The Origin of Language

I think that last thread went pretty well, so I think I'll give it a try again. What is the origin of language? What is it's purpose? Does thought determine language or the other way around? Are there some thing that, just because of the limits of our language, body, context, etc. we cannot understand? I'll post what I think after the discussion gets going a little.

 

So what you, or at least Jaynes (never heard of his to tell you the truth) is that language determines thought. I agree, and this is not a new idea. I think it goes all the way back to Herder in the late 18th century. I think that all abstraction really is is a metaphor used pragmatically for thinking about the world, not the way the world actually is. It's important to keep in mind that language is created for practical purposes, as a tool for people to deal with the world, to survive in it, and, ultimately, to control it. But the problem still remains: Where does language come from? Because if all thought is preceded by language, how does one account for the role of sense perception in language. I think that looking at Kantian or Schopenhauerian philosophy can be very helpful here. We all have an innate ability for language. Schopenhauer would call it the Will to Life (actually Schpenhauer thought language was a by-product of reason, but I think it can be explained by the Will to Life). I mentioned the Will to Life before without calling it such. The Will to Life is the primal instinct of all living things to survive and dominate their environments. Language is just a tool we use for survival. It is a priori and kicks in when we perceive empirical data, just like Kant's categories. The trouble is, it's grown into something so much more, a tool used for trying to think of how the world really is. This is a problem because when we philosophize, especially about speculative metaphysics, the meaning of language is lost. It's being used as a tool to solve a problem that that tool is unfit for solving, like using a hammer to fasten a bolt. So what does this mean for philosophy? It means we have to get away from metaphysical speculation and use langauge for it is there to do, to deal with life. We have to make philosophy practical like the existentialists tried to do.

P.S. Meagain, I always thought you'd like Schopenhauer because he's the first, and maybe the only major philosopher to bring Buddhism into Western philosophy, and he does it so well that all the kaons (or however you spell it) and other Buddhist things that Western philosophy scoffs at are absent from his philosophy. What you're left with is one of the most pessimistic but, in my opinion, one of the most common-sense philosophies there is.

That's another thing I don't get. Why are so many Buddhists optimists, or at least that's what it seems to me? Why are so many Buddhists so happy when Buddhism is one of the most pessimistic relgions I've even heard of?

 

haha, how is it pessimistic? "you can liberate yourself now, rather than later" seems pretty optimistic to me. If you mean the impermenance of things, well, that's just a fact, which at least Buddhism actually deals with and acknowldges. I'd say it's honest, not pessimistic.

As far as language goes, it's just like what animals have, but more complex. Animals have body language and make sounds to communicate things. We have taken it much further. We still use a lot of body language (it's subtle but important, at least 50%, and maybe up to 80%, of our communication is nonverbal). We have become more specialized in vocal communication, though. I agree with what you said, it's a survival mechanism, it helps keep communities together (something like 90% of talking is mere gossip, not important plans) as well as allowing us to transmit important information to others, especially children. Tool making, locations of water and specific plant foods (and when they're in season), hunting plans, etc...all are greatly facilitated by language. And think how hard it would be for us to do these things without language! We'd have surely died back on the savannahs of Africa, us, a weak, slow, dull toothed primate...the only thing we had going for us is our brains.

Does thought determine language, or vice versa? Hard to say. Language (abstract symbolic thought) is certainly the main mode of thought, but not the only one; there is such a thing as intuitive thought (as opposed to rational thought).

 

?what's to do with our divided mind - conscious/sub-conscious . we think in dreams , within the heart-beat , etc ... and the social language . these words i write are purely social language , inadequate , alone inadequate for advancing philosophy , less than what i know , slow . i think at the speed of light ... and i thought before i knew them . you too ? i would think so .

good philosophy is a translation of the whole mind into the social language .

in my very beginning i knew space , as much as an amoeba knows space . space is my first word , and is the great AHHH! my cry of and from the throat wide-open and resounding in the cavern my mouth and into my world of FirstEarth life-space .

i may write a~ for this sound . having this symbol i get a conscious feeling of the whole mind language becoming social language . i may see clearly mind-space this .

this!

 

I think Henri Bergson said something like, " There is nothing in philosophy that cannot be said in everyday language." I tend to agree because if language was designed for every-day, social problems, then vague, speculative, philosophical abstraction may very well be outside the conceptual frontiers of our language.

I'm starting to think that the whole mind may be nothing but social language.

 

there is one symbol at the end of the tQa~ and it's meaning is no meaning , which i suppose is the big zen ha! that hippies love so much . itsiyaya can fill the mind and always be changing .


my teacher Weilgart has this basic theory of primal langauge : there's a set of symbols . not too many not too few . each symbol is a word and every combination of symbols is also a word , one symbol coloring another ... as in an intensity ...

space-mind-space
Qa~Q


...O


little kids babble in such a language . it may well be the root
of language , and we know it like a bird knows it's own song
to sing . you can explore the origin of language as experience ,
by remembering , by experimenting , by becoming peaceful
enough with children that you might be spoken to . it's just as
wonderous as a talking wild crow .

rene descarte declared that the country folk were foolish to believe
animals can talk . he was wrong . my only measure is direct experience ,
and i say he was wrong and wrongfully motivated to dismiss a part of
nature .

but then , nature endures . however you may wish to perceive it ,
the origin of language is with you , of you .

 

By language, are you refering to exclusivley the spoken ( or written) word?

As far a thought detirming language, consider that people who are truly bi-lingual think in the language they are speaking. And some words and concepts don't literally translate. This would seem to indicate that we are indeed, limited in concept by the language we speak.

Consider math. It's a language that expesses concepts that cannot easily or accurately be expessed verbally.

 

www.julianjaynes.org
http://julianjaynessociety.tripod.com

 

.
.
so , is language responsible for consciousness ? then it shall both limit and expand it . language is symbols in motion . the less motion the less conscious . the most motion with the fewer symbols would be efficient consciousness . with the rise of the cities and the suppression of the wild , we may have increased a collective motion to advance our social technology while becoming individually of a weaker consciousness .

heart the wild .

i'll suppose any life-form has at least two ideo-symbols in motion . to have
none is death , and to have only one - gak - is insanity .

.
.

 

..
..
can you remember anything as a very young child , that is , before you had been given a social language like english ? it's like unconsciousness , and this is where we may shine the light to reveal the origin of language . if ever you do remember anything , and indeed one can , this can mean we do possess a priori language . memory , too , is symbol in motion ... even unto the a~ of the womb and the who of the egg .
..
..

 

Dogs are self-concious. That would seem to indicate that spoken language is a product of an especially high degree of self-conciousness, except-

We seem to be especially equiped for it- Broca's convolution. If a man loses that part of his brain, he can no longer use language, although he remains intelligent.

 

Anyone familiar with Terence Mckenna's theory on language beginning with primates ingesting psilocybin mushrooms. I dont have all the facts off the top of my head, but i know that it seems pretty legit. I mean Dmt or in the case of mushrooms phosphoraloxy DMT is the substance ingested, and these drugs both uniquely inflict themselves upon the logos, the center of the brain that processes thought and words therefore language. When primates who are not familiar with talking ate these mushrooms it could have caused them to use their vocal chords and realize the abilities that they had. I know that I found myself making some pretty strange noises on mushrooms. Some noises that I had never made.

 

If anything, tripping on mushrooms make me forget how to talk!

But they appear to have been the source of the notion of god or gods.

 

Yes, but before we had a complex language they could have helped us form one. I forget how to talk on mushrooms too, but thats only because i have so many things to say. If there is any substance on this planet that can bring language to primates it would be psilocybin or DMT, they have a distinct effect on the vocal chords

 

I think it has to do with physical differences in their vocal cords, not a conceptual inadequacy.

 

a language separates concepts . if you just have more than one concept then you have thought that is symbolic and relational .

spirit and time , q and x , would be a binary intelligence for a certain peculiar simple bliss creature . i observe x to be the operative for communication so that it may say q before x tho it may sometimes think both at once .

 

Syncronicity is the language of the unconscious. Perceptions enter our consciousness. The mind is a collection of perceptions. We use words to describe ideas but they are not the same as ideas. Too often disputes are based on words. Are you experienced?

 

syncronicity , it seems endlessly potentially present . i've heard people deep in this aspect and their words come streaming fast and furious in a sync of any thought to any word . it's a sort of english that always boggles me , in the same way that a cursing pirate can .