uiu07morelang.htm "More Language, More Connections"

More Language More Connections

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Understanding etymology truly teaches us about many primal topics, via the everyday languages we so casually use, amend and create ...as we ffunction in the world. We are physical beings in a physical universe. Before anything else, before we climb the ladder of cognition to conceive of things like God or Infinity or mathematics or conceptual art, we are material 'extants' existing in, responding to, and surviving in, a material universe...one of energy, actions, forces, and interactive impacts. And it is those energetics events which we are made of and which command our primal attention. Therefore, as abilities develop through the evolutionary construction of organs which process/retain/utilize pertinent information about the environment, self, and most importantly, the differences and similarities between those determinably distinct regions/things, it is those things that our mentality establishes cognitive labels for. If not a word, at first, then at least an appropriate reaction-set of behaviors which responds to it.

Primate languages exemplify this. Even the first group of words used by humans dealt specifically with things, events, actions, and the physical relationships of " material things-in-the-world". Up, down, across, into, warm, cold, hurt, feel, taste, touch, place, creature like me, creature not similar to me, big, small, wet, dry, hold, gather, near, away, fast, slow, heavy, light, forceful, easy, colors, sounds, motions, etc. and especially, presence and absence. All the qualitative and quantitative observations pertinent to survival. As George Gamow made reference to it in "One, Two, Three... Infinity", his book's title was an expression of the limitation that some of the earliest humans had when coping with numbers and counting. At first, anything more than 3 was so large and great an amount, that it satisfied the perceptive experience of "uncountable vastness". (Maybe this tells us that an appreciation of "God" and a sense of the infinite was there at the basic conceptual beginnings after all!?!!).

In seminal work done by Jean Piaget, this situation is expressed most clearly. Human children begin by tactile and visual encounters with their world. The first "geometric" discoveries are strictly topological. Primal cognitions of "action and spatial relationships" occur here. Projective and Euclidean awarenesses come later. As does Cause and Effect. Labeling and language are encouraged and created by adult interaction with them...as another source of information and correspondence building.

The net result of this though is that primal language structure relates very specifically and strongly to activities in and of the physical world. All higher level concepts depend on them. Take "concept" for example (my favorite). Con- means "with". Cept means "to take, gather (in)". A "concept" is literally...something which is/has-been "taken into" a person's being and mental awareness. Similarly, we freely speak of "grasping an idea". Every word we use, either in specific direct singular usage, or existing within the historically and culturally derived word roots, is an expression of an "event-fact of nature". Things, forces and the panorama of relationships that can exist between and among them.

Vernacular and commonly used words which may go unspoken, yet understood to be inferred by the context of the expressions, are correspondingly derived from agreed upon linguistic short cuts that include all those awarenesses and responses. A situation which also drives Linguistic Academics crazy. In fact there can be as much codified information in silences, pauses, inflections, or what is left unexpressed, as there is in the actual communication bits; this includes "body language". That much ballyhooed yet scorned upon "language" may have been first enunciated in the 20th century, but we have been using that one from the dawn of time! It was there before all the others.

There are limitations in our current repertoire of written and spoken languages. Written notation doesn't include all the nuances of intonations and body motions, emphasis and demonstrativeness, pauses that focus perceptual impact, variances that change with context. The list goes on. Then again, not specifying all those things allows creative consciousness to explore and establish new connections of conceptuality and being. But, in the short term, lack of specificity, can leave many deterministically connected information gaps.

Chomsky, et al, pursued an interesting yet dead-end path, in trying to codify linguistic "structure". Though some insights assisted in the development of certain usable computer analog programs and architecture, ultimately, further efforts have been abandoned.

To example that there are factors in any linguistic transfer of information which cannot be found in just the transferred set of data, it does us justice to look at the surviving written records of cultures which have long vanished into history. Unless there is a tta Stone, to establish correlated meanings etc, languages, those which once enabled ancient people to actively survive on this planet, are for us, just interesting and possibly "pretty" squiggles in stone or clay. Nothing more.

Take this situation in English, keeping in mind that we are looking for a general structure that would be applicable to all languages. I will present a list of "questions" on the left, to be read and thought of as "inquiries". Across from them on the right will be responsive "statements" that are to be read and thought of in just those appropriate ways.

Question Response
Who am I ? ----> Who am I !

Am I who ? ----> Am I who !

I am who ? ----> I am who !

Am who I ? ----> Am who I !

Who I am ? ----> Who I am !

I who am ? ----> I who am !

Some of the sentences may be awkward for you, but that is only a factor of experience and common usage. All are equally plausible, correct and ffunctional. The Information conveyed however is another thing entirely. Removing the notation marks shows us that "meaning" is not just in the data set presented, but also resides in the total context as well as expressive modifiers. Language was a spoken and experienced event long before it became written. As such, "language" includes intonation, intent by sequence, mutual agreement of meanings, relevance by context (environment) which may or may not be present, conditions and factors which may or may not be mutually known by the sender and receiver, connotations, puns, satire and sarcasm, situational limitations or requirements, oblique inferences, etc. (This all holds just as true for mathematics.)

Let's look at the Liar's Paradox again with our new considerations in mind.

Possible Environments

"This is a lie." a) I have just explained something to you.

                                                "This" refers to that example.
                                                "This (the previous example) is a type of lie."
                                     ergo     "T.i.a.l." is thus a true statement.

b) The letters and words are being identified as a sample sentence.

"This is <the word group> 'a lie'."
"T.i.a.l." is thus a true statement.

c) The word this contains the added idea of fabricated fallacy.

"this is (has the meaning of) a lie."
"T.i.a.l." is thus a true statement (if mutually accepted).

d) This is a Long Island Expressway. "This is a L.I.E."

or This is a lie (where my golf ball rests).

                                              {sub implications: 1) that is a good thing
                                                                         2) that is a neutral observation
                                                                         3) that is a rough situation

e) This (statement) is a fallacy.

"T.i.a.l." thus infers the proposition that existence, given some singular grouping of factors and conditions, can be evaluated both or either as really existing or not extant at all.

It is interpretation e) which leads to the discussion I opened with on page one. Extancy depends upon extensive compatible mutuality that enables interaction, accomplished through sharing information. The conditions which define, limit, and enable information transfer, transcription and translations then become the factors by which we evaluate if things exist or not. Self observation becomes a ffunction distinct from observations of things non-self. Where and how we acknowledge and set the boundaries which enclose the information we want to evaluate will ultimately determine the outcome determinations. If we try to evaluate something without the benefit of environmental considerations (relevant information coming from outside and transiting through some boundary) we will get one result. If we evaluate something vis a vis other conditional information we will get other results.

Don't be confuseded by these considerations, or any other relevant ones that you can think of. Instead, focus on the fact that ALL these activities and processes ffunction in harmony -- because of an overriding motivation-dynamic that coordinates them towards another existing goal. That of maintaining and enhancing individual and collective existences in the world. We remain kineticly responsive to the events, phenomena and information of our experiential world -- with a flexibility to handle on several levels at once (biochemical, intellectual, social) -- the energy and information processed at varying quantities and rates that each component and collective system can handle -- in order to remain integral and viable -- and thereby maintain Integrity and viability.

The impact of even the subtlest linguistic relationships can be so overwhelming that entire cultures have developed diverse value systems and, thereon, diverse community structures based on those minute linguistic differences. Perceptual dynamics as to which human relationships are most comfortable within a given conceptual-linguistic framework can then take on a panorama of interrelational dynamics both as fact and ffunction. How we, and all life forms in general (taking into consideration individual physical forms and the capacities for conscious interaction with the environment) process information from, through and into the environment, have and will continue to generate an incredible spectrum of workable and successful econiches.

Plus, primal principles of universal dynamics impact so completely on all levels, they can even be the source of daily behavioral expressions and real world "attitudes". The most obvious one is connected to our sense of vision! Every culture, every person has given expression to a certain specific information-relevant unconscious bias that in most instances produces positive results, but in others has fostered some terrible and violent anti-social behavior.

We "recognize" that when lighting conditions are better...we obviously "see" more things...there is more information we can gather about the world around us. Because it enables us to encounter and interact with our world in a safer and more ffunctional and stabilizing way, we develop a very positive attitude about light...and its importance to us. We cognatively incorporate that event-process and all its possible implications, in all that we do, including our language. "Bright" people are "en-lightened", is an example. Other phrases and terminology are rampant. Ignorance is like "suffering in darkness"...where it is difficult to "envision" ideas.

This is normally good. But there is sometimes a "dark" side to it (if you will excuse the self-reflexive pun). In standard human discourse, this kind of value judgement assignment can be, and in many cases has been, carried too far. One pervasive mental act has been to derogatorily ascribe that connection to people. "Other" people...who are not or who we don't want to be "us" (whatever we imagine to be our Integral group). Historically, social groups have tended to belittle and therefore diminish and therefore cognatively distance themselves from, members of other social groups whose skin is a darker shade. There doesn't have to a drastic difference, even the most subtle one will do. But there is no culture where this kind of discrimination has ever arisen, where the negative component originated from the darker to the lighter skinned race - except by way of response to the previous bias. Sapient recognition of light, as the environment which enhances information and safety for survival, can be ruefully misapplied to foment the worst bigotry. Why do I bring this up? Because it is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness! I am by no means exonerating this negative behavior just because I can propose a more fundamental source for it. Every creature is responsible for their own actions. Sentient social beings must recognize that co-supportive behaviors are the only ones that can increase the dynamic competence and stability for the society at large ... which buffers all individuals from Integrity threatening events.

The Golden Rule .. and similar social ideas .. are the simply-stated expressions of this situation.

What that attitudinally built in propensity-bias concerning light and darkness can mistakenly overlook, is the presence of other substantially positive qualities and characteristics. Qualities that show us that there are circumstances where such an innate developmental perception has neither place nor validity nor ffunction. Beyond being a behavioral mechanism of "general life" survival...a tool that all living things depend upon - the gathering and using of energy and information, it can be misused and applied. When applied as a form of prejudice...it mutates into abhorrent behavior, with potentially disastrous anti-productive results that can threaten to raze and bring down the very societies we struggle so hard to maintain and encourage. It runs roughshod over human potential and diminishes us all. Melanin is a biological metabolic "plus"...everyone has it, and it helps us live in the sunshine. When it is seen as a signal for "light is knowledge" and "dark is ignorance", it becomes a social metabolic "negative" and perversion.

The language I am communicating in, "English", has other unique structurally built in biases also, such as limited gender pronouns. By recognizing that, from an extra-English (outside and distanced), point of view, that sees my language only as a random subset of symbols and energy-information transferring phenomenon (one of many possible communication energy-flow systems), I become free to note and label new information channels - which may be as simple as "the physical space between an event and its observer" - and see anew with expanded understanding, what I thought I already knew, and believed already complete. Only there was more going on...and now I can appreciate it.

Etymology is the study of the historical roots and derivations of specific word forms and their meanings, including prefixes and suffixes. For the English language and for medicine, the primary origins are ancient Greek and Latin, though Arabic, Germanic and other diverse early languages have made their contributions. In modern research, anthropologists have even been able to discern an historical "tree" that can trace diverse human cultures as having been connected with or developed from each other through the millennia - all over the globe. And all, based upon similar phonics or written notations connected with specific consistent meanings and references.

However, something more fundamental becomes apparent in studying word etymology. As well as clear methodical evaluation of the work done by such linguists as Sapir, Whorf, and Chomsky. I even venture to say that what I am about to propose will hold true for all languages - Occidental et al - even though I can't claim actual knowledge about every language. Japanese as a matter of fact has numerous supportive correlations, both in ideogrammatic forms and related meanings. One of the more interesting is the ideogram/concept named "shinn-nu" that conveys the concept of "motion" and any relative concepts - physical & ideological & relational - that prefix and suffix modifiers can addend.

For "shinn-nu", here is the "short" list of related meanings:

recount, chase, reverse, withdraw, dispatch, flee, stray, pass, accompany, construct, speed, penetrate, pursue, meet, proceed, advance, evade, cycle, capture, journey, play, cross, transport, diverge, attain, elude, complete, pervade, recede, distant, trace, conform, transfer, straggle, encounter, interrupt, select, bequeath, remote, return, avoid, proximate.

All from one conceptual word root...one "cept"! In Japanese this is a family of related ideas. Just how many would we "naturally" connect in the English language, I wonder? (smilingly!)

Every concept, no matter how high minded, ethereal, mathematically subtle, philosophical or spiritual, is firmly rooted in perceptions and events of a totally physical nature. This is demonstrated in the basic set of meanings that the primal word forms of a given language begin to deal with. That is, the first concepts and "words" used even by early primates and their evolutionary progeny, relate extremely specifically to things, events, and relationships actually experienced in the environment. The energetics and interactions of living are perceived, evaluated and incorporated into a usable biological/mental activity, that in turn, allows an animal to respond with behaviors that are beneficial to maintaining ongoing life ffunctions...in the most agreeable ways possible.

A lot of things are going on here at the same time. Interactively interdependent, even though discernable as separate components of ffunctioning. Primal though, is the fact that no physical being has any other experiential environment to relate to other than the physical one. And it is that being-in-environment, that processor-of-information, which uses its biochemical/mental operations and capacities, to convert the information/energy of those encounters into meaningful/usable sets of cognitive recognition, and thereon, substantive behavioral/responsive actions. The very first "perceptions", and thus, the first things cognatively "labeled" in the process of creating and building "language", are strictly physical.

These, and many other shades of linguistic balance exist in the languages of our peoples all over the globe. There is no "better" linguistic structure of one over another, and it is possible - probable - that we have yet to develop or utilize a language that epitomizes human potential. We can, however, be very clear in recognizing who we are and the ffunctioning natures of the mental tools we have.

Two fascinating stories about Robert Oppenheimer, considered the innovator behind the creation of the A-Bomb, show us just what perceptions and language and ideas are all about. His vision of phenomena was remarkable. When asked some years after viewing the first atomic bomb explosion he recalled that as he "saw" the billowing glowing atomic cloud of radiation he was in fact seeing the second and third derivatives (factors of mathematical Calculus equations) vanish infinitesimally. His physical eyes were looking at one reality while his mind was appreciating another perception just as conceptually real. Oppenheimer's remark points up the vitality that words and symbols have on their own, separate yet still connected via the realm of physical experience. Symbols may stand in for physical reality but they are experienced on their own and carry as much weight and import as material things; at least when we accept and enact the associations involved.

In an interview shortly before his death in 1967 Oppenheimer spoke with philosophic melancholy of his first gut reaction to the atomic bomb. Besides the science, the math imagery, and satisfaction that the 1945 device had really worked as his team of scientists and military liaisons had struggled so long for, Oppenheimer also recalled the words of the Hindu god Vishnu as the god was trying to compel an earthly leader to follow the his dictates. Vishnu re-formed himself into the visage of a huge multi-armed writhing figure, enormously immense beyond the scale of simple human proportions. "Now I am become Death", he told the human, "destroyer of worlds.".

Oppenheimer was experiencing the foresight and knowledge of what his creation was going to mean to the world - this frail fragile planet - if we toy foolishly with the incredible powers residing in dormant hibernation in the atoms of our own existence. This was not just another device that injured or dismantled the ability of an enemy to pursue violence. This explosive violence had the ability to destroy things, long beyond the ability of human beings to control that destruction. Dogs of war that could not be called back from the task they were created for. The world would have to live with - and would most assuredly die from - the results of hasty judgements made and acted on in the heat of competition and conflict. The price would not simply be the one we naively thought we'd have to pay. If there was ever a time to set aside delusionary vain-glory, now is the right one in our history.

If there was ever a time in history to become better than we were before, to truly recognize who we are and become what we are capable of becoming in healthy positive ways, now is the moment. Consciously create ourselves as we re-create the world around us.