Stargazer said:
Chu said:
But I could give you several examples of where each language seems more "subjective" or less accurate than others.
Thanks for the kind response, Chu. What you wrote makes sense to me, and encouraged me to think about the role of languages in our lives more deeply. If you have time, could you share the examples you mention?
Sure! It's been such a long time since I wrote that reply that I had to re-read it to remember. :)
Well, take genders, for example. In Spanish, a "car" is masculin; in French, it is feminine. Why? It's arbitrary, really. But it DOES do something to our psyche. For a German, the moon is masculine, and for a Spanish/French speaker, it is feminine. We then give those objects a connotation that it doesn't have in languages without genders, like English. That's completely subjective, and an overburdening if you ask me.
But there is a lot more.
This is my favorite list so far. It has several examples of how more or less accurate languages get to be, and a good explanation about the famous dilemma or whether language determines the reality we see or viceversa. I found it super interesting, FWIW.
I also shared more examples
here once. You may find the whole thread interesting, actually.
There is also an interesting study quoted by Ascien
here, about how different languages can make us express different "personalities", feelings, etc.
[quote author=Stargazer]
A follow-up question: If pathological or hygiological (an antonym to the word 'pathological' that I hope is appropriate, related to the word 'hygiene') ideas inform the way we use any particular language, and Lobaczewski chose certain Greek words to convey his ideas, does this imply that particular, more ancient, words from certain etymological roots (for instance, Asiatic languages) might better serve as material to construct an objective/scientific terminology, and hopefully a more open & empathic mind, than just comparatively 'cherry-picking' appropriate modern words from various cultures?
I realise that the problem is not purely linguistic, but words seem to play a big part in things.
[/quote]
Hmm, I don't know enough about it to really tell, but I wouldn't bet on it. From the little I know about Latin, I'd say is as convoluted and arbitrary as modern languages. And so are most Asian Languages. There are some advantages, perhaps (for example, the pictographic nature of Chinese characters, which sometimes facilitate the understanding of some concepts and/or have preserved a bit of history), but in my opinion, the problem is that truth (as close as we can get to it) is and has always been more or less hidden or distorted. As much a today the world is a total disaster and perhaps worse than ever, it also used to be a bit of a disaster at least during old Empires.
So, I think the point is to get closer to truth, define terms that describe it, and translate them back into modern languages if necessary. For example, Lobaczewski came up with "ponerology", and we have translated it into at least 6 languages, together with many of the terms he uses. That's as good as it gets, I think. But I do wonder whether old Greek may be different and more useful.
We also can't get too far from the existing modern languages, because it would impose a huge challenge for most people to just have to learn it in order to access information. In that sense, English being the vernacular nowadays, it can serve that purpose, as imperfect as it is. And it is very flexible when it comes to neologisms (newly created words and expressions).
More than the words themselves, then, I think that we should focus on "speaking the same language" when it comes to semantics. That is, understanding the same thing, because we observe reality as it is, as much as we can. This was explained much better by Gurdjieff:
"It was pointed out before when we spoke about the history of humanity that the life of humanity to which we belong is governed by forces proceeding from two different sources: first, planetary influences which act entirely mechanically and are received by the human masses as well as by individual people quite involuntarily and unconsciously; and then, influences proceeding from inner circles of humanity whose existence and significance the vast majority of people do not suspect any more than they suspect planetary influences.
"The humanity to which we belong, namely, the whole of historic and prehistoric humanity known to science and civilization, in reality constitutes only the outer circle of humanity, within which there are several other circles.
"So that we can imagine the whole of humanity, known as well as unknown to us, as consisting so to speak of several concentric circles.
"The inner circle is called the 'esoteric'; this circle consists of people who have attained the highest development possible for man, each one of whom possesses individuality in the fullest degree, that is to say, an indivisible 'I,' all forms of consciousness possible for man, full control over these states of consciousness, the whole of knowledge possible for man, and a free and independent will. They cannot perform actions opposed to their understanding or have an understanding which is not expressed by actions. At the same time there can be no discords among them, no differences of understanding. Therefore their activity is entirely co-ordinated and leads to one common aim without any kind of compulsion because it is based upon a common and identical understanding. AND, language thus reflects that, ideally. They speak the "same language".
"The next circle is called the 'mesoteric,' that is to say, the middle. People who belong to this circle possess all the qualities possessed by the members of the esoteric circle with the sole difference that their knowledge is of a more theoretical character.' This refers, of course, to knowledge of a cosmic character. They know and understand many things which have not yet found expression in their actions. They know more than they do. But their understanding is precisely as exact as, and therefore precisely identical with, the understanding of the people of the esoteric circle. Between them there can be, no discord, there can be no misunderstanding. One understands in the way they all understand, and all understand in the way one understands. But as was said before, this understanding compared with the understanding of the esoteric circle is somewhat more theoretical.
"The third circle is called the 'exoteric,' that is, the outer, because it is the outer circle of the inner part of humanity. The people who belong to this circle possess much of that which belongs to people of the esoteric and mesoteric circles but their cosmic knowledge is of a more philosophical character, that is to say, it is more abstract than the knowledge of the mesoteric circle. A member of the mesoteric circle calculates, a member of the exoteric circle contemplates. Their understanding may not be expressed in actions. But there cannot be differences in understanding between them. What one understands all the others understand.
"In literature which acknowledges the existence of esotericism humanity is usually divided into two circles only and the 'exoteric circle' as opposed to the 'esoteric,' is called ordinary life. In reality, as we see, the 'exoteric circle' is something very far from us and very high. For ordinary man this is already 'esotericism.'
" 'The outer circle' is the circle of mechanical humanity to which we belong and which alone we know. The first sign of this circle is that among people who belong to it there is not and there cannot be a common understanding. Everybody understands in his own way and all differently. This circle is sometimes called the circle of the 'confusion of tongues,' that is, the circle in which each one speaks in his own particular language, where no one understands another and takes no trouble to be understood. In this circle mutual understanding between people is impossible excepting in rare exceptional moments or in matters having no great significance, and which are confined to the limits of the given being.
If people belonging to this circle become conscious of this general lack of understanding and acquire a desire to understand and to be understood, then it means they have an unconscious tendency towards the inner circle because mutual understanding begins only in the exoteric circle and is possible only there. But the consciousness of the lack of understanding usually comes to people in an altogether different form.
"So that the possibility for people to understand depends on the possibility of penetrating into the exoteric circle where understanding begins.
A longer quote was shared by Laura
here, if you are interested in the context.
