POST TWO

**zelazny** · March 15th, 2002, 02:09 AM

i'm a softy too, but i'm proud of it.

... a little ...

------------------
Sure the universe is a great place, but if it wasn't here, no-one would miss it.

[This message has been edited by zelazny (edited March 14, 2002).]

**SHATOUSHKA** · March 15th, 2002, 09:41 AM

if GP disappoints you, captian janks,
allow me to direct your attention to
the looney bin. no doubt you
will be amazed at such high quality
philosophical argument. rolleyes

and as for the 'sweat pea' remark,

well, again... rolleyes

its a message board, not the zipper of life.

btw, no one has answered my question yet.

------------------
~~share some greased tea with me~~
General Philosophy
Discuss This...
The Acropolis

**Pogue Mahone** · March 16th, 2002, 01:22 AM

Shame on you, Shatoushka, for actually compelling me to think in my posts.

The question, as I understand it, is whether or not a change in the nature of language would be able to circumvent the "prison" limitation of language.

It wouldn't. By it's very nature, we're taking the defnition of a thing's basest element as a way of estabilshing a common definition.

For instance, this
cat

is a cat. Not the happiest-looking fellow, but a cat nonetheless. Although at its most basic, this word in any language has the same meaning, there is a connotation to it that is individually established. To some, it evokes fond thoughts; to others, it is a consumable food item. Some may love them, some may hate them. Whatever.

But effective communication amongst individuals requires a word to reflect only the basic element it is attached to. We must add other basic elements to connote the flavour we'd like the word to have.

Happy cat.
Fuzzy cat.
Fucking cat.
Delicious cat.

So already, by accepting that the image above is defined as a "cat" and nothing more, we are in the act of accepting the prison of language in order to convey a thought to another person.

There are two ways to get around this prison. Theoretically, at least, for one is impossible and the other unlikely.

First, we could pool all the words of every language that might have distinctions. Recall the idea that "eskimos have 27 words to describe snow" for instance. We would also have to adopt the various structures of different languages that lend themselves to our task of flawless precision. For instance, in Spanish one can easily convert an adjective to a noun. "Gordo", or "fat", easily becomes "un gordo", or, "a fat person", or, more specifically due to word-gender, "a fat man."

The idea here is to create an amalgam language that reflects the entirety of human precision, so that any thought is immediately renderable into word or words without any loss of accuracy. The smells I described above, for instance.

The second "option" runs in the counter direction, wherein a Vulcanesque "mind-meld" allows the direct transference of thought independent of language. A free-flowing thought transferred from one mind to another without having to undergo compartmentalisation for deciphering by the recieving party. Or something.

So to answer the question, yes, any feasible change from this current state would still create a prison.

------------------
There's a lesson in life to adopt and interpret
It applies to all people, regardless their race
Oh don't put your trust, or your faith in the person
If sometimes they seem to have more than one face...

**SHATOUSHKA** · March 16th, 2002, 01:31 AM

i'll give up my supply of jiffy-pop in
order to take curtian number two, bob!

------------------
~~share some greased tea with me~~
General Philosophy
Discuss This...
The Acropolis

**SHATOUSHKA** · March 16th, 2002, 01:32 AM

thanks for answering my question, pogue.

must think now.

------------------
~~share some greased tea with me~~
General Philosophy
Discuss This...
The Acropolis

**doodoo** · March 17th, 2002, 01:07 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The question, as I understand it, is whether or not a change in the nature of language would be able to circumvent the "prison" limitation of language.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What annoys me here is the use of the word "prison". It certainly cannot mean a barrier, since it does not explain what freedom this prison abolishes.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>It wouldn't. By it's very nature, we're taking the definition of a thing's basest element as a way of establishing a common definition.
For instance, this [picture of a white cat] is a cat. Not the happiest-looking fellow, but a cat nonetheless. Although at its most basic, this word in any language has the same meaning, there is a connotation to it that is individually established. To some, it evokes fond thoughts; to others, it is a consumable food item. Some may love them, some may hate them. Whatever.
But effective communication amongst individuals requires a word to reflect only the basic element it is attached to. We must add other basic elements to connote the flavour we'd like the word to have.

Happy cat.
Fuzzy cat.
Fucking cat.
Delicious cat.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is more like the principle of creating dictionaries; it has nothing to do with conveying certain connotations which can be effectively conveyed by single verbal images. Lucifer Sam is not Sylvester, while both are cats.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>So already, by accepting that the image above is defined as a "cat" and nothing more, we are in the act of accepting the prison of language in order to convey a thought to another person.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Though I fancy the way this argument develops, I cannot see (as yet) what freedom this prison denies.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>There are two ways to get around this prison. Theoretically, at least, for one is impossible and the other unlikely.
First, we could pool all the words of every language that might have distinctions. Recall the idea that "eskimos have 27 words to describe snow" for instance. We would also have to adopt the various structures of different languages that lend themselves to our task of flawless precision. For instance, in Spanish one can easily convert an adjective to a noun. "Gordo", or "fat", easily becomes "un gordo", or, "a fat person", or, more specifically due to word-gender, "a fat man."
The idea here is to create an amalgam language that reflects the entirety of human precision, so that any thought is immediately renderable into word or words without any loss of accuracy. The smells I described above, for instance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I am very curious to see how this precision can be reasonably and legitimately pursued. I am more willing to accept a lack of 100% precision in human language as an inherent feature of any language. Even scientific terms suffer from incommensurability, due to the incommensurability of the theories these terms pertain to.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The second "option" runs in the counter direction, wherein a Vulcanesque "mind-meld" allows the direct transference of thought independent of language. A free-flowing thought transferred from one mind to another without having to undergo compartmentalisation for deciphering by the recieving party.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This sci-fi vision, though fascinating, implies the abolition of the matter-mind distinction, in favor of the latter. I wonder how a signal can be conveyed from the transmitter to the receiver without encoding this signal in a material form.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>So to answer the question, yes, any feasible change from this current state would still create a prison.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
My favorite refrain: What freedom this prison abolishes? Why should this prison imprison us in sadness or anxiety?

------------------
UlTm8 BOARDOM

**Pogue Mahone** · March 17th, 2002, 02:12 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by doodoo:
What annoys me here is the use of the word "prison". It certainly cannot mean a barrier, since it does not explain what freedom this prison abolishes.

Perhaps I'm inferring it from the direction of the discussion and neglected to say it outright- the "prison" quite naturally enough prevents free discourse.

[quote]This is more like the principle of creating dictionaries; it has nothing to do with conveying certain connotations which can be effectively conveyed by single verbal images. Lucifer Sam is not Sylvester, while both are cats.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Effective" communication, easily achieved, is not at issue here. Rather, we're discussing the impediment of language on communication.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I am very curious to see how this precision can be reasonably and legitimately pursued. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It can't. Not currently, at any rate.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I am more willing to accept a lack of 100% precision in human language as an inherent feature of any language. Even scientific terms suffer from incommensurability, due to the incommensurability of the theories these terms pertain to.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely correct on both points.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>This sci-fi vision, though fascinating, implies the abolition of the matter-mind distinction, in favor of the latter. I wonder how a signal can be conveyed from the transmitter to the receiver without encoding this signal in a material form.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Facinating?" Very punny. Although the technology is naturally enough the stuff of science fiction, I don't see encoding/transmitting anywhere near as distortive as verbal communication. It's the difference between singing "Piccadilly Palare" yourself and playing the Bona Drag CD.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>My favorite refrain: What freedom this prison abolishes? Why should this prison imprison us in sadness or anxiety?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You seem in search of a value judgment here, friend, and I do not know why. The distortion inherent in verbal transference of thought is cause for neither sadness nor anxiety. It simply is, and it is fruitless to fret about it.

------------------
There's a lesson in life to adopt and interpret
It applies to all people, regardless their race
Oh don't put your trust, or your faith in the person
If sometimes they seem to have more than one face...

**doodoo** · March 17th, 2002, 08:23 AM

I used to declare that language is only a symptom of lack of (an ideal form of) communication, or (if you prefer) a compensation for the lack of such communication. You are with me on this one, I guess.
I realized the fault in my reasoning when I tried to see how it applies from the perspective of the agents of communication, rather than the system's perspective. And there I had to admit (erroneously) that an ideal form of communication, a non-verbal one, demands the abolition of matter in favour of the non-material elements, of whose existence I am not an advocate.

------------------
UlTm8 BOARDOM

**SHATOUSHKA** · March 17th, 2002, 09:11 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The distortion inherent in verbal transference of thought is cause for neither sadness nor anxiety. It simply is, and it is fruitless to fret about it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hmmm.... that's what i was saying.
(but, of course, i say that about everything.)

i'm wondering the tangent, i mean topic of x.

is it:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Language is the vehicle by which we communicate thought. And in order to effectively communicate these thoughts to another, we must have a set standard for communication.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
or..
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> It simply is<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

don't get me wrong here, i am not going into
one of those IS tangents.

but i am curious of one thing (currently)...

i agree with doodoo (et al.) about language
desperately lacking in compensation for
thought...
but then i'm left thinking about IS.
currently i see no transcendence from IS,
in that all state of being IS.
but being an arrogant human, i am pondering
the IS NOT.

i am strictly referring to first person here.
(if that can be achieved objectively--still
pondering on that)

what IS what it IS NOT?

(sometimes i think paddy should shut me up
BEFORE i get started)
...useless ramblings...

------------------
~~share some greased tea with me~~
General Philosophy
Discuss This...
The Acropolis