Language is evil

I think that is one of the reasons for confusion with word meaning; different meanings and connotations have been attached to so many words. To properly discuss a topic, especially in print, you must first establish the definitions of the terms if you are aiming for complete comprehension. Particularly if the language being used is not the first language of all the participants.
 
Bar Kochba said:
I think that is one of the reasons for confusion with word meaning; different meanings and connotations have been attached to so many words. To properly discuss a topic, especially in print, you must first establish the definitions of the terms if you are aiming for complete comprehension. Particularly if the language being used is not the first language of all the participants.

I think what I was trying to elaborate in this thread (in the spirit of Oscar Wilde. "sometimes I am so clever that I don't understand a single word of what I am saying" ), is that language can never be exact in the sense that it is never a fully convey the reality that it tries to describe and so it is bound to constant modification and change because as the experience of reality changes so does the interpretation of reality through words for the means of communication.

In that sense the process of change in meaning of words is a necessity. The question is just who defines it and how good and inclusive can they define it. I think this dilemma, this abyss between one person and another between one experience of reality and another cannot be eradicated through language. It is maybe exactly this difference that makes the human experience so interesting and dynamic. For example I just discovered this artist Benjamin Clementine who's songs I posted in the music section. The first time I heard him was so intense and powerfull for me that tears rolled down my face. Now I ran to my brother and showed him full of excitement the songs, and he said they are nice. NICE, nice is the completely wrong word to describe this, how can one say nice to this radical explosion of pure expression. His girlfriend just looked up for a couple of seconds and then continued to play with her smartphone. This is always terrifying, how can different people experience the same thing in so different ways. I mean his interpretation of voodoo child is a fuc*in earthquake to me while another one can just shrug his shoulders. It makes me realize how alone we are.

Bar Kochba I understand the problem you are highlighting and this is especially important when one studies the work and instructions of another man or a group and so on. In this case one must be really clear on what is being expressed and comprehend the exact definition and the context of the words or be aware and honest of the things one does not understand.

Yet on the other side I believe Poetry and Myth to be the form of language closest to reality. Because a poet creates his own laws, disregards the grammar, creates new meanings and even new words to force language to submit to his unique individual way of experience and expression, instead of allowing language to limit his reality. It allows for a certain space that does not exist in the normal everyday rational language. And even if one does not understand every word of a poem or even puts a meaning into it that the artist did not intent it can still have a deep personal meaning to the person concerned.

There was a philosopher who said that we are slaves because we lack the proper language to formulate the form of our own enslavement.
 
Solarsoul, I've enjoyed greatly reading your posts. I think its quite refreshing how you've framed the whole issue.

I have 2 languages, 1 African and 1 western (english). My African language is not beautiful by any means and since I've been living in a western community for awhile, I cant speak it as fluently. However, having 2 languages that to me appear quite different, I can see how language moulds how you think. Forget about meaning of specific words, the whole body of a particular language locks everyone who speaks that language into a particular mode. Ir becomes noticeable when you talk different languages and when you've lived for awhile with people who talk these different languages. Moving from one to the other is like moving between different spheres that even though appear the same are subtly different in essence and nature. Now, I am not a linguist and therefore don't know much in the way language affects psychology.

Sometimes I do wonder though, do people use words as representative of meaning in and of itself, or do they use words as approximation to capture meaning and concepts that exist independent of those words. I find some people to be quite militant on language, where language has to be precise, like a scientific instrument but I find others who can colour words, add meaning, use metaphors, twist and modify to capture concepts that would otherwise prove to be elusive. I personally prefer the latter as the way they use language tends to enrich inner life. However, these people stand no chance against those that demand precision. Precision in language I find limiting and brings everyone to the same page, staring at the same thing. Abstractness and exploration is killed and many concepts disappear from existence. To use a metaphor, its like demanding everyone use there eyes to see a specific thing and miss everything else surrounding that thing.

I think the legal system being designed around language is incorrect. Its like music being designed around words. Music produced by instruments conveys so much more than music produced by words. However, both are useful in tandem. For the legal system to be entirely dependant on language is why I think we see so much global corruption and why bad things happen that are entirely ruled as legal. Look at that contradiction there, entirely borne from over reliance on language. In one sense a lawyer can argue something as legal and win despite everyone knowing intrinsically that what happened was wrong e.g. tax evasion by companies, war crimes by PTB etc.

On an entirely random thing, if you can speak more than one language, what language do you dream in? Does it switch and change or is it always the same? Furthermore, do you even dream in language? If so, how can that be the case when clearly you don't have the use of vocal cords and ears in dreams? How are concepts communicated in dream form? How is understanding formed? Interesting questions to ponder...

What about thinking? Sure you can talk to yourself in your head... But do you really think in language? Do you talk yourself into thinking? I personally find thinking to be entirely independent of language. If I'm sitting by my computer at work staring at a tough problem, I don't talk my way into solving it... In those moments of thinking, words don't feature. In the giving birth of a solution derived from the faculty of thinking, words don't feature. Words only feature to occupy the space. Hidden in that space though are processes that function independent of the words. That's how I look at it.
 
SolarSoul said:
Have you ever read the stories of the ancient zen-masters (the teachings of the rinzai for example)?
So yes I remain with my statement language is evil and has to be conquered until someone can prove me wrong!

Hi SolarSoul,

I think I understand where you're coming from. But instead of "language is evil", might not a more appropriate Rinzai expression be simply "language is language"?
 
To further the original premise that "Language is evil," William S. Burroughs had this to say:

"My basis theory is that the written word was literally a virus that made spoken word possible. The word has not been recognized as a virus because it has achieved a state of stable symbiosis with the host...(This symbiotic relationship is now breaking down for reasons I will suggest later.)

I quote from MECHANISMS OF VIRUS INFECTION edited by Mr. Wilson Smith, a scientist who really thinks about his subject instead of merely correlating data. He thinks, that is, about the ultimate intentions of the virus organism. In an article entitled VIRUS ADAPTABILITY AND HOST RESISTANCE by G. Belyavin, speculations as to the biologic goal of the virus species are enlarged ...

Viruses are obligatory cellular parasites and are thus wholly dependent upon the integrity of the cellular systems they parasitize for their survival in an active state. It is something of a paradox that many viruses ultimately destroy the cells in which they are living..."

I am not surmising that viruses are evil, btw.
 
I see language as a medium that can take many forms. Accounting, math, dreams, DNA, impressions, world events, emotions and so on are all just languages that convey different information in relevant forms. The reading instrument plays an important part in how information is processed and transmitted, so if that is faulty then information will be distorted. This can relate to damaged DNA, ponerization, biases, the nature of subjectivity, etc. Language may be limited, but it is only limited by the reading mechanism and the environment of usage.

The question of whether language is evil or not seems to be a case of 'not seeing the forest through the trees' (only looking at the surface and missing the bigger picture). We've seen language gradually decay over time to convey less and less meaning. If you pick up a book written 100 years ago like Varieties of Religious Experience one of the things that is apparent is the depth and richness of the work. It wasn't that his vocabulary that was incredible, but the thoughts he was able to convey. While James was a talented writer, I think the language used during that time was generally more meaningful. The decay of language is particularly visible in lyrics for popular songs. As Relic says, Hemingway would be so dismayed at what language has become he'd probably want to shoot himself in the face!

I don't think this is an indication that language in itself is evil but more of an indictment of our environment that has become corrupted and how our reading instruments have become distorted by not seeing the environment for what it is. We do have the capacity to discover and impart greater meaning if we so choose. But there are of course obstacles to overcome, namely the 'dictionary' we use. Laura writes about the problems of using the "juvenile dictionary" to define reality in The Wave:

The Wave Chapter 48: The Juvenile Dictionary

I realize that I have been bringing up the idea of “semantic aphasia” somewhat often in this little recapitulation. There is a reason for this aside from the ordinary interpretation that deals with words and our ability to access realms of pure thought via the expansion of associations. It seems that this is a model for our reality as well. In the same way that we expand our awareness of thought realms by increasing our brain capacity by mosaic word associations, so may we increase our awareness of our “hard reality” by expanding our interpretative associations of events and relationships in our lives.

But is that healthy? Is it normal? Is it not, as some might suggest, pathological?

We know that our website and books are full of some of the most far out material imaginable. We admit it freely. We also admit that we don’t necessarily believe it. For us, it is an experiment, a working hypothesis to be tested and proven or falsified. Much of what we deal with here is in the realm of pure, speculative thought. As I have said again and again, I have never seen a “Lizzie,” nor any other kind of alien except in states of altered awareness such as hypnopompic and hypnagogic sleep states. I have seen our reality in a different way more or less spontaneously when a certain “state” has fallen upon me, but as is usual with me, I always want to consider any number of things as being possibly contributory, including blood sugar levels, brain chemistry, different stresses, and so on.

We also know that there are a lot of critics out there who stop in, read a few paragraphs, shake their head in dismay, and move on. Others, with agendas, stop long enough to write and tell us that if we don’t call on Jesus, we are going straight to Hell, without passing “Go” or collecting 200 bucks. Still others feel moved to write their own websites devoted to nasty or disparaging remarks about us, in particular, rather than producing any material or theories of their own which they can test. We find this to be a curious phenomenon, but one we certainly understand.

A lot of people draw lines in the sand of their minds and establish very early on what kinds of things they will or will not consider. We have done it ourselves. Not too long ago, proposing the idea of aliens as “real” in any sense was so far outside of our own reality that it wasn’t even within hailing distance. So we know how this works. Since we had decided, a priori, that such a thing was impossible, we simply never exerted any effort really looking into it, much less examining it in a systematic way. That door was firmly closed in our minds.

But it’s a curious thing, this Universe we live in. It seems that the doors we close in our minds leave other doors in our lives wide open – and things come through those doors that are not altogether friendly. Just as a particular definition or association of a word may be unknown to an individual, leaving a sort of blank spot in their mind – a point of ignorance which may one day cause them embarrassment if they are challenged in a situation where that particular definition is the right one – so it seems that such blank spots in our awareness of the possible associations of events in our reality leave us open to their effects on us without any ability to define or understand the real meaning.

I wrote Amazing Grace for the explicit purpose of describing my life during the many years when my definitions and associations of reality were strictly circumscribed by the “dictionary of life” I was using. When things happened in my life, they were ever and always interpreted by this “dictionary” written by Christianity, and the linear, uniformitarian view of the world. If the interpretation didn’t quite fit the event, the event was either distorted in my mind, parts of it covered up, shoved under the rug, or I just ignored it. I didn’t realize that whoever writes the dictionaries that we use to understand the events of our lives have written them with only one or two basic definitions, and have left out a whole host of associations or other definitions that more fully explain the word/event. In a sense, the dictionary we use to define our lives is like a children’s dictionary where the simplest and most juvenile definition is given. This leads us to interpret our lives and the world around us in a cosmically juvenile way. Even great scholars and “experts” of all kinds continue to use the juvenile version of the cosmic dictionary when it comes to defining and interpreting the facts of their lives and the “real world.”

When the average person puts on their power clothes and goes to the workplace, or puts on their Jerry Garcia tee shirt to settle down with a brewski for the big game, intimations of mortality or immortality are not allowed to intrude. Sure, everyone has a little “strange story” to tell maybe once in their life, maybe even an ghostly encounter, and it is always whispered in hushed or embarrassed tones if it is mentioned at all. The very idea that there are layers, or depth and breadth to our reality that may not be part of the dictionary we have been brought up to use is strictly hidden. Everyone has agreed to use the “juvenile dictionary,” and anybody who proposes to use one with more definitions, more semiotic content, is attacked.

Why?

Well, because our basic reality is defined by a juvenile dictionary, of course! That means that juvenile reactions are part of the “right” definitions. People who evaluate life based on this juvenile dictionary tend to feel overwhelmed by more semiotic content. It is too much for their brains, too much to think about, too much to handle, and they begin to feel oppressed by their awareness that there may, indeed, be more to the world than they supposed. This awareness of so much unknown territory makes the person who has circumscribed their reality into comfortable zones of what is or is not right and acceptable, feel a terrifying sense of vertigo, and they want, at all costs, to close that door of awareness. So, since they can’t destroy the universe that is, they seek to get their revenge against the symbolic target of awareness – the individual who has pointed out that there are other definitions and other dictionaries.

Most of ordinary humanity – the vast majority of people – use the juvenile dictionary. They have adopted, internalized, and made real this narrow view of the world, and woe to anyone who points out that there are other languages, there are other definitions, and there is a wider semiotic content plane. But what is important is that no one is born to be forever stuck in a circumscribed semiotic content plane. They are first taught, and then they actively choose to select what definitions of their experiences they will accept and which ones they will edit out.

Gurdjieff was right: People get out of life what they put into it.

The common usage of the juvenile dictionary present a problem with being able to convey meaning, and it seems the issue is compounded when you add psychopaths to the mix. Lobaczewki writes about how psychopaths have their own language that distorts meaning, and perhaps we could say the the use of the juvenile dictionary creates an entry point for infection since there is little meaning to begin with to offer protection.
 
My approach to your argument would be that language is a tool of communication and organization of thought. As with all tools, they are neutral, and can be used for good or for evil, by us or against us, and with different degrees of efficiency. It is simply a feature of our existence, and although thinking about language and it's moral standing is a good mental exercise, the very thoughts that question language are influenced by the same language it is questioning, which makes me doubt our possibility at getting anywhere in this sense. All we can do is progressively discard the juvenile dictionary and refine our use of language as much as possible.
 
The proposition that language is evil is itself a distortion of what the OP wants to say and he admits it when he says that everything he says is a distortion of what he means. The problem is going to be in answering the assertion with the very language that is a distortion of what we really mean. But the challenge seems interesting.

As is often the case in a language whose basis can be found in binary opposition, I'd say the OP is both right and wrong and that the real issues, which involve general misunderstanding and ponerization is something else: pattern bias.

A couple of my assumptions are that:

1) language is for communication in a social context
2) language must have some kind of negation (like the word "not") at its base so that we can create a mental model of the world of nature and civilization in terms of history through the present. IOW, we need a way to say, "not now, then." This means that language must have "tense" that the immediate experience of the immediate world doesn't have.

Problems can grow out of this when people forget that their models of understanding have their basis in neuronal pattern representation and that their mental models are fictions as compared to the real world - only representations, not that which is being represented. The fiction itself has no intrinsic truth or falsehood because by nature it is incomplete, so a particular model may be contextually true inasmuch as it contains no false or fantasy elements, IMO.

That said, over time using our language-based learning, we accumulate patterns and we can reach a point where we have so many patterns in our memory that we no longer feel a need to continuously test our knowledge against the real world. Instead, we go: "I've got a meme for that!"

A word is like a meme in that it's a learned pattern. Example: "constellation" is a learned pattern, not a "thing". And sentences in different languages reveal pattern biases. Example: English wants to mention nouns first whereas another language wants to refer to the action first and then to the people or things performing it.

Some ways we impose patterns biases can be seen in house and car design and even in our thought about gender and actual communication between men and women. There are many ways to build houses and other buildings but they all look pretty much the same, don't they? Think about the phonetic alphabet. The fact that intrinsically meaningless scrambled letters are readable shows how incredibly conditioned we are to see certain things 'as they should be' according to varying biases.

So, someone reaches a point where (s)he begins to learn new things and overcomes pattern bias. Ponerology is discovered and new concepts and ways of communicating have to be used to communicate meaning and implication underlying these terms and the new way of looking at behavior the terms represent. Some people get it while a large percentage don't. Pattern bias. People tend to think they know all they need to know; that they have a meme for that, an already existing pattern to explain that. They compare the new info to their existing stereotypes of knowledge and prefer their stereotypes while editing out whatever doesn't fit. This editing may even be done during the .5 second lapse between the action of hearing or reading and the awareness of what has been said.

Over time, we become frustrated over the difficulty in communicating what we really mean and so turn to the poets. Poets seem to have a way to communicate deeper meaning than the prose artists, so we revel in the occasional relief afforded by the opportunity to freely experiment with interpretation and meaning. Still, after a time, we may become frustrated by our ability to comprehend yet not communicate our understanding in the language.

That doesn't make language evil; it just makes it inadequate to communicate "everything all at once." The part of us that can comprehend "all at once" is not language-based, but it may find useful, pointers that a language can provide. The "all at once" comprehension may just be entirely personal - our connection with the ALL.

Most forum members probably know all this already, but a new reader may find something here useful. In any case, learning continues...
 
Buddy, what you said reminds me of Micahel Polanyi's The Tacit Dimension, where he says that we know much more than we can articulate. Hopefully I'm actually understanding and not just falling prey to pattern bias. In looking for words to show that I do understand as I think I do, I'm coming face to face with the very frustration that OP was pointing at. I've been aware of this limitation of language, but still struggling with it. Thank you for taking the time to write that out, it did help. And looking back at my previous post, I see that I was lazy and somewhat impatient in both really trying to think about what OP was saying and in my response. That "I" just wanted to get some words out there. :-[
The learning continues, indeed...
 
Guille said:
Buddy, what you said reminds me of Micahel Polanyi's The Tacit Dimension, where he says that we know much more than we can articulate. Hopefully I'm actually understanding and not just falling prey to pattern bias. In looking for words to show that I do understand as I think I do, I'm coming face to face with the very frustration that OP was pointing at. I've been aware of this limitation of language, but still struggling with it. Thank you for taking the time to write that out, it did help. And looking back at my previous post, I see that I was lazy and somewhat impatient in both really trying to think about what OP was saying and in my response. That "I" just wanted to get some words out there. :-[
The learning continues, indeed...

Thanks for the pointer to Polanyi's work. I am unfamiliar with that but might look into it to see how we compare. I still struggle with everything related to communication. Talking about impatience, sometimes I want and imagine all of us being in the same room together and talking to each other simultaneously about everything! That would solve my particular issue with impatience, I think. :)
 
Here is just one example of the words we use everyday and think we know what we are saying.
When we use the word person, do we really know what we mean?
The video below explains why we probably do not know what a person is, even though we use the word
all the time, and we think we understand it, we probably don`t.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxFlNKNuzwE
 
Meager1 said:
Here is just one example of the words we use everyday and think we know what we are saying.
When we use the word person, do we really know what we mean?
The video below explains why we probably do not know what a person is, even though we use the word
all the time, and we think we understand it, we probably don`t.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxFlNKNuzwE

In Marcus' hypothetical conversation, he consults Webster's dictionary on the definition of "person". This was his reaction to someone calling him a foolish person. He takes issue with the word "foolish" because he's nobody's fool, but in his example he goes back to his 'accuser' to ask "why am I wearing a "mask?" (part of Webster's definition of person). So, in effect, he is assuming what is meant by "mask", assuming his accuser means "mask" and proceeding from there to create a communication problem, when he probably knew in a heuristic sense what the other person meant, also in a heuristic sense.

If Marcus were to follow his course to its logical conclusion, he would also look up the meaning of "mask" and then continue to look up all the other words involved in his increasingly circular endeavor. Eventually he may discover that he can't find actual, real meaning in a dictionary; meaning seems to be created in the minds of people, not books. Dictionaries apparently contain an average of common usage.

I think I know what you're trying to say, though, but I mention all this because it seems to be directly related to a controversy where one side insists that words have intrinsic meaning and I'd be interested in how other forumites perceive this.
 
A word comes to mind, that being ‘pedantic.’

In normal life, I have some unconscious communication, helping out the dummy who’s trying to communicate verbally, gesturing along with tone and emphasis, which adds any intrinsic real meaning, osit.

And if I say, ‘you know what I mean’ you probably know and understand more, than what I know and understand, so there’s no problems... some issues the other way around, maybe. Hmmm?

I remember a long time ago, working with a German guy who had no English, except for yes and no, and likewise, I had no German, but we both knew our job, and had no problems communicating, It was funny, its like cave men, lots of gesturing, with appropriate noise making. (Mechanical stuff)

I’m reminded of the story of G’s wife and mother, not having the same language, and while sitting on a garden bench, seeming to communicate, I think when they were laughing, in G presence, it was in relation to G himself. Sorry if going off topic here a bit, but I think people understand what I’m trying to say. At least I hope so... heuristically.

Though I’m a late arrival to the beauty and benefit of the written word, and how difficult it is, to really get across the essence of meaning, without offending the pedantic sensibilities, of what one could call a grammarian, but maybe a linguist might be more forgiving, if in earshot of what was actually said. Hope that made sense... if not I don’t know what to say/write.

FWIW
 
Davida said:
I remember a long time ago, working with a German guy who had no English, except for yes and no, and likewise, I had no German, but we both knew our job, and had no problems communicating, It was funny, its like cave men, lots of gesturing, with appropriate noise making.

I've experienced something similar when I was working as an unloader of trucks. Two people working in the back of a trailer, stacking boxes onto a wooden pallet in patterns specific to the shape of the boxes. Communication can be done non-verbally - mostly with pointing and demonstrating. Then when both people know the same job the same way, verbosity is not necessary at all. Communication happens though, but I think of it as systemic rather than personal, if that makes any sense.

Davida said:
Though I’m a late arrival to the beauty and benefit of the written word, and how difficult it is, to really get across the essence of meaning, without offending the pedantic sensibilities, of what one could call a grammarian, but maybe a linguist might be more forgiving, if in earshot of what was actually said. Hope that made sense... if not I don’t know what to say/write.

Your choices of words and the flow of your thought in this paragraph reminds me of the humor and prosody of G, himself. I understand exactly. :)
 
Buddy said:
Davida said:
I remember a long time ago, working with a German guy who had no English, except for yes and no, and likewise, I had no German, but we both knew our job, and had no problems communicating, It was funny, its like cave men, lots of gesturing, with appropriate noise making.
I've experienced something similar when I was working as an unloader of trucks. Two people working in the back of a trailer, stacking boxes onto a wooden pallet in patterns specific to the shape of the boxes. Communication can be done non-verbally - mostly with pointing and demonstrating. Then when both people know the same job the same way, verbosity is not necessary at all. Communication happens though, but I think of it as systemic rather than personal, if that makes any sense.
Yes that makes sense...

But we were not very bright, hence some form of verbal communication just happened. Ee’s Oo’s and Aa’s mostly, picked out of my deliberate broken/minimised English, and I’m assuming his minimised German, along with yes’s, and no’s, we were idiots at work, or maybe just me. lol

Though it was the installation of scanning and routing equipment, and it’s integration into a new line, the job was somebody’s afterthought, and not on the original plans, hence the manifestation of the Ee’s, Oo’s and Aa’s... as the idiotic powers above so the manifestation of idiocy below.

I think its universal, works for dinner, work, rest, and play. Just the expression is slightly different, much like some cultures (Greek) would use the same (slang) word to greet a friend, or describe a bad friend... just how its expressed, its intonation. osit (though I’m out of my dept here)
 
Back
Top Bottom