The Absurdity of 'Thinking in Language'

the author's site ^ | 1972 | Dallas Willard

[RightWhale]

Substitute conversation for conservation, it's closer to the intent of the poster.

[fifteendogs]

Let's try a simplistic example. Spme people are standing around a tree in the forest. The tree falls to the ground. One is to the south, one to the north, one to the east an one to the west. The one to the east reports that the tree fell to his(or hers) right. The one reporting to the west reports that the tree fell to his (or hers, god how i hate pc) left. The one to the south reports that the tree fell away from them. The one to the north reports that the tree fell towards them. Please write the history of this event.

[RightWhale]

Mankind will evolve to using telepathy

Happened long ago. Some believe that these sounds and markings carry meaning somehow, but obviously we are in direct mind to mind contact across both space and time. How else can something like "All your base are belong to us" mean anything at all?

[fifteendogs]

That is a good example of telepathy. You cannot, in words, define the meaning of that expression, yet clearly, many do understand the meaning of the thought. That is telepathy.

[monkey]

Past and future are time relative.

Bravo!

[fifteendogs]

I am so happy that you understood.

[unspun]

An "actualized concept" has no basis in perception, reason, or reality; it is without heirarchical roots, there are no earlier -- realistic -- concepts on which it logically depends; and accepting such a "concept" is the intellectual equivalent of "standing on the fortieth floor of a skyscraper while dynamiting the first thirty-nine." That last quotation comes from page 136 in "Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand," by Leonard Piekoff.

An actualized concept is what has brought everything Mr. Piekoff has/had been willing to admit as reality into being. It's just that it's not his concept, nor that of any other being he admitted to. It's not about him.

As this article and its poster's comments explain and as Hammer would say, "can't touch this":

THEOLOGY AND SCIENCE WITHOUT DUALISM

But "this" can touch you. And it's not about an endless spiral of effectuality. It is about One existing outside of space/time, but who also, while set apart from it, fills it. And how about THAT for the inadequacy of our language (or even our thoughts) to allow for actual comprehension? ;-) Thank God, we can still understand, however and "know in part."

[unspun]

Now, is that fifteendogs and one monkey or is it really about Twelve Monkeys? And how many monkeys sitting with typewriters can answer that? Gotta go for now, my own dog is asking to go out.

[DaughterofEve]

Regarding bias getting in the way of determining thought processes:
Don't you think that people who have been together a long time (like a married couple) would be likely to go through the same series of reactions and initial associations after an event, in order to often simultaneously introduce the same exact (seemingly non-connected) next topic of conversation?
If so, isn't it possible that there are wider commonalities that we might share in different types of groups that might be studied?
Just curious as to your thoughts.

[DaughterofEve]

Thanks for the ping!

[gitmo]

Oops, this is obviously not a Computer Programming Language thread.

Actually, that's where I went with the article. I don't think you can design a computer algorighm, or derive a mathematical equation without using a language. You have to think using the language of mathematics or c# (or Forth or whatever). A pseudo-language may suffice, but that is still a language.

[tortoise]

... is to base one's epistemology upon axiomatic concepts -- facts about reality which cannot be analyzed

Axiomatic epistemologies are arguably inferior to non-axiomatic epistemologies such as pan-critical rationalism (e.g. Bartley). For finite systems (i.e. humans, with their finite experience), non-axiomatic reasoning is the rational choice. Axiomatic systems are the perfect ideal iff you are talking about minds/systems with a lot of basic properties set to a value of infinity, which is not the case in reality.

In practice there is little difference between, say, Objectivism and PCR even though one is axiomatic and one is not. The primary difference is that non-axiomatic epistemologies compensate for the fact that humans are entities with finite experience and minds, making it impossible for us to even recognize a true axiom. Lacking the ability to legitimately assert an "axiom", Bayes theorem takes over. Which as I said, typically has the same consequences in practice as a well-chosen set of axioms.

[tpaine]

"All your base are belong to us" is a good example of telepathy.

You cannot, in words, define the meaning of that expression, yet clearly, many do understand the meaning of the thought.

That is telepathy.
244 -15dogs-

Agreed.
Clearly the thoughts meaning are defined by base. Us is understood as an expression belonging.  

I groak. You?

[tortoise]

Please write the history of this event.

The example is irrelevant. You could have two people standing next to each other when the tree falls and you would still end up with different histories; about the only thing they would agree upon is perhaps that a tree fell in the abstract. Without a perfectly synchronous experiential context up until that point, there is no perfect understanding of each others experience of the event. Another persons perception of an event may not be the same as my perception of an event if I experienced it myself. I cannot trust that another persons perception will accurately convey the actual event because the context of interpretation may not have an equivalent mapping in my brain.

[fifteendogs]

Sorry, I thought I was speaking to one who had the facility to understand. No insult intened, but I was wrong.

[zoyd]

to: f.Christian: Need your help and insight over here. Are we limited in thinking by our language structure?

LOL. You knew just who to ping.

[thinktwice]

there is currently no person who is impartial enough to determine what processes* "people" use to think.

People think in terms of what they know, in terms of concepts that they understand.

People apply that which they know to circumstances surrounding them.

All people do this. The process is called rational thought.

[tpaine]

As this article and its poster's comments explain and as Hammer would say, "can't touch this":
THEOLOGY AND SCIENCE WITHOUT DUALISM
But "this" can touch you. And it's not about an endless spiral of effectuality. It is about One existing outside of space/time, but who also, while set apart from it, fills it. And how about THAT for the inadequacy of our language (or even our thoughts) to allow for actual comprehension?

Thanks so much for re-posting that fabulous article.
I am still busy trying to digest even a small part of the wisdom therein. Here's a small example of just one of the wonderous insights you made on that thread that will regurgitate in my mind for months to come:

"I think that "Gypsies" if you will, are driving our culture, based upon powers of mass Gypsie shows.
They have the gambling booth under one tent, the veil dancer in another, the snake-oil salesman under another, the opium merchant under another, the loremaster under another, the fortune teller... and so it goes for a people with the newer more powerful and newer still technologies to bring idle people into the tents.
I think this creates a spread of groundlessness and people look for rationale that matches their sense of life, driven by this desire for titillation, quick fixes, and escape from accountability.
42 -unspun-

[fifteendogs]

My example was just what is was, a collection of facts. It wasn't right or wrong. It was an example abouts facts from which history is written. That is all that history is, interpretation of fact. If you ignore any of the facts, you can slant history any way you wish to.

If I had written the history of the facts presented in the example I cited, I would have stated that 4 people saw a tree fall to the ground. The tree fell to the north. That is my interpretation of the facts which were at hand.

[tpaine]

"I was wrong."
-15dog-

Indeed you were.
I groaked that. You didn't.