Nagelfar
Bluelight Crew
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?
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?