Revolution

I've been thinking a lot recently about the word "revolution." When I say recently, I mean while I made toast just now. When a disc revolves around a point, it makes a "revolution." When peasants revolt, their movement is a "revolution." When John Lennon makes a haunting sound collage, he calls it "Revolution 9," which is unfortunately stuck in my head as a result of this little introduction. Moving on&hellp;

Other words of these two roots include "revolting" and "revolver." The former word can describe something quite disgusting; the latter word can describe something quite disgusting. Ho ho ho. I'm not a big fan of guns. It does, however, strike me as a little odd — if not revelatory — that two words describing any general thing that causes a change have come to describe something as disgusting and name a weapon. Is change disgusting? Does a revolution rely on weapons? Certainly, in any revolution there are those supporting the old ways, most of whom would view the new age as disgusting. In the case of the revolver, obviously the term describes its mechanics and not its function or idealistic symbolism.

Several other common cases that call "to revolve" to order strike me as interesting, which likely means you should stop reading. You haven't? Brave soul… Anyway, one such case is: To think the world revolves around oneself It describes megalomania or perhaps simply narcissism — to be described as one, I'd be offended; for the other, I'd agree — but the connotation of being the cause to every effect is one which both frightens and consoles me. I'd rather not be to blame for every bad thing that happens; I'd gladly be told that I'm in complete control of my own life. Guilt is annoying; free will is my favourite.

It also conjures memories of ideas raised in Mostly Harmless — the last book in Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy series — and conceptualised by the lovely German word "umwelt." It is the idea that everything in one's world is shaped by one's own experiences: the universe is unique to the viewer. I rather like this idea. It means I don't have to share my universe with things that I don't like. I can also define my own meaning, morals and rules. It's somewhat an extension of "beauty is in the eye of the beholder," which once again is an idea of which I am greatly fond. Why would two quite distinct creatures have the same ideal of beauty? Even if something can be described as objectively beautiful, I simply take that to mean that, on average, people find it subjectively beautiful.

I've rather strayed from my original etymological discussion or approximation thereof. I'm not too bothered, though. I count this as a moderately interesting post, which is a step in the right direction from whatever miserable tripe I spat into prose last time. I did mean to get onto the idea that nothing would ever change without something "revolting" happening to provoke it, but I've so little to say on that matter that I'd rather leave myself open to queries regarding perception than, as it were, interception^†.

^†I think we could count the Arab Spring and other revolutions as "interceptions" of power. I like using words that share a root but differ in prefixes. What are you going to do about it?