For example, take this lyric in "The Rose": Some say love, it is a razor / That leaves your soul to bleed. This lyric breaks the trope ~ clichéby substituting soul for heart, which, in turn, risks making itself asemic, i.e., without meaning or more to the point, dysfunctional in its normal form as communication.
Indeed, the expected noun (image)-verb (action), yourheart to bleed, makes more sense than the given noun-verb, your soul to bleed, a phrase which defies the usual sense of what a soul does.
Indeed, Wikipedia now defines fulu as "asemicTaoistmagic symbols and incantations".
Works of fulu look to have (or to have had) semantic content, but over time, the need for semantic content may have fallen out, leaving works of fulu asemic.
Per the Wikipedia, here is the narrative at play in this de-semantic process:
... scholars of Taoism such as James Robson and Gil Raz have claimed that the incomprehensibility of written forms is central to the talisman's perceived authority and efficacy, and is one of talismanic script's defining features.
During the Eastern Jin Dynasty(317–420), it was already considered unnecessary for users of Taoist talismans to be able to decipher the writing on them in order for them to be considered efficacious. Ge Hong noted in his Baopuzi that as long as the inscription was authentic, successful use of the talisman did not depend on whether the user was able to decipher its script. By this time, the talisman's illegibility had already become a sign that they were of divine authority and held supernatural provenance. (from Dominic Steavu)
While Deep Ecology (earth.org) itself is often associated with radical theory and/or with radical politics, Deep Ecology, the Substack publication, generally concerns brilliant observations loosely coupled with conjectures concerning our inter-relatedness as/with beings in nature.
Indeed, the overarching theme for Deep Ecology (Wikipedia) is environmentalism or environmental philosophy.
Deep Ecology holds a general thesis that we are evolutionary beings, and as such, we may have abilities that beings in our evolutionary path also have. We have, in other words, shared capacity with nature. And we have, so the argument goes, not so much lost this capacity as suppressed/ignored/forgotten it. The imperative: We need to look to nature to find this capacity again. Hence, the brilliant observations.
How well this thesis works is one matter, but the purpose of citing Deep Ecology is not to criticize its argument so much as exploit a few aspects of it.
The argument Deep Ecology makes in this post (Feeling It) posits a conception of feeling as pre-linguistic. It also asserts how we are trained, so to speak, to ignore feelings that so arise, feelings that arise without the supplement of a near immediate interpretation, an interpretation which requires language.
More so, we are also wont to avoid unfounded conjecture. Indeed, as presented in this post (Feeling It), we might be inclined to link an ill feeling in the morning, a premonition, to a friend found injured in the afternoon, but we force ourselves to forgo this unwarranted reasoning.
And, of course, being so trained, we do not ask ourselves why such a feeling might have come to be at all. We ignore it as superstition/coincidence. Deep Ecology, meanwhile, conjectures that such feeling might be a hidden capacity.
And otherwise being mindful of the beauty of the poetics, we take this argument to imply that thought happens without language.
