Language is evil

I'm not really getting why we need to signal out language as "evil", compared to any number of other types of limitations we have as 3D beings. It is a limitation but we have limits in our five senses, our thinking, our feeling, etc. I think part of our lesson as humans is to work with our limitations toward either a creative or entropic purpose.

As a side note, Mouravieff claimed the higher emotional center perceived Truth with symbols, and the higher intellectual center perceived Truth directly. Since the higher intellectual center uses vibrations inaccessible to people naturally, the first step in development was to access the higher emotional center and thus be able to see the unseen aspect of symbols, language, etc that's not naturally accessible to undeveloped individuals. The Toltec thinkers called these aspects of the first attention (the known) and the second attention (the unknown). There was also a third attention (the unknowable), which I'm guessing is related to direct, absolute truth, but is accessible only to the most impeccable individuals, according to Carlos Castenada.
 
Thank you Approaching Infinity for the clarification. It is what I thought but did not understand.

So say in higher dimensions - 4th or 5th depending on the evolution of the entity:

To create:
like thought (image) then create, ( for example to create something one has to imagine/thing of the entire image like a rose and it instantly manifests as to how you 'created' it so if you omited the leaves it would not be a complete rose unless that was intentional?)


To teach or communicate:
thought/image to explain/teach/share - combined with - feeling/resonance/sensation of mood or emotion/affinity or non affinity (especially in encounters)?
 
I think language at a generic level is expression of consciousness. The body expresses itself through body language. Thoughts are expressed in words. Emotions can be expressed through images. All this is quite interdependent - thoughts and emotions affecting the body and vice versa.

Language also seems to be closely related to information. One aspect of information is that the extent of meaning conveyed is dependent on the state of the recipient. When we cannot communicate the desired meaning to another, we say "we do not speak the same language" even though literally we could be using English for example. Words or images can be symbols conveying meaning as are electromagnetic signals transmitted through space but the correlation of intended and perceived meaning is dependent on how much the sender and receiver are in sync - or in colloquial terms whether they speak the same language.

So it seems to me that the current state of our language is a reflection of our state of consciousness. A more objective language can only be an expression of a relatively higher level of consciousness achieved through the growth of knowledge and being. Words can be as objective as images - or so I think. A good book that Laura had referred to earlier was "Babel - The Language of the 21st Century" by Abraham Abehsera. Used copies are available in small numbers. I think it is useful reading for anyone interested in this topic. Here is a very brief snippet of the content of the book.

The fundamental idea developed in the book is that choice of sounds and words found in different languages are not arbitrary or random but have an underlying order. For a systematic study, the author suggests using homonyms (or similar sounding words) and synonyms (similar meaning words) across multiple languages. As an example, take wick and wicked in English which are homonyms. In French the corresponding synonyms (the author treats equivalent words across languages as synonyms) is me`che (wick) and me`chant (wicked) which are also homonyms. Hebrew has the same consonant root FTL for both wick and wicked. Going further, the author identifies the common concept of "torsion" being involved with the related words in the different languages. A wick (or a wicker basket) is made from twisting strands together. Hebrew "FTL" conveys among other things the concept of "twist". In French me`che is used to designate a twisted metal drill. The expression e^tre de me`che means partners in crime - an image of taking two human beings and twisting them together in a single "wick" ready to perform a "wicked" act.

Interestingly, the english pain is a homonym of French pain meaning bread. Russian and Hebrew reproduce this association with HLB (Russian for bread) being a homonym of HBL (Hebrew for pain). The author makes a bold claim

[quote author=Babel]
All languages of the earth can thus be entered into two universal dictionaries, one that groups words of the same meaning (synonyms) under the same heading, and the second that does so for words with the same sound (homonyms). The interlocking relationships between these common meanings and sounds is the universal cement that holds languages together.
[/quote]


Edit: Here is a relevant post of Laura discussing language and the book Babel.
 
Telepathy VS Language: An Imploration

You might as well have a thought, and then want to express it to others. So you start looking for the appropriate words that would most closely express your thought. This is where fallacy comes in. The quote "lost in translation" comes in mind here. Thought is "fluid" but language is "rigid" in certain terms, and that makes "thought conversion to language" less than 100% efficient. And the more you attempt to express yourself in more exact terms, after a point you might start to use more words to express the very same thought. Things start to resemble perhaps when you're recording your voice into some digital machine. You might as well set the project rate on 8000Hz, or on 44100Hz. Of course, the higher the rate, the more 'real' the audio record seems, the more defined the record gets, but as a drawback, the audio recording gets bigger in size (ie. more bytes). Language is also occaisionally subject to misinterpretation of the receiver, or the misrepresentation of the speaker; both are similar in effect. However, telepathy may as well bypass this whole process, and can lead to more direct 'transmission' (or knowledge, etc.). Also, the depth of thinking itself becomes more apparent in telepathy, with thought no longer subject to the varying degrees of corruption language can cause. Now, telepathy may as well be a more efficient means of expression, but whether it is more efficient than language is yet to be determined by us.

In closing, I quote the Ra Material:
"16.50 Questioner: Thank you. Is it possible for you to give a small description of the conditions [in] fourth density?

Ra: I am Ra. We ask you to consider as we speak that there are no words for positively describing fourth density. We can only explain what is not and approximate what is. Beyond fourth density our ability grows more limited still until we become without words.

That which fourth density is not: it is not of words, unless chosen. It is not of heavy chemical vehicles for body complex activities. It is not of disharmony within self. It is not of disharmony within peoples. It is not within limits of possibility to cause disharmony in any way.

Approximations of positive statements: it is a plane of a type of bipedal vehicle which is much denser and more full of life; it is a plane wherein one is aware of the thoughts of other-selves; it is a plane where one is aware of the vibrations of other-selves; it is a plane of compassion and understanding of the sorrows of third density; it is a plane striving towards wisdom or light; it is a plane wherein individual differences are pronounced although automatically harmonized by group consensus."

So, as we are all ultimately heading for 4th density, we would surely end up communicating with one another, at least sometimes, telepathically.
 
Re: Telepathy VS Language: An Imploration

Sounds good to me. To my way of thinking telepathy isn't just about the communication of ideas, it's also the passing along of intent, perception, emotion, all that stuff that language struggles mightily to convey.
 
Re: Telepathy VS Language: An Imploration

Precisely! Telepathy can incorporate senses other than sound/sight/touch (Braille), perhaps, or deal with the very same aforementioned senses in new ways. Imagine combining synesthesia with that!

But I've surfed the forum for a while and I found http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,31309.0.html, which to a large extent addresses the very same topic I am discussing here. Perhaps a merger can be done?
 
From Jane Roberts' book "The Seth Material"

Seth: "...vocal communication is not the rule. it is not used by more advanced entities nor less developed ones than ourselves. In order to make sense to our three-dimensional selves, information must be "squeezed" through--and this in itself causes some distortion. The words I speak to you transmit information, but the words are not the information. Information can rarely flow like crystal-clear water...it must be sifted through the layers of personality. The nervous system reacts to the data even as it translates it. Nothing is neutral in those terms.

The information is received and translated, as it must be, into mechanisms which the nervous system can handle and interpret. Like any perception, the information becomes part of the nervous structure. It cannot be otherwise. Any perception instantly alters the electromagnetic and neurological systems of the perceiver. In your terms this is what a perception is: an alteration of neurological structure. The receiving mechanisms themselves change, are changed by what they perceive. (...). Any perception is action and it changes that upon which it acts, and in so doing, it itself is changed. The slightest perception alters every atom in your body. This, in turn, sends out its ripples, so that as you know, the most minute action is felt everywhere."

Complicated, no?
 
KJN said:
From Jane Roberts' book "The Seth Material"

Seth: "...vocal communication is not the rule. it is not used by more advanced entities nor less developed ones than ourselves. In order to make sense to our three-dimensional selves, information must be "squeezed" through--and this in itself causes some distortion. The words I speak to you transmit information, but the words are not the information. Information can rarely flow like crystal-clear water...it must be sifted through the layers of personality. The nervous system reacts to the data even as it translates it. Nothing is neutral in those terms.

The information is received and translated, as it must be, into mechanisms which the nervous system can handle and interpret. Like any perception, the information becomes part of the nervous structure. It cannot be otherwise. Any perception instantly alters the electromagnetic and neurological systems of the perceiver. In your terms this is what a perception is: an alteration of neurological structure. The receiving mechanisms themselves change, are changed by what they perceive. (...). Any perception is action and it changes that upon which it acts, and in so doing, it itself is changed. The slightest perception alters every atom in your body. This, in turn, sends out its ripples, so that as you know, the most minute action is felt everywhere."

Complicated, no?
Click to expand...

Hi KJN,
It may seem complicated but if you take every bit of the text you will see that they refer to different topics discussed here and there in the forum.

The first part is related to subjective interpretation of a communication and bias, which is something to keep in mind whenever we wish to communicate something to someone, or when something is communicated to us.

The second part is related to the physiological fact that perception and interpretation of a sensate/communication from the outside environment shapes our synaptic organization and further perceptions based on experience and continuous learning.

Hope it helps :)
 
mkrnhr said:
KJN said:
From Jane Roberts' book "The Seth Material"

Seth: "...vocal communication is not the rule. it is not used by more advanced entities nor less developed ones than ourselves. In order to make sense to our three-dimensional selves, information must be "squeezed" through--and this in itself causes some distortion. The words I speak to you transmit information, but the words are not the information. Information can rarely flow like crystal-clear water...it must be sifted through the layers of personality. The nervous system reacts to the data even as it translates it. Nothing is neutral in those terms.

The information is received and translated, as it must be, into mechanisms which the nervous system can handle and interpret. Like any perception, the information becomes part of the nervous structure. It cannot be otherwise. Any perception instantly alters the electromagnetic and neurological systems of the perceiver. In your terms this is what a perception is: an alteration of neurological structure. The receiving mechanisms themselves change, are changed by what they perceive. (...). Any perception is action and it changes that upon which it acts, and in so doing, it itself is changed. The slightest perception alters every atom in your body. This, in turn, sends out its ripples, so that as you know, the most minute action is felt everywhere."

Complicated, no?
Click to expand...

Hi KJN,
It may seem complicated but if you take every bit of the text you will see that they refer to different topics discussed here and there in the forum.

The first part is related to subjective interpretation of a communication and bias, which is something to keep in mind whenever we wish to communicate something to someone, or when something is communicated to us.

The second part is related to the physiological fact that perception and interpretation of a sensate/communication from the outside environment shapes our synaptic organization and further perceptions based on experience and continuous learning.

Hope it helps :)
Click to expand...

Hi mkrnhr
Thanks for your response. I understand (OSIT) the Seth commentary. You provided a great distillation of his communication. To me, the Seth message regarding communication, as in any transfer of information, involves an infinite scope and longevity of implication, process and reverberation well beyond the "words". We rarely think in those grand terms. We rarely get to the point of understanding our choices in how we send or receive information. It is one of the best features of the forum in that it makes us think before we speak. Maybe language is not the culprit, it is our choices when and how we use it--and our choices in when and how we hear it. We are the choosers. To say language is evil seems like a displacement of blame onto the mechanism, rather than the user.
 
KJN said:
...To say language is evil seems like a displacement of blame onto the mechanism, rather than the user.
Click to expand...

Spot on!
True, language is a limitation but no more evil because of that than gravity. I think the psychology behind such sentiment comes from resenting our existence in the physical world which imposes all kinds of limits on the full expression of our nature as spiritual beings.

But, then, creation requires limitation. A painter's ability, for example, to express the vision is limited by the materials he has to use in externalizing that vision.
 
The way you express yourself pressupposes that you know things threw the words themselves, and the words do have a absolute and fixed meaning to them that is objective. That "the truth" (whatever that may be) could be written down somewhere and everyone who reads it would be immediately enlightened.
Please, this is no offence and of course there is a subtle provocative humour in my statement that you did not get.

What baffles me about language is the GAP between the actual experience of life and the way in which we translate the experience into words. This translation of feeling and intuitions into thought and word is a very mysterious process, so I find. Its seems almost like a separate world that is created threw language that defines how we think about things, how we feel about things. It creates also our Identity as if the individual self only exists because we create it threw language. Outside of this world nothing really exists in the way we think it exists....

But maybe what I am trying to say is an exercise in futility :lol:

For me Language is a mysterious work of black magic, for those who believe in its reality, it is a trap and for those who know its workings it is a powerfull tool of manipulation. I have not yet figured out its secrets.
Click to expand...


This is an older thread but I`ve been thinking about language a lot lately and how we are constantly tricked by it.

Particularly the legalese twisting of words, the present system still uses against us.

For instance, if it is true that shortly after a world wide plague or some other disaster that eliminated most of the population, some clever land baron decided to create a "law" allowing him to confiscate all the land and all the properties, since everyone was dead anyway, until or unless someone could prove they were still alive and personally came to make claim on their land.

A law that apparently was never removed and so carrying forward assumes that we are all "dead" and can`t own anything.

We are all still legally dead and have all the rights of any "dead" person. Which is none.

The language we speak is for the dead, the words we have been taught to use are lies and trickery.

When asked where you live for instance, it is expected that you will give a physical address as if you only "live" when you are there.

If you drive down the road, or go to the next town your not living, your dead again, because you have left the place you have claimed to "live".

Most of the words we use have a meaning opposite or different than what we think they mean, yet we are tricked into using those words, or the language of babel, as if it makes sense to us, but does it?

Being abnormal, means you are not "normal" but being aboriginal makes you an indian or original to the land?

No it doesn`t , it makes you not indian because that's what the "ab" before original means. How evil is that, what babel and trickery.

You can`t even call yourself a person, an individual, or a human being, because these are all corporate words and have no relationship to a live man or woman.

If you were "born" or birthed, you are under law of the high sea`s and need a cargo "certificate".

But if you.. experienced vaginal emergence.. (EVE) you come under no law.

Language is filled with words that misrepresent the intended or assumed meaning.

So it is true, that in order to escape this system, this babel land we find ourselves in, we have to create a better and truer means to communicate with one another, or we are lost. Dead to the world.
 
Its funny you know, meager1 I am beginning to look into the mechanisms of legal systems and it really confirmed my view on language.

Now most of the foundation of the western legal system is based on Greek philosophy and the roman state system. Now because the whole legal system rests on language and the definition of words and because words are abstract containers of meaning, they can never be absolute in their definition and because the law is abstact and normative it can never capture the objective reality that is happening in realtime.
That is why every legal systems need lawyers. Because WORDS ARE NOT REALITY, they need interpretation. An smart lawyer is one who can twist the words and concepts in such a skillfull way so as to manipulate the legal system to serve his own agenda.

Now in ancient Greece, Aristotle tackled this problem by claiming words and concepts do have an essence that is defined by its character or feature (essentialism). In German it is called "Wesensmerkmale" coming from "Wesentlich"=essential which is related to ESSENCE. In German Wesen means BEING so Wesensmerkmale could be translated as BEING-FEATURES. Aristoteles believed that words and concepts do have an objective essence that is determined by the characteristics it exhibits. What he meant is that behind the makeshift reality of Language there is a LIVING BEING-REALITY, that language tries to capture. Take for example the word "boy". The legal system can define boy as a male person under the age of 18 or 21. But in reality a 40 year old person can exhibit characteristics of a boy and a 14 year old person can exhibit characteristics of a man.

Now the modern day philosophy denies this in that it claims there is no essence no being to the words and so the definition is arbitrary and must be defined by an authority that is the legislative. Which means if this is true then the government holds the power to redefine the meaning of words themelves in which case theoretically they hold absolute power, as long as people submit to the legal system and they have the executive power to enforce it.

The real problem is that people are not aware of how slippery and unclear the use of words are in that they believe the word itself to be a reality that exists in itself and that everybody means the same thing when they speak of one thing. People just use words without really examining the definition of a word and trying to see the underlying reality of what the word is trying to point at. For example the word Dimension and the way in which people use it. What exactly is a dimension, where is it? Or Density. They say 3rd Dimensional Being or second dimensional being and moving from one dimension into the next if you learn the lessons so so on. I think it is a mistake to believe that a dimension is something out there somewhere, separate from what is right here. And to believe that if you are a good little boy or nice little girl then you move on to a higher dimension is no different than to believe that if you are a good christian who is free from sin then God will reward you with paradise. These are vague words and undefined concepts believed to be reality and believed that one understands what they mean. What do we really know about what a human being is, what a tree is, what a star is (by the way, not so long ago only a white male was considered legally a real human being).

Someone in this thread said that without language there is no intelligence. This is not true or not in the sense that I define intelligence (even plants exercise intelligence without the use of words). The world of words and concepts is a separate artificial reality and it requires cleverness and slickness of a lawyer but it does not presupposes that the person can perceive the underlying fluid reality of the universe. Every academic knows how people can easily be fooled by a clever use of language that creates the impression of sophistication and intelligence.

Another interesting thing I remember is that there is an ancient Hindu philosophical text in which it is stated that the concrete mind is a product of language and an effect of Maya while the higher mind predates illusion and exists without language. Language is the formulation of knowledge and not knowledge itself!

Anyone who has a bilingual backround, the more different the languages the more obvious it becomes, knows two things. that if one starts to think in a different language then one line of thought changes two in a very subtle way and this effects one behaviour. It is as if it opens up a new space that was limited by the other language. Secondly that especially languages that are not closely related you will find a lot of words and concepts that are not possible to translate, because they do not exist in the other language.

Our modern language and I am talking western European languages has no space, it has no room for a vast field of reality. Just as western civilization has marginalized and suppressed other people, it has marginalized other ways of perception and other parts of reality. I am not saying that we have to go back to some perfect ancient tradition or culture, no, I am saying that to move forward we need to deconstruct and recreate a language that suits our new state of being as part of deconstructing and recreating a civilization that lets us move forward as a human species. Not in a linear manner but in a circular or spiraling manner. A civilization with PURPOSE that allows us to include new aspects of ourselves and the mysterious reality surrounding us.
 
Gurdjieff taught that, for an exact study, an exact language is needed.

As I have delved into the Trivium Method of learning, I am beginning to understand what he meant. Words have become twisted around to have more than one meaning, and sometimes sinister implications.

For example, the English word "kids." Some would say that this word was purposefully introduced into our vernacular to cause an unconscious denigration of our children by calling them young goats. this is only one example I've come upon.
 
Bar Kochba said:
For example, the English word "kids." Some would say that this word was purposefully introduced into our vernacular to cause an unconscious denigration of our children by calling them young goats. this is only one example I've come upon.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, baby goats like to frolic and are also very curious and cute, just like human children. So, even if there is a connection, not sure if it is a particularly denigrating one. ;)
 
Keit said:
Bar Kochba said:
For example, the English word "kids." Some would say that this word was purposefully introduced into our vernacular to cause an unconscious denigration of our children by calling them young goats. this is only one example I've come upon.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, baby goats like to frolic and are also very curious and cute, just like human children. So, even if there is a connection, not sure if it is a particularly denigrating one. ;)
Click to expand...

I totally agree. :lol:. I find it rather a poetic way of describing characteristics of humans through the animal world. It always happens in Mythology, Religion and Legends (the lamb of God, the conquering Lion, the smart fox etc). I am always a little skeptic of this hierarchical order of things, into higher and lower. Why can't we just accept different states of being without putting one above the other.

I read a nice book once about a west-african tribe who had a totally different hierarchy of beings. Birds where on top, because they are closest to the sun. Then came Trees because they where so peacefull and quiet. Human beings where the lowest because they where full of conflict and madness. That was a rather refreshing outlook on the world.Maybe not so much a serious stiff order of things but a reminder of the importance of humility and maybe humour :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom