-
again, taken from captian janks's post in Writing Degree Zero:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>One of my favorite naturalists, as I substitute "naturalist" for "philosopher", was/is Loren Eiseley.
Eiseley says...
"'A name is a prison, God is free', once observed the Greek poet Nikos Kazantzakis. He meant, I think, that valuable though language is to man, it is by very necessity limiting, and creates for man an invisible prison. Language implies boundaries. A word spoken creates a dog, a rabbit, a man. It fixes their nature before our eyes; henceforth their shapes are, in a sense, our own creation. They are no longer part of the unnamed shifting architecture of the universe..."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
if 'naming' or 'language' establishes a prison...
a prison from what?
wouldn't any form of being create a prison
segregating the being from some 'other' ?
------------------
~~share some greased tea with me~~
General Philosophy
Discuss This...
The Acropolis
-
First off, props to you. I was beginning to believe I was rapping witha bunch of four-flushers...
I cited Eiseley's opinion of the quote b/c I thought it was cool.
I believe language is a prison because a word creates individual images to each of us based upon our experiences with a specific word.
For example, When you call or label yourself a "cheesehead", an image,( based upon my knowledge of the word), of a pushing 2 bills Wisconsin native with a silly hat freezing on the sidelines of a football game, pops into my head.
I do not believe that is the image you wished to convey, thus the confinement or prison of language...
------------------
-
so you mean we are bound to 'simple' images, things we already know to convey the abstract and more 'complex' ideas we have in our heads?
(on a side note, something i launched here without much succes, do you think language can actually sculpt the way you think?)
------------------
Sure the universe is a great place, but if it wasn't here, no-one would miss it.
-
I'm with Janks here. While I wouldn't go so far as to call language a "prison," it does exert a limiting influence on thought.
I believe it was argued in the book The Cheese and the Worms, wherein the heretical cosmology of a rustic man in medieval times (could be wrong, been awhile) is discussed, that atheism was virtually impossible. Or rather, inconcievable, on a general scale, because there was no word for it, and thus, no concept. Words to describe such a holding did not evolve into the language until later.
Take 1984 as an example, and an outstanding one at that. The goal of newspeak was to simplify language as much as possible, and thereby simplify the speaker. Instead of the countless ways be can describe something as bad, and the blessed shades of meaning between each one, newspeakers were limited to building-block modular vocabularies such as "double-plus ungood."
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. And it stands to reason that thoughts that have no means of being encapsulated in language are more difficult to concieve.
I've often become quite frustrated trying to put thoughts into words when there isn't a ready fit. Smells are a frequent culprit- I find describing them near impossible. As a result, I spend little time contemplating them. The inability to verbalise- even in my own mind- discourages me from consideration. If that's not the guidance of language, I don't know what is.
------------------
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...
-
the fact that language imprisons us all is
not an epiphany. (ok, i'm strictly speaking
to some people.)
we can all agree that language creates barriers, formalities, taboos...
some sort of difficulty is experienced in
language.
yeah???
perhaps i am (as consistantly stated, agreed
and proven) too damned cynical...
as with pogue's example in scent, it seems
the main purpose of language is to represent
an experience that 'once was' in order to
convey 'likeness' in a present situation.
lets face it, it sucks.
without going into premature detail, i'd also
add that some minute significance of language
binds us to that cavalier attitude of
'all things are one' type of romantic and
hokey shit.
(i already regret avoiding detail.)
but that is another tangent entirely.
so...
my question still remains, despite the 'facts',
wouldn't any change from this current state
STILL create a prison?
or are we just sitting around pondering 'what ifs'?
------------------
~~share some greased tea with me~~
General Philosophy
Discuss This...
The Acropolis
-
I'm kinda disappointed with this forum. It's no wonder Sweet Pea has chosen not to include you guys on their new board.
The only philosophy I've read here is by that nimrod Jungle Clone brother in smack, Pogue Mahone. I bet he's even read Burmese (sp.?) Days.
Come on. I want to save you people from yerselves. I want Sweet Pea to allow you guys to join us on the new board bandwidth. Help us out. Talk Turkey!
------------------
-
I absolutely believe one's language influences thought. I've studied Spanish, but could never imagine thinking in Spanish as the Spanish vocabulary is nominal/limiting.
Esta' Bien means:
It's ok
He's ok
She's ok
Whatever
Allright
Okay?
I agree
and a lot more English phrases.
My opinion is that it is difficult to follow conversations in one's native language, much less attempting to translate one language to another.
As far as your point about translating complex and abstract thoughts to language... I dunno.. I've never had a complex or abstract thought.
------------------
-
I talk turkey....i also talk a bit of danish, and german, spanish, and a bit of french even!!!
Interestingly enough, I find German language to be very precise.
------------------
As miserable as life may be I hold it pretty precious...
If I lose the light of the sun, I will write by candlelight, moonlight, no light. If I lose paper and ink, I wil write in blood on forgotten walls. I will write always, I will capture nights all over the world and bring them to you.
Word And Voice
Motocross Fanatics
General Philosophy
-
speaking of "romantic and hokey" stuff
www.emptydreams.net
de nada
------------------
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Captain Janks:
speaking of "romantic and hokey" stuff
www.emptydreams.net
de nada
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Didn't take you to be such a softie, Janks. Don't worry, your secret's safe with me. I won't tell the others and ruin that "tough guy" image you've been trying so hard to construct.
------------------
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...
-
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).]
-
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. http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif
and as for the 'sweat pea' remark,
well, again... http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif
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
-
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
http://www.defendersofanimals.org/cat.jpg
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...
-
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
-
thanks for answering my question, pogue.
must think now.
------------------
~~share some greased tea with me~~
General Philosophy
Discuss This...
The Acropolis
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><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><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><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><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><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><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><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><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><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><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><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
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><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><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><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><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><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><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><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><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><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...
-
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
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><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><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><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><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><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
-
btw...
that question wasn't posed as some
silly proverb...
so i wouldn't expect a cliche in return. http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/wink.gif
------------------
~~share some greased tea with me~~
General Philosophy
Discuss This...
The Acropolis
-
Ganga! Ganga!
------------------
