I’ve been thinking or perhaps I should say pondering. I do so once in a while as I wander the hill.
I have noticed that persons seem to have a primary method of expressing themselves and/or of reacting to beauty and stuff and many people have at least one secondary method. But how people respond to an event/sight/sound/feeling varies so much.
For example, Cindy and Kent seem to respond to visual things with words that are at least sometimes expressed as poetry and usually expressed poetically.
My brother Earl, although he can appreciate a beautiful sight, rarely breaks into words. But he responds with words, often poetry, when he hears music or is thinking about an event.
I see pictures. When I read, even if the words are a description of an “abstract” concept or when I see something and want to capture the “feeling” inspired by the lighting or the beauty of a “line” by drawing or painting. But I don't see pictures in response to music.
I think that Cindy and Kent also both have at least one secondary response and that is visual through their ability to see in a way to take awesome photos.
Earl’s secondary(ies) – he responds by playing his own compositions on the piano in response to feelings, ideas and has been known to “doodle” by making an abstract drawing.
Me, my secondary might be words in that I respond with words sometimes but am more apt to “tell a story” in response to, well, just about anything rather than write anything faintly resembling poetry
