Ponderances …
My two cents:
1. How can the universal desire for peace become effective?
“Only the dead have seen the end of war.”
2. Which do you consider more important - language or mathematics?
Mathematics IS a language.
3. How did people think before language?
Same as they did after, except that everyone had to start from the beginning. The nice thing about language, especially writing, is that you can profit from the thoughts of others. Division of labor works for intellectual as well as physical production.
4. Does thought form language, or does language form thought?
In spite of the impression made by Democrats and Liberals, you have to have something to say before you can say it.
5. Which comes first - success or confidence, and why?
You can succeed through luck, and build confidence from that, but confidence first is the usual pattern.
Posted by azmountaintroll
04/27/2005 at 02:39 PM
1) Never knew it was universal.
2) Mathematics is not a language in itself, but we use a mathematical language to express it. Therefore, language must be as important as mathematics.
Mathematics, however, are the principles upon which this world operates. Without math, language would have no meaning. Therefore, mathematics must be as important as language.3) Same way they thought after language. Like mathematics, language is not a prerequisite for thought, although it is required for the verbal expression thereof.
4) Thought forms language.
5) Doesn’t really matter. The two, while related, do not share a cause-and-effect relationship.
1. The desire for peace may be universal, but nearly as universal is the desire for peace on one’s own terms, and therein lies the problem: We fight for our own version of peace. For example, if people are quietly held in concentration camps and later exterminated, is this an acceptable peace? So rather than aiming at peace itself, it may be wiser to target nonpartisan communication among the world’s peoples, the first step towards understanding differences.
2. Language, by far. Without it, we can neither benefit from all the knowledge accumulated in the world since the beginning of recorded history nor can we pass on that which we gain ourselves either to our contemporaries or to future generations.
3. They were probably dependent on the most primitive forms of intuition and insight, neither of which would enable them to travel very far intellectually no matter how intelligent they were. Thinking without words is like doing mathematics without numbers.
4. In contemporary society, it appears that the controlling individuals use thought to form language and the controlled individuals use language to form thought. Unfortunately, whether an individual controls has little relation to whether he is, in fact, correct.
5. Confidence usually comes first because success so often requires the cooperation of others, and others seldom believe in us unless we first believe in ourselves. This makes more sense than it may seem at first. After all, we should know ourselves better than anyone else does.
Posted by Phoenix
04/27/2005 at 03:57 PM
1. Like JS, who says it’s universal?
2. Math is a language that explains with numbers that which cannot be expressed with words alone.
I’ll weigh in on #3 and #4 together because they are inter-related. When I studied and minored in English in college, the current linguistic thinking was that language forms thought. Furthermore, language forms reality.
Frank, you state that, “...there were some expressions on ideas that could only be done in Spanish and not English. I would want to express a thought, and Spanish was the language that allowed me to do it.”
This is precisely why language forms thought and shapes reality, not the other way around. If you didn’t have the benefit of translation - that is, you only knew one language or the other - you could only express the thoughts or ideas that the one language allowed, or, better yet, created, for you. You only had the “thought” because there was a language that had words or phrases that expressed that thought. A wall is only a wall because we call it so. In another language where there may be, say, 7 words for “wall” or where their word for “wall” has 7 different meanings, that will shape their perception and reality of what a “wall” actually is. If they have no word for wall, yes, the wall is still there, but they have no way to express it as such; it will be expressed as something else.
If language is, as you state, JS, “not a prerequisite for thought...” in what manner does one “think?” Even if thoughts manifest themselves in the form of sounds or images, they are only given “meaning” through language.
5. It’s both, a synergistic relationship: Confidence breeds success, and success breeds confidence. Without either, there can be neither.
DAMMIT!!! Post #5 was me, not my better half. We really need another computer…
INC ...
I thought your looks had improved dramatically. NZ must be wearing well on ya mate!
Posted by Steel Turman
04/27/2005 at 05:14 PM
Why, Steel...I never knew
Yes, NZ suits me very well. Good on ya’Cheers
INC - So that is you in #5?
I do not believe language forms reality. Truth forms reality/reality is truth. One may only deign to ‘express’ those truths with language to the capability he can grasp the language to do so.
A ‘wall’ is a wall until it has a name. It does not matter how many names it has, nor how many languages ‘speak’ its name, it is still a wall. English is an exceptional language in that we have so many words that mean the same thing but that have no counterpart in another language. For instance, the word ‘pristine’ is difficult for some to grasp as they have no word for it. If you explain the ‘concept’ of pristine, their minds automatically translate for comprehension.
What we do FIRST with language is to operate through the lateral associations of metaphor, rather than through the vertical identifications of naming.
Ask someone who speaks several languages what language they think in. It takes them a second to figure it out. For those not facile in multi-linguistics, a constant translation of words is going on to keep up with thoughts. Their minds are ‘picturing’ as they translate metaphor into words.
One cannot have a thought-process of WALL before he has the word WALL. If I were deaf from birth and knew no sign language, could I not recognize the difference between sadness and happiness? It would be intuitive understanding, but not linguistic thought.
Try thinking without using words. It cannot be done. It is through metaphor that we think and subsequently begin to name the ‘reality’ we see and know around us.
Posted by Phoenix
04/27/2005 at 05:30 PM
’A rose by any other name ‘twould smell as sweet’
A wall is a wall no matter what it is called ... it is experiencial. The concept of a structure blocking needs no words to conceive mentally. Perhaps to describe that to another requires words, but not the conceptualization.
Posted by Steel Turman
04/27/2005 at 05:39 PM
Ah, this is one of the great debates, nearly rivalling the “Sir Francis Bacon-was-Shakespeare” argument. Or, better yet, the “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?”
Phoenix: “Truth forms reality/reality is truth.”
What is truth? What is reality? I would substitute “perception” for truth. Example:
To the average Palestinian, life sucks; that is his “reality.” To *him* the “truth” of that reality is that it is all the fault of the Jews and the Evil West. Does that make it true, or is that just his perception of reality?
“A ‘wall’ is a wall until it has a name.”
“One cannot have a thought-process of WALL before he has the word WALL.”You make my point for me.
“English is an exceptional language in that we have so many words that mean the same thing but that have no counterpart in another language.”
That is true for all languages. Example (I know..it’s French...so sue me
):
Deja vu. In English, all we can say is, “I feel like I’ve been here before,” or use the French word. This is the very basis for ideas “getting lost in the translation.”
Now for Steel: “A wall is a wall no matter what it is called ... it is experiencial. The concept of a structure blocking needs no words to conceive mentally.”
Yes, it is experiencial, but the experience has no meaning without words. Is a concept a thought? What if there is no concept of “structure?” What if the structure is a thatch hut and that is the only structure a person knows? Now, let’s say you live next to this guy, and you start building a free-standing wall to define your property line. It just so happens that the wall extends one mile to the sea shore where your neighbor goes to fish every day. To you it is a “wall” to define the property line. To him, having no concept of either property or a wall, he sees your wall as a pathway to the sea. You both experience the same thing, but its “reality” is completely different because of what you call it.
What I think is clear about all of this is that it is very easy to get into a circular argument where one can, while arguing for one viewpoint, end up making the argument for the opposing view. It brings to light the amibiguity of meaning because of the ambiguity of language.
Now I have a headache. Gee, thanks…
Hmmm. With certain reservations, I will endorse Phoenix’s point of view.
Pity I could find nothing in Fraser’s “Golden Bough” on a quick scan.
I wonder what Toynbee might say.
I am so stuffed with Thai fud, I am not sure I can handle this.... alas, I cannot resist.
Perception cannot be truth. Period. It is always encumbered with subjectivism. The only truth is that which is objective.
My wall is a wall is a wall.... You took it out of context, but I realize even with my ‘wall’ marks, it was awkward. The wall is there. It isn’t a WALL until we name it a WALL. We can name it bo diddly if we want. It is still what it is. It is a metaphor until language produces a name for it.
Ideas getting lost in the translation… yep. Which is why the precise beauty of English is so wonderful. When we run into a ‘duh’ we have all kinds of ways to make things clear. Language makes concepts clear. We can have all the concepts our minds can come up with, but without language, they remain merely ideas.
The ability to speak and to form a language exhibited by normal human beings produces the ability to learn and solve problems more than the other way around. Intelligent behavior does exist in other species, but only to a very small degree by comparison. Most animal ‘learning’ appears to be simply the development of habits as a direct or indirect result of ordinary reinforced behavior. The same is true of human babies before they begin to use language. Like mathematics, language is an intellectual tool that we can use to grasp what we can’t reach without help.
Language breeds intelligence. Doesn’t have bo diddly to do with perception or truth or reality. Just metaphor and putting it to use with our noggins. I have to go lie down now. Thank you.
Posted by Phoenix
04/27/2005 at 08:35 PM
Mr. Toynbee would say INC needs a shock. Perhaps not now, but surely in the future.
The egg came first.
Posted by Phoenix
04/27/2005 at 08:36 PM
Hmmm. If the egg came first, then who sat on it to keep it warm?
And by the way, do you think we are at or past Toynbee’s specified point of civilizational breakdown? Meaning, the point of failure, as a civilization, to overcome a challenge that confronts us?
Curious....
And by the way, I agree, perception is not reality, unless identity and identification are the same thing, which of course they are not.
Now if we could only do something about the 99.9999999 percent of us who never seem to grasp that we are beings of volitional consciousness with no autopilot!
Reptiles don’t sit on their eggs T-berg.
Posted by Steel Turman
04/27/2005 at 09:22 PM
...Try thinking without using words…
Einstein was quite adept at this.
Posted by Steel Turman
04/27/2005 at 09:25 PM
Yeah, but when he did try to think with words, he turned out to be a little naive. Politically he was a babe in the woods.
Oh, and it’s easy enough to think without using words. It’s called symbolism.
Steel, surely you aren’t implying that Phoenix is a reptile! How gauche!
Tanny,
No. We are not past the point of civilization breakdown. Toynbee had no idea technology would lead us down this labyrinthian path where we manage to cover and or repair our mistakes with such ease.
Einstein - oh to LOVE that he was a babe in the woods politically. Stephen Hawking… now there’s a guy who has trouble getting his thoughts into language. These guys HAD no choice but to imagine, to ‘create’ metaphors, symbols for their imaginings...... BUT it required language to put it together.
If either one of you bad boys cares to dare sit on me to hatch me.... come on.. I’m all curled up and waiting......Bring some scotch.
Posted by Phoenix
04/27/2005 at 09:54 PM
You won’t have time to drink it if I decide to show up, young lady.
I for one, prefer you be on top and do the ‘sitting’ Phoenix.
Never know what might come up.
Posted by Steel Turman
04/27/2005 at 10:03 PM
Hmm. A midnight snack at the Y never hurt anybody.....
Yeah, and it tastes like chicken too!
What did one lesbian frog say to the other?
WOW! It DOES taste like chicken!
Posted by Steel Turman
04/27/2005 at 10:29 PM
Tanny,
The scotch was for you. You’ll need it as I peck my way out of my shell. With your warmth providing my energy, no doubt my pecking will take place in short order and with a ferocity for existence as you’ve never experienced.
Man of Steel,
How can I hatch without the warmth of your buns? Silly boy....that I would hatch sitting on top of you. Goodness.
Is the “Y” like a western states Kentucky Fried Chicken?
Posted by Phoenix
04/27/2005 at 11:52 PM
Y.M.C.A.
Yes.
Mmmmmm.
___________.
Alright!
Posted by Steel Turman
04/27/2005 at 11:58 PM
#1 Fallacy, there will always be some overbearing individual full of self-importance and self-worth, who will incite the so called minorities/oppressed to an uprising.
#2 Both language and mathematics are codes/shortcuts, invented by man to make communication/computations - to express an idea, to give that idea meaning. Prime example machine language (CNC) written by man understood by few, but with the growing use of technology becoming part of everyday language.
#3 “How did people think before language?”...this question can be interpreted one of two ways. One, what makes you think there was no thought?....Two. In context with the previous questions we assume you are questioning how they communicated. Then again the parameters were not set on language: written word, spoken word, sign language, pictograms, symbols, grunts, etc...without full, operational definition of what language is, this can not be answered either correctly or incorrectly. ie hunters following tracks of a prey,this is a visual language as it defines: prey, direction, weight etc
#4 What is thought? Pictures in your head are thoughts, but is it in reality a language or a picture? Can pictures be a language? What is language, for that matter? Look at a piece of art you love. Does it make you think in words, or do you feel the meaning of what is on the canvas or whatever medium is used? If you keep delving and asking questons, it seems that language defines thought, and thought defines language.
#5 Confidence does come first for the majority that succeed in the business arena. Like everything else there are exceptions. Some have stumbled upon success due to the public’s needs/wants for their invention/services and then obtained confidence with success. When applying the same rule to children though it is reversed: Children gain more confidence as they succeed....ie walking, riding etc.
Here is my thoughts expressed in language of my choosing:
This is Intellectual Mental Masturbation, as how can anyone be right or wrong when there are no defining parameters set to the questions....generalisation on issues will always cause dissention ....btw no personal affront meant to any...just a mere expression of thought.
1. I’m afraid that there is no universal desire for peace. There is always someone who wants something someone else has. There are always those who believe others exist to serve them, even if it takes force.
2. Language is used to communicate thoughts. Mathematics is a language in that respect. (D²-D)/2 is easier to communicate than the explanation in any other form of language. Higher mathematics can’t be explained well in other forms of language.
3. People can think without benefit of language, they just can’t easilly communicate the thoughts as well. Language accomplishes this communication, though often imperfectly.
(AoF, I used to need to read the binary NC and CNC machine code off of paper tapes. It helped with the troubleshooting. Numbers were easy, letters were tough)4. Thought forms language but having only one language can restrict the expression of thought and is probably a strong influence on the way one thinks.
Then there’s obfuscatory language. An example would be the recent Arthur Anderson criminal case where they talk about “document retention policy” when they really mean document shredding and disposal.
5. Without the confidence to ask that lovely lady across the room to dance, my chance for success is nil. If she says “yes”, that’s success and my confidence gets a boost. With enough of those successes though, I may end up on the wrong end of answer #1 and no confidence. I think I’ll just have another drink.
AoF,
Speaking of turning thought into language: Intellectual Mental Masturbation? That creates quite a metaphor.... language turning into image. I think the questions are specific enough: The answers sometimes turn into generalizations.. but it doesn’t matter. It is all food for thought, and that is nothing but wonderful.
Just one thing: #3 “One, what makes you think there was no thought..” I do not think any question implied that. There had to be thought or early man would not have survived. Language developed to express those thoughts even if that ‘language’ was a series of grunts and gestures. Language, as you say, is about communicating..... in various forms.
Maybe it is easiest to say as language evolved, more precise thought evolved. As well, as thoughts evolved so did the vocabulary to communicate those thoughts.
Also, you make a cool point about art. It does, indeed, communicate without language. I might say that it ‘speaks’ the language of our emotions - intuition.
StinKerr:
My answer to #4 is how I would answer your statement about ‘obfuscatory’ language. Yes. And just for fun, your initial response to #4 is right on - but suppose someone has amazing, innovative, creative thoughts but lacks the ‘skill’ to communicate well. I am thinking of a lecture I attended on quantum physics. The professor was ‘out there’ in the knowledge realm, but he could not get us to understand because he lacked the language skills to pass on his knowledge.
Great analogy for ‘confidence’. I hope you didn’t have to buy just one drink.
BTW: Frank has the best answer for #2.
Posted by Phoenix
04/28/2005 at 10:34 AM
As long as we’re speaking of language, I’ll add this to the mix.
Dr. Max Black notes this in the article, “Philosophy of Language,” Collier’s Encyclopedia Vol. 12, 1954, p.140.
“Many philosophers, from Plato onwards, have found occasion to show the influence of uncritical language in promoting wrong beliefs. According to Francis Bacon, ‘the ill and unfit choice of words wonderfully obstructs the understanding;’ and the use of words in uncritical ways ‘according to the apprehension of the vulgar’ constitutes one of the main sources of human error. John Locke finds ‘it is impossible to speak clearly and distinctly of our knowledge, which all consists in propositions, without considering first the nature, use, and signification of language,’ topics to which Book 3 of his celebrated Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690) is devoted.....
“Bertrand Russell, to take a more recent instance, has often argued that the structure of European languages has led philosophers into making serious mistakes. According to him, the exaggerated value set upon the study of the syllogism is due to the subject-predicate form of the crude languages used in everyday communication.”
That last paragraph is just for U, Miss Phoenix.
Now I understand the value of avoiding crude language with sultry subjects and puissant predicates.
oooh.. Tanny.... am I the puissant, sultry predicate for your egg-hatching constructs?
You darling… You quoted Bertie..
A + B = C
Why, why, I never...did you see that ass manipulate ‘B’.
Humph. I shall never believe another word he says!
Posted by Phoenix
04/28/2005 at 11:07 AM
I wouldn’t mind a construction contract, my dear, but after all, Steel does appear to have the inside track. He might not appreciate it if I tried muscling in on his turf?
The entire problem with being a gentleman is the obligation to act like one.
Sigh.
Oh, fiddle dee dee. Steel would be glad for you to harrow my aspirations for his attention. I declare, there seems nothing I can do to gain his courtship. He spurns my preludes with nary a thought.
A gentleman? How lovely. Do you come in striped pants and spats?
Posted by Phoenix
04/28/2005 at 12:47 PM
Stinker #3 “One, what makes you think there was no thought..” Your response to this was exactly what I had anticipated, as it is logical. The answer I gave as quoted was intentionally put there to show the anomaly of interpretation of a question...quick glances at questions often lead to misconception, so a mixture of language and thought.(albeit wrong or is it? lol).
As for my Intellectual Mental Masturbation message, that too I wrote to see responses, as I wish to ask those who responded, if your first reaction was visual or literal.
Phoenix dear: No striped pants and spats, but I do typically wear a white dinner jacket on social occasions.
Upbringing, you know.
(adjusts white bow tie in disappointment)
Hm. No response after half a day. I guess I’m not spiffy enough. Poor me.
(Sigh)
Cancel that last remark. Make it four hours instead. Disappointment drags.
Tanny,
I was merely giving into MY upbringing by having an afternoon nap.
Do tell: You don’t wear a bowtie to work???
Posted by Phoenix
04/28/2005 at 07:58 PM
I do when I’m onstage in my part-time work. I’m a ballroom musician, you see, or what we used to call a “society” musician. There are not many of us left. Our specialty is providing ballroom dance and dinner music for graceful occasions of all sorts.
Of course, supply follows demand (sigh!)
Glenn Miller forever!!!
AoF,
“Intellectual Mental Masturbation”. You say you wrote it to see who would respond visually or literally.
There is no response either visually or literally to it. For example: Can you respond to “my heart is broken” literally? Visually?
What I think, when I read everything closely, is that we all more or less agree. It is compelling discourse, and I hope Steel keeps this up.
Oh, and I DO plan on using your words, IMM, next time someone asks a thought-provoking question. I love it.... Thanks!
Posted by Phoenix
04/28/2005 at 08:08 PM
Second the motion.
Quickly… someone provide Phoenix with a scented hanky...... she has most certainly swooned.....
Tanny,
I CANNOT BELIEVE you are a ballroom musician!! I am so excited. I love ballroom dancing more than anything on earth. I still have all the 45’s my parents have from Glenn Miller days, and whenever I hear music from that time, I feel my heart break for an unknown time where I know I should have been gliding across some smooth floor in the arms of an escort. I did Cotillion and loved it - I am sure I was the ONLY child who adored it, and lived for it week by week.
When I die, I want to go out dancing in swirling skirts to the music of that era. I’ll be humming and twirling on my way out with a dreamy smile on my face.
Posted by Phoenix
04/28/2005 at 08:33 PM
If ever you come to the Raleigh-Durham area, I will be absolutely crushed if you do not come dance with us.
04/27/2005 at 04:44 PM
Next entry: Err Amerika Under Fire
Previous entry: Ain't That a Kick in the Groin