but the author of my own punishment
i've been said to be becoming as i write myself thus..
but tis not by choice that i'm driven to abolishment
with my bumper sticker boasting "to my own doom or bust"..
i cannot explain this morbid streak
nor can i escape it.. believe me.. i've tried..
why am i compelled to offer a peek
of the worst case scenerios from deep inside?
and why do the words of the beautiful people
twist themselves in my mind to my own interpretation?
there is a fly on my sweet angel..
over the rainbow into h3ll's own creation
as i go straight to jail and do not pass go..
don't collect my rewards 'cause i haven't earned any..
to my own pointless journey i've sold my soul
though nobody would buy it for as much as a penny..
and so under the bed hide the words that won't end..
i've created a monster.. or does the monster create me?
under the bed: my worst foe or best friend?
shall i unleash the words and set him free?
who am i kidding? as if i had a choice..
i can't fight the compulsion to keep him well fed..
i nurture him, embrace him, give him a voice..
the words escape.. it is me who is under the bed..
(by 'thia sawyer)
I write under pioden on abc ....... I threw out two whole boxes of my writting ..... one fully completed book ..... for reason I will not go into
For years I have lived not with the fear of words
but with the fear of miss - intrepretation ..... whilst in school I was seen either as having a 'lazy eye' and ended up having to wear stupid Joe ninety glasses or worse still I was thick or stupid ..... but when I wrote people rarely put them down but would read right to the end ... often asking what I meant by this or that .... if the words had become twisted .... and I would hide ..... or cringe it's taken agaes to come to terms just with that
my sister was recgonised as dyslexic at school she excelled whilst I stayed middle of the road and in the end helped myself ...... I knew that this was the problem .... so I built up my own form of strategies ......
Now I've been lucky enough to come into close contact with other dyslexic's from the Bangor Dyslexic Unit and now shout about it ..... because ignorance means suffering
I don't put dyslexic into brackets because I'm ashamed but do so .... so that other dyslexic's can see that they no longer have to hide or pretent .... as I know of the fear many have at standing up and the stigma they have to face ..... as soon as you recognise another they open up and you watch them slowly bloom ....... it's a wonderful thing to see
but I do it more so to get my own back on all those who have told me in the past that I would never amount ot much ..... I do it because I love words and I love the picture's I can create from them .... I am now fasinated by the way people intrepret what I write in a way I never have been ....
pen to paper
words to words
have courage
in whom you are
Set it where it
can't be taken away
words are our power
words our strenght
this reality
is ours to share
not to hide
under the bed
Our wisdom
our sight
is not hinder
but stands upright
‘thia
I understand completely what you mean by pictorial/psychic/writing between lines but I think it is impossible to lend lexics this minds.
What I think would be really neat is to express what we see in terms that lexics can understand. So that dyslexics and lexics can share boards. I know you are trying to be helpful karl, but I think you are kind of missing my point, which is that I believe it is possible to transgress the boundaries of the dichotomies.
Whilst dyslexics and dyslexic can only exist in being perceived in what they are not, what is not, is also the same. I am thinking in terms of ideas of Freud/Lacan/Laplache … to name a few.
It comes from the point or understanding of the form of ‘the Other’.
What this means is, to an extent, we are all dyslexic and nondyslexic simultaneously. Now this might be hard for you to understand how. Especially when as a dyslexic you have served such sentences for your crime of dyslexia. And when you as a nondyslexic regard dyslexics as ‘Other’ i.e. a phenomenon unique to someone else.
But really cyclonic and linear forms dwell coexisting while one is a more dominant manifestation.
Thus … it is easy to believe as a dyslexic you are inferior, because there is a dominant standardised form of literacy (specific to English – for the sake of this argument … because if you think of Chinese of Congolese, for example, things become more complicated) and when one side of the dichotomy becomes dominant the other side, by laws of power becomes, lesser.
Essentially I think, that while dyslexic boards are helpful if you need support in dealing with specific personal difficulties, if you want to try and assrt yourself as a dyslexic in a nondyslexic word it is far more satisfying to express across the board, so to speak, so that what is specific becomes shared. Personal is political - to nick the femist speak and connotation.
This, I hope, will have the effect of people realising the power structures so that they might be re-evaluated. In turn, nondyslexics might be able to access the (perhaps) suppressed dyslexic tendencies available and this might have some massive advantages for literature as a genre.
Pioden: thank you for sharing your story; it takes more courage to share your hurt than boast about your greatness.
‘thia: I understand completely what you are getting at. I hope you can bounce of what I am saying to explore this further. I find it so interesting. I only hope to find a way so that nondyslexic see the value in it. Our talking isn’t quite egocentric nor universal … so it defiantly needs work!
the words crawl in..
the words crawl out..
the words pay pennance
in whispers or shouts..
here a squawk..
there a squawk..
when it's all said and done,
it's all just talk..
or is it?
words are weapons or tools..
it's a fine line between
the wise oracle and the fool..
words are enlightenment,
sympathy, reprieve....
each serves a purpose
if we only believe..
believe in each other..
believe in ourselves..
take the unspoken words
off their dusty shelf..
whether escaped against our will
or freely given away,
words are just words
until they see the light of day..
then only the fates know
what truths will be revealed
for it's the soul behind the words
that makes it real..
the words could be simple
or riddled with complexity..
they could even be coined
like the apt term "dyslexity"*..
and it doesn't matter
as long as they're spoken..
as long as they're written..
they become a token,
a ticket out..
imagination.. creation..
it's all about connections
and communication..
(*the term dyslexity was coined by a pal on the davis gift-of-dyslexia discussion board.. it is a term which i translate as "the dyslexic experience" but could have diverse meaning according to individual interpretation..)
thanx for the link karl.. i'll check it out..
powerful poem pioden:) thanx for the encouragement to come out from under the bed:)
hi timihim:)
i totally agree timihim.. but speaking of psychic, how is it that we always seem to be posting at the same time?:):)
but yeah, totally.. yet as we have learned to understand and respond in linear terms and spend our whole lives doing so, i think it just might be possible for nondyslexics to learn to understand.. but you are right that if they are not dyslexic, i don't know if reading between the lines is something that can be taught.. i suppose it is possible.. long ago, they believed (and many still believe) that dyslexics could not learn to read linear language, but we have proven that archaic theory to be wrong.. so maybe it is possible after all for others to learn dyslexic/psychic awareness if they are willing and open.. or maybe not.. maybe it is just something where you either have it or you don't..
but i agree 100% that there has to be some kind of middle ground, some kind of language which takes the best of both the linear and the pictoral and can be understood by all.. i think compromise is the key.. i hate to compromise, but i have spent three decades doing so anyway, so what the h3ll.. all i ask from nondyslexics is that they be as willing to compromise as i am.. why should only some of us be willing to go the extra mile? it should be an equal give and take..
i had the same reaction too to the idea of a dyslexic board.. i don't want to be sequestered into a separate corner.. what is that? it's been fun and interesting but now i don't have time for you anymore so it's back to the special ed classroom with you where you are out of sight and out of mind..???? i know no offense was intended, but i found the suggestion somewhat insulting for the reasons stated.. i think diversity, acceptance, co-existence is necessary.. i (we) have something to contribute to the mainstream population.. as you say, separate boards for support are good, but they should not be a replacement for our equal right to take part in the real world as well..
ok, so i'm strongly opinionated:) but i stand my ground on this one.. consider me chained to the same tree as you are timihim:) i'll still check out that link out of curiosity karl, but i had to speak my mind on that once timihim got my wheels spinning:) (:peace:)
Thia and Timihim .... KARL expecially have been to the site .... it was awful ...... I don't mean bad awful .... I mean black on blue .... you can't read a word ....... no offence Karl your not responsible for it ...... I had to screw up my eyes and then gave up ...... besides I have the same feeling as Thia ..... this site 'abc' was set up with a principle in mind ..... have respect for other's with similar prinicples ..... your consideration Karl sets you high in my Book and I thank you ..... but if I wished to be excluded from the writen world I would never have come here in the first place .... this is a site for writer and readers all do not excluded one group of people because they write in a form that may be or seem to be beyond your own limitations ...... this sound sooooo patronizing and I don't wish to be .....
timihim ..... I understand where you coming from but for many your message will go beyond the limits of their imaginations .... notice how this has become a four way thing .... how others seem scuttle away in fear .... but do not stop persever .... the more we write the more we focus people minds .....
I once faced this challenge over what being dyslexic means when asked 'how can blind man paint?'
to which I reply ..... so a blind man must be denied all beauty becuase you have decided that they cannot feel the surface of their own or your own face ..... what sense you take from a person with one hand they relpace with another.... a blindman may not be able to paint nor may he be able to write with a pen but he has not lost his ability to speak or to feel .... his drawing and painting may not be placed in a frame and hung on the wall but his words can make your heart bleed at the reality he can produce in your mind ..... the blind artist could so eaily be that of a non dyslexic person who hides behind his abilities the right that no one but self can write in a way that creates painting of the monsters we have become...
The problems for a dyslexic who sees the world in such a different way is that it exposes the non dyslexic who seeks to hide their own failings ......
no one should be excluded from beauty that words can create .... a blind man can create painting that will make your skin crawl in just the same way as a fully sighted person can if only given the chance ..... Dyslexic and non dyslexic should not be segregated but need to be meet mid way ...... I can laugh at my mistakes .... to the point of looking a ridicule for what it is...... the other persons ignorance and so I get the greater laugh because I can see what they don't ......
You are so right Pioden – I am pretty sure Mattisse became blind in his later years and those painting were/are revolutionary. Painters such as Kandisky could either hear or taste colour I can’t remember which now, which goes to show sight wasn’t his dominating sense. You also have a range of artist from the Bauhuas, Johannes Itten for example, that explored colour through new senses … thus it was the blind artist, you could argue, that has transformed art and made it into what we know today as ‘modern art’. What a brilliant point.
Hay there was something else that happened to me just last night, which I thought, was quite interesting. A group of three, my two friends and I, were playing scrabble. We started off playing the conventional game; words have to be in the dictionary.
- I should mention that two out of the three was dyslexic -
Unfortunately, in this game the nondyslexic won, slightly annoying to me for thee reason, firstly I am extremely competitive and like to think I win everything. secndly I am usually blinding at this particular game(!) thirdly, the person who beat me (I came second) was my ex.
The interesting thing was that we didn’t actually run the game dry. You know, you are meant play till there is no letters left and then detract what is left over from your score. However, as the game progressed we started taking too long over our turns until we eventually found it too boring to carry on.
Anyway after a break and a couple of doobs we decided to restart the game, with a twist. We decided to play dyslexic scrabble, which made so much more sense considering two of us were. At this point, my nondyslexic ex became slightly dubious. Excusably on the grounds that they had no idea what this entailed, while my dyslexic friend and I seemed adamant that this was achievable with no real reason to cover the grounds of the game.
As the game progressed the rules became set as our understanding prevailed through our choice of lexicon. In general no spelling had to be correct, for example, one of my words was ‘unike’ (Unique). Other such words were ‘ooosewalter’ (who is Walter?). Get the idea?
However, what was interesting was, while me and the other dyslexic was buzzing of the new system, the nondyslexic was mainly using - (less creativeley?) - nouns ‘bryan’ and ‘jo’ for example. This story gets more interesting I promise you.
Through the course of the game we found new ways of making words such as, what I’d like to think of as ‘dyslexic rhythms’ (rhythm is the longest word in the dictionary without a vowel we discussed last night).
'Dyslexic rhythms' are not quite poetry. In fact they are not necessarily of the sense variety. They are rhythms that are obtained by bending language i.e. making sense out of words that don’t make sense by reading them in such a way so that they sound as if they do (!!). I can explain this better by elaborating that, at the end of the game we took it in turns to find poems out of our new words (which goes to prove the dyslexic version was far more interesting than the standard).
To make a poem you could read anyway you like, and the words didn’t necessarily have to be touching. (I am talking literally)
Now, I finally come to my point. The other dyslexic and I had the greatest amount of fun and where finding rhythms and stories all across the board, while the dyslexic could not think of one. I don’t think they ever fully grasped how our minds could agree on rules without discussing them and then make sense of what we had progressively learnt about the options open to you when you be alternative.
Ultimately, I felt it demonstrated quite neatly that the way we think is more abstract, less contained and thus more able to be more creative with language and language patterns, than someone who find the usual rules of scrabble easy i.e. a nondyslexic.
It seemed a much simpler story in my mind …
PS some very valid point Pioden about this turning out to be exclusive. But then we have ALWAYS had to adapt and remember how difficult it was when we were first confronted with the realisation. Would you really do it out of choice? That is what we have to focus on, making it seem less like a choice and reconditioning it as something ethical … because that is what it is really. Realising the ethics behind adapting yourself and trying to understand. It is like learning French so when you go on holiday you can be respectful. People either do and try, or confirm: ‘well everywhere in the world speaks English so why bother learning another language?’. I know which I think is the most common opinion.
am well ..... but will be going in for a few days ... you understand ..... you have a great happy birthday and take good care .... have a drink on me .....xxxxx
so do I ...... simplistic ..... what one understands another doesn't ...... there are many colours in the world and many minds ...... so why should we have to write for the main portion of who are inarticulate (that's naughty of me)
this reminds me of a certain TV program where new stars preform in front of three judges one of whom is representative of the music business ......
there was this partcular women singer she was very good .... and everyone enjoy what she did but this one judge put her down because she was too old and that the recording business focussed upon the younger market .... yet there's an increase in the more mature audiance which are not being catered for .... and sadly big buisness has a blind spot ...
It appears to be the same in the writing world ..... there always looking for new talent but don't want to recognise it because of the safety factor ..... this sells but we can't be sure how this will go down .... sadly it means we lose out ..... it's not so much word blindness or the lack of inability to understand what you've written it just a good example of your different we want different but ...... it comes at a cost to us because it means we have to think!
Survival of the 'pink fluffy slippers' to borrow a friends words
BE RADICAL UNDERSTAND A DYSLEXIC ... pulls out demostrative banner and hope sexy policeman will turn up
i think it would be an understatement to say einstein could see double.. i think he saw in multi dimensions, as most dyslexics do.. i sense that you say this with scorn or as a poor attempt at a joke.. but this is not a joking mattter.. without multi-dimensional thinkers, or those who see double and then some, this world would be a stagnant place.. where would the world of science be without einstein's contribution? i say this defensively because i often do see double, literally.. this is the frustrating side of things, but the part i would not change about this is consequencely i "think double"..more than that.. i think in many dimensions.. i read and write several meanings for each one word.. i would not choose to be nondyslexic for this reason.. i feel sorry for those who are single minded or who have tunnel vision.. they seem so limitted.. i would like to think others could tap into the ability to see in multi demensions (both literally and figuratively) if they trained their eyes and minds to do so just as we have learned to narrow down our perspectives to conform to the majority.. but sadly i am becoming convinced that many will never be so open-minded as to be able to do this because they do not want to.. they are too fearful of what they don't understand.. but i have also come to a point where i will be myself with no appologies and will not go away just because others are uncomfortable.. if others don't want to see, they don't have to look, but i'm not going to disappear.. i speak for myself, but i think i speak for others as well..
ps.. but to karl's credit, he did hang in there longer than most before throwing in the towel.. but it always ends the same.. that is what needs to change is the end result..an end to the fear that has others running with their tails between their legs in confusion and fear.. linear confines have also scared and confused me.. but i faced those fears.. i faced what i did not understand until i forced it to make sense to me.. i learned to control words rather than letting them control me.. i did this with stubborn determination and perseverence.. but one reason i think others cannot bend is this perseverence is a dyslexic gift and maybe they just do not have the strength of will to keep struggling to understand.. they beat it at the first sign of heat.. some stay longer, and that doesn't go unnoticed or unappreciated.. but in the long run, even they can no longer face what they don't understand and go their merry way.. and though finding (and keeping) our place in society is a worthy goal which i will never stop fighting for, we have a long way to go until fear stops ruling.. if they could explain what they fear we could help clear up misconceptions that cause these fears, but they cannot explain it because they are not in touch with their emotions or those of others as we are.. and so rather than try to understand, why can't they just accept? why not just admit they don't understand but add to that that we are welcome here? i think that is the bigger issue, not that the majority of the population is nondyslexic, but that the majority is nonaccepting of diversity, self-centered, self-serving, not even understanding of what it means to give others the time of day or to try to put themselves in another's shoe.. the prob is that the majority lacks sympathy and empathy.. maybe this is because they are nondyslexic but still should they not strive for it even if it doesn't come naturally do them? i mean these qualities are what make for a decent human being.. i don't ask anyone to become dyslexic who is not.. i do ask for decency..
thia ..... Mykle friendly person and meant no scorn of that I sure .... "me c 2" ...... me knows you 2 Mykle tease ......
Liana ...... sorry sometime hard to say what people like and what they don't .... positive critisim accepted ...... but people feel criticism has played a major part of their lives ..... many are dyslexic .....
sorry if i misread intentions.. but i just wanna say that einstein WAS dyslexic and it was NOT a problem, it was an ADVANTAGE.. he had a very gifted and creative mind BECAUSE of his dyslexia, not in spite of.. i just wish others could see the POSITIVE side.. and maybe you meant it in a positive way.. but i guess i don't have much of a sense of humor myself when it comes to jokes that are at my own expense.. einstein was a better person than i, i admit.. sorry if i offfended..
i'm feeling awkward.. i was sent a link to this discussion and am not a lurker by nature, couldn't resist putting my two cents in.. but you guys already know each other.. i am starting to feel like i have stuck my nose in where it doesn't belong.. i am too sensitive for my own good.. sometimes i do read between the lines correctly, but sometimes i see things that aren't there.. for instance, i see scorn where it does not exist because that is what i am used to seeing.. i've come to expect it, prepare to defend myself against it, and this can make me assume it is there when perhaps it is not.. i feel bad.. i hate the false accusations and assumptions that i have had to fend off all my life, and now i am guilty of doing the same to others.. i should not have assumed it was a cruel joke just because i didn't understand the words and wrongly guessed at their meaning.. it is now i who should shirk away with my tail between my legs.. i'm embarrassed and ashamed to have misread after all that patting myself on the back about how well i can read between the lines.. please don't base your opinion of dyslexics by me.. most truly are good at being sensitive and perceptive.. i suppose i am just a misfit in either world.. sorry, that sounds self pitying.. it isn't.. it's just guilt and shame..
Pages