Theories on Language

[d-T-r]

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

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"?

I think at this point, it's where we revert back to the blank canvas of direct senses and shared emotions prior to wordly definitions.
When speaking from the heart , as apposed to the mind ( a contradiction i know) boundaries like cultural prejudice become absent. So long as both people are on that wavelength of course. It takes two to tango.

Phrases like 'The heart of the matter' get to the heart of this matter

Understanding deals with the words and the 'direct' data they convey.A self-placement under the 'authority' of words.

Overstanding deals with the the holistic context of the words,the vessels delivering the words, the context they're found in and countless other things.

Again , i think at this point, reverting to the infinite potential and possibilities of the blank canvas helps us reveal greater things. Starting from scratch doesn't mean abandoning all previously adopted concepts, it just means allowing the possibility for completely 'new' concepts to emerge. again, Chaos and order. 'Emptiness' is a far more ordered and chaotic void than it first appears, so when reverting back to it, the probability of new outcomes pretty much becomes a certainty. A certainty of uncertainty. Consistent inconsistency etc

Hence the Eastern-Emphasis on Emptying your cup from time time to time, otherwise it just over-fills.

This is where Art and Symbology come into the picture. "A picture paints a thousand words"

The most profound art speaks to us in ways organized symbols (words) cannot. Provoking a 'heart' based overstanding.

Thats why most of the most powerful symbols, are stripped down to their core singular forms. In an attempt to say 'more' we must learn how to say 'less' so to speak.

 

[Walter D. Roy]

I really haven't read all of the people responses to you, so I'm not sure exactly what information you have received. I would hate to talk your ear off about something someone already said, but what you said interested me very much. I often ponder about language, its seems like such an essential part of our existence. But when taken to the core has no meaning at all. I think that perhaps language is important in the experience because as humans we relate to things in a sense of language. It cannot be helped. If we were to talk with our hand, I believe the experience might be full of hand motions. Language is so odd for how can we express something so inexpressible? But we do and we understand it to some extent. So it has to hold some deep value for us. Whether we like it or not.

 

[onethousandk]

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.

The thing about language is that it was probably created by a masculine figure, as evident by it's logical nature.

Both of these feel like misunderstandings of where language comes from, how it was developed. Language is deeply intertwined into our evolution. Many animals use a form of language. I don't think that male song birds invented language to control the masses or subdue their women.

I think Aetherius is pretty close when he talks about language as a shared protocol. Language is a tool in the same way that a stick is. Either you use it to crack open nuts or to murder rival mates. The intention is not built into the stick, only the possibility.

 

[onethousandk]

I forgot to proselytize for my favorite podcast: Radiolab has a great episode on Words.

 

[original_sessions]

I think at this point, it's where we revert back to the blank canvas of direct senses and shared emotions prior to wordly definitions.
When speaking from the heart , as apposed to the mind ( a contradiction i know) boundaries like cultural prejudice become absent. So long as both people are on that wavelength of course. It takes two to tango.

I, for one, have always been hesitant about the concept of love since it is such an abstract concept. For me, love can be a completely prejudice thing. For example, say a person says "I love my wife more than any other woman in the world." What this man is doing by issuing such a statement (however unconsciously) is putting this one woman (his wife) above all other people (at least with regard to women lovers). In creating such a hierarchy, we tend to lose sight of the idea of universal love; that is to say, impartially coming to love all people.

In other words, as you mentioned, when we talk about love, we often fall 'under' the influence of language itself. IMO, it is only when we embrace a more universal outlook on love does one begin to live outside of language. This, of course, is easier said than done. Universal love, after all, is one of the most difficult things in the world to attain. After all, saying you love your newborn baby daughter as much as you would a random beggar on the streets is not something, I feel, most people are yet capable of doing.

Simply put, when we look at concepts like love (in order to be outside the influence of language), we need to take an impartial (i.e., universal) perspective (loving all equally without hierarchy). As such, when we fall outside of the realm of language, don't we also fall outside the ream of meaning and emotion? After all, no meaning is generated without the use of signs and symbols.

 

[original_sessions]

Language is a tool in the same way that a stick is. Either you use it to crack open nuts or to murder rival mates. The intention is not built into the stick, only the possibility.

Exactly. The problem, I see, however, is that many people fail to understand just how superficial language is. By associating with signs and symbols, we tend to interpret those signs and symbols to be reflective of some kind of innate reality, when, in fact, it is merely the end result of our mind's imagining. After all, meaning is made by associating with signs and symbols. Without a language, a cultural or social reality cannot be constructed.

 

[d-T-r]

I think at this point, it's where we revert back to the blank canvas of direct senses and shared emotions prior to wordly definitions.
When speaking from the heart , as apposed to the mind ( a contradiction i know) boundaries like cultural prejudice become absent. So long as both people are on that wavelength of course. It takes two to tango.

I, for one, have always been hesitant about the concept of love since it is such an abstract concept. For me, love can be a completely prejudice thing. For example, say a person says "I love my wife more than any other woman in the world." What this man is doing by issuing such a statement (however unconsciously) is putting this one woman (his wife) above all other people (at least with regard to women lovers). In creating such a hierarchy, we tend to lose sight of the idea of universal love; that is to say, impartially coming to love all people.

In other words, as you mentioned, when we talk about love, we often fall 'under' the influence of language itself. IMO, it is only when we embrace a more universal outlook on love does one begin to live outside of language. This, of course, is easier said than done. Universal love, after all, is one of the most difficult things in the world to attain. After all, saying you love your newborn baby daughter as much as you would a random beggar on the streets is not something, I feel, most people are yet capable of doing.

Simply put, when we look at concepts like love (in order to be outside the influence of language), we need to take an impartial (i.e., universal) perspective (loving all equally without hierarchy). As such, when we fall outside of the realm of language, don't we also fall outside the ream of meaning and emotion? After all, no meaning is generated without the use of signs and symbols.

Love is as abstract as we allow it to be i think. The single best fitting 'defintion' on Love, i've heard and keep returning to is;

Love is the Pursuit of the Whole ~ Plato

Of course the statement it's self is as you say, an example of falling under the influence of language, but i feel it points at a return of ultimate unified equilibrium as apposed to tangible abstractions we find ourselves swimming through along the way.

Our definition of what 'whole' is, is of course subjective,as we experience existence in our own 'individual' fragmented way, but i believe the ultimate 'definition' of 'whole' cannot really fall victim to subjectivity, as within an unseperated ,completely unified state ,there is no subject to objectify. Objectification becomes a fallacy of it's own driving force at this point.

(again, logical contradictions present themselves when these discussions happen, because of the seemingly inescapable,sense of Duality that words ,aswell as emotions embody)

 

[original_sessions]

...within an unseperated ,completely unified state ,there is no subject to objectify...

(again, logical contradictions present themselves when these discussions happen, because of the seemingly inescapable,sense of Duality that words ,aswell as emotions embody)

My sentiments exactly. The idea of "All is one" shows just how illusory things like identity are. There is no subject or object separate from ourselves.

Also, your last statement on the duality of words (though this concept has been around since BC times) is a major underlying idea in deconstructionist philosophy. Unlike postmodern writers like Derrida, however, you convey the idea much more clearly.

 

[d-T-r]

...within an unseperated ,completely unified state ,there is no subject to objectify...

(again, logical contradictions present themselves when these discussions happen, because of the seemingly inescapable,sense of Duality that words ,aswell as emotions embody)

My sentiments exactly. The idea of "All is one" shows just how illusory things like identity are. There is no subject or object separate from ourselves.

Also, your last statement on the duality of words (though this concept has been around since BC times) is a major underlying idea in deconstructionist philosophy. Unlike postmodern writers like Derrida, however, you convey the idea much more clearly.

I've not really read enough Postmodern ,or deconstructive literature to make the comparison of classic and modern , but Taoism seemed to have arrived at the inevitable 'first', which is fine for me. You can only deconstruct the same construction enough times to realize any further deconstruction leads to the same result.

Abstraction is so perfectly fractal in it's own nature that it becomes the reason we find ourselves in such 'loops' . the only forgotten route left is for the experienc-er to become the experience.the perceive-er to become the perceived.

I see The Tao, or the yin/yang as the end graphical result of theoretically reverse engineering the universe.which to remain on topic, would of course include one of the most present abstract results of the universe,language.

After writing all of this agaain, i find myself a bit Yang'd out :lol:

 

[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.

The thing about language is that it was probably created by a masculine figure, as evident by it's logical nature.

Both of these feel like misunderstandings of where language comes from, how it was developed. Language is deeply intertwined into our evolution. Many animals use a form of language. I don't think that male song birds invented language to control the masses or subdue their women.

I think Aetherius is pretty close when he talks about language as a shared protocol. Language is a tool in the same way that a stick is. Either you use it to crack open nuts or to murder rival mates. The intention is not built into the stick, only the possibility.

"Animals" have a universal language which is encoded in DNA.
I do agree that language should be spoken by human as we are intelligent enough to do so, and we have the biology to do so. But...The language has been controlled by higher powers in order to separate, as many countries as there are, and as many languages which are spoken, there is still only one power in charge, as there always has been, its the law of hierarchy, wars and separation are illusion.
Humans ARE telepathic, we have the abilities of telepathy and much more...It is an actual fact....Our whole energy/chakra system is what we should be using to communicate as well as speech. They have taught us to forget we are telepathically connected, even animals are smarter than us in that sense... whether it be love, sexual, anger...these are all telepathic energies...and our brains are telepathically connected to, which gives us abilities to exchange thoughts, language is just a thought. In the future, i am sure that language will be universal and not man made.

 

[endlessness]

Toppy. Please understand that in this forum, if you want to make claims such as that people are telepathic, and claims about chakras, the burden of evidence is on you. PROVE IT, or dont claim it with absolute certainty as you are claiming, but rather say things like "I have a hypothesis that.... Its my opinion that... etc" .

This is not the first time you do this, I hope its the last...

 

[d-T-r]

He means well

But, endlessness has a valid point. When you make any kind of claim which has yet to enter the domain of common knowledge,or common-sense you're bound to face opposition to validate these claims. It's not a bad thing. Polarity is ever-present.

The tricky thing with 'proving' things like these, is the absence of vocabulary to convey it. and the absence of technology to latch onto something 'measurable...

I personally agree with toppy on the human potential ,and application for telepathy , aswell as how 'chakras' play a role in this.

I also agree that language like all things, has been manipulated for the sole 'benefit' of minorities as apposed to the entire word , but it seems to me, Toppy, that you're emphasizing the perceived constraints held upon you more than you're exercising your own freedom.

Freedom not just to explore and express,but freedom , and willingness to improve on your own current understandings, which will in turn help in improving the world's understanding.

If you can't prove something to yourself, you won't be able to prove it to others. I understand it seems odd to need to prove anything to yourself in the first place,if you've directy experienced certain phenomenal yourself, but our perception is afterall subjective, so successfully conveying subjective experiences requires a level of Objectivity.

i might have a go and compiling my thoughts and experiences, and hypothesis's on Chakra's , telepathy and the human nervous system and how it all ties in with our current situation. (The now)

I've never attempted anything of the sort before so it might be a nice challenge to focus myself.

Since joining this forum alone, i feel my sense of logic has increased ,although i definitely notice a 'divide' between dogmatic views on not just 'spirit' but also on 'science'

It's 2 sides of the same coin, the trouble just seems to be in coherently conveying the unification.

Lets all take a huge leap, out of own comfort zones and see what we manage to find out, about ourselves, and the universe around us

 

[endlessness]

The problem with relying on a subjective experience as the only proof is that our subjective experiences may be mistaken. Think dreams, or optical illusions... This is a big issue that a lot of people seem to miss.

Of course considering the subjective experience is a must (also because everything is "decoded" through and thus influenced by our subjectivity), but IMO it should only be a part of the whole set of tools that we use to decide and act. So we should listen and consider our subjective experience, our emotions, our intellect, our body, what science says, what our spiritual ideas bring, what our psychedelic experiences say, what our mothers adviced, what experts think, opinions of nexians, peer-reviewed publications, etc etc, and then put a relative weight on each part of this set, and measure it overall using critical thinking.

and again about the whole chakra/telepathy story, i never said or thought they absolutely dont exist, and you are free to hypothesize and make conjectures, to have your opinion and so on, but my only problem is when they are exposed as facts when these are merely one's experience or opinion. This makes the whole community lose a significant degree of quality because people coming to the Nexus can trust the reliability of what we state as facts (for example related to extractions). But if these facts start being drowned by tons of speculation that is spread as if they are facts, then it makes it hard for people to actually find what is good information here, and this becomes just a playground for the loony (not saying anybody here is, just as an example).

As for language, language is not static, its dynamic. To say language has been manipulated in its creation for a certain group of people, would require that it would be a static set of limited codes that is spread around mechanically, but that's not how language works. Over generations, or even in a short period of days/months/years, when you are with a close group, humans create new words and expressions, to express what they feel and think, in a way that the language they learned was not able to. Have you never experienced this? Didnt you (or dont you) have certain words you can speak with friends that nobody else understands, and yet that are very important/useful/meaningful for you?

So it's up to each one of us to create/modify language so that it more accurately helps us communicate, so that it diminishes misunderstandings, so that it helps us be more free. The hyperspace lexicon is a small attempt at this, for the Nexians.

 

[d-T-r]

The problem with relying on a subjective experience as the only proof is that our subjective experiences may be mistaken. Think dreams, or optical illusions... This is a big issue that a lot of people seem to miss.

Of course considering the subjective experience is a must (also because everything is "decoded" through and thus influenced by our subjectivity), but IMO it should only be a part of the whole set of tools that we use to decide and act. So we should listen and consider our subjective experience, our emotions, our intellect, our body, what science says, what our spiritual ideas bring, what our psychedelic experiences say, what our mothers adviced, what experts think, opinions of nexians, peer-reviewed publications, etc etc, and then put a relative weight on each part of this set, and measure it overall using critical thinking.

and again about the whole chakra/telepathy story, i never said or thought they absolutely dont exist, and you are free to hypothesize and make conjectures, to have your opinion and so on, but my only problem is when they are exposed as facts when these are merely one's experience or opinion. This makes the whole community lose a significant degree of quality because people coming to the Nexus can trust the reliability of what we state as facts (for example related to extractions). But if these facts start being drowned by tons of speculation that is spread as if they are facts, then it makes it hard for people to actually find what is good information here, and this becomes just a playground for the loony (not saying anybody here is, just as an example).

As for language, language is not static, its dynamic. To say language has been manipulated in its creation for a certain group of people, would require that it would be a static set of limited codes that is spread around mechanically, but that's not how language works. Over generations, or even in a short period of days/months/years, when you are with a close group, humans create new words and expressions, to express what they feel and think, in a way that the language they learned was not able to. Have you never experienced this? Didnt you (or dont you) have certain words you can speak with friends that nobody else understands, and yet that are very important/useful/meaningful for you?

So it's up to each one of us to create/modify language so that it more accurately helps us communicate, so that it diminishes misunderstandings, so that it helps us be more free. The hyperspace lexicon is a small attempt at this, for the Nexians.

I agree with what you have said mostly. see some earlier posts on subjectivity/objectivity .

I also agree about the damaging effect that speculation can have on provable knowledge- hence why i said it is indeed constructive and encoruagble to be able to 'prove' a subjective claim based on opinion or experience.

And what i really meant by manipulation, is present in the very thing we're doing right now. manipulation has many negative associations, but its an inherent characteristic of nature. The manipulation of natural resources (light, water for example), to fuel a further process and so on.

Conversing ideas is essentially 'manipulating' the content of language to reinforce our own opinions. Taking advantage of the dynamic nature of words as you put it. Again, an in-escapable subjectivity ever-present in words.

i never said that you personally thought they absolutely dont exist, nor did i intend to imply it either.

So it's up to each one of us to create/modify language so that it more accurately helps us communicate, so that it diminishes misunderstandings, so that it helps us be more free. The hyperspace lexicon is a small attempt at this, for the Nexians.

I'll check out the Lexicon. It's always been in my peripheral but i've not investigated what it's all about yet so i will do.

Thanks

 

[original_sessions]

As for language, language is not static, its dynamic. To say language has been manipulated in its creation for a certain group of people, would require that it would be a static set of limited codes that is spread around mechanically...

Language certainly is alive, and does, in fact, evolve over time. This is why the hard sciences use Latin (a dead language) for their lexicon. However, language is most certainly oppressive against people (especially those from lower socioeconomic status). A great deal of energy in the social sciences (cultural studies especially) has been dedicated to the analysis of discourse and how it is used to keep the masses in a similar mode of thought.

In sociology, the shared consensus is that dominant cultural ideologies are developed through a shared discourse. Bourdieu's notion of "Valued Cultural Capital" states that all cultures have "capital", or inherit worth. The problem is that, in systems of conformity, not all cultural capital is valued equally. Some ideas are embraced by the dominant ideal, and are seen as things to strive for through the process of assimilation, conformity, and/or acculturation. "Other" ideals that are not accepted are outcast. And any who adopt any of these ideals are seen as being insane or sick in the society itself. The point is that all ideals stem from language (the association of signs and symbols). And it is through language, that we lose the idea of "one as all". Through language, we perceive people through difference (i.e., identity), which further dislocates them into separate categories and classifications (either by ethnicity, economic status, social cliques, etc.).

Take Ebonics for example. In an elementary school, a child (who say speaks Ebonics in his home setting) is not allowed to write in such a manner (i.e., Ebonics) on his state exams since it is deemed "slang" or "inappropriate" by the dominant ideal. Instead, the child must speak in a manner that is deemed "acceptable" or "appropriate" by those issuing the exam. This is but one of many ways in which cultural groups are oppressed by language in social establishments. In short, people must assimilate to the dominant mode of discourse if they are to be accepted by the society. If they refuse to, then they will, otherwise, be outcast for their ideals. In the case of the student, they will fail the exam.

Take another example. Language, after all, is not simply bound to the words we speak. Language includes any mode of expression that is used to communicate and convey meaning. This involves manners of dress, hairstyle, etc. And we all know that not all of us can dress the same way at work as we can in our home settings. Furthermore, what about possessions? When people show off possessions are they not communicating a message to someone? Are not possessions used as a means to display our power (however petty) over "other" people. This idea of using language as a means to instill dominant ideals onto the populace is known as "power discourse" (see Foucault). In short, language creates cultural ideals (some dominant; others outcast), which are used to rank people in hierarchical scales of assimilation (creating oppressive power systems as an end result).

Also, language does not have to be stagnant in order to oppress. The dominant ideal can change (and often does) over time. But just because the ideal changes, does not make it any less oppressive.

For example, say a kingdom was run by red people who demanded everything be colored red; that people wear red clothing; speak in red lexicon etc.. So, because of this, blue people started a revolt and overtook the red king, making the new dominant ideology blue. After a while, green people from a foreign land come into the country and demand changes be made. So eventually the blue people compromise with them and (in order to prevent revolution) agree both blue and green will be accepted as the dominant ideal.

In short, ideologies can change, but, nonetheless, are things that are reinstated by power. And anything that has to do with power will forever be oppressive. Society itself is a power system (not one of peace). In the case of the western world (e.g., the US in particular), an oligarchy. And language plays a pivotal role both in its establishment and its continued sense of survival.

 

[endlessness]

d-T-r, dont worry I didnt think that you said I disbelieved or whatever else, it was just part of my argument to express my feelings that I thought were relevant, I appreciate your feedback and post

Original sessions, good post. Though I was thinking of something different, I got the impression people were talking about that a certain language itself in its creation was made to dominate, and I thought the idea of a dynamic language would go against that. But of course you are very right that, in the rules of the social game, certain languages or expressions can be forbidden or made obligatory, and in this way be a manner of control. Your examples are good ones But lets take the ebonics example, while the kids may not be allowed to write in the exam, they might also use this same language as a means of rebellion, so they will speak in a way that is positive for them, where the differences will work to their advantage, so their language is not only something that is used to control them, but also a tool that sets them free and helps them be less controlled...

By the way, not related but related, did you ever read anything from John Ogbu? He was an anthropologist that studied the dynamics between different cultures, like minorities and dominant groups, and how this dynamics creates different characteristics in the groups that werent present in the groups in the first place (secondary cultural differences, as opposed to primary differences). It's very interesting and it helps understanding why some people and cultures act like they do. He also talked about this ebonics issue and all, so if you never read anything from him, be sure to check it out.