|
I dunno what "FAO" means, but FAO anyone interested in linguistics + behavioral psychology (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
I haven't had the time to listen to Pinker, but language and time-space ARE inseparable. You can't have language in a void.
|
Well true but what I mean to say is that the rules of language govern one's perception of time and space (or potentially vice-versa)
My own thought on this is that the major difference between alphabetized language and spoken language is that the voice communicates in a more holistic and all-at-once way as pure sound, whereas alphabetized language is strictly parsed as a sequential code (though obviously some people in history have been creative with writing and have been able to break this). The result I think is that culture where alphabet dominiates (most of the world today) tends to think of the world in a compartmentalized, objectified, sequential way, whereas culture whereas culture where oral traditions dominate tend to think of the world in a more holistic and subjective manner.
In this way language becomes tied up with space and time in many different ways, not least among them in terms of ownership and property, which was fundamental to the development of civilization as we know it.
Speaking of how language can be used to conceptualize a theory of physics, this is one of my favorite books on the topic:
Wholeness and the Implicate Order by David Bohm
Granted it covers much more than language, but he basically has to invent a different mode of language to conceptualize his physical theories. He calls it the 'Rheomode' (from the greek for 'to flow')
| quote: | For example, consider the sentence 'It is raining.' Where is the 'It' that would, according to the sentence, be 'the rainer that is doing the raining'? Clearly, it is more accurate to say: 'Rain is going on.' ... 'An observer looks at an object', we can more appropriately say, 'Observation is going on, in an undivided movement involving those abstractions customarily called "the human being" and "the object he is looking at".'
Is it not possible for the syntax and grammatical form of language to be changed so as to give a basic role to the verb rather than to the noun? This would help to end the sort of fragmentation indicated above, for the verb describes actions and movements, which flow into each other and merge, without sharp separations or breaks. Moreover, since movements are in general always themselves changing, they have in them no permanent pattern of fixed form with which separately existent things could be identified. |
|
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
Well true but what I mean to say is that the rules of language govern one's perception of time and space (or potentially vice-versa) |
Well, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has been shown to be misguided in its strong forms (Whorf is the guy that had an opinion much like yours, and Sapir is the linguist that bought his idea), but there's some truth to it according to researchers like Lera Boroditsky (whose work you probably want to check out).
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
My own thought on this is that the major difference between alphabetized language and spoken language is that the voice communicates in a more holistic and all-at-once way as pure sound, whereas alphabetized language is strictly parsed as a sequential code (though obviously some people in history have been creative with writing and have been able to break this). The result I think is that culture where alphabet dominiates (most of the world today) tends to think of the world in a compartmentalized, objectified, sequential way, whereas culture whereas culture where oral traditions dominate tend to think of the world in a more holistic and subjective manner. |
Maybe this has more to do with our current state of affairs in society than with language. The Japanese had this holistic and subjective view of the world, full of (rather naturalised) spirits and powers and integration (even words had their own life, linking the "ideal world" with the "physical reality"), despite the acquisition of the written language. By the way, just in case you're wondering, the logographic script is not that much different from our alphabet, specially because not "every symbol stands for an idea". Sometimes you just want the sound, and the Japanese were quick to develop their own syllabaries after they got the hang of it.
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
In this way language becomes tied up with space and time in many different ways, not least among them in terms of ownership and property, which was fundamental to the development of civilization as we know it. |
But language is always spoken by a person bound in a point in time and space, we can't even think of an impersonal timeless language, otherwise all sentences would be absurd to say the least.
Or did I get something wrong?
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
Speaking of how language can be used to conceptualize a theory of physics, this is one of my favorite books on the topic:
Wholeness and the Implicate Order by David Bohm
Granted it covers much more than language, but he basically has to invent a different mode of language to conceptualize his physical theories. He calls it the 'Rheomode' (from the greek for 'to flow') |
I'm sort of working on something right now, but I'm going to check this out later, looks interesting :) |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
But language is always spoken by a person bound in a point in time and space, we can't even think of an impersonal timeless language, otherwise all sentences would be absurd to say the least.
Or did I get something wrong? |
Well my point is that language is always spoken by a person bound in a point in time and space so long as someone can conceive of language and persons as separate things in space, as well as time and space.
So even the description of this whole thing is bound to the same linguo-physical laws as the thing, described.
Describing the nature of the universe in terms of language as we know it is like trying to explain color to someone who can only see black and white. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
I think I agree with the idea that oral language is more holistic and personal. Or from a negative view it tends to be more muddled and emotionalized.
Spoken word format does not lend itself very well to logical analysis and systematic thinking. Just compare the intellectual caliber of a typical oral debate (especially one where neither speaker is working from notes of any sort) to a written one. Of course, part of this is the fact that writing makes non-realtime communication possible, giving people more time to think over the ideas being considered. |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
I think I agree with the idea that oral language is more holistic and personal. Or from a negative view it tends to be more muddled and emotionalized.
Spoken word format does not lend itself very well to logical analysis and systematic thinking. Just compare the intellectual caliber of a typical oral debate (especially one where neither speaker is working from notes of any sort) to a written one. Of course, part of this is the fact that writing makes non-realtime communication possible, giving people more time to think over the ideas being considered. |
Additionally, the mode of communication also necessarily limits what can be communicated. Every mode of communication kind of communicates a different aspect of the same reality.
I remember when my ex girlfriend taught me spanish that I would conceive of her dog no longer as a 'dog' but a 'perrito' - her shoes were zapatos. It was a subtle but awesome distinction in my mind, which led to the idea that one 'thing' can exist beyond the different unique aspects or conventional understandings of that thing. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
Also, part of the "objectifying" nature of writing is simply its material character. Once you write something down, it can be passed around, stored, copied, and so on. It gains a stable existence independent of the person who originated it, and may even be something anonymous that contains no identifying details about its creator, suggesting a conception of knowledge that is durable and not dependent on the authority of any one person.
But spoken words are always attached to a particular voice, and once they're created they simply vanish. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Lera... whose work you probably want to check out |
Cheat! |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
But spoken words are always attached to a particular voice, and once they're created they simply vanish. |
Or are they re-purposed beyond individual recognition? It seems a lofty paradigm beyond the stakes of record as primary competence, something we obviously take for granted as transmissive animals. |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Also, part of the "objectifying" nature of writing is simply its material character. Once you write something down, it can be passed around, stored, copied, and so on. It gains a stable existence independent of the person who originated it, and may even be something anonymous that contains no identifying details about its creator, suggesting a conception of knowledge that is durable and not dependent on the authority of any one person.
But spoken words are always attached to a particular voice, and once they're created they simply vanish. |
While that's true, have you ever had the experience when someone speaks to you that what their words are timeless or that their voice is the universe speaking to you? That is, beyond individual authorship? I mean the fact is that their observable brain and vocal functions process and emit the utterance, but meaning is beyond authorship.
This is another discussion, but individuality and authorship of ideas specifically is basically an appearance, whether you approach this from a scientific point of view or otherwise.
Also:
| quote: | Les Grossman: Speedman is a dying star. A white dwarf headed for a black hole. That's physics. It's inevitable.
Studio Executive Rob Slolom: We've been handed an incredible opportunity here, Peck.
Les Grossman: The universe... is talking to us right now. You just gotta listen.
[turns on Flo Rider's "Low" and begins to dance to the beat] |
|
|
|
| WittyHandle |
 |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
there is currently less wanking going on at youporn than in this thread.
time & space is inseparable to language? gee, how astute. time and space is inseparable to everything us mere mortals experience you ing prats. but thanks for the memo! has changed my life and my entire outlook. |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
there is currently less wanking going on at youporn than in this thread.
time & space is inseparable to language? gee, how astute. time and space is inseparable to everything us mere mortals experience you ing prats. but thanks for the memo! has changed my life and my entire outlook. |
I think maybe you are missing the point that was actually made:
one's PERCEPTION of time and space is inseparable from language.
but don't sweat it - we know you have your hand too tied up at youporn to comprehend what you read. |
|
|
|
|
