| 
    On Passive Voice by Van W.  | 
  
This is one of those stories that starts out as an email, then turns out to be something you want to say to two or three, and then, Bam, something happens. The outcome of this took some twists and turns I did not anticipate. That makes it a story. 
 I
            have been reflecting on the use of passive voice in my writing. M/S
            Word
              complains
              about
              it.
              One
              friend
              complains
              about
              it.
              Another
              says
              he likes the way I write. I wonder what the origin of the usage is? Is
              it the way I am wired? A statement that
              is itself in passive voice. Neurologically there are at least two
              kinds
              of interesting people: Connection rich, and neuron rich. This oversimplifies
              the more important question of, "What are one's neurons bathed
              in?",
              but I will defer the  neurotransmitter-bath-is-everything-issue
              for a moment. I
          am constantly asking myself questions. In a recent book I asked, 
 When I found the answer, I encoded it as: 
 There's
          that passive voice again, referring from the caboose to the locomotive,
          making the train go backwards… Why? Because my hook is the three word term, "The lowest frequency",
          not the blank stare placeholder, "what". (I
          am a living sea of three word hooks, and  Restating
          the answer provides active voice. 
 In
          this latter edition, the term "what" (from
          the original question) is replaced by The Answer, in this case, "frame
          rate". I
          do not decode by the obvious hook of "what". I decode by
          the three word term, "The lowest frequency." So Bam there it is. I encode and decode in a manner that favors passive voice. 
 Was it the French I took before my language centers
          were completely pruned? Perhaps
          the problem is similar to the adjectival one, to wit: There
          is no coffee table in  I
          will end with an even more bizarre perspective. I had a dream I was in the army. In it received a "section four". Someone told me, "You can get thirty days if you do that again". I woke up and thought about it. Twice would be a "section eight". I checked with a friend. A "section eight" is what Klinger was trying to get on M*A*S*H to get out of the Army. 
 My
            point. I have "wobble" in my thinking. Wobble is defined
            in a footnote.. Loose vacuous holes in which the wrong term or idea
            can slip in, mutating into a new one. Does this make me connection
            rich,
            neuron
            rich,
              or simply a food product, like Swiss cheese? Example. Was Klinger
            trying to get out the Army
                    or out of the television series? This may be obvious, clear
            and certain to you. What a gift. I have to take a fleeting
              moment to
                    construct a set of possible realities and examine them for
            the
              correct interpretation. Then I say, "Of course. It was a story." pretending
                    to be just like everyone else in the audience, even
              though I am a click behind, laughing after the studio 
              has gotten
              very
                    quiet. In the reality of the story, Klinger was trying to "escape".
                    The result of that escape has three possible outcomes, suggested
                    by language: Klinger
          can escape from the Army, but keeps his job in the TV series. Klinger
          can escape from the Army, but if he does, he won't be on the series
          any more. Klinger
          can escape from the Army, appear in my living room, and ask for a place
          to stay. Then
          I remember. Klinger
          is not in the Army, he is on a TV show. Klinger
          is an actor. Klinger
          does not really exist. And yet there he is.
          I'm watching him do some fine work. What
          were we talking about? Oh
          yeah. Language
          is an amazing thing, requiring us, yet seeming to exist independently
          of us. I will use it as I see fit, with respectful deference to those
          with whom I am attempting to communicate. Those remain at best, "attempts".
          This reminds me yet again, that we are, in our totality, merely expressions,
          in the Handwriting of G-d on this runaway freight train existence called
          planet Earth.  | 
  |
To
              make us, 64 RNA triplets code non-uniquely for
              20 amino acids. The most significant bit is the first member of
              the triplet, followed by the second and third. The uncertainty
              in the coding has to do with a tolerance problem termed, "wobble" in
    the ribosomal translation machinery.  | 
  |