|
I dunno what "FAO" means, but FAO anyone interested in linguistics + behavioral psychology (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
I think maybe you are missing the point that was actually made:
the PERCEPTION of time and space is inseparable from language. |
Again, that is equally true of everything. |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Again, that is equally true of everything. |
I agree with you, but perhaps some people don't, or have never considered it?
You're one of the smart ones. |
|
|
| Renegade |
| 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) |
I really don't think that's true, and I think the claim that our world-views are shaped by the particular languages we speak has been thoroughly debunked (I think Pinker may have even addressed this himself in "The Blank Slate"). I mean obviously language is important for shaping our view of the world (it may even be a pre-requisite for conscious thought as we understand it) but that really isn't to say that speaking one particular language with a particular grammatical structure prejudices our ability to understand competing conceptions of space and time.
In the first place, such a theory would fail to explain the plurality of conceptions of space-time that have emerged within a common language (the widely varying (meta-)physics of the ancient Greek and Latin speaking world are a good example of this) and it also fails to explain similarities between the metaphysics of non-literate tribes around the world whose languages do not share any identifiable common ancestry. Eastern and Western philosophy may present radically different views of the world (although I'm not sure that's necessarily true either), but it's a little facile to suggest that these are due to grammatical differences between the language-systems that produced them.
In the second place, it would be hard to provide an explanation for any link between language and perceptions of space-time because the neural systems responsible for each appear to be quite separate. There are a number of quite specific language-related disorders that can arise as a consequence of brain trauma and a number of unrelated traumas that can affect one's spatio-temporal awareness, but I'm unfamiliar with a specific disorder that might affect both. In any case, we know that many animals possess the ability to navigate quite complex spatio-temporal challenges, so - in principle at least - it's possible to have quite an advanced sense of space and time in the world without even the most elementary language.
| quote: | | 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). |
But there has always been an extremely close link between written and spoken language and I don't think its possible to so neatly separate the two in this way.
The earliest writings were generally intended to be read aloud - the idea of writing as a communicative end in itself didn't emerge until written language itself was comparitively mature. Ancient Hebrew, for instance, did not possess a unique word for "reading" - the word for "speaking aloud" was always used instead, so no distinction was ever made between the two acts. Partly this was due to the extremely low literacy rates in the ancient world (so texts - by necessity - would have to be read aloud by a scribe to their intended audiences in order to be understood) but even later in history it was assumed that writing existed to be spoken aloud. There is a passage from Bede (I think) in the 7th-8th centuries which makes special mention of the peculiar monk who read silently, as though this were such a strange and novel thing to do. Even now, because reading is such an unnatural act, you'll find that children frequently learnt to read by saying the text aloud to themselves, and who here doesn't hear some kind of narration in their head when they read?
So I think it's pretty difficult to posit such a neat distinction between written and oral language, because the former is unquestionably dependant on the latter. Even if such a distinction could be made, I think that you'd have a pretty hard time demonstrating that written and oral language are so different as to engender completely different epistemologies in someone who has a greater exposure to one as opposed to the other.
| quote: | | 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. |
Do you have any evidence for this? In my experience with theologies, it seems to be the other way around: written language gives rise to a more holistic, universal metaphysics than spoken language.
In the case of Hebrew (again) the early oral myths which form the earliest level of the Pentateuch (the so-called "J Source") tend be fragment, parochial and developed for largely ad hoc etiological ends. By contrast, the later layers seem to show an increasing perecption of a universalistic God, the omnipresent creator of the universe whose handiwork is evident in every time and place you care to look. Similarly "holistic" trends can be observed in the Greek and Roman religions (long) after the advent of writing, where the compartmentalised world of their pre-literate ancestors (namely, where every natrual phenomenon had its origin in some discrete divine being: gods of "war", gods of "wine" etc.) was transformed into a more holistic conception of the universe, where all phenomena (and all gods) were seen as different aspects of a more universal being. Try reading Marcus Aurelius and tell me that his writings speak to a more "compartmentalized, objectified" way of viewing the universe compared to those who came before him.
In any case, even if you're just trying to make some superficial point about the differences between Eastern and Western philosophy today (based on your avatar and the content of your post, I suspect you were), I'm still not sure that your intuitions are correct. The Western method may admit a more "compartmentalised" approach due to the finite boundaries of human knowledge and the consequent necessity of specialisation, but that's not to say it doesn't take a holistic approach to the nature of space and time. It is the Western method, remember, which promotes the idea of the universality of the laws governing space and time, the absolute conflation of space and time and a realistic search for the "Theory of Everything": is there anything in Buddhism quite so "holistic"? It is also the Western method which promotes the idea of there being absolutely no privilaged position in the universe and that all is intractably "relative": is there a thought in any pre-literate society which so unequivocally privilages the validity of the "subjective"?
Anyway, I didn't mean to rant, but I think that there are better explanations for the plurality of world-views on display on this planet than mere differences in language. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
 |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
I really don't think that's true, and I think the claim that our world-views are shaped by the particular languages we speak has been thoroughly debunked (I think Pinker may have even addressed this himself in "The Blank Slate"). I mean obviously language is important for shaping our view of the world (it may even be a pre-requisite for conscious thought as we understand it) but that really isn't to say that speaking one particular language with a particular grammatical structure prejudices our ability to understand competing conceptions of space and time.
In the first place, such a theory would fail to explain the plurality of conceptions of space-time that have emerged within a common language (the widely varying (meta-)physics of the ancient Greek and Latin speaking world are a good example of this) |
Well for one, Id like to talk about common perceptions of space-time, not academic. Joe Spartan, not Plato. And in any case, maybe it's not the specifics of the theory that is shaped by the language, but the general framework in which it is concevied.
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
it also fails to explain similarities between the metaphysics of non-literate tribes around the world whose languages do not share any identifiable common ancestry. |
Examples?
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Eastern and Western philosophy may present radically different views of the world (although I'm not sure that's necessarily true either), but it's a little facile to suggest that these are due to grammatical differences between the language-systems that produced them.
|
You are mis-characterizing what I wrote as a causal relationship. What I said was that language and thought are inseparatble, ie the same movement.
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
In the second place, it would be hard to provide an explanation for any link between language and perceptions of space-time because the neural systems responsible for each appear to be quite separate. There are a number of quite specific language-related disorders that can arise as a consequence of brain trauma and a number of unrelated traumas that can affect one's spatio-temporal awareness, but I'm unfamiliar with a specific disorder that might affect both. In any case, we know that many animals possess the ability to navigate quite complex spatio-temporal challenges, so - in principle at least - it's possible to have quite an advanced sense of space and time in the world without even the most elementary language.
|
Of course, but I think here you are severely limiting the meaning of language. Painting is language, architecture is language, music is language. Language is a relationship of meanings. In architecture we often refer to language when describing spatial patterns and experiences. We say for instance that there are basic, archetypal language components to buildings: entering a small space from a large space, entering a light space from a dark space, a path that looks back upon itself. This is a wordless language, a relationship of meanings that allows some creature to understand make decisions in time and space.
As I said before, language and thought are inseparable.
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
But there has always been an extremely close link between written and spoken language and I don't think its possible to so neatly separate the two in this way.
The earliest writings were generally intended to be read aloud - the idea of writing as a communicative end in itself didn't emerge until written language itself was comparitively mature.
|
Yes, the separation was gradual. When Humans and Chimpanzees evolved, they probably also looked more similar to one another in the past. Old Norse was probably more similar to Old English than Modern Norwegian is to Modern English (excepting foreign influence)
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade Ancient Hebrew, for instance, did not possess a unique word for "reading" - the word for "speaking aloud" was always used instead, so no distinction was ever made between the two acts. Partly this was due to the extremely low literacy rates in the ancient world (so texts - by necessity - would have to be read aloud by a scribe to their intended audiences in order to be understood) but even later in history it was assumed that writing existed to be spoken aloud. There is a passage from Bede (I think) in the 7th-8th centuries which makes special mention of the peculiar monk who read silently, as though this were such a strange and novel thing to do. Even now, because reading is such an unnatural act, you'll find that children frequently learnt to read by saying the text aloud to themselves, and who here doesn't hear some kind of narration in their head when they read?
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Renegade
I think that you'd have a pretty hard time demonstrating that written and oral language are so different as to engender completely different epistemologies in someone who has a greater exposure to one as opposed to the other.
|
Well this guy wrote an entire book on it, so I guess it's not that hard:
http://www.alphabetvsgoddess.com/
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Do you have any evidence for this? In my experience with theologies, it seems to be the other way around: written language gives rise to a more holistic, universal metaphysics than spoken language.
|
I haven't done formal research on this. But see the book above for someone who has. If I ever went back to school I would be interested in pursuing this kind of thing. I think my doctoral thesis would be called "Sound is everything".
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
In any case, even if you're just trying to make some superficial point about the differences between Eastern and Western philosophy today (based on your avatar and the content of your post, I suspect you were)
|
My avatar is an album by a spanish funk/rock band from the 70s... careful with your 'research' methods.
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Anyway, I didn't mean to rant, but I think that there are better explanations for the plurality of world-views on display on this planet than mere differences in language. |
I was not at all trying to explain plurality of world-views, only the inseparabilty of language and thought thereof. Plurality and diversity itself is caused by many ecological factors. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
I was not at all trying to explain plurality of world-views, only the inseparabilty of language and thought thereof. |
Actually, unless you use a very circular definition of what "thought" is (e.g. "Thoughts are the inner cognitive processes we 'vocalise' through the manipulation of sound symbols"), this is hardly the case. Albeit a common one, given how this has been a constant hypothesis in our post-Kantian world. |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Actually, unless you use a very circular definition of what "thought" is (e.g. "Thoughts are the inner cognitive processes we 'vocalise' through the manipulation of sound symbols"), this is hardly the case. Albeit a common one, given how this has been a constant hypothesis in our post-Kantian world. |
Says someone who speaks.
Show me the research that shows someone who doesn't know how to speak vocally is incapable of thought or communicating in other ways. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
Says someone who speaks.
Show me the research that shows someone who doesn't know how to speak vocally is incapable of thought or communicating in other ways. |
Wait, there's something conflicting here: Someone who doesn't know to speak vocally IS capable of thought and communicating in other ways, which is a sure sign language and thought aren't inseparable.
:conf: |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Wait, there's something conflicting here: Someone who doesn't know to speak vocally IS capable of thought and communicating in other ways, which is a sure sign language and thought aren't inseparable.
:conf: |
did you read my above post?
language is not limited to vocalization. painting is language. music is language. architecture is language. etc
sign language? waggle dance? |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
did you read my above post?
language is not limited to vocalization. painting is language. music is language. architecture is language. etc |
Yes, I did but: If you call all that language (1) it's hard to define what language isn't (i.e. what isn't, to humans, a relationship of meanings? Meaning is quickly embedded in all our experiences); and (2) what a language-less thought would be like.
Architecture, for example, can't be "a language" as defined here because:
- There isn't anything like syntax;
- There isn't anything like a common code of what a symbol means to all "speakers" of a given language (otherwise we'd have to count animal grunts as language too);
- The semantics and the pragmatics of an architectural language are too loose to be properly applied to any sort of communication (I've never seen a building that conveyed a complex message like "Please go upstairs and grab a cup of coffee for Mrs. Williams"). At best, I can look at a building and think ("Oh, he tried to make the shape of the building blend with the environment, in order to make it look more organic").
- It's probably just built up from a series of minimal units (shape/colour/whatnot) like sign language is made up of basic hand gestures and vocal language is made up of a very limited array of traits.
This sort of reasoning which postulates an all-encompassing language is circular all the same. |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Architecture, for example, can't be "a language" as defined here because:
- There isn't anything like syntax;
- There isn't anything like a common code of what a symbol means to all "speakers" of a given language (otherwise we'd have to count animal grunts as language too);
- The semantics and the pragmatics of an architectural language are too loose to be properly applied to any sort of communication (I've never seen a building that conveyed a complex message like "Please go upstairs and grab a cup of coffee for Mrs. Williams"). At best, I can look at a building and think ("Oh, he tried to make the shape of the building blend with the environment, in order to make it look more organic").
- It's probably just built up from a series of minimal units (shape/colour/whatnot) like sign language is made up of basic hand gestures and vocal language is made up of a very limited array of traits.
|
Well you've just shown that you are rather ignorant when it comes to architecture. lol
I don't want to derail the thread too much getting into this, but suffice to say you are wrong.
Can't blame you if you don't speak the language, though. |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
Well for one, Id like to talk about common perceptions of space-time, not academic. Joe Spartan, not Plato. |
Well unfortunately Joe Spartan didn't leave behind any writings, but the theory is easily tested in the modern world. Explain the divergence of opinions regarding the nature of space-time in the English-speaking world with regards to your theory of "the rules of language govern[ing] one's perception of time and space". You can begin with the differences that you and I apparently share.
| quote: | | And in any case, maybe it's not the specifics of the theory that is shaped by the language, but the general framework in which it is concevied. |
...huh?
As an example, one can point to the universality of ontological categories that different people employ to categorise different objects in the world around them. People are put into a different ontological class from animals, which are put into a different ontological class from tools, which are put into a different ontological class from landscapes and so on. Such a universality of cognition is difficult to account for if our conceptions of the world around us are shaped a posteriori by language, especially given that we now know that all such objects are constructed of exactly the same (baryonic) matter: would it be labouring the point to note that it was, again, the literate West which first noted this holistic view of nature and not the pre-literate East?
As examples of universal metaphysical beliefs, it is possible to identify many that seem to be commonplace in all the worlds religions. These seem to center around the existence of unseen, counter-intuitive (in some way) agents, who have privilaged access to important social information and who can be placated or entreatied using proscribed rituals. Religion needn't have taken such a universal form, and perhaps that's best demonstrated by a list of qualities that universally never appear in religious beliefs (even though they seem to be as warranted empirically as "normal" religious claims):
| quote: | (1) Some people get old and then one day they stop breathing and die
and that's that.
(2) If you drop this special ritual object it will fall downward until it
hits the ground.
(3) The souls of dead people cannot go through walls because walls
are solid.
(4) Dead men do not talk (or walk).
(5) There is only one God! He is omniscient but powerless. He cannot
do anything or have any effect on what goes on in the world.
(6) The gods are watching us and they notice everything we do! But
they forget everything instantaneously.
(7) Some people can see the future but they then forget it
immediately.
(8) Some people can predict future events, though only about thirty
seconds in advance.
(9) There is only one God! However, He has no way of finding out
what goes on in the world.
(10) This statue is special because it vanishes whenever someone thinks
about it.
(11) There is only one God! He is omnipotent. But He exists only on
Wednesdays.
(12) The spirits will punish you if you do what they want.
(13) This statue is special because you see it here but actually it's
everywhere in the world. |
(From this book.)
| quote: | | You are mis-characterizing what I wrote as a causal relationship. What I said was that language and thought are inseparatble, ie the same movement. |
No, what you said was that "the rules of language govern one's perception of time and space" which I said was patently not true. But even in this case you're wrong, because it's possible to have thought without language. For instance, someone suffering from "anomia" can still think of a horse or a car or any other number of objects with perfect fidelity even though they are incapable of associating such objects with a word. To use a less extreme example, one's imagination or memory scarcely seems to be dependant on language does it? Surely, then, thought is possible without language?
I would even venture that the opposite is plausibly true: that is, that language is possible without thought in any meaningful sense of the word. The "Chinese Room" thought experiment is a good example of this.
| quote: | Of course, but I think here you are severely limiting the meaning of language. Painting is language, architecture is language, music is language. Language is a relationship of meanings. In architecture we often refer to language when describing spatial patterns and experiences. We say for instance that there are basic, archetypal language components to buildings: entering a small space from a large space, entering a light space from a dark space, a path that looks back upon itself. This is a wordless language, a relationship of meanings that allows some creature to understand make decisions in time and space.
As I said before, language and thought are inseparable. |
But now you're just playing word games: if every human output is a form of language, or if we can define language as loosely as "a relationship of meanings that allows some creature to understand [and] make decisions in time and space" then one can probably say that "language and thought are inseperable". But then it also means that we would have to say that animals are capable of language because their system of behaviour is also predicated on "a relationship of meanings that allows [them] to understand [and] make decisions in time and space": aren't we now defining the term too broadly for it to have any meaning though?
| quote: | | Yes, the separation was gradual. When Humans and Chimpanzees evolved, they probably also looked more similar to one another in the past. Old Norse was probably more similar to Old English than Modern Norwegian is to Modern English (excepting foreign influence) |
What? :conf:
My point was that written language is merely an extension of spoken language: the former wouldn't (and probably couldn't) exist without the latter, hence my objection to your drawing such a clean distinction between the two. You said 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" and I'm saying that simply isn't true. Written language is merely a reification of spoken language, always has been and always will be.
| quote: | In this groundbreaking book, Leonard Shlain, author of the bestselling Art & Physics, proposes that the process of learning alphabetic literacy rewired the human brain, with profound consequences for culture. Making remarkable connections across a wide range of subjects including brain function, anthropology, history, and religion, Shlain argues that literacy reinforced the brain's linear, abstract, predominantly masculine left hemisphere at the expense of the holistic, iconic feminine right one. This shift upset the balance between men and women initiating the disappearance of goddesses, the abhorrence of images, and, in literacy's early stages, the decline of women's political status. Patriarchy and misogyny followed.
Shlain contrasts the feminine right-brained oral teachings of Socrates, Buddha, and Jesus with the masculine creeds that evolved when their spoken words were committed to writing. The first book written in an alphabet was the Old Testament and its most important passage was the Ten Commandments. The first two reject of any goddess influence and ban any form of representative art. |
...really?
I don't even know where to begin. So I won't.
| quote: | | I haven't done formal research on this. But see the book above for someone who has. If I ever went back to school I would be interested in pursuing this kind of thing. I think my doctoral thesis would be called "Sound is everything". |
Yes but many have, and the general consensus is that literate religions promote a more universalistic (albeit dogmatically inflexible) view of the world than non-literate religions. That is the nature and power of the written word.
| quote: | | My avatar is an album by a spanish funk/rock band from the 70s... careful with your 'research' methods. |
Sorry, your cust... ah, you knew what I meant.
| quote: | | I was not at all trying to explain plurality of world-views, only the inseparabilty of language and thought thereof. Plurality and diversity itself is caused by many ecological factors. |
So why didn't you say that in the first place instead of "the rules of language govern one's perception of time and space "? |
|
|
|
|
