On language: on controlling and being controlled

Allright...

Wessy:

Its not. Without language there is no religion, nothing mystical. No smoke no mirrors and that's what's fascinating.
I brought up ferral children and autistic savants. They can't make heads or tails about fairies or angels.

When you think of nomadic tribes extant to this day, growing in their quiet corners of the world its absolutely key that you not slight the fact that they're spirtual also. There somthing fucking universal in the godammned thing and I wish I knew what it was.
My stand is that language is genetic. Sounds terribly Chomskyan, but still.

"Primitive" peoples feel their gods more and we with our western mind think more which explains all the fancy priests and shrinks getting fat off L.A.
Kidding.

The same can be said with our language in contrast- one's a feely, the other's a thinky- and yet we got to the same damn place the same damn way. Why? Its geometrical geneticism.
Beatifully odd.

Just as the periodic table of elements illustrates the discrete units of the physical world the 'stuff' of language is the underpinnings for everything that makes man, man.
Its not love.
Not rape.
Not hate.
Not homosexuality.
Not murder.
Not reason or any of the other silly trappings that sophists have tirelessly sought to use in dichotomizing man from beast.

Wesmorris:

Most certainly not. Consider the codified systems of bonobos, for one. They communicate sure, but all animals do in the absence of our magic (yes, we're magic) is never anything but a variation of the routine.

They never pass the threshold.

Follow?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But some apes (or chimps or whatever) are supposedly the intellectual equivalent of a 6 or 7 year old human. It has be proven that they have the capacity for language as well (I've seen it myself on the science channel

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) Man is not exclusive of intellect. I'd be curious to know if any ape cultures have ever developed a religion. I'd certainly doubt it. Maybe in a rudimentary sense. Oh, I think the same stuff has been shown with dolphins. I might ask though, who cares that we are different than animals (why do you seemingly make a deal of excluding them, I mean, most of them are certainly excluded but there are some that seem to have been similar genetic experiments as us in terms of intellect) and do you really think it questionable that we are animals? If so I have to disagree in a big way.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Pause.

When have I ever found it questionable that we are animals?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm working on a different reply but checked in the midst of it... seemed to me that you were implying that our 'magic' did exactly that.

"but all animals do in the absence of our magic (yes, we're magic) is never anything but a variation of the routine."

I see that you're saying that you didn't mean it that way, so I'll reread and attempt to find new comprehension inclusive of your clarification.

 

But don't you think mysticism is a sliding scale? You seem to view it only from your lot. Seems to me that from where-ever you are on the scale of self-awareness, mysticism is in the gaps between the things you think you know.. even if you don't have language with which to fully qualify it.. for the language itself is a similiar sliding scale, in that it evolves itself from the conglomeration of feedback and the capability of the individuals employing it and that whole culture thing enacted over time.

Why? The majority of their beliefs, language and living habits are cultural rather than a strict result of spirtuality.

Well I thought I explained it okay in my last post. You didn't comment though so maybe you didn't catch my meaning or don't agree?

I don't do name labels like that cuz I don't know anything about chomsky, hegel, blah blah. Most of what I theorize I've pieced together from my knowledge of math, statistics and lots of discovery space stuff... oh, and generally using an anthropological approach to discering likely past events regarding this here stuff. Anyway, you don't sounds chomskyan to a guy who doesn't know shit about chomsky. It further seems to me that the assertion "language is genetic" is pretty vague. What property of a biological organism isn't genetic in some sense or another? It's easy to argue that without the proper genetics, humans wouldn't be able to use language. Maybe I just don't see how it really bears on the issue. Sure in a sense it's genetics, what else would it be since all life is derived from genetics and only life employes lanuage? Ack, maybe I should have quit before. I just can't resist it when you post. Must.. dissect.

Wish you'd dissect my commentary a little more clearly (thoroughly?) as well. I think I'm not sure what you thought about this and that and end up unsure if comms have happened.

All jokes aside I'd say the truthfull element of that jibe is because the sense of the unknown, or the gaps between the concepts, or maybe the unanswered fundamental quesitions aren't explored, and are underdeveloped in comparison to a more modern culture. As such, the sense of mysticism is much more powerful.

Language in contrast with what? What feely what thinky? Man you lost me.

Hmm.. yes you have a good point. I was going to ask "why couldn't I use the word 'context' in place of language in that rant and be just as accurate" when I realized what I'm trying to say is that given the subjectivity of language, I generalize the concept as "context". Do you think in this sense, language is the subjective mechanism for context? The problem I'd have with that would be that context is broader and inclusive of language and as such seems more fitting to me. Maybe I'm just decorating. Thoughts?

 

Wes:

....but none of it is formalized. Its all rudementary forms of suggestions to meet the immediate.

Think about this: we can very well call a body lumped on a bed fucking hooked up to all sorts of medical doodats keeping it alive.......alive. Even though the body is brain dead its still technical life.

But that's not the same as a rosy cheeked 10 year old playing hopscotch. There's a difference betwen life and life.
And so...there's a difference in what you call intellect.

If you're talking about Koko......you've been hoodwinked.

So do I. And I don't certainly or highly doubt anything. I know there will never be spiritual monkeys until whatever 'language' it is that they have is plagued with abstracts as ours are.

Let's take a breather, here, Wessy. Here's what the gendy sees:

The animal out on the Sahara is shut up in habits. Any invention on their part is nothing more than a variation of the routine, false flavoring. They rarely escape automatism and when they do its only for another form of automatism.

"The gates of this prison are closed as soon as they are opened; by pulling at their chain they only succeed in stretching it."

We happen to be the only animal to have broken the chain. And I don't think its because our conscious by default was built to break it. I think conscious is a myth.

The zebra out in the African bush was a travel companion. They had just as much chance as we did. But we grabbed it.

I'm not denying we're animals. Doesn't sit well with me to think the gendy could have been an ape but I'm not above seeing whats in front of my damn face.

With me?

 

Wes:

Question: How would you know there was any "mysticism between gaps" if there was no language to think it in?

?

So what the devil do you think culture is based on? American idol? Chinese food?

Hmm. Funny you should say that because guess what? I'm a self thinker to. These chumps only help me find what 'size' mind I have. And funny you should bring up math becuae I belive there to be something marvelous gemeotrical in the way that we think.

No. You don't see. And I think its because you missed a major part of why I even started posting in this thread anwyay.
My contention centered around the left side of the brain and its knack for 'praxis' or analysis. Its methodological, analytic, and in bondage with bulding systems.
I had something to say about the left side being a magic carpet of tissue that did amazing things once it woke up.
You seem to have missed that.

Talking about...........this one

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Was 'life force' extrapolating on my 'universal goddamned something"?

 

Clear enough. It just seemed muddled a bit in some other things you were trying to say. Pardon. I'm not sure if it's because I couldn't understand or your wrote poorly. I'll assume it's me as that's the gentleman's role. My apologies, I am trying to follow, it's just that my own decorations keep me from seeing other people's sometimes. Opportunity cost can be a bitch.

I don't think I was. I was talking about this thing I saw where they'd trained apes to commucate with sign language and another where they'd done it with the button board thing. Similar button board thing for the dolphins. It was interesting. Of course shit who knows maybe I was duped. It seemed so plausible!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

hehe.

Again I'm not sure about that. It seems to me that you're ignoring the possibility that the sliding scale might be. In other words, to an ape food might be a spiritual experience... maybe mating. You don't think so eh? What about potential higher intellects? Do you think they could find us as spiritual? It's possible that their concepts might have evolved beyond the simplistic notion of spiritualism. Of course, I'm just playing the anti-advocate. Please allow me your thoughts.

Yes but they have plenty of leisure time.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You DO? Ack, NO! Heh, it seems so real damnit. I don't see the difference. I doesn't matter if it's a myth. Can't be actually. If it were, I wouldn't be able to think that it isn't. I couldn't be aware of my own thoughts could it? Damnit man, don't steal my consciousness! I need it! LOL.

But from an evolutionary stand point the mutation leading to our opportunity to 'grab it' would have been somewhat random. You're implying will of some sort in terms of evolution aren't you? The zebra is ill-equipped to formulate language or complex problem solving.

I'm with you sister, but I'm compelled to ask questions along the way. It's my function.

Edited to correct a misquote, It looked like I'd said something you'd said so I fixed it.;

 

Concepts damnit. Do you think the first thinkers had language? Where do you think it came from? It came from necessity. It came from the compulsion to provide context such that the environment could be understood such that mofos survived. Tell me, if everyone on earth died but you tomorrow, what would become of language? What relevance would it have? Would you still be able to think? I only say that because thought is enhanced developed by language, but it isn't necessarily dependent on it, since language MUST be the result of conceptualization rather than the reverse. Maybe I'm just spinning my wheels on pointless details. My apologies if that's the case. It just seems important to keep the relationships of these ideas clear. Hell though our discussion is somewhat limited by it's topic eh?

The scope of human interaction on a historically localized level (pre-globalization). Cultures represent a facet of the common experience of a group of some sort. Language is part of it, but not the whole of it. Maybe it does pervade all of culture in some sense. I dunno. Depends on how you look at it.

Oh man I started a thread about that once. It didn't go very far. I called it: Subjective Geometry.

No I didn't miss it, I just temporarily discounted it as somewhat irrelavent. It's not entirely mind you, I thought it complementary of the stage that I was attempting to set. It seemed to me at first that we were coming at this from two aspects of the same set of thought. I still think our assertions mostly complementary, but I'm trying to dissect and integrate your thoughts with my own.

Fuck I don't even know at this point. That was a few posts ago. You expect me to keep track of all the bullshit I'm talking???? Hehe. I'm trying but for the moment I can't figure out what the hell I meant. I'll figure it out when I'm less frazzled.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Sort of, I was just bring to light an existing thought of mine that was pertinent to my explanation. Seems to me that it has to be fundamental force like gravity or it wouldn't be, and we wouldn't exist. I think of it as the opposite of entropy.

 

Muha..ha..ha-ha. Ah, Wes you're fun.
The curse of misanthropy thaws in the aphrodisiatic fumes of language theory.

Just read both your posts and you do have good points. Very good points.

I'm digging this:

and this:

But time is short and I don't have any.

I'll be getting my claws on your subjective geometry thread soon enough.

 

Well, I sure can talk some smack. I always walk away from my posts going "where the fuck did that come from?". I can't seem to figure it out. Regardless, I look forward to your responses. (and meph too)

 

Wes:

Well find yourself. I meant contrasting the Western tounge with that of, say, the Mohawk language. The western mind thinks by proxy and therefore is highly formal, analytic, and concrete. A 'thinky'

The tribal mind feels more and does things directly.
A 'feely'

Now, the Mohawk language is one confusing little bitch to try to get your mind around at first; its a polysynthetic language meaning that it verbs are long and complicated and made up of many parts. Think supercalafragalisticexbeeyaladocious. Yet such far flung languages such as this one, Mayali, and English grammatically operate the same damn way.
This ties into the the univerallity in language that I'm sniffing after. Pyramid syndrome. And to me it strikes of what I'd said earlier: geometrical geneticism.

(speaking of geometry.........that Subjective Geometry thread of yours...behold, I FOUND MYSELF THERE! The gendy was there!)

Wess:

Bosh. It sounds more like protective measures or a shield than it does 'smack'.

Anyway..before we start, I want to make clear this:

We both agree to a quasi-electric kind of "life force" that is universal among the living. That it zaps 'something' into the biological film clinging to the dead matter of Earth.

And we both agree that we're ultra-developed animals. Correct?

 

Come come come, now. Don't keep me in waits.
I've made time today to sit my little ass down and think, think, think on these pretties and I'm NOT going to be let down.....

Get those engines running.............

 

/Well find yourself. I meant contrasting the Western tounge with that of, say, the Mohawk language. The western mind thinks by proxy and therefore is highly formal, analytic, and concrete. A 'thinky'

/The tribal mind feels more and does things directly.
A 'feely'

/Now, the Mohawk language is one confusing little bitch to try to get your mind around at first; its a polysynthetic language meaning that it verbs are long and complicated and made up of many parts. Think supercalafragalisticexbeeyaladocious. Yet such far flung languages such as this one, Mayali, and English grammatically operate the same damn way.
/This ties into the the univerallity in language that I'm sniffing after. Pyramid syndrome. And to me it strikes of what I'd said earlier: geometrical geneticism.

I see what you meant. I'm still having a hard time relating it directly to geneticism but perhaps that will become clear in the course of the conversation.

/(speaking of geometry.........that Subjective Geometry thread of yours...behold, I FOUND MYSELF THERE! The gendy was there!)

You like?

/Bosh. It sounds more like protective measures or a shield than it does 'smack'.

It's a means by which I can keep my ego checked. A lot of the other smarties piss me off with their "oh i forgot i need to build a mechanism to check my ego" thing. It's fucking annoying when people presume their own genius. Not because one isn't bright really, but because intellect is a generally directed gift. Just because you're the most brilliant sportscaster who ever lived, what the fuck do you know about supercolliders? Eh, you get me.

/Anyway..before we start, I want to make clear this:

/We both agree to a quasi-electric kind of "life force" that is universal among the living. That it zaps 'something' into the biological film clinging to the dead matter of Earth.

/And we both agree that we're ultra-developed animals. Correct?

Hehe, my only reservation would be "ultra" hehe. I'm not so sure we're as far developed as we'd like to think ourselves. Have you seen the people walking around this planet? Man, a lot of them are awesome, and a lot of them are fucking wastes of oxygen. *shrug* I suppose from an evolutionary perspective most of them must serve a purpose, but I often like to forget about that part, label them jerks, jackasses or idiots and move on.

Er, I mean, correct. I'm down with your assessment.

 

Wes:

Ha. What a question. Very much.

And I hope you're not lumping me in the boat with those 'presuming their own genius'. The little bit with Tessie was a consequential unavoidable. I don't rub “genius” in when I don’t have to. Ever.

Now....where were we? AH-
When you said this:

You were talking about Koko and Michael and all those 20 plus monkies they’ve got learning ASL now. However subjective this sounds, I believe you were duped. Um..’sorry’.
There is no thinking there. Its a human extrapolating fancy things from what is really a monkey fingering associative doodats with his hands to meet the immediate- food, play, drink. Variation of the routine.
You’ll find it in pigeons, dolphins, dogs and cats.

I said consciousness was a myth and you lost your beans. Tee hee...
You DO? Ack, NO! Heh, it seems so real damnit. I don't see the difference. I doesn't matter if it's a myth. Can't be actually

Let us agree that there are two kinds of states for consciousness:
Its either absent. Or its there to some degree.
Absent means zero.
Some-degree could be anything on your ‘sliding scale’.
A stone falling is at zero.
A bug, a cat, a baby, or your gramma falling down the same way are aware of falling to a degree somewhere on your sliding scale.

Now, stringing out this idea of a quasi-electrical force (not saying it is electrical. Consider the word a place holder for ‘idunno’) we can safely say that all the living is enmeshed in this ‘force’.

And this force is a plenum- covering everything like foam. Imagine a matrix or a film or a what- have-you so long as its universal.
I’m sure you already have.

To some degree, living matter separates things inevitably. That’s what living does. I’m sure even an amoeba, while not wholly sentient of time as a concept still separates its medium artificially. Proof? Reproduction, absorption, growing, moving and migrating- it all comprises some form of time, yes?

So then, since this habit is found all the way at the bottom, surely it carries all the way up the ‘sliding scale’. All the way up to the sapiens where odd things begin happening.

The human head now begins taking these separate entities, the somewhat same entities that the other animals separated, and began reuniting them in an artificial bond.
And in doing that it imagined for itself something formless and immutable, something viable and separate inside by which to string together these separate things. It imaged for itself an ego, and with that the oddity of insight.

That’s the human hallmark, my dear, insight.. Which is not the same as self awareness as most think. Monkies with mirrors show self awareness but no insight. As do dolphins.

And I believe that language is what has us doing that- going in. Insight. Language is what feeds the myth of homo duplex by falsely mystifying with a ‘mental voice’.

And so, this word conscience to me is a false byproduct, or imitation of sorts- something static for language to work with. And language working with it is what in a timeless cycle of tactics has fed into this business of ‘ego’ and by doing so distilled ‘spirit’ in the process.

Homo duplex is a myth.

There’s more but………still with me?

 

/Ha. What a question. Very much.

Excellent. I look forward to your input.

/And I hope you're not lumping me in the boat with those 'presuming their own genius'. The little bit with Tessie was a consequential unavoidable. I don't rub “genius” in when I don’t have to. Ever.

Hehehe, I wasn't but I sense a guilty conscience.

/Now....where were we? AH-
/When you said this:

/You were talking about Koko and Michael and all those 20 plus monkies they’ve got learning ASL now. However subjective this sounds, I believe you were duped. Um..’sorry’.

Well, it happens.

/There is no thinking there. Its a human extrapolating fancy things from what is really a monkey fingering associative doodats with his hands to meet the immediate- food, play, drink. Variation of the routine.

/You’ll find it in pigeons, dolphins, dogs and cats.

Debatable I'd say but I'll drop it in lieu of larger game.

/I said consciousness was a myth and you lost your beans. Tee hee...

Hehe, I was hamming it up for the camera a bit, but yeah I'm mildly uncomfortable with the notion of not being conscious. To compensate I think that the illusion the reality when it comes to the abstract. In other words, the illusion of consciousness IS consciousness, so can there be a difference? I mean, if you think you are, aren't you, regardless of what led to the condition? To say "i am not conscious" says "this is not subjective" and how could it not be if YOU said it? *shrug*

This is where I start agreeing with you:

You've got me hook line and sinker up to here from where I said I started agreeing.

/The human head now begins taking these separate entities, the somewhat same entities that the other animals separated, and began reuniting them in an artificial bond.

You're saying concepts are artificial? Hmm. I mean, that seems POV related. In other words I can imagine a perspective from which that is correct and I can see one from which artificial is the only artificial term. I just mean I'm tempted to reject the notion of artificiality. Another point might be that while in a beautiful sense you're onto an important notion, you glossed over the notion that the artificial bond cements more than just its separation. The separation has a life of its own (in that thoughts exists than are more than the sum of the surroudings). All that but I'm not even sure its relevant. I'm still thinking aboot it. Seemed relevant at first.

/And in doing that it imagined for itself something formless and immutable, something viable and separate inside by which to string together these separate things. It imaged for itself an ego, and with that the oddity of insight.

While I'm impressed with your anaylsis and may end up agreeing with you, I have to try to put it in language I can understand. I'll give you my previous notion as to the say occurrence such that we can compare notes. I think there is some hybridization needed.

I think of the 'amount' or whatever of a consciousness as basically how much time one can 'fit' into awareness at any time now = the present or d/dt if you're down with calc (with I only barely am at this point). I think there are transcendental stages in the these amounts. In other words, I'd imagine there to be points at which the dynamic fundamentally changes. One the scale, as you become more aware and more aware and more aware (in terms of evolution), I'd imagine there to be thresholds at which things change fundamentally. Almost like the curl of wind around the corner of a building, time bends around itself until the whirlwind that is consciousness (human type, or maybe even that which has ego begins. From that perspective, ego almost becomes the completion of a feedback loop in time as it is finally reflected back upon itself in a manner by which it realizes what's going on.

Maybe? Hehe. Too much?

/That’s the human hallmark, my dear, insight.. Which is not the same as self awareness as most think. Monkies with mirrors show self awareness but no insight. As do dolphins.

Again with the sliding scale. I'm not so quick to call insight a purely human ability since when I attempt to imagine what insight might be to a slug i think it's possible they have it too. I mean, maybe they figured out how to crawl the goo sack 23985r8 extended, how can I know?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It just seems likely that the idea of insight has to ride along the same sliding scale as consciousness.

/And I believe that language is what has us doing that- going in. Insight. Language is what feeds the myth of homo duplex by falsely mystifying with a ‘mental voice’

I disagree. I think the myth is fed by the reality of a feedback loop in time - of time. Language though, enhances thought immensely, it's actually a catylist of sorts for hightened awareness through enhanced comprehension, but I don't think it's the mechanism. I think it's a tool of the trade and well on second thought it does feed the myth so to speak, but it isn't the reason the myth is there. That's what I was trying to say.

/And so, this word conscience to me is a false byproduct, or imitation of sorts-

Nope, consciousness is basically a name for the process that results from the time loop thing.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

/something static for language to work with. And language working with it is what in a timeless cycle of tactics has fed into this business of ‘ego’ and by doing so distilled ‘spirit’ in the process.

What is a "timeless cycle of tactics"? I think the "spirit" the same as "god" in that it's an easy answer to a tough question, inspired by a feeling of mystery regarding existence. A simple answer to the proverbial "WTF?". I think Meph had a good point about the tendency of labels to satiate curiousity and stifle analysis. Was that this thread?

/Homo duplex is a myth.

Your ASS is a myth, beeyatch.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

LOL

/There’s more but………still with me?

You have my objections, now what of them!?!?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please, refute my objections and bring the more.

I'm mostly with you for sure, exceptin' regardin' that one consciousness dealy, yo.

 

I think it was, but that was long ago and far away..

 

I'm sorry Meph, have overstepped some boundary that I'm unaware of?

 

Wessy:

Yowza. "ouch". Surely you jest.

How this thread suffers neglect. "twere it in me I'd blast all of sciforums with the roar of its powerful engines.

Don't forget me. My mephurio seems bored with pet theories but wes has shown up to at least keep me warm. Can't wait till sunday.

"That is well said, but we must cultivate our garden"- candide.

 

I've mostly just been attemping to establish the proper context of language in the human schema. I switched modes a bit and was thinking about the function of language.

While at the same time language shapes behavior and thought patterns, it also works as a sort of "cultural hard-drive" in a knowledge repository kind of way. It can be thought of a roadsigns on the conceptual highway of the mind (in the sense that your subjective (a somewhat redundant term I suppose) conceptual relationships uses language as 'conceptual placeholders' (they're 'nodes' in a geometrical relationship of ideas or concepts to one another for that perspective if you will) and lets you store things using it and in a broader sense, you effect it as in your influence resounds throughout and resonates with other perspectives within society, ultimately reflecting back upon language.