The unidirectional subordinate delineation of properties with qualia, & rejection of.

[Nagelfar]

The unidirectional subordinate delineation of properties with qualia, & rejection of.

I believe the restrictions we set upon certain language morphemes limits our thinking, due to the rigid fixity with which one sole direction from one to another is ascribed, as proper of verb/adjective to noun relation.

For example, blue as an adjective to the noun sky. We can speak of how blue the sky is, but not how sky the blue is. We fix the sky within a particular range but not the blue. Why is blue subordinate as a property of the sky, but the sky cannot be subordinate as a property of the blue? Sky is a more specific thing than the blue, so one may imagine blue being of a broader category within which sky fits, as possibly more likely than the other way about (sky belongs more to blue, than the blue to the sky by this reasoning). Blue is an object of our consciousness as much as the idea of sky is, why is blue construed as more subjective due to it being more universalized? It is applied to more variations of other qualities than sky is, should this not make it a more common object, rather than solely a subject? One may say that blue is a kind of light wave emitted by our sky, but this is still a confusion of typification to the light wave, again: so then is the blue the property of the light wave, or perhaps the particular light is really a property of the blue. Same noun bias.

I believe this, within the indo-european language group, for example, is biased toward materialism as a metaphysical outlook. Possibly most other languages too as language itself (though not concept) is slanted toward a useful & interactive utilitarianism between objects before subjects (though does not necessarily have to be). Could someone with knowledge of other (best case non-IE) languages show an example of a language that better treats conceptions in subject?

 

[alasdairm]

We can speak of how blue the sky is, but not how sky the blue is.

why can't we?

a brick house is made of house bricks...
the blue sky is sky blue...

it goes both ways in many cases.

alasdair

 

[Nagelfar]

why can't we?

This is my entire point; because it is improper grammar is (what I here entertain as) the possibly only restricting reason. Blue as a adjective and sky as a noun. But your example is flawed, sky blue is a kind of blue (while having nothing to do with it as what sky is), and blue sky is a kind of sky (again, not definitive of it as the sky)

 

[L2R]

grammar is no reason to restrict philosophical ideas.

 

[Nagelfar]

grammar is no reason to restrict philosophical ideas.

It's no reason, but it does linguistically.

 

[L2R]

But what is the point? what does it actually reveal? does it demonstrate limits and conditions in reality or simply limits to language?

this is the part of the current philosophy of mind unit i'm doing which frustrates me most.

 

[Nagelfar]

I'm entertaining the idea here that it is simply language limits, but that language limits restrict the common-sense perception by way of the real communicating of viable understandings of reality.

 

[L2R]

Agreed, then.

I can see how such things can fundamentally stifle communication, and how that could indirectly impact on understanding. But i think thought itself, whether intentional or not, is more than just words. I think we can understand reality far better than we can communicate it.

 

[Nagelfar]

I think we can understand reality far better than we can communicate it.

Well, that I am not so sure of. We may be able to mislead ourselves with our internal dialogue. For most philosophical thought is 'framed' within the spectrum of our own language, and we reflect by those common tunnels of thought we have dug for ourselves to progress any further with them.

If an idea is not so 'framed' in some sensically worded way, it is not retained as an object of the mind for further thought to penetrate upon with subjective thinking to investigate. It may not progress as a key to the labyrinth of, not only another's minds, but the structure you have built upon your own mind for it's own infrastructure. (communication between others being a kind of inter-structure; where everyone's precept about every different word they take to themselves uniquely, needs to be puzzled through like a maze, and even that requires continual self-translation of ones own maze.)

 

[L2R]

most are framed as you described, but not all. what you descibe is what i consider "doubt". the reason words are used to interpret such content is to familiarise it, in the attempt to eventually "get it". such epiphany occurs outside the frame in which you describe, yet it is generally retained somehow quite strongly. the gap outside the frame is THE mystery.

 

[Changed]

I'm entertaining the idea here that it is simply language limits, but that language limits restrict the common-sense perception by way of the real communicating of viable understandings of reality.

Reflecting on my experience, I find myself agreeing with the eminent Cambridge philosopher, Dr. C. D. Broad, "that we should do well to consider much more seriously than we have hitherto been inclined to do the type of theory which Bergson put forward in connection with memory and sense perception. The suggestion is that the function of the brain and nervous system and sense organs is in the main eliminative and not productive. Each person is at each moment capable of remembering all that has ever happened to him and of perceiving everything that is happening everywhere in the universe. The function of the brain and nervous system is to protect us from being overwhelmed and confused by this mass of largely useless and irrelevant knowledge, by shutting out most of what we should otherwise perceive or remember at any moment, and leaving only that very small and special selection which is likely to be practically useful." According to such a theory, each one of us is potentially Mind at Large. But in so far as we are animals, our business is at all costs to survive. To make biological survival possible, Mind at Large has to be funneled through the reducing valve of the brain and nervous system. What comes out at the other end is a measly trickle of the kind of consciousness which will help us to stay alive on the surface of this Particular planet. To formulate and express the contents of this reduced awareness, man has invented and endlessly elaborated those symbol-systems and implicit philosophies which we call languages. Every individual is at once the beneficiary and the victim of the linguistic tradition into which he has been born - the beneficiary inasmuch as language gives access to the accumulated records of other people's experience, the victim in so far as it confirms him in the belief that reduced awareness is the only awareness and as it bedevils his sense of reality, so that he is all too apt to take his concepts for data, his words for actual things. That which, in the language of religion, is called "this world" is the universe of reduced awareness, expressed, and, as it were, petrified by language. The various "other worlds," with which human beings erratically make contact are so many elements in the totality of the awareness belonging to Mind at Large. Most people, most of the time, know only what comes through the reducing valve and is consecrated as genuinely real by the local language. Certain persons, however, seem to be born with a kind of by-pass that circumvents the reducing valve. In others temporary by-passes may be acquired either spontaneously, or as the result of deliberate "spiritual exercises," or through hypnosis, or by means of drugs. Through these permanent or temporary by-passes there flows, not indeed the perception "of everything that is happening everywhere in the universe" (for the by-pass does not abolish the reducing valve, which still excludes the total content of Mind at Large), but something more than, and above ah something different from, the carefully selected utilitarian material which our narrowed, individual minds regard as a complete, or at least sufficient, picture of reality.

...

 

[Nagelfar]

Well, without any definition there is nothing at all. To of course, define something, is to limit it or "eliminate it's pure potentiality" or all-inclusive possibility, that much is to me obvious. If everything is a fractal of nothing, then clearing ones definitions may be a way to derive omniscience as Huxley claims above. Yet I believe this to be a stereotyped hackneyed simplification. As there is either material defining our limits firstly before the mind, so clearing it won't help bridge that gap, or there is nothing to know beyond the mind and no gap to bridge by 'purifying' consciousness.

 

[alasdairm]

Looking started he up perhaps against. How remainder all additions get elsewhere resources. One missed shy wishes supply design answer formed. Prevent on present hastily passage an subject in be. Be happiness arranging so newspaper defective affection ye. Families blessing he in to no daughter.

Meant balls it if up doubt small purse. Required his you put the outlived answered position. An pleasure exertion if believed provided to. All led out world these music while asked. Paid mind even sons does he door no. Attended overcame repeated it is perceive marianne in. In am think on style child of.

alasdair

 

[Changed]

poetry ^

 

[qwe]

^lol

I believe this, within the indo-european language group, for example, is biased toward materialism as a metaphysical outlook.

idk if you made a compelling case that that language group is biased toward those type of concepts, but even if that is so, so what?

Could someone with knowledge of other (best case non-IE) languages show an example of a language that better treats conceptions in subject?

one of robert anton wilson's many expertise was linguistics, and he was very fond of the chinese language (in terms of how we use the language cognitively)

 

[Dave]

I'm very much a lay person when it comes to philosophy, but I've had more than a few discussions of a philosophical bent that wind up devolving into quibbles over definitions/semantics. Language, while inherently useful, has limits like any other concept or tool. Why else would mathematics be so prevalent within the physical sciences (and with increasing use within the humanities)? Or why else would visual art be so prevalent as a means of creative expression? Or instrumental music?

Unfortunately, as humans we are strongly adapted toward viewing the world through a predominantly linguistic window. Does this limit us? Sure, but does it necessarily limit us any more than how our senses limit our perception? Not necessarily-- other tools are available for use; although they may not be as efficient in general, they may be more efficient in specialized circumstances.

 

[polymath]

I live in Finland and here we have a saying: 'Kieli on kaiken mieli', which roughly translates to 'Language is the Mind in everything'. Basically, it says that all concepts have to be grasped within the framework and limitations of language...

Finnish is not a typical European language, but the adjective-noun relationships are the same as in English. It doesn't make any sense to ask 'how sky is the blue' or 'how dog is the furry' in my language, either.

 

[Pindar]

All language have their limits, since in the end just like Achilles didn't surpass the turtle, language will always escape explaining fully objective reality. But your argument is the pretext that many of the "obscurantist" philosophers (like Heidegger, Lacan, Derrida), would later use to justify their obtuse works. On the opposite side of the spectrum we have Wittgenstein with his "If something cant be said in three words, its best for it to not be said at all."