ZShawn
10th May 2017, 05:31
a common misunderstanding is the assumption that language is neutral,
a medium of exchange between the world and man that in no way affects man's behavior.
this assumption presents language as a natural process, like breathing,
something not to be examined very carefully
and certainly not to be altered in any but the most superficial ways,
like increasing one's vocabulary, or improving delivery.
When use of language is taken for granted
then the logical conclusion tends to be that everybody else in the world thinks along much the same lines
and that words are used in the same way, with the same meanings.
or, if they do not, then these others must then be confused, uneducated, peculiar, simply wrong, or some other colorful adjective.
A more sophisticated approach can afford to assume very little.
But one could begin tentatively with a more constructive assumption that
whatever words might be considered, they are definitely something very different from the things they represent.
And so we start with that assumption of duality: the word is not the thing....or, the map is not the territory.
More thoughtful folk often have been puzzled by a discipline that emphasizes what appears to be so obvious.
Who, after all, would assume that "a word" was "the thing" it symbolizes?
However, the answer is throughout history and in much of our daily lives,
in which we seek after, purchase, love, fight and sometimes die for 'words".
As our culture becomes more symbol laden, even symbol bound,
the recognition of that distinction becomes still more important.
Our ability to symbolize, to call up internal experiences, using only symbols is a fundamental skill set,
but not one that is often thought about.
The point of real interest is not just in the distinction of words being different from things,
but rather in the pervasive responses to symbols
as opposed to possible reactions to something in the nonverbal world.
consider the position from above in a plane looking down on the world
or on google maps which is a much different perspective from the typical perspective one occupies daily....
this isn't a position of illusion vs. reality, but one of familiarity.
If we look deeper using microscopes we get even more perspective which has forced scientists to abandon previous positions and assumptions
thought to be absolute and permanent: elements, then atoms, later electrons and protons,
once believed to be the indestructible basis of the world,
successively failed the tests of permanence.
Bertrand Russell describes this aptly:
"Energy had to replace matter as what is permanent.
But energy, unlike matter, is not a refinement of the common-sense notion of a "thing";
it is merely a characteristic of physical processes.
What characterizes "reality" at all levels then, is not the presence of some "thing"
but rather of a process.
Rather than speak of the things of the world,
we should speak of the events.
Heroclitus explored this and summed it up with his phrase panta rhei
everything flows and so he concluded, only process is real.
Our language is a product of centuries, and most of our vocabulary reflects an older, prescientific view of the world.
We retain a vocabulary suggestive of permanence
when we know today that the only permanence is change.
Metaphorically we speak of the things of the world as if they were like rocks, when we know they are more like flames.
What we once thought were like nouns now seem more like verbs.
Things are dynamic and words are static.
In the light of the discoveries of the past century, our vocabulary is peculiarly anachronistic.
of course, we need not and certainly cannot change our language,
But being aware that a nonverbal world of process is merely being represented in words that indicate a static quality is important
and may in fact be the key fulcrum we can rest our lever upon
which will shift our world.
:eyebrows:
a medium of exchange between the world and man that in no way affects man's behavior.
this assumption presents language as a natural process, like breathing,
something not to be examined very carefully
and certainly not to be altered in any but the most superficial ways,
like increasing one's vocabulary, or improving delivery.
When use of language is taken for granted
then the logical conclusion tends to be that everybody else in the world thinks along much the same lines
and that words are used in the same way, with the same meanings.
or, if they do not, then these others must then be confused, uneducated, peculiar, simply wrong, or some other colorful adjective.
A more sophisticated approach can afford to assume very little.
But one could begin tentatively with a more constructive assumption that
whatever words might be considered, they are definitely something very different from the things they represent.
And so we start with that assumption of duality: the word is not the thing....or, the map is not the territory.
More thoughtful folk often have been puzzled by a discipline that emphasizes what appears to be so obvious.
Who, after all, would assume that "a word" was "the thing" it symbolizes?
However, the answer is throughout history and in much of our daily lives,
in which we seek after, purchase, love, fight and sometimes die for 'words".
As our culture becomes more symbol laden, even symbol bound,
the recognition of that distinction becomes still more important.
Our ability to symbolize, to call up internal experiences, using only symbols is a fundamental skill set,
but not one that is often thought about.
The point of real interest is not just in the distinction of words being different from things,
but rather in the pervasive responses to symbols
as opposed to possible reactions to something in the nonverbal world.
consider the position from above in a plane looking down on the world
or on google maps which is a much different perspective from the typical perspective one occupies daily....
this isn't a position of illusion vs. reality, but one of familiarity.
If we look deeper using microscopes we get even more perspective which has forced scientists to abandon previous positions and assumptions
thought to be absolute and permanent: elements, then atoms, later electrons and protons,
once believed to be the indestructible basis of the world,
successively failed the tests of permanence.
Bertrand Russell describes this aptly:
"Energy had to replace matter as what is permanent.
But energy, unlike matter, is not a refinement of the common-sense notion of a "thing";
it is merely a characteristic of physical processes.
What characterizes "reality" at all levels then, is not the presence of some "thing"
but rather of a process.
Rather than speak of the things of the world,
we should speak of the events.
Heroclitus explored this and summed it up with his phrase panta rhei
everything flows and so he concluded, only process is real.
Our language is a product of centuries, and most of our vocabulary reflects an older, prescientific view of the world.
We retain a vocabulary suggestive of permanence
when we know today that the only permanence is change.
Metaphorically we speak of the things of the world as if they were like rocks, when we know they are more like flames.
What we once thought were like nouns now seem more like verbs.
Things are dynamic and words are static.
In the light of the discoveries of the past century, our vocabulary is peculiarly anachronistic.
of course, we need not and certainly cannot change our language,
But being aware that a nonverbal world of process is merely being represented in words that indicate a static quality is important
and may in fact be the key fulcrum we can rest our lever upon
which will shift our world.
:eyebrows: