Poetry / Mouth

I think this is an interesting reflection on the overlapping categories of language- I don’t know if this is what you intended, maybe my opinion’s influenced by reading alot of Wittgenstein about ‘language games’ and so on. Anyhow, my point is that the language allows you to separate the category of ‘mouth’ from the categories of ‘teeth’ and ‘tongue’ as if they were actually physically separate entities- i.e. as if the teeth and tongue are not physically and spatially part of the mouth. Therefore you can create the tension and contradiction of making the judgement that the ‘mouth’ is bad, or likely to do bad actions, but that the ‘teeth’ and ‘tongue’ are, at least aesthetically, good. This is a contradiction because the category of ‘mouth’, which you say is bad, contains the categories of ‘teeth’ and ‘tongue’. So how can a good thing exist in a bad thing? Interesting stuff.

• add/view comments (1)

February 05, 2007

by MatthewMarquis

personal info reviewer stats

No. of Reviews	Overall Quality	Comment Followup
107	76.5% (17 votes)	36.0%

Age	Gender	Location	Last Login
41	M	Asheville, NC	July 29

You have, hands down, given me more to consider in a review than any other. I’ve actually printed your comments out so that I might put some quiet time around it before I respond specifically. I am unfamiliar with Wittgenstein and will look for information about this on Wikipedia.
Thanks a bunch.

You must login to the site or create an account in order to post a comment.

The teeth don’t fit into the same catagory as the tongue the way you described. Actually, the teeth are quite brutal(tear and crush). And…remember, the mouth can’t say a word without the tongue! Tongues are cut out in some cultures for saying the wrong words. I would maybe re-think this one a little. Maybe the mouth is really the good guy (wants to laugh and smile)but is intimidated and is blackmailed into taking orders from the “Mafia” tongue and the “Godfather” mind.