The Embodied Origin of Language

I am certain that 'I am' before the thought of the process of being.
I am also uncertain that thinking of the talking (or 'writing' or 'wording'), for Being (concrete to the Whole) as per the knowledge, that it was as such and such expressed thoughtfully.
I just wished to awe that you were decidedly convinced of yourself for such certainty for the WORDS EXPRESSED.

U....ha; maybe Gustav Flaubert wasn't.iggy:

 

I had never heard of Flaubert until this discussion. I can assure you that I have no more wish to be deceived than anyone else. Do I fall down, yes I do. Do I have legs to stand on. Yes I have those as well. The only truth we ever recognize must meet our own approval, short of that we have only contention.
How long must one leave his hand in the fire before he recognizes his hand is burning. Or what are we to make of Thoreau and his finding a trout in his milk.
Language is for communication. Words are not dogmatic, they are symbolic.

 

Words are the unity of meaning which transcend symbols, but are determined in context, for the things of the world, and things are reduced from out of context; and on the theoretical plain we have words for that too. All of a sudden theory may have it that a phrase of words was a SYMBOL. But can anyone realize a symbol like a magic trick out of a hat.

What is the point? Maybe language was without words until a theory came around (YES!, because of Practice). Or structurally for the design the words constructed our imagination to the symbolic ritual of commitment to the community.

Levi-strauss died today. The end; too bad be nod... done. The moment doe

 

The point is that we have a goose that lays a golden egg. First to recognize that and then learn what it takes to nurture it to maturity.

 

First, we can and do intone the material, however incantationis not the same as intonation. Incantation only produces temporary trance states, it reverberates it does not resonate.

 

I depend on statuesque imagination. But, no thanks, I'm tired of this guilt complex.:cheers2:

 

So here is delineated the nature of struggle.

Currently civilization is dialed to the AM bandwidths, the loudest voice. Humanity is shouted down by hook and by crook.

Crave, Conquer, and Contain.
Shock jock radio, advertising, merchandising, frequently susceptible to static and disruption. Loud mouths and pitiful pleas the producers of superior and inferior products who's overall composition is called guilt.
Drama as presented by Jerry Springer and Glen Beck.

This need no be. We may choose Frequency Modulation, tone down, tune in, turn on.

Recapitulate, Refine, Recognize.
High fidelity stereophonic sound, the music of the spheres.
Penetrating, harmonizing, and informing.
Drama as presented by Jesus and Gandhi.

 

Resonance is large oscillation.

 

I think you have the God uncomprehended in this section. The attitude of Unfaith shall get you everything and the Salt of God washed away from the whole reappearance of His re-creation, the World in words decypherable which means only thought to be understood alchemically.

Is there a better definition, strict and rigorous for alchemistry?: the appearance of contingent condition without necessity FOR temporal sequences of universal substantiality.:deadxmas:

 

Language is for communication.
Not dead only sleeping.

 

Nope, language is ideal consciousness at best; just a part of the media when non-ideally realized.

 

I did not say what language was, I said what it is for.

 

A...haaah. Purpose only exists for the whole universe. We are small non-identifiable elements FOR that. Maybe it is only an illusion too.

 

Reality is non local nor remote. The illusion is that perception is knowledge, We are all very real.

 

Wonderful discussion. I don't feel I have any of my own thoughts to contribute yet, the realm of linguistics especially as it crosses into the metaphysical is one of the last frontiers of what I personally believe to be the deep philosophy.

Dope, are you familiar with Wittgenstein, his Tractus? A short book starting with a minimal axiom and ending with the logical scaffolding of reality, at least in one sense. It's written as a series of progressively more complex conclusions arrived at deductively. The last line is the most high definition, abstract, and concrete; "What we cannot speak about, we must pass over in silence".

How would you relate your position in this thread with the nature of silence, from the angle of, shall we say, the buddhic state or experience. My insightful and perceptive friend, one of his first ego-annulled experiences left him with just this profound drive, he wishes forever afterwards to "scream the virtues of silence!".

 

I was not. Just brushed up a bit. Self evident statements of fact have been a reliable companion to me for a while. All of these statements have emerged from the silence which accommodates all expression. Silence contains every dialect. Silent in no way implies secret. I know that many of my insights have come from meditative states beyond all representation of form and arrive particularly as whole yet compressed statements of axiomatic principles.
I would amend his last line that what we cannot speak of we can communicate in silence. The body is not a limit on our ability to emerge but is a communication device that allows us to interface at a specific frequency.

 

I like your alteration. He comes from the western tradition, where they don't believe in body language

 

I would also say that there is as much information in what is not said as there is in what is said. Our symphonies are attended by cadence, rhythm, pulse, or emphasis.

 

But the truth is attended by the Untruth, and what is empty of the 'EVOKING' can never be compensated by the merely invoking of the nothing in the Fact that we were born into the World unconsciously of the amazing expression It had in store. What it was in Nature was always less than we could appreciate for the Creator at Us.

 

I am not charmed by the dualistic expression. It is managed by self deceit. There is no opposing will.