On language: on controlling and being controlled

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by Mephura, Jul 16, 2003.

  1. thefountainhed Fully Realized Valued Senior Member

    He he he he

    Wow. A marked improvement! Still lacking, but a marked improvement nevertheless. Anyway, seeing as I am in a thinking mood-- just made my sponsors proud with my "research"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    , and the availability of good topics, I say we ditch this flaming bullshit. You are obviously out of your comfort zone and we are recycling the same topics-- hence, bullshit. If you maintain a high degree of maturity and intelligence in your subsequent posts within or outside this thread, you shall get the same response from me.

    I will however answer to this:
    You seem to associate language with mere "words", and this is false. For you see, although you are thinking of the physical images that constitutes a map, you have to associate certain graphical elements to acquire meaning. In order words, a picture of a road means nothing unless you associate that image with the abstract, road. This requires language for it is only through lanaguage that you are able to communicate the concept of a road or make sense of a map someone else drew.

    In summary, I bump you up. You are still far off from the level I had previously placed you, but at least you are not a plebe.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Mephura Applesauce, bitch... Valued Senior Member

    Re: He he he he

    I still don't buy it. Yes language is required to give those things meaning to others. Language is required to express the idea, but I don't think language is used to think. When I speak of thinking, I am speaking of processing data in a way that yeaild a result that is meaningful in some way. Depending on the subject matter, language will have differing levels of importance. Graphic arts have very well defined rules. However, the rules work on a more intuitive level as aesthetics are not easily quantified. Now then, when you work on a piece and you know the rules, you can look at it and 'feel' if the balance, flow, contrast and other details are behaving in the ways you wished them to. You have studied the picture and your brain processed the data comparing it to known and learned factors. Language doesn't play a part until the end when it comes time to communicate the result.

    Its not the thinking that language is involved in. Langauge acts a a filter to translate the results of thought into something you can understand in the context of the concrete world.

    As for me being "obviously out of your comfort zone ", you obviously have no clue what the hell you are talking about.
    But, in the interest of ending the stupidity, I'll make the attempt not to humiliate you any further. Good to see we agree on something.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. thefountainhed Fully Realized Valued Senior Member

    Then present a counter.

    You see, you contradict yourself. Meaningful is only defined through language.

    You talk of subjectivity; and it applies, but is does not refute my assertion. To define these rules require langauge.

    Not enough time: Language plays a HUGE part throuhout; let us see if you cannot recognize this until I post tommorow.

    Nae. Language is necessary for thought outside the instinctive.

    A lie.

    Like I said, you are improving. However, just so your ego does not bump up, and at this point, it REALLY does not warrant an increase, know that the above is so easy to disect, it is almost pitiful.

    Yes, you are not a plebe. But again, this is not something to be proud of.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Mephura Applesauce, bitch... Valued Senior Member

    language requires thought requires language requires....

    I did. Its bassically the whole damn thread.

    And what does that have to do with the actual thought process?
    That is just circular.
    Its really quite simple. You are using self definition to claim truth.
    Where did language come from? We couldn't have thought it up, because before we did we couldn't,according to you, think.
    If that is the case how did we ever go from point A to point B.
    How did we get from being animals that cannot think to ones that can?

    To define these rules in a way that can be easily communicated and understood by the masses requires language. To have an understanding of these rules and what is required by them does not. They are defined by inherent properties (abstracts) that we have labled in order to facilitate communication of said properties.

    Lets see if you notice how circular your reasoning is before you read this.

    You might want to clarify that. If there is thought outside the instictive, that would imply there is thought inside the instinctive.
    It would also imply that language is not necessary for the already implied instinctive thought. That would undermine your whole arguement.

    Prove it.
    You have made claims repeatedly concerning the validity of other's statements. The burden of proof is on you. Show me.

    Couldn't be any worse than your's.

    Anything that makes me different from you is most definitely somethign to be proud of.
  8. thefountainhed Fully Realized Valued Senior Member


    There is no circularity, I was being laconic as I time was short, and I figured you could extrapolate, but you obviously not. Here: Meaning implies a conveyance or a signification of some sort. In order words, for something to make meaning implies it is able to communicate something to you. If this something that needs to be interpreted exists outside yourself in the sense that it is a creation or modification of another person/consciousness, it necessarily needs language to convey this meaning.


    Bigger brains that adapted to make language acquisition and development easier.

    Yuck. Labeling is language.

    All that you assert can only be implied depending on how you define “outside”. Either way, what I mean is this: By certain chemical and biological processes, humans are born with the ability to reference and associate-- memory and say colour recognition. These are instinctive, and I suppose if you consider these to be “thought processes”, then by your definition, one does not require language. To me however, thinking implies a conscious initiation.

    You want me to prove to you my assertion that you lied when you implied I had “no clue what” I “was talking about” when I asserted that you were out of your comfort zone? Now think about that. What you are asking of me is absolutely foolish. Of course I have every idea what I am talking about regarding my subjective take on any perceived comfort zones—this includes yours.

  9. Mephura Applesauce, bitch... Valued Senior Member

    There is a problem with this line of reasoning.
    Thinking takes place inside your mind. In no way does thinking require imput from the outside. Nor does it require that the though be conveyed.

    The circularity exists in that you are saying it takes language to think, but one couldn't use language with out thinking. In order to communicate an idea, I have to have a medium to communicate it in (language). You say in order to have the idea that requires the communication to exist, I must have language.
    In short, you are saying that language necessitates itself.

    which brings us to your next reply

    For evolution to take place, slow developments build off of previous developments. Now if I can't think without language, and I can't use language with out thinking, how did either evolve from a point where neither existed?
    Sounds more like spontanious creation to me.

    How would this make it easier? If I can't think with out language already existing, then how am I acquiring it? Besides that, where is it being acquired from?

    Glad to see you are getting better at grasping the obvious.

    Well, I define outside as the opposite of inside. How do you define it? We are born with color recognition? That's a new one on me. You mean we come out knowing that blue is blue and red is red? Or perhaps you are just trying to say that we can differentiate things that aren't identical from each other.

    So when you catch a ball you consciously initiate and consciously participate in your mind's calculations of its speed and trajectory?
    True you may initiate the desire to catch the ball, but the calculations that you go through in order to catch said ball aren't initiated by you on a conscious level.
    Lets go a step further:
    Most people that can catch that ball can't do the math consciously. They don't have the 'language' to do so. Yet on a subconscious level, those calculations are taking place.

    True. In your deluded little mind where circular thinking isn't just that, you can tell yourself that people are lying whenever you want.

    Whatever you say there hed...
  10. thefountainhed Fully Realized Valued Senior Member

    I believe we were adressing acquiring meaning.

    No. I am saying that one requires language for conscious thought. And that without language, "thought" does not develop beyond the instinctive. It is essentially a "hand that feeds" itself.

    Yes evolution builds off on previous developments, but those developments had to have a start. This start is called a mutation. This is the nature of evolution.

    This is nonsense for obviously language builds with more language. Humans did not simply acquire the whole of that which we call langauge. By developing certains aspects, it necessarily helped in the development of others.

    Exclusive is the form outside was used. Meaning that, that form of thought is exclusive to the instinctive...

    The latter. Obviously 'red' is an abstract and you wasted precious space on nonsense.

    Which will not make it thinking for it is not conscious.

    You really have a way of twisting words to fit your nonsense don't you? You asked for proof of that is which is subjective. That was stupid.

Share This Page