Theories on Language

[original_sessions]

Nothing in nature has a name. Man assigns names to objects in nature through use of signs and symbols. By assigning names to objects, we then begin noting differences and distinctions, creating an illusory identity. Through this, man begins seeing everything as being separate, individual, and less and less the same.

Man then begins to sort, order, and classify these different objects into defining categories and classes. Man does this not only with physical objects, but relative cultural concepts as well (e.g, morals, ethics, values, etc.), creating hierarchical scales in which some concepts are placed above (seen as being ideal) while others are placed below (seen as being outcast). The hermetic philosophy of "as above, so below" is completely removed from the picture.

Unlike horizontal scales (which distribute objects and concepts evenly), hierarchical scales tend to place emphasis on prejudice (acceptance in adhering to the dominant ideal). Naturally, this form of oppression by way of power, leads to conflict between relative cultures and socioeconomic classes in society. No longer the same, equal, and at peace with the planet, people begin to clash with "others" who they faultily perceive as being separate. Of course, many will state that, through this clash, comes change. But a change in what? Simply a change in where a person is placed in this prejudiced system of power.

In short, as long as man operates on a language, he creates cultural concepts, which classify him as being something which is apart from "other" people. In defending these illusory ideals, man then creates a whole series of unnecessary conflicts with "others" as well as himself. And all for what? Simply to be seen as something more acceptable on a hierarchical scale.

It seems to be that language has only assisted in situating man into a relative cultural existence, where he is no longer able to perceive the fact that "nothing in nature has a name." That everything is, essentially, one with and of itself, as well as one with everything else which is around.

By searching this forum, I have found that others (who have taken DMT) tend to place a high emphasis on talking about the importance of symbols and signs after their initial DMT experience has ended. As such, my questions is this: "Is the importance of language something that you became conscious of only after your initial DMT trip, or was this concept of language something you previously understood (either through scholastic or personal studies, etc.)"?

Repetitious response patterns are things that have always come to interest me when it comes to exploring phenomena outside of my own experience. I am simply trying to pinpoint the source of why so many users tend to talk about the importance of language, and, specifically, how these philosophical concepts can, somehow, correlate with peoples' own personal DMT experiences.

Sorry for the long post. If you actually read this whole thing, I thank you for your patience. Any constructive thoughts and/or comments are welcome. I am eager to read your remarks.

 

[toppy]

Language is a great tool for control. The higher powers created different languages for different countries in order to separate personalities and give an illusion that we are all different. Different languages have different vibrations/frequencies which stimulates different emotions/feelings. I also believe that the vibrational sound of a name to an object will have some correlation in vibration to the objects vibration of light in some way or another.

Man was not born with sound language, we was born with telepathy/feeling/emotion as a tool for speaking. As i raise my consciousness, i am discovering many new possibilities which have always been there. I am personally starting to forget how to speak, or should i say i am starting to find it harder to say what i really feel? I am discovering that ESP is the best way to communicate and i find it fascinating that i can sense peoples thoughts through vibrations. Its always been there, language has just confused us, although i suppose it could be useful...maybe, for something :S

 

[original_sessions]

Different languages have different vibrations/frequencies which stimulates different emotions/feelings. I also believe that the vibrational sound of a name to an objects vibration of light will have some correlation in vibration to the object in some way or another...

Indeed. I forgot to mention how spoken language is, essentially, sound. And that this sound, does in fact comes to effect our central nervous system through a physical bombardment of frequencies (citing Korzybski here).

I am personally starting to forget how to speak, or should i say i am starting to find it harder to say what i really feel?

To throw another questions at you, if I might? Many have often said that since language aids in the creation of cultural concepts (hence why languages evolve over time), it could be proposed that much of the meaning that we makes as individuals is, essentially, nothing more than a social construct itself. Being so, since meaning can be seen as a social construct, aren't many of our emotions simply an end result of interpreting certain relativistic cultural beliefs to be true on a universal scale? In other words, aren't many of our emotions simply an end result of linguistic illusion?

NOTE: By emotions I do not mean physical feelings, but, rather, meaningful concepts that emerge through cultural and/or linguistic creation.

 

[d-T-r]

cool topic.

a few thoughts;


I see Words as an 'ordered' interpretation of 'chaos'. In an attempt to translate and reference our sensory input for survival purposes,we created words.
We then sparked a process still unfolding today. The more we expanded our perception of the external and internal word, the more words that we had to be created to reference it. Ultimately, we're still defining the universe as we go along through assigning interlocked words associated with interlocked concepts. The universe is one thing, but we'll come to understand it more and more as time goes on through its fragmented parts.

Essetially, the ultimate levels of 'truth' we may desire, exist beyond the confides of words. They can be referenced with words but arent really words themselves.

2 'poems' or collections of words you may find interesting. both focusing on the ultimate dualistic nature of words language and communication. Words are indeed Definitive, yet self limiting in their own nature. But that's neither a bad, nor good thing. It's just a thing. (and a 'no-thing' )

Let love draw the line - Alexy grey - http://www.alexgrey.com/psalms/line2.html (substitute 'lines' with words )

The great way is not difficult - Jianzhi Sengcan - The Great Way Is Not Difficult - Jianzhi Sengcan - Philosophy - Welcome to the DMT-Nexus

word.

 

[ayalove]

I can see from this post and you introductory essay that you place a huge amount of value on language. The thing about language is that it was probably created by a masculine figure, as evident by it's logical nature. What is lost in language though is the ability to relay emotions. As such people use long strings of descriptions to give a mental picture. I feel at this stage is where language fails to proceed. In my experience people left in an inatentive and unenlightened state fail to make the mental transition from imagery to emotion. Thus emotional intelligence seems absent in the majority of our language while logical intelligence seems abundant. As such the majority fails to see the whole truth to an arguement. Being a foundation to our whole biological system this creates a massive glitch in how we operate. Stigmas, delusions and complexes form and with it emotional pain. Going back further I believe our problem starts with the chemical properties of testosterone. Feeling that it has to take charge, male figures create a way of communicating while only the females have a true understanding of communication. A falicy in the fact that logic dominates emotion and thus mental feelings. Right now the human race is like a windows machine. The kernel has many flaws and glitches. Meanwhile all we do to fix it is try and apply some patches. We need to instead go to the root of the problem and thus the root of our evils. Be unenlightened suffering runs rampant in the cover of darkness.
If one wants to start correcting their language anyone can start by tying emotional significances to words while trying to understand what other people have tied to theirs.
As for your question i started figuring this out way before the community and way before dmt however it is still a work in progress and many things did not klick until after dmt I would type more but I'm on my phone. Good luck to all.
Love + Light

 

[Global]

I refer you to my post (#3) in this thread.

 

[original_sessions]

I see Words as an 'ordered' interpretation of 'chaos'... Essetially, the ultimate levels of 'truth' we may desire, exist beyond the confides of words...

I share a similar perspective. Since our language and logic (as well as our physical senses themselves) are limited, we cannot attain universal truth (referencing Godel's Incompleteness Theorem). "The map is not the territory" as Korzybski pointed out to us. This could also be why so many philosophers seek to help deprogram people from the dominant cultural ideologies instilled on them by their societies. As Terrance McKenna once noted: "Culture is not your friend."

Nonetheless, if meaning is just an end result of the linguistic mind, then what does it say about the meaning that we make as individuals, and the meaning that is outwardly manufactured by society (i.e., ideologies we are expected to assimilate to as a means of finding social acceptance)? Furthermore, if this is true, then can psychedelics, or DMT trips in particular, point us toward any truth since the signs and symbols shown to us on these trips are interpretive and relative to one's own personal and/or cultural perspective?

The great way is not difficult - Jianzhi Sengcan - The Great Way Is Not Difficult - Jianzhi Sengcan - Philosophy - Welcome to the DMT-Nexus

Great piece. Reminds me of Taoism, the concept of Jungian duality, and the hermetic belief of "as above, so below" among other things.

 

[terra_incognita]

yea ive wondered what the world would be like without language i bet it would be a lot more peaceful. Language is just our instinct to put things in context to relate to other people. its in our nature?

interesting topic

 

[d-T-r]

I can see from this post and you introductory essay that you place a huge amount of value on language. The thing about language is that it was probably created by a masculine figure, as evident by it's logical nature. What is lost in language though is the ability to relay emotions. As such people use long strings of descriptions to give a mental picture. I feel at this stage is where language fails to proceed. In my experience people left in an inatentive and unenlightened state fail to make the mental transition from imagery to emotion. Thus emotional intelligence seems absent in the majority of our language while logical intelligence seems abundant. As such the majority fails to see the whole truth to an arguement. Being a foundation to our whole biological system this creates a massive glitch in how we operate. Stigmas, delusions and complexes form and with it emotional pain. Going back further I believe our problem starts with the chemical properties of testosterone. Feeling that it has to take charge, male figures create a way of communicating while only the females have a true understanding of communication. A falicy in the fact that logic dominates emotion and thus mental feelings. Right now the human race is like a windows machine. The kernel has many flaws and glitches. Meanwhile all we do to fix it is try and apply some patches. We need to instead go to the root of the problem and thus the root of our evils. Be unenlightened suffering runs rampant in the cover of darkness.
If one wants to start correcting their language anyone can start by tying emotional significances to words while trying to understand what other people have tied to theirs.
As for your question i started figuring this out way before the community and way before dmt however it is still a work in progress and many things did not klick until after dmt I would type more but I'm on my phone. Good luck to all.
Love + Light

I think your sentence saying words wre probbaly created from a masculine figure' may in a sense be correct. However, masculinity is 'born' through femininity and vice-versa....So essentially if you pull it back to its lowest common denomintaor, its both male and female. again, dualistic halves pointing back to the whole.

I would'nt go as far as tosay emotion is lost in or from language, it's just..occasionally misinterpreated and misunderstood. Words exist as 'clothing' for concepts. The 'trouble' with that is, that everyone essentially has their own sense of how to dress those concepts.

But essentially i agree with you, we're currently at a stage in humanity, where the masculine side, has over-dominated and we've penetrated the earth as deeply as we can, and errected steel and concrete as high as we can.

We all feel the intimidating weight of our collective masculinity on our shoulders,either consciously or unconsiously, and where best but to seek safety, than in the heart of a 'mother'.

Of course that sounds like rubbish to a lot of people but i see a lot of 'truth' in it. Ideally, we're aiming for a balance of both. I usually have psychedelic experiences which have obvious masculine sections, and obvious feminine sections. Both of equal importance in mastering/escaping dualistic thought/behavior.

Either way it is all good. The worst thing we can do is feel disheartened by the state of the world to the point of self-imposing a permanent inactive state of mourning or yearning....Equilibrium always find's its self. If there is too much of something, then eventually a process begins to reverse that process, or make it collapse in on it's self. Entropy i guess.

The three words i'll highlight and emphasize focus on from your post are,

'Work in Progress'

 

[original_sessions]

I can see from this post and you introductory essay that you place a huge amount of value on language. The thing about language is that it was probably created by a masculine figure

In patriarchal societies, the masculine tense tends to be the dominant one. However, in more matriarchal societies, the opposite holds true. Even more interesting is the fact that not all languages use the same number of pronouns in their parts of speech. For example, imagine we never had the words "I"; "He"; "She"; "Them"; or "They". Instead, we only had the words "We" and "Us". When asked if we see people playing in the park, we would not say, "I see them," but rather "We see us." According to the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, language, itself, constructs culture, and therefore dictates the meanings and emotions we make. The very way we perceive things on this planet starts, first, with the words and symbols we use to describe it.

It must have been tough typing all that on a phone. Your response is appreciated.

 

[original_sessions]

...Ideally, we're aiming for a balance of both...

I have always found it to be true that "Harmony is found in the merging of opposite halves." After all, as we have previously discussed, there are no such things as opposites or "others" in this world ("All is One" as Heraclitus once stated).

Furthermore, if we did ever try to remove an opposite of something, we would completely lose the very object itself. For example, what is day without night? The only reason we call day and night opposite things is because we note a distinction between the two. But, if day vanished and all was dark, well... why would we even have a need to give night a name?

 

[ayalove]

I can see from this post and you introductory essay that you place a huge amount of value on language. The thing about language is that it was probably created by a masculine figure

In patriarchal societies, the masculine tense tends to be the dominant one. However, in more matriarchal societies, the opposite holds true. Even more interesting is the fact that not all languages use the same number of pronouns in their parts of speech. For example, imagine we never had the words "I"; "He"; "She"; "Them"; or "They". Instead, we only had the words "We" and "Us". When asked if we see people playing in the park, we would not say, "I see them," but rather "We see us." According to the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, language, itself, constructs culture, and therefore dictates the meanings and emotions we make. The very way we perceive things on this planet starts, first, with the words and symbols we use to describe it.

It must have been tough typing all that on a phone. Your response is appreciated.

Lol isn't that from a book? If it was, it was a really good book.

 

[original_sessions]

Lol isn't that from a book? If it was, it was a really good book.

Egads! They're on to me!

Well, at least I know somebody read it. :d It's not plagiarism to copy one's own work, right? More like self-reference, me thinks. Either way, thank you for the warm words.

 

[ayalove]

I'll look the other way on this one :arrow:

 

[d-T-r]

I refer you to my post (#3) in this thread.

Nice post. Dualism and its universal application, from micro to macro,inside to outside,above and below never fail to increasingly spark the frequency of 'aha' moments i occasionally have.... Exploration of perception is an on going internal Dual-Dueling dueling contest

Satori / Kensho if referenceable, would be akin to a 'place' both existing as the whole (and as nothing) but also reinforced and held in place by the central line.

The problem i sometimes face, as im sure many of you do, is sometimes remaining in an over-perceptive (wordy)state for too long...It's great and productive to begin with, but then it entirely defeats its own purpose.

Then i wonder if thats a bad thing either. Completion is always present, perception of it however isnt, but then it in turn sparks the process of completion again.

I've out-worded myself again to the point of it using up too much energy haha. oh well. it's time for me to retreat and rest both hemispheres and relax.

 

[original_sessions]

I refer you to my post (#3) in this thread.

"When babies are born into the world, they are right brain dominant. They have no language, and as such they cannot break down (analyze) and label their sensory input, and as such they think holistically and are incredibly emotional ranging from pure bliss to uncontrollable fear and anxiety. Upon acquiring language, the left hemisphere proceeds to develop at a faster rate than the right hemisphere, as those blissful childhood experiences melt away to be replaced by new narratives of the world. This continues into adulthood by which point most normal individuals become extremely restricted by language which is the lens through which they experience the world. The left brain dominant mode of thinking works great for everyday busy tasks, but there is a range of experiences that are largely experienced via the right brain. These include transcendental experiences, unions with the godhead, and the psychedelic experience by and large. They are very much symbolic and visual with dissolution of the linguistic ego such that they are experienced for themselves in their entirety and are hard to put to language. Many such experiences include the feeling of wholeness or unity with everything that is or at the least present in the vision. Experienced through child-like eyes, there is no distinction of the self, no subject-object relation. "

----------

Thanks for the read. Great segment right there.

I also agree that it is important that one finds a balance between "holistic" and "analytical" modes of thought. Not sure if I agree with what's in bold, however. After all, a child may cry (and seem to be sad from our sense of perception) simply because he/she may be hungry. In a sense, crying is the only way the child has of communicating. How one can measure something as abstract as emotion, to me, remains a mystery.

Very interesting read, nonetheless. Much obliged.

 

[original_sessions]

The Great Emptiness

 

[Aetherius Rimor]

Some of the thoughts in this thread nudge be the wrong way (idea that language is masculine created for instance), but the concept of language is pretty simple in my view.

Spoken language to me, at face value, is a protocol for lossy thought/idea encoding into mechanical energy for transmission from one intelligence to another.

The protocol is an agreed upon set of rules and meanings, and in order to allow great variability with the ideas/thoughts that can be encoded, while spending minimal energy in the process of communication, it is done in a lossy manner creating ambiguities and potentially unclear meanings.

Equivalent concept is an audio file. You have a high quality master recording of a music track. To make downloading (the communication of the data) less resource intensive, you apply a lossy compression algorithim to create an MP3. You now have a music track that sounds similar, but it doesn't truly care the same "meaning" since some of the data is loss.

To prevent the requirement of communication requiring lots of time/energy, we evolved to use a lossy encoding format for our ideas. We can even choose to make our communication more lossy, when need arises. If something is about to hit your friend in the face, you don't shout "The baseball John threw is about to hit you in the face, so you should take evasive action", you shout "DUCK!". Your thought is communicated in both manners, but one is far more efficient.

Sure the ambiguity/loss of information could causes your friend to go "Huh?" and get smacked in the face... but that would have been guaranteed if you attempted the long winded mode of communication, by giving less information you increase probability of success in achieving your goal. On the far extreme, a perfect lossless idea communication protocol, would be able to communicate the exact mental images, perceived emotions, and sensory input. Theoretically possible, but at an extreme resource cost, which we did not evolve to perform.

Of course, there is more than just "thoughts/ideas" encoded in language. Cultural history is encoded in language. It's still apparent in English that French was more recently more respected than German. This is seen in French based vocabularly generally being considered more polite than German based vocabularly. Blame the Normans for that one.

Cultural meaning is embedded in the protocol, thoughts/ideas in the usage of that protocol.

However, I have been curious if sound composition of words, irrespective of the protocol meaning of the word, has any non-trivial effect on the brain. It has effects sure, music creates a profound effect based on sound composition. Language's profound effect come from it's agreed upon meanings, not sure how much of an effect it's sound composition has.

As for the point about patriarchal societies having a dominant masculine tense, and matriarchal societs have a dominant feminine tense, is a perfect example of cultural meaning being embedded in the protocol of language. Analyzing how language is constructed can give insights to the culture it evolved from. An

 

[original_sessions]

As for the point about patriarchal societies having a dominant masculine tense, and matriarchal societs have a dominant feminine tense, is a perfect example of cultural meaning being embedded in the protocol of language. Analyzing how language is constructed can give insights to the culture it evolved from. An

Absolutely. Numerous cultural prejudices and misconceptions are embedded in language. And since language is, essentially, subconscious, many cultural ideals are therefore implanted into our brains without us ever being aware of it. As such, each and every time we communicate, our words almost always contain some form of cultural prejudice. For example, Mother Earth; Man (when used to describe humanity as a whole); etc. This, I feel, is one of the main reasons why personal forms of meditation or reflection are necessary in helping people understand more of what their subconscious contains.

Still, the question remains: "How can one speak without falling to cultural prejudice?" One of the main reasons why people like postmodernist writers, for example, are so difficult to understand is because they are attempting to communicate in a manner that is culture-less. The problems with this, however, is that if one communicates in a manner that is too separated from a common culture, the writing becomes more and more difficult to interpret (bordering on nonsense). As I often say: "Communication + Unity = Community." For what are communities but simply people who "speak the same language"?

 

[Guyomech]

I wouldn't agree that we all started out telepathic, then lost that as spoken language evolved... Why would we bother accepting speech into our lives if we could already do direct transmission? If you want an idea of how telepathy works, just look at any social animals like horses or cats- a lot of unspoken stuff happens, but it's all at the root level- no room for complex subjects.

Can you imagine not having language? Of course it's riddled with problems, but without it we are seriously confined in terms of what we can explore verbally and mentally- it's a well established fact that our language is a component in our thinking process. It allows us to be incredibly, ridiculously specific about things.

I believe language evolved organically. Much of it is honest and sincere, but much of it has been tampered with and influenced by various unenlightened authorities through the years. Orwell put it best: control the language, and you control what people can think. I'm sure you are all aware of the fact that the psychedelic experience- and mystical experiences in general- are almost impossible to talk about with any clarity. I don't think this is any accident, either- we don't have the language for it. The words simply don't exist- they have been edited out through the centuries. What we are left with are a few terms that at best provide a weak and culturally tainted picture of the mystical experience, and at worst come across as fruity, airy-fairy, not worth serious consideration. Worthy of scorn and ridicule, in fact- if a mainstream newscaster, for example, has to speak aloud any terms suggesting these other realms of experience, it will always be with a derisory tone.

On the other hand, the words we have are the palette we paint with- a clever enough person can use it creatively to speak between the lines of bigger things. Think of the words of our language as cheap plastic pieces of pop cultural junk; then think of fine literature as art assembled from this junk into a thing if beauty.