Posts Tagged ‘meaning’

On the meaning of a communication (like “my consciousness is changing the physics of that electron.”)

June 29, 2014
Harry L. wrote:“Dunno where you stand on the idea that consciousness, or conscious-attention/focus, affects quantum physical phenomena, and perhaps possibly such tiny things as electrons [like the transfer of electrons through a wire grounded to the earth].

I wouldn’t know though, i’ve just been exposed to the idea. I tend to think what i think you mean by physics sort of does its thing anyway.. (and perhaps (the perception of) physics and consciousness cause eachother, or one causes the other, i dunno).

Anyway, maybe consciousness of the process would be helpful, or maybe it doesn’t really matter? [We were talking about when walking around with bare feeet in sand, does paying attention to the possible flow of electrons between the feet and the earth make a difference?]

What have you found, or what do you think? – do you suppose it would be more effective to do it with a focus on it happening, or is that a myth, you think, and it doesn’t really matter either way?

Also, I see how my reasoning of the physics/consciousness thing may be flawed. They may actually be aspects of the same ”phenomenon”, i suppose. Thought wanders. Hehe. Later, and thank you for your attention.
a few seconds ago
Bare feet in sand “fully counts” as grounding.
Grounding does not require attention.
Consciousness and the perception of personal will are EFFECTS that come and go.
While sleeping, there is no sense of a conscious choice to breath and grow hair or grow nails. God just “grows us” whether we notice or not.
Physics is a set of human approximations, including observations and predictions about how energy transforms in to the form of energy known as matter (such as protons and electrons) and back.
In the human mode of relating to experience as hell, “I did this” is required.
“It is MY fault.”
“It is THEIR fault.”
In the human mode of organizing experience as heaven, the audience observes the performance of Acts of God.

Also, on a side note.. My partner likes to say  ”all words are meaningless!” as of late, which seems so recognizably ironic. ”Hi, here’s a bunch of words, saying that all words are meaningless!.” Mkay then. I try to.. clear up communication – really would like to convey what I actually mean, and hear what actually being meant. Clear communication. It just seems so hard to interpret the intended meaning.. or to convey the intended meaning.. and then i guess it’s also not really going to happen with someone that doesn’t want to…. sigh.

J R wrote:

re “Clear communication. It just seems to hard to interpret / convey the intended meaning.”
It is very hard to have a conversation with a rock or a dog.
On the other hand, nothing could be as easy as having a conversation with a rock or a dog.
In human interaction, the ultimate “meaning” of communication may be the result produced.
When selling a car, either I publish an ad to sell it or not. Either I tell others that I am selling it or not. Either someone makes an offer or not, etc….
The only fundamental “meaning” of an interaction is the result of the interaction.
“God is watching all of this, from the agonizing to the foolish humans finally getting the joke.”
If one is experienceing frustration such as in their relationship, that is one possible effect or result.
 Another even simpler variation on the “abiding” idea: “The Lord is here.”



Is life “meaningless?” What would that mean anyway?

June 20, 2014

Only in language are there extremes or polar opposites. Duality in direct experience does not exist becuase IT IS WHAT IT IS, RIGHT?

Unless perception brings with it a filter of perspective, which is language based, there cannot be two or more meanings to the experience. Only with language, or in comparison with langauge, can multiple meanings occur… be it with expression or viewing(perceiving) through a lens or mask of a persona.

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn In reply to your comments, linguistic interpretations require language. Linguistic meanings require language. Was there some other kind of interpretation or meaning that you were imagining to exist outside of language?
    15 mins · Like · 1
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn As for polarity, we can assert that there are physical qualities of a bright light (like the sun at noon) as distinct from a faint light or a totally dark room. The fantasy is that DUALity exists outside of language.Only in language can the full spectrum of reality be divided in to discrete and isolated groupings like “either true or false but nothing in between.” The reality is that the linguistic idea of duality, while convenient, is quite absurd.

    I can say that there are only two categories of color, or only 6 or only 24. All of that is totally absurd.

    Color, however, is not absurd. It is the hysterical worship of language that is absurd.Language is amazing. Without language, there would be no such thing as the hysterical worship of idolatry. There would be no absurdity or nonsense or gibberish. Only in language do those things arise.

    8 mins · Like · 1
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Take the statement “life is meaningless.” That is imprecise.There is no inherent interpretation for life itself or for any development in life. Interpretation is not inherent. Interpretation is interpretive.

    Life has no particular, exclusive meaning. Every meaning that exists is one meaning of life.

    The idea that life has only one meaning is not just absurd, but hysterical, delirious, nonsense. The only thing dumber than that is the idea that there is no meaning whatsoevertolife- that all meanings are meaningless.

    Meanings are just meanings. Life includes multiple meanings. So what?

    2 mins · Like · 1

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn “So what?!?! So that is a HUGE problem!” – worshiper of a huge problem
    2 mins · Like · 1
  • Daniel Fritschler Haha you go man….do the worm or be the man in the box…BREAK it down

    Just now · Unlike · 1

    • Daniel Fritschler There would be no duality without language because all colors or shades can only be separated by the language or labels that define them….sunrise and sunset all one thing without different labels to define it….huh?
    • Daniel Fritschler Yes meaning is the birth and eventual death of itself.
      1 min · Edited · Like
    • Daniel Fritschler On and on it goes….
      1 min · Unlike · 1
    • J R Fibonacci Hunn Sunrise and sunset are not isolated identities. They are distinct “polar opposites” of contrasting quality.

  • Daniel Fritschler But without language they would be directly experienced only as in not dual experiences also not labeled differently….follow along should I slow down?
    4 mins · Edited · Like
  • Daniel Fritschler By the way isn’t it amazing how the sunrise and sunset labels are bullshit…as if the earth is just perfectly still….where do morons exist? All over
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Duality is not an experience. It isjustatypeoflingustic framework.Language approximates experience/ sensation. Language gives meaning and interpretation to life. Life brings meaning and interpretation through language.

    • Daniel Fritschler This is why language is the devil who wants or needs meaning and interpretation anyways? Give me the experience any day free and clear of all the nonsense…I want to be a cave man.
    • Daniel Fritschler I enjoy being a dog or an infant. Fuck all the nonsense of interpretation and meaning… is all constantly shifting and therefore MEANINGLESS but for a moment in so called time
      1 min · Like
    • J R Fibonacci Hunn Meaning is added. So what?”Nonsense” is also just an added meaning.
      • Daniel Fritschler I guess so what nothing….other than what isn’t realized is meaning pissed all over the actual joy of the experience…it disrespects it constantly….such is the nature of meaning…..”Oh my experience is better than yours because it has MEANING” bahaha. Whatever that means as most try to one up the other…how about just experiencing dumbasses
        1 min · Like
      • J R Fibonacci Hunn Yes, I agree completely. All of those other people who use language are suchlinguisticators!If only they would stop interpreting with language in ways that are slightly or greatly distinct from how I am using language, then… then… everything would be… then… uh… you are not just a pest, but an ^annoying^ pest!
        • Daniel Fritschler Yes…if they would only learn the CORRECT way to interpret then and only then the Kingdom Of Metaphorical Heaven would be upon us…but now because of them I burn in hell for eternity…those bastards…..

          J R Fibonacci Hunn Of course, dualistic language is also relevant in many cases. In nature, we can talk about the absence of presence of something, like a particular sexual organ.There can be either/orpolarities like male or female. However, we still; might find occasional hermaphrodites. (Or, in some species, there seems to be an actual complete sex change possible during the life cycle of an organism).Ultimately, the issue may be that there are two basic category of creature: fertile organisms capable of becoming pregnant… and “everyone else.” Next, we can differentiate between those immature females who are expected to BECOME fertile adults capable of bearing children.In regard to bees or ants, we can say that there is the Queen and then “the rest.” Anyone who is bearing offspring can be considered “worthy of special favoritism or protections / restrictions.” In insects, a particular organism is fed the royal jelly and that diet creates a radically different body than the genetic twin sisters who are fed the much less nutrititous diet and become infertile, barrren “drones.”

the functional spectrum of meaningful vs meaningless

January 1, 2014

  • There is no inherent meaning to anything which can make it hard to respect the meaning that most make up. There is no meaning of life until one is made up which doesn’t really effect what happens but only really alters the subjectivity of an author. Is that fool’s gold or is an objective approach the way of Satan? What is better than making sense? How about not making any sense ey?
    • You, Harry Lieberwirth and Hayley Hewland like this.
    • Harry Lieberwirth So uh, in assessment; ”what is the meaning of perceiving no inherent meaning?”Good one. xD
    • Daniel Fritschler Haha…thank you JR has inspired me to write as many things that don’t make sense as possible…this my friend is just the tip of the iceberg. ..and if you don’t think I can make it even more absurd just keep watching  . The only thing I want to do anymore is be absurd…I am a sick man and I need a minister to administer some helpful medicine.
      23 hours ago via mobile · Edited · Like · 1
    • J R Fibonacci Hunn The meaning of something- for you- is how you relate to it, how you label it, how you interpret it, how you describe it. If I ever said that the meaning of a communication is the RESULT produced or the BEHAVIOR produced in others (not just their experience), that is also a FUNCTIONAL approach.By functional approach, I mean studying something with an interest in how it functions, how it IS functional, how it COULD BE functional, and so on. People may debate these issues, but if they are arguing, that may not be what I am calling a “functionalist approach.”This approach is actually the normal spontaneous result of curiosity, but extreme efforts may be used to distract people from practicing a functionalist approach, such as by drilling them with social paranoia and idealism. So, instead of focusing on health, they may be pre-occupied with “fighting” a diagnostic label that some high priests say is possessing them.
    • Daniel Fritschler Yes absurdities are very functional in a world related to by many as making sense and being all label conscious. Sometimes you disappoint me when you try to get all functional as if that is really necessary or wanted…..functional could never be absurd just as absurdities could never be functional….grow up sensei you are stuck in “fighting” diagnostic labels with the rigor of a high priest wtf?
      23 hours ago via mobile · Edited · Like
    • Daniel Fritschler My options are that I can live a boring and miserable functional life of pretense or I can live a random and fun filled trivial life….which will it be Neo?
    • Daniel Fritschler Let’s face it functional implies the use of pretense….you can’t have one without the other.
      22 hours ago via mobile · Edited · Like
    • Daniel Fritschler Pre tension is the idea of what present tense? Haha absurd or what?
    • Jahnation Freedman Robert LeeWhen I let go of pretense, the words joy and peace take on real meaning.
      22 hours ago · Like · 1
    • Harry Lieberwirth And when neither subjective demands or preferences (like peace, joy, or social dominance for that matter) nor the condition of ”there can only be peace/happiness/joy if… X/Y” are a must (or are seen alike to the demands of a fictional character), ironically, there seems to appear a sense of peace regardless of the sensation, emotion, or desire.. a sort of relaxing into it. Suppose ”trust” could be another word. Like watching a thunderstorm or trees wave in the wind quite contentedly, either way.
      21 hours ago · Like · 1
    • J R Fibonacci Hunn Daniel, you made a “false” either/or “bind.” Here is an example of a functional approach.David (from Rage-Debate) says “low pH causes cancer.” That is fine, but I say “so what?”I know how to alter the pH of cells so that they stop producing the effect(s) called cancer. I can be naturally curious about “what is pH” and “what is cancer?”By not getting caught up in the labels or the conventional models of how people use the labels, I have power. I now that pH is an effect and that cancer is an effect of that effect.

      People who relate to cancer as a cause (or to pH as a cause) may have a paranoid panic of trying to fight “nature.” They are not using language from a functional perspective.

      21 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1
    • J R Fibonacci Hunn pH is not a “something” that can “possess” someone. It is a scale of measurement.To say “your temperature is high, which is causing your fever,” is the paradigm of nonsense used by people who say things like “cancer is causing a tumor to grow.” The cellular balance of electrons to protons, which can be measured on the pH (“potential Hydrogen”) scale, inhibits the normal functioning of the mitochondria and leads to a cessation of aerobic metabolism and a growth of tumors, which can then be labeled “cancer.” In other words, cancer is also a diagnostic “measurement.”Billions of dollars can be spent to look for ways to profit off of this language system of nonsense and anti-functionality. That is no great concern to me (because I am neither a loyalist to the mainstream medical myths nor an investor in the commercial business of symptom management and pharmaceutical addictions).Even if I had any concerns like those, my higher priority would still be to influence my own pH levels to promote my optimal functionality. In doing that, of course the effect of cancer would discontinue.

      Cancer is just a cellular behavior. If I stop creating that behavior in the cells, then that behavior stops.

      21 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1
    • J R Fibonacci Hunn Here is the original exchange between David, myself, and Mark Dey (whose wife is Angie/”Ang”):

      So ang is gonna try the paleo diet out in the new year. I figure the easiest way…See More
    • J R Fibonacci Hunn So, in language, we can form absurd constructions, like “I would have more hair if it just was not for this baldness slowly creeping back on my forehead.” I occasionally play in the absurdity. However, this is to point out the prevalence of the absurdity to those who are ripe.The fact that we can use language to say “hi, how was your Christmas?” is MIRACULOUS. People who also speak English well and are not deaf can UNDERSTAND that strange sequence of sounds (or read these shapes on this screen). This is fucking amazing.So, if we start with this pattern that I label “respect” and then we “respect language,” of course we encounter a ton of mainstream absurdity and BS and idealism and paranoia and idolatry. However, that is not the point. Respect does not end because we begin to observe the variations of contrasting “disrespect.”That is the sin of the ignorant, the heathen, the goy/goyim, the gentile. Just because lots of them say that they follow Jesus or Isaiah is irrelevant. They are totally ignorant of what sin REALLY is.

      It’s not their fault. It is simply an observable distinction. Whether we use any labels about these distinctions, you notice the very different energy or “spirit” of people. You can tell easily who “reeks” of fear.

      Then there is a stage of mocking disrespect, which can be fun. Again, that is not the endpoint either.

      But if you can’t respect language, then you cannot mock disrespect (disrespectful language). If you cannot mock disrespect, then you are not ready for the next stage. You can, [Daniel], so you are.

      21 hours ago · Edited · Like · 2
    • Harry Lieberwirth The label respect could be interchanged with what i previously labeled trust or peace. Due to this sense, whether labeled respect, trust, or peace, it seems there is no longer a certain emotionally-attached predisposition towards perception (”something should/should not be a certain way/exist”).. the sense of perpetual frustration is then also absent. Could throw parables or allegory around trying to describe this sense, but if these descriptions are sounding absurd, doubt that would clear much up. If they do not, peace out yo
      21 hours ago · Like · 1
    • J R Fibonacci Hunn Sin is a frightened spirit of contentiousness, a neurochemical panic, a state of distress, the fight/flight response of the “sympathetic nervous system.” If you can witness this distinction, then you can notice it occasionally in your own history.
      Respect it. Notice the trauma/drama in action.It has value. However, there is something else that you might value even more.Mocking it is a function of creating clarity about it and withdrawing repulsion. Instead of saying “I hate the sympathetic nervous system and it’s functions,” with sincere hatred being ironically “sympathetic,” I say “man, this system seems pretty nervous. I think it might be some kind of a nervous system.”

      In that case, the absurdity is SO naked that anyone can see it. Some will think “that statement is stupid. Is that an insult against me? A threat? Why is Daniel laughing at that? I’m jealous!” That is exactly what they should think- and the repulsion or attraction that they should feel.

      21 hours ago · Edited · Like · 2
    • J R Fibonacci Hunn Harry, I am using respect as a verb. (And I recognize that trust, which you mentioned, could fit here too.) I am also setting up analogies that when a brain has available electrons and is PROGRAMMED through language to use them efficiently, then panic subsides *relatively* quickly.It is not that panic or agonizing or sin should not be. It is not that “you should practice respect.” It is that you either do or that you do not.”No try there is.” – Yo, duh!
      21 hours ago · Edited · Like · 2
    • J R Fibonacci Hunn Once it is experienced what “sobriety” is, then one can have a little to drink or none at all. However, the panic of urgency to “drown” the shame will subside as the shame relaxes and self-respect develops.The Jedi novice first learns the consequences of the “typical” habits. Then, an interest in cultivating CHI (available electrons) may arise. Then, methods of cultivating it can be explored, as well as a recognition of activities that waste “precious energy.” An interest in the de-programming of crippling mainstream habits may arise as well (one of my recent favorite past-times).The one who has immense reserves of Chi can do things that are “wasteful” (exhausting/crippling) for the novice- or simply impossible. If the novice is attracted to cultivating an abundance of Chi, then certain patterns of activity follow.
      20 hours ago · Edited · Like · 2
    • Harry Lieberwirth Not sure if you meant to imply you thought i implied ”should practice respect” (?), but i meant that in what i perceive as respect, the persistence of the feeling ”something should/should not be that way or appear to exist” is noticed as absent.. not that emotions, fear, etc, are absent in and of themselves, just an absence of a condemning pre-disposition (pre-judging? lol.) That is to say in the sense that i use respect, the sense of ”should” and ”should not” don’t play a prominent role, or none at all. Not too familiar with the biology, chemistry or neuroscientific sides, can only describe feelings and recollections of experience.. but yes, it seems to make sense that certain behaviours become hardwired, so to say.Have made no study of in how far this can be affected through physical aids (particular diets, drugs, herbs, etc), though it seemed to have coincided with some advaitic, buddhist, and taoist practices. That’s not to say i have the opinion that aids are useless, wouldn’t know, and it seems to make sense that certain compounds in food can can effect chemistry in relatively harmful ways, like poisons, or affect it in relatively beneficial ways, though i don’t know of an example for that. Did read some of the articles on wheat and paleo diet that you shared and they seemed sensible.. but ultimately it seems like either not enough of it is eaten in general to inspire the bouts of extreme emotional conflict, paranoia, etc, or perhaps the effect or intensity thereof varies from body to body.. like allergy?
    • J R Fibonacci Hunn Yes, behaviors do “entrench” neural pathways. That is why the confusion stage is so important- a breaking down of prior entrenchments.
      20 hours ago · Like · 2
    • J R Fibonacci Hunn One who respects language will notice “you should be quiet in the library” as exactly what it is. We can say things like that or not. The primary difference is in the mindfulness. I can use the same language patterns of a “regular person” and I may use them with distress, with mindful mockery, or with mindful “sincerity” (like to get the students in my class to be quiet in the library- whether through terror or distraction, etc).
      20 hours ago · Edited · Like · 2
    • J R Fibonacci Hunn “I want to congratulate you, class, for how quiet and respectful you are. When we go to the library later today, I am going to be very proud of you for following the rule to speak only very quietly while in the library. I appreciate and value each of you very much. You are such a GOOD class!”
      20 hours ago · Like · 1
    • J R Fibonacci Hunn That is just mindful programming. If 60% of the children understand English, that may be enough to sway the entire group, because a class of children function as a herd. They pick up cues from each other. If the “leaders” of the class are enrolled in policing the rest of the class, then the teacher is successful in their manipulation.Even if the manipulation is only partly successful, that is still effectiveness.
      20 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1

      • Today
      • Harry Lieberwirth
        Harry Lieberwirth

        ‘Sin is a frightened spirit of contentiousness, a neurochemical panic, a state of distress, the fight/flight response of the “sympathetic nervous system.” If you can witness this distinction, then you can notice it occasionally in your own history.”

        Thank you. Its funny.. some interpretation might see this as saying that state is ”bad”, because ”sin” is often considered a ”bad thing”. Ie, interpret it as an accusation (which is in the spirit of ”sin” in the bible, i hear). But what i read is that you’re simply pointing out, that you perceive that that which in scripture is referred to as ”sin”, is a neurological effect, or a perceivable phenomenal event. I just noticed how if the assumption that ”sin should not exist by definition” is there, and there is an emotional charge or neurochemical panic (”sin”), then the word ”sin” is somehow a huge trigger. or ”A sinner cannot stand to hear the word ‘sin’.” Just seems.. strangely, poetically funny.

        Monty Python's The Meaning of Life (album)

        Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life (album) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

      • J R Fibonacci Hunn
        J R Fibonacci Hunn

        Right, the “trigger” is perceived as THREATENING accusation. If you accuse me of violating a traffic regulation and you are not a cop, I will probably ignore your accusation.

        Other related words are shame or terror.

      • J R Fibonacci Hunn
        J R Fibonacci Hunn

        As well as something as simple as “tension” or “rigidity” or “fixation” or “compulsion.” If I say “you are bad” and there is a reflexive sense of being threatened, that is the “behavior” of insecurity .

        Monty Python's The Meaning of Life (video game)

        Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life (video game) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

why I do not believe in the existence of atheists

March 29, 2012

Below is a dialogue between myself and Mark Newbrook, “resident” Linguist of Skeptical Humanities (as of a few weeks ago):

Major levels of linguistic structure

Major levels of linguistic structure (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This dialogue emerged from my recent post linked below, with Mark’s original comment (not interspersed with my reply) posted at this link:

…It is claimed here that language means nothing and never will mean anything.
It is claimed where? Let’s imagine that someone did claim exactly what you stated. Wouldn’t it be self-evident as nonsense and thus inspire no further comment?
Given my deep appreciation for parody, let’s imagine that I may have said “language does not mean anything.” If I were to say something so obviously absurd, such as “this sentence is not an instance of language,” that might only be for the “philosophical” point of playfully demonstrating the absurdity of the issue.
Of course language has meaning. For instance, one obvious definition would be that language means “symbolic codes for directing the attention and behavior of other humans.”
However, what I may have written (and I also reserve the right to make innocent typographical mistakes), is that no particular symbolic code has any particular meaning. The same word can denote a few very different things or a multitude of not very related things, and that is just denotation- not even connotation.
The mere fact that there is such a thing as connotation (as well as “secret codes”) points to the fundamental reality of language: the meaning is not in the words themselves. The meaning is in the social context in which the words arise- not just in the context of syntax, but of non-linguistic social “cues.”
From sounds, language arises. However, the mere fact that it is possible NOT to be fluent in a particular language is prima facie evidence that the language itself inherently means nothing. Only in a particular social context can language arise, and the social context DEFINES the meaning of the language.
What do these shapes on this screen “mean” to my cat or my infant? Nothing at all.
What do these shapes on this screen “mean” to you? Something very specific!
Language is amazing. In fact, it is so amazing that I titled this video that:
Now, is this supposed to be news to linguists or anyone else? Of course not. It is self-evident. Everyone knows from direct experience that language is amazing and that social contexts define the meaning of language, like “I love you” can be spoken with several different tones that all communicate different WAYS OF RELATING, such as the soothing “oh, sweetie, I love you” and the apologetic “Really, I love you” and the defensive “hey, I love you, alright?” and the longing, manipulative “but, but…. I love you!”
Actually, it is all manipulative. Language is manipulating. That is what it is for- at least in the broad sense of manipulating as influencing or re-organziing.
So, I state the obvious not to inform you of something new, but to establish a particular context or way of relating.  Now, let’s explore from here together, given that what we have been doing all along is self-evidently nothing more than that.
English Language and Linguistics

English Language and Linguistics (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

  Subject to the major issues regarding how the term nothing is being used here, this viewpoint is, of course, contrary to prevailing opinion both popular and academic (the latter including both linguists and philosophers), and thus needs to be justified at this point. Indeed, it might be suggested that if language ‘means nothing’ it cannot itself be used to say anything useful.  And, while – as is proclaimed here (albeit in somewhat strange wording) – language can be seen as ‘a sequence of codes for the directing of attention’, it is generally taken as obvious that language has other functions and aspects in addition to this.
Such as? I challenge you to name one instance of language that is not directing my attention to whatever alleged instance of language you might name.
You could say that language is the moving of attention or the motion of intelligence or the activity of consciousness, but all that would be a trivial variation on the other statement. You can say that “unconscious linguistic events” do not qualify as “directing attention,” but that is limiting the verb “directing” to its transitive case only, which is not the only possible meaning.
Within language, it is accepted here that different words and letters are distinct.  (The use of the term letters seems to betray a folk-linguistic starting-point; a writer with knowledge of linguistics would instead talk here primarily of phonemes.)
…perhaps unless writing for an audience that may lack a knowledge of the formal lexicon of non-folk linguistics. Whatever, though…. Or are you unplayfully applying the standards of a academic linguistics journal to a non-academic linguistics journal internet blog entry?
  But these words and letters are all seen as variations on ‘nothing’ (this raises the above-mentioned issues regarding this term); and, while they do possess meaning (this apparently contradicts what is said earlier), this supposedly arises only ‘through perception’. Concepts are identified as ‘linguistic formations’ arising ‘out of nothing’, which is ‘the capacity for linguistic formations to simply happen by themselves’.  Like individual words and ‘letters’, each specific language is distinct, being seen as ‘a specific set of distinct, isolated formations’ – and is ‘finite’, in contrast with ‘language itself’ which is ‘infinite’; it is not clear how the terms finite and especially infinite are to be understood here.  And boundaries between languages are, again, seen as different manifestations of ‘nothing’.  I find the conceptualising obscure at this point, and it is difficult to comment helpfully.
What if all concepts are inherently obscure and only so precise? What if the spectrum ranging between precision and obscurity is one which language can never escape?
Further, returning to the issue of language as a utilitarian (or “useful”) phenomenon, what if directing attention does not require any more precision than actually “required?” What if, upon the fulfillment of whatever amount of clarity is deemed subjectively “enough,” the activity of language simply ceases?
I add here brief comments on some specific points in later sections of the material.‘One language evolves into another, with perhaps an entire family of languages being similar to each other’While essentially ‘along the right lines’, this claim apparently mixes diachronic and synchronic points and needs to be clarified.  (The term evolve is also contentious here.)
I admit that in the case in point, I was just synchronicalizing mixtures of diachronology. Okay, I might have just made up those words, but apparently you made up synchronic and diachronic first before I did because, when I see those words, I instantly recognize that they are synonyms for harmeronomic diaxophosphate, by which I mean slightly unfamilair to me.

linguistics (Photo credit: quinn.anya)

‘Languages mix and influence each other.  Languages may be called distinct, but the boundaries between them shift’Although the reference to shifting boundaries is obscurely expressed and perhaps mis-conceptualised, these general points are, of course, very familiar to linguists. 
This reminds me again of my clearly stated disclaimer at the beginning of the article: “this is written exclusively to professional full-time linguists, both of them.”
‘If the boundaries shift, then the boundaries are arbitrary. In fact, the alleged boundaries between various languages are alive, existing only through the declaration of language’This appears obscure.  There may be a good (if familiar) point in the former of these two sentences, though it needs to be much more clearly expressed; but the second sentence, as expressed, is very strange (what do alive and declaration mean here?).
Alive means changing or evolving. And that was a great question: what do these words actually MEAN?
My analogy is this: how many colors are there. Are there exactly 6 colors, as any 2 year old can tell you? Or, are there actually 24 different colors, as anyone 4 year old with the big yellow box can tell you? Or, are there any number of colors depending on however many distinct labels one chooses to categorize?
Language is categorizing. How many languages are there? 214? 32,915? That is a trivial question. Fundamentally, there is one language which is language itself.
The most famous poets of human history, such as Lao Tzu and Buddha and Abraham, have referenced the singularity of that universal meta-language by such labels as Logos, Tao, and even The Heavenly Father, through which “the world of subjective experience” is “created” by what method: speech!
Name one word that is not fundamentally just a word. Yahweh? YHWH? Jehovah?
No, those are all words, too- though those “words” are all references to something “subtler than all other concepts.” Linguists who do not comprehend “metaphysics” may be liars, insofar as metaphysics and linguistics could be two labels for the same- but wait, that simply could not be possible to have two labels or appellations or names or titles for the exact same pattern, right?
What if when ignorant translators translate some ancient Sanskrit phrase in to the English words “name and form” and then call it “Buddhist mystical metaphysics,” that is an ENTIRELY ARBITRARY way of relating to those Sanskrit terms, though of course an entirely valid way of interpreting them or labeling them or translating them or relating to them? Was the Buddha a linguist or not? Well, if the English word “linguist” had not been invented by the time of his life, then how could he have been a linguist? Maybe he is finally now a linguist, but only became a linguist within the last few sentences- not that I care, by the way- but that brings me back to the earlier question raised by our academic correspondent of what is meant by declaration: by declaration, I mean all instances of language, as in all instances of the directing of attention, including gestures or then again possibly not… 😉
Anyway, there was no such thing as a linguist until someone created the term “linguist” and then declared self-authoritatively themselves to be the apt target of such a label. “Linguist” is a totally arbitrary label like all labels of symbolic code, but many “academic” linguists may or may not pretend otherwise, even though they do not deny the self-evidence of any of it.
Before there was a linguist, there was language. Linguist is just an instance of language, as is “The Buddha” and “metaphysics” and “spiritual poetry” and “incurable diaxyphosphatitis.”
I am the author of language. Why? Because I said so.
Is it even true, though? Well, declarations in language are never exactly TRUE. They are just more or less USEFUL. Precision (aka “TRUTH”) is a spectrum invented in language and language never can get all the way to the end of a spectrum that only exists as a linguistic concept.
In other words, precision is just a relative term. In fact, because precision is just a relative term, all terms are just relative terms. Truth is just a relative term. Language is just a relative term. “Absolute” is, ironically, just a relative term.
In the ancient Hindu tradition of Advaita (“non-dualism”), the fundamental relativity of all terms of linguistic relating is relatively recognized as just one way of relating to the absolute relativity of all language, except of course for the word “joke,” which is actually not a word at all. 😉
‘Is Creole [= a particular creole language? (MN)] a language? Clearly it is entirely composed of other languages.  [Not necessarily the case. (MN)]  However, it is also not a dialect of any particular language. What is it? It is whatever it is called!’It is not clear that there is a genuine issue here regarding creoles as such.  There are relevant definitional-cum-philosophical issues at a more general level concerning the individuation of languages, the ‘language’-‘dialect’ distinction, etc.; but these are not rehearsed here.
Labelification is individuation. That was my point.
The fact is that “languages” is just a label and so is “dialects.” You can’t get away from the fact that all words are just symbolic categorical linguistic conceptualizations of individuation or division or duality. Beyond language is the non-duality called “nothing” by certain Buddhists, about which there is really not a lot that can be said, but then again, all language is an expression of that nothing and a labeling of that nothing and a directing of that nothing.
While quite contradictory, language is inherently contradictory. Or then again, maybe not. However, there either are or are not any instances of contra-diction except only in language. If language is not inherently contradictory, fine, then I take it back and contradict myself as if to demonstrate the point: language gives rise to the possibility of contradiction, not that it is at all important to point this out.
It may simply be a lot of fun. But that could be important, too, right?

‘Is there such a thing as “I” (“me”)? In many languages there is such a thing as “I” or similar concepts to the concept of “I.” However, “I” is fundamentally a concept, a construct of language, merely a thing. “I” is not itself fundamental (which is the ancient teaching called anatma).’

There, of course, are words meaning ‘I’ in all languages.  But it is not clear how significant linguistic facts of this kind might be for philosophical issues regarding the reality or otherwise of persons; as I have argued elsewhere, it is probably dangerous in a philosophical context to focus too heavily upon the ways in which ideas are expressed in specific languages – although this approach is common enough in mainstream ‘analytical’ philosophy.

What do you mean by the “reality or otherwise?” What are you talking about in reference to something besides reality?
“Person” is a real WORD. Isn’t that enough? Is it so dangerous for me to just come out and say what is self-evident? Next thing you know you are going to launch in to some obscure poetry about “nothing.” That would be very diaxyphoshate of you, sir!
 ‘Language is more fundamental than “I,” and nothing is more fundamental than language.’It is not clear what fundamental means here, or what this claim amounts to.


The same source presents  This material again deals with some linguistic issues, this time in the context of an essentially religious discussion involving claims regarding souls, sin, etc.  Linguistics, as an empirical discipline, cannot be grounded in specific theological viewpoints; and as an atheist I would prefer not to engage in this context in discussion which assumes a religious stance that I do not share.

“Religion” is just a category of language. If you deny the existence of that particular category of language, that is entirely alright with me.
As a worshiper of Santa Claus, I would just like to state for the record, your honor, that there is no such thing as mythology or poetry or humor. Also, I do not believe in atheists. There is simply no such thing, by which I mean no such word.
 However: it is undoubtedly true, as is claimed here, that it is a conceptual error to mistake a piece of language, such as a word, for the item in the non-linguistic world to which it refers.  Like the well-known picture of a pipe by Magritte, the word pipe is not itself a pipe.  Some such conceptual errors are potentially damaging.  But the further claim that ‘belief in words is the root of all malice or ill will’ is not adequately defended and appears vastly overstated.
I completely agree. I furthermore assert that the hypocritical idiot who made such a ridiculously dramatic accusation was entirely precise in an “absolute truth” kind of way. Forthwith, the diachronic subjective experiential pattern of “malice” is completely unrelated to words, which are just ways of relating, and therefore do not exist, at least not in the absolute sense of the word. I arrest my case.
More credentials of Mark:

%d bloggers like this: