A good semantics lead us to ignorance?

Kisito

Jedi Council Member
A good semantics lead us to ignorance?

Linguists have found in the first quarterly "Folder for science". Polysemy ( multiple meaning of a word ) gives a greater cognitive cohesion of our semantic network. Polysemy create the ambiguity of language , and only serve to more easily find the words to make sentences . This polysemy would be structured like a chameleon , all the words which all seem to be reached etymologiquent and reinforced by the semantic evolution that would only make it more ambiguous language. The words are as toxic actions (financial market) who never cease to grow with the evolution of language , moving away from more of the truth.
Therefore, our mastery of the language and therefore the syntax would be equal to our ignorance.
Speech would attest to our unknowing . Silence is it gold ?
Did we know more before Babel?
 
I will quote from the movie "Meetings with Remarkable Men"
There is a law. The quality of what you understand depends upon the quality of the person speaking.

And a quote from ISOTM:
One of the reasons for the divergence between the line of knowledge and the line of being in life, and the lack of understanding which is partly the cause and partly the effect of this divergence, is to be found in the language which people speak. This language is full of wrong concepts, wrong classifications, wrong associations. And the chief thing is that, owing to the essential characteristics of ordinary thinking, that is to say, to its vagueness and inaccuracy, every word can have thousands of different meanings according to the material the speaker has at his disposal and the complex of associations at work in him at the moment. People do not clearly realize to what a degree their language is subjective, that is, what different things each of them says while using the same words. They are not aware that each one of them speaks in a language of his own, understanding other people's language either vaguely or not at all, and having no idea that each one of them speaks in a language unknown to him. People have a very firm conviction, or belief, that they speak the same language, that they understand one another.
Actually this conviction has no foundation whatever. The language in which they speak is adapted to practical life only. People can communicate to one another information of a practical character, but as soon as they pass to a slightly more complex sphere they are immediately lost, and they cease to understand one another, although they are unconscious of it. People imagine that they often, if not always, understand one another, or that they can, at any rate, understand one another if they try or want to; they imagine that they understand the authors of the books they read and that other people understand them. This also is one of the illusions which people create for themselves and in the midst of which they live. As a matter of fact, no one understands anyone else. Two men can say the same thing with profound conviction but call it by different names, or argue endlessly together without suspecting that they are thinking exactly the same. Or, vice versa, two men can say the same words and imagine that they agree with, and understand, one another, whereas they are actually saying absolutely different things and do not understand one another in the least.
"If we take the simplest words that occur constantly in speech and endeavor to analyze the meaning given to them, we shall see at once that, at every moment of his life, every man puts into each word a special meaning which another man can never put into it or suspect.
"Let us take the word 'man' and imagine a conversation among a group of people in which the word 'man' is often heard. Without any exaggeration it can be said that the word 'man' will have as many meanings as there are people taking part in the conversation, and that these meanings will have nothing in common.
"In pronouncing the word 'man' everyone will involuntarily connect with this word the point of view from which he is generally accustomed to regard man, or from which, for some reason or other, he regards him at the moment. One man at the moment may be occupied with the question of the relation between the sexes. Then the word 'man' will have no general meaning for him and on hearing this word he will first of all ask himself—Which? man or woman? Another man may be religious and his first question will be—A Christian or not a Christian? The third man may be a doctor and the concept 'man' will mean for him a 'sick man' or a 'healthy man,' and, of course from the point of view of his speciality. A spiritualist will think of 'man' from the point of view of his 'astral body,' of 'life on the other side,' and so on, and he may say, if he is asked, that men are divided into mediums and non-mediums. A naturalist speaking of man will place the center of gravity of his thoughts in the idea of man as a zoological type, that is to say, in speaking of man he will think of the structure of his teeth, his fingers, his facial angle, the distance between the eyes. A lawyer will see in 'man' a statistical unit, or a subject for the application of laws, or a potential criminal, or a possible client.
A moralist pronouncing the word 'man' will invariably introduce into it the idea of good and evil, and so on, and so on.
"People do not notice all these contradictions, do not notice that they never understand one another, that they always speak about different things. It is quite clear that, for proper study, for an exact exchange of thoughts, an exact language is necessary, which would make it possible to establish what a man actually means, would include an indication of the point of view from which a given concept is taken and determine the center of gravity of this concept. The idea is perfectly clear and every branch of science endeavors to elaborate and to establish an exact language for itself. But there is no universal language. People continually confuse the languages of different sciences and can never establish their exact correlation. And even in each separate branch of science new terminologies, new nomenclatures, are constantly appearing. And the further it goes the worse it becomes. Misunderstanding grows and increases instead of diminishing and there is every reason to think that it will continue to increase in the same way. And people will understand one another ever less and less.
"For exact understanding exact language is necessary. And the study of systems of ancient knowledge begins with the study of a language which will make it possible to establish at once exactly what is being said, from what point of view, and in what connection. This new language contains hardly any new terms or new nomenclature, but it bases the construction of speech upon a new principle, namely, the principle of relativity; that is to say, it introduces relativity into all concepts and thus makes possible an accurate determination of the angle of thought—for what precisely ordinary language lacks are expressions of relativity.
"When a man has mastered this language, then, with its help, there can be transmitted and communicated to him a great deal of knowledge and information which cannot be transmitted in ordinary language even by using all possible scientific and philosophical terms.
"The fundamental property of the new language is that all ideas in it are concentrated round one idea, that is, they are taken in their mutual relationship from the point of view of one idea. This idea is the idea of evolution. Of course, not evolution in the sense of mechanical evolution, because such an evolution does not exist, but in the sense of a conscious and volitional evolution, which alone is possible.

Hope this will give you some hints!
 
Hi edgitarra, I didn't quite understand if we say the same thing. I tried to say that the more a language is advanced more is differs from its original link and it is far from the truth. And that the only language that allows us to communicate without ambiguity and quiprocos would telepathy. "In the beginning was the Word" and the verb would it not the source of the sins of mankind?
 
Another way to look at polysemy is like we look at a symbol. A symbol can be interpreted in different ways depending on context. Words are symbolic - they stand for something. Metaphors, which are sometimes used to convey emotions as well as fine nuances of a situation, leads to a type of polysemy. So from one perspective perhaps it can be said that polysemy is a legitimate result of efforts to describe complex reality?
 
Kisito said:
Hi edgitarra, I didn't quite understand if we say the same thing. I tried to say that the more a language is advanced more is differs from its original link and it is far from the truth. And that the only language that allows us to communicate without ambiguity and quiprocos would telepathy. "In the beginning was the Word" and the verb would it not the source of the sins of mankind?


I think telepathy as a language would have its own problems. Though it would be quicker and easier, for sure! Unless whoever's mind you're reading is exactly the same, you would interpret what they where thinking or feeling through what you understand. And, if you were exactly the same, it might make it difficult to distinguish what was yours from theirs. At its root, ambiguity might be a platform from which we make choices and show our understanding. There is objective meaning, but it is up to those of us who want it to search for and express it as best we can. To get as close to the truth as possible we have to try to learn all meanings and when they apply to communicate better in this world. I don't think communication and miscommunication are the source of the sins of mankind. They ARE mankind, and everything else too.

In a way, I would say that the universe talks to itself and we are like words. We in turn speak and hear words. Our words are all symbolic expressions of thoughts and feelings, and they are probably as appropriate to us as other forms of communication are to other species. If there was only pure understanding everywhere, exchanging information wouldn't be necessary. And if that ceased, so would most things. OSIT.
 
Andromeda said:
In a way, I would say that the universe talks to itself and we are like words. We in turn speak and hear words. Our words are all symbolic expressions of thoughts and feelings, and they are probably as appropriate to us as other forms of communication are to other species. If there was only pure understanding everywhere, exchanging information wouldn't be necessary. And if that ceased, so would most things. OSIT.

Very insightful explanation! :clap:
 
Perceval said:
Andromeda said:
In a way, I would say that the universe talks to itself and we are like words. We in turn speak and hear words. Our words are all symbolic expressions of thoughts and feelings, and they are probably as appropriate to us as other forms of communication are to other species. If there was only pure understanding everywhere, exchanging information wouldn't be necessary. And if that ceased, so would most things. OSIT.

Very insightful explanation! :clap:
Yes! Thanks for sharing, Andromeda. :flowers:
 
l apprenti de forgeron said:
Perceval said:
Andromeda said:
In a way, I would say that the universe talks to itself and we are like words. We in turn speak and hear words. Our words are all symbolic expressions of thoughts and feelings, and they are probably as appropriate to us as other forms of communication are to other species. If there was only pure understanding everywhere, exchanging information wouldn't be necessary. And if that ceased, so would most things. OSIT.

Very insightful explanation! :clap:
Yes! Thanks for sharing, Andromeda. :flowers:

That was a lovely explanation, Andromeda. Perhaps by working to refine our communications with each other, the universe also increases in variety and complexity? Nature loves abundance. :)
 
Interesting and beautiful rhetoric , but I have several septic condition leaves me on oral language . When I see two people , one never stops talking and the other remains silent , I feel that the quiet person is wiser . When men built the tower of Babel, they spoke one language, I think this language was non-verbal and non-emotional, but telepathic. With the arrival of languages, ignorance and confusion appeared . Andromeda you said that we should know the meaning of language to improve our understanding . But I think it has become impossible to find the meaning of language , it is characteristic of semantic who blew the original meaning of a word . So a thousand word means something and its opposite , depending on the region and its geographical time. For my part I only speaks French , though paradoxically I am passionate about languages ​​. The mother of my child is Germanic language , she speaks four languages ​​and perfectly mastered the French language. However, we constantly huge misunderstandings . Because we do not have the same emotions we do not have the same history, so that each thing is confusing. When I say téléphatie , I don't support a language with a grammar and syntax similar , because it would take us to the ambiguities .
It seems to me that the language will always be distorted as long as man has his emotions.
Because as Protagoras said "All our knowledge come of sensations . And the sensation varies According To the individual , therefore the man is the measure of Any things , it 's by him That They Are or are not" This means that things like words have real meaning only in relation to the emotional man . Find an unemotional man, and I 'm not talking about psychopathic or organic portal . But a man who has managed to remove the illusions of his mental. Because it is the mental , external influences cristalisent human energy in mentals . All these mentals that are different from one man to another . That fact that none of us can only be understood correctly. Because each has its illusions.
And it also seems to me that the people who made Out Body Experience , and were able to communicate with the beyond , had a clear communication and devoid of emotions. This language was not verbal, but téléphatique . A good language (communication) is without word and without emotions.
The verb seems to help us évécuer the mentals, fantasies, waste and "sins. There are not that stool, urine and sweat that we evacuate. This isn't just lyrical songs coming out of the mouths poets . ...
And I am convinced that we are talking to fill our ignorance, those who know do not talk much. And what are we talking about when we know all things? In peacetime a couple or countries speak little, but in wartime it speaks a lot. Because they understand their ignorance with the problem.
 
Kisito said:
All these mentals that are different from one man to another . That fact that none of us can only be understood correctly. Because each has its illusions.
And it also seems to me that the people who made Out Body Experience , and were able to communicate with the beyond , had a clear communication and devoid of emotions. This language was not verbal, but téléphatique .

Then how can I understand what you just wrote without your words to express them?
Here's a thought. Maybe it's through our efforts and struggles to accurately understand what someone is saying or writing that the possibilities are opened for us to actually evolve and that language is required for this? Maybe language is what actually makes our evolution possible? For example, there's the plant with it's inner life of inherent possibilities and then there's it's genetic code within it's DNA which allows for it to express these possibilities as an actual living plant with all its possible variations in the external world. So what if language is like DNA that allows our inner possibilities to manifest outwardly just like with the genetic code of the plant and language is what makes the connection between the inner and outer worlds possible? Then the more we understand each outer the more possibilities that are opened for us to evolve to a higher level of understanding (to be expressed in the outer world) and maybe this even reflects itself in our own DNA and even it's possible changes within?
 
Kisito said:
When I see two people , one never stops talking and the other remains silent , I feel that the quiet person is wiser .

Maybe you are feeling frustrated with the amount of 'low quality' chatter out there and it makes you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater?

Kisito said:
With the arrival of languages, ignorance and confusion appeared .

I see what you're getting at, but I rather think that language in all its forms is the ticket out of ignorance and confusion.

Kisito said:
But I think it has become impossible to find the meaning of language , it is characteristic of semantic who blew the original meaning of a word . So a thousand word means something and its opposite , depending on the region and its geographical time.

Without language, there might not be a meaning, original or otherwise. It looks like it's the TYPE of language you are taking issue with, but the problems you describe are because of user 'error'. That cannot be gotten around by doing away with verbal communication. People will express themselves as they are by whatever means.

Kisito said:
However, we constantly huge misunderstandings . Because we do not have the same emotions we do not have the same history, so that each thing is confusing.

This might be a case of misunderstandings causing miscommunication rather than miscommunication causing misunderstanding.

Kisito said:
When I say téléphatie , I don't support a language with a grammar and syntax similar , because it would take us to the ambiguities .
It seems to me that the language will always be distorted as long as man has his emotions.

It sounds like you are talking about subjective feelings here. Everyone has them and it's up to each individual to choose to become more objective if they want to. Language sort of helps express that choice. Like, if you want more information, you can ask, or if you want to share something, you can tell it. If you don't, then you don't. If you have a telepathic link but everything else about our current state of mind remains the same, the first problem might be that if you were trying to share a thought/feeling that the other had no experience of, they may not have the 'circuits' to receive it as you meant it. With language, you can find an approximate common experience and work with that. That may also be possible with telepathy, but then how is it better than verbal communication other than being quicker and easier? The second problem is, as you are describing telepathy it sounds like a major breach of free will. It would be imposing personal views on another to force an understanding without either party having asked or worked for an understanding.


Kisito said:
This means that things like words have real meaning only in relation to the emotional man . Find an unemotional man, and I 'm not talking about psychopathic or organic portal . But a man who has managed to remove the illusions of his mental. Because it is the mental , external influences cristalisent human energy in mentals . All these mentals that are different from one man to another . That fact that none of us can only be understood correctly. Because each has its illusions.

Yes, this is the state we are in. We are emotional men. Some more than others. But I think the work involved in learning to understand and be understood is the point of it all. Then, even if a pretty clear understanding is achieved, as long as there is something to give or receive, some sort of language would likely be necessary.

Kisito said:
And it also seems to me that the people who made Out Body Experience , and were able to communicate with the beyond , had a clear communication and devoid of emotions. This language was not verbal, but téléphatique . A good language (communication) is without word and without emotions.

Why should good communication be without sounds and emotions? It sounds like you might be thinking of a state where no effort is required to understand what's in front of us. That's not where we're at though, and if we get there someday, a different kind of effort that we don't know about might be required.

Kisito said:
And I am convinced that we are talking to fill our ignorance, those who know do not talk much. And what are we talking about when we know all things? In peacetime a couple or countries speak little, but in wartime it speaks a lot. Because they understand their ignorance with the problem.

Well, another thing to consider is that we seem to be at a point in time where there are a LOT of people in the world and possibly only a definite amount of knowledge to be had. Whether that's true or not, there's also what seems to be a quickening of choices being made by people about whether they want to stay in ignorance (their own reality) or face a different reality. This divergence appears like intensifying confusion, but maybe underneath a concentration and ordering is taking place? A separation of the wheat from the chaff? There might be a lot of people voicing things that we don't agree with and only a few that make sense to us, but in order to know who is who, we all need communication. Turning the sound off is not necessarily the solution.
 
Back
Top Bottom