|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 9, 2021 15:20:11 GMT
I'm sure you've noticed that the more you read the classics, the novels; as good you're in the art, in architecture, and so on - the more better you can handle with your phenomenological way of the world describing. Ok, I'll be short, let's take an example of Helena Keller. (If you don't know who's she, I leave this link here.) Her development or the progress - is a result of her learning, and her studying the language. The specific one, but the language. So, if our senses and our feelings is what brings us the resource of what the special product of this world - the product of our interaction with this world - then, why phenomenologically we're much more better when we provide some language analysis to it - the senses, the feelings, and so on? Why language is so helpful for us in the expanding our phenomenological limits? |
|
|
|
Post by karl on Aug 9, 2021 15:29:58 GMT
I'm sure you've noticed that the more you read the classics, the novels; as good you're in the art, in architecture, and so on - the more better you can handle with your phenomenological way of the world describing. Ok, I'll be short, let's take an example of Helena Keller. (If you don't know who's she, I leave this link here.) Her development or the progress - is a result of her learning, and her studying the language. The specific one, but the language. So, if our senses and our feelings is what brings us the resource of what the special product of this world - the product of our interaction with this world - then, why phenomenologically we're much more better when we provide some language analysis to it - the senses, the feelings, and so on? Why language is so helpful for us in the expanding our phenomenological limits?
Without external language, we'll still have an internal language, but it would be limited. The concepts we'd use to think would be like a pile of bricks, rather than being placed in an structured framework, that allows us to build on previous thoughts. This structure will always be both incomplete and inconsistent, and the independently thinking individual will always need to modify it in his/her own mind. But without any external mental structure, which is what language represent, it would be the equivalent of some inventor who started off knowing nothing about the physical world, and needed to acquire all this knowledge by him/herself before being able to invent anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 9, 2021 16:58:20 GMT
I'm sure you've noticed that the more you read the classics, the novels; as good you're in the art, in architecture, and so on - the more better you can handle with your phenomenological way of the world describing. Ok, I'll be short, let's take an example of Helena Keller. (If you don't know who's she, I leave this link here.) Her development or the progress - is a result of her learning, and her studying the language. The specific one, but the language. So, if our senses and our feelings is what brings us the resource of what the special product of this world - the product of our interaction with this world - then, why phenomenologically we're much more better when we provide some language analysis to it - the senses, the feelings, and so on? Why language is so helpful for us in the expanding our phenomenological limits?
Without external language, we'll still have an internal language, but it would be limited. The concepts we'd use to think would be like a pile of bricks, rather than being placed in an structured framework, that allows us to build on previous thoughts. This structure will always be both incomplete and inconsistent, and the independently thinking individual will always need to modify it in his/her own mind. But without any external mental structure, which is what language represent, it would be the equivalent of some inventor who started off knowing nothing about the physical world, and needed to acquire all this knowledge by him/herself before being able to invent anything.
(By the way, I forgot to tell you. In the last year I bought that small book by Uspensky "The Godel Incompletness Theorems". Not a good point - I started reading it, but, well, turned to some other books. I'm glad I've bought it anyway. Thanks for advice!) I got the point. I think that too. And you know, those case of as Helena Keller, so Olga Skorokhodova ( the link - it's the best what I've found in English. Unfortunately, English articles about her are limited. At least, that's all I've found), and some fiction characters - Johny ("Johny Got His Gun", 1971). They couldn't get the external speaking. And the same is about the muted people (or the deaf ones). They understand the world somehow. The same can be said about certain clinical case patients (in the mad houses), and about some animals. What I agree with you is that - how to know that? We never know anything about the internal language till it become external. It's one of the main oath of science - to check it out. |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Aug 9, 2021 21:01:42 GMT
Well the obvious answer is that we communicate.
I can tell you about events here and you can
effectively 'see' without having to see.
The other answer is in Kant:
The famous analytical a prioi.
Well, it SHOULD be famous.
We can deduce facts before they can occur.
This is effectively: divination or precognition,
but with a solid logical foundation.
Simply knowing that summers and winters follow
one another with precision all the way down to
fractions of an hour is what enabled effective
farming To be able to predict the best time
to reap and sow crops is what enabled people
to control so much of nature.
|
|
|
|
Post by karl on Aug 9, 2021 23:50:05 GMT
Without external language, we'll still have an internal language, but it would be limited. The concepts we'd use to think would be like a pile of bricks, rather than being placed in an structured framework, that allows us to build on previous thoughts. This structure will always be both incomplete and inconsistent, and the independently thinking individual will always need to modify it in his/her own mind. But without any external mental structure, which is what language represent, it would be the equivalent of some inventor who started off knowing nothing about the physical world, and needed to acquire all this knowledge by him/herself before being able to invent anything.
(By the way, I forgot to tell you. In the last year I bought that small book by Uspensky "The Godel Incompletness Theorems". Not a good point - I started reading it, but, well, turned to some other books. I'm glad I've bought it anyway. Thanks for advice!) I got the point. I think that too. And you know, those case of as Helena Keller, so Olga Skorokhodova ( the link - it's the best what I've found in English. Unfortunately, English articles about her are limited. At least, that's all I've found), and some fiction characters - Johny ("Johny Got His Gun", 1971). They couldn't get the external speaking. And the same is about the muted people (or the deaf ones). They understand the world somehow. The same can be said about certain clinical case patients (in the mad houses), and about some animals. What I agree with you is that - how to know that? We never know anything about the internal language till it become external. It's one of the main oath of science - to check it out.
That book by Uspensky gave the best presentation of the proof for Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorem that I could find.
It's true that we don't know about someone else's internal language before that person, or animal, finds a way to communicate it. But we can, introspectively, observe our own internal language, for example if you have a concept for something you lack a word for.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 10, 2021 3:41:02 GMT
(By the way, I forgot to tell you. In the last year I bought that small book by Uspensky "The Godel Incompletness Theorems". Not a good point - I started reading it, but, well, turned to some other books. I'm glad I've bought it anyway. Thanks for advice!) I got the point. I think that too. And you know, those case of as Helena Keller, so Olga Skorokhodova ( the link - it's the best what I've found in English. Unfortunately, English articles about her are limited. At least, that's all I've found), and some fiction characters - Johny ("Johny Got His Gun", 1971). They couldn't get the external speaking. And the same is about the muted people (or the deaf ones). They understand the world somehow. The same can be said about certain clinical case patients (in the mad houses), and about some animals. What I agree with you is that - how to know that? We never know anything about the internal language till it become external. It's one of the main oath of science - to check it out.
That book by Uspensky gave the best presentation of the proof for Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorem that I could find.
It's true that we don't know about someone else's internal language before that person, or animal, finds a way to communicate it. But we can, introspectively, observe our own internal language, for example if you have a concept for something you lack a word for.
I think I must agree here, and at the same time there's sometihng I should I'm worrying about, and I should explain it. Of course we can use the introspection to check our private language out. However, can we be sure about this? It's not like that we've just got some privilege access to our language, and since that we do know what is going on there. I think that there is such a thing as being grown-up, or the advancing, or becoming wiser, or the cognitive and spiritual progress (it can be named differently, but the idea of it - is more and more better understanding of themselves). And there's a famous phrase: "Mistakes are the great step stones of learning", and also "Practice makes perfect". Sometimes mistakes or different occasional cases work not less, than the straight ways of observing. |
|
|
|
Post by karl on Aug 11, 2021 0:45:05 GMT
That book by Uspensky gave the best presentation of the proof for Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorem that I could find.
It's true that we don't know about someone else's internal language before that person, or animal, finds a way to communicate it. But we can, introspectively, observe our own internal language, for example if you have a concept for something you lack a word for.
I think I must agree here, and at the same time there's sometihng I should I'm worrying about, and I should explain it. Of course we can use the introspection to check our private language out. However, can we be sure about this? It's not like that we've just got some privilege access to our language, and since that we do know what is going on there. I think that there is such a thing as being grown-up, or the advancing, or becoming wiser, or the cognitive and spiritual progress (it can be named differently, but the idea of it - is more and more better understanding of themselves). And there's a famous phrase: "Mistakes are the great step stones of learning", and also "Practice makes perfect". Sometimes mistakes or different occasional cases work not less, than the straight ways of observing.
If you mean that learning to interpret one's inner language is difficult and requires time and practice, then I agree.
|
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on Aug 14, 2021 1:05:36 GMT
Well, the limits are more imposed by atribuition than exists as a limitation. The problem of some investigations are more concentration, or maybe to evoke a state of dream than a explicit limitation of our language.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 16, 2021 23:24:02 GMT
I'm sure you've noticed that the more you read the classics, the novels; as good you're in the art, in architecture, and so on - the more better you can handle with your phenomenological way of the world describing. Ok, I'll be short, let's take an example of Helena Keller. (If you don't know who's she, I leave this link here.) Her development or the progress - is a result of her learning, and her studying the language. The specific one, but the language. So, if our senses and our feelings is what brings us the resource of what the special product of this world - the product of our interaction with this world - then, why phenomenologically we're much more better when we provide some language analysis to it - the senses, the feelings, and so on? Why language is so helpful for us in the expanding our phenomenological limits? Language acts as a median between the experiential states of one person and the another. It aligns subjective states into one form. This form is objectivity, thus one can state language results in objectivity. As a median between two or more subjective states, ie the observers, language is a phenomenon in itself in the respect it is not only the act of relations between observers but in itself points to phenomena beyond it. Language as a median is language as a pointer, as a pointer language is a phenomenon. It is inseparable from the phenomena it describes in the respect that both the language and the phenomena being described are images due to this pointing nature both share. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 17, 2021 5:50:33 GMT
I'm sure you've noticed that the more you read the classics, the novels; as good you're in the art, in architecture, and so on - the more better you can handle with your phenomenological way of the world describing. Ok, I'll be short, let's take an example of Helena Keller. (If you don't know who's she, I leave this link here.) Her development or the progress - is a result of her learning, and her studying the language. The specific one, but the language. So, if our senses and our feelings is what brings us the resource of what the special product of this world - the product of our interaction with this world - then, why phenomenologically we're much more better when we provide some language analysis to it - the senses, the feelings, and so on? Why language is so helpful for us in the expanding our phenomenological limits? Language acts as a median between the experiential states of one person and the another. It aligns subjective states into one form. This form is objectivity, thus one can state language results in objectivity. As a median between two or more subjective states, ie the observers, language is a phenomenon in itself in the respect it is not only the act of relations between observers but in itself points to phenomena beyond it. Language as a median is language as a pointer, as a pointer language is a phenomenon. It is inseparable from the phenomena it describes in the respect that both the language and the phenomena being described are images due to this pointing nature both share. I don't understand a word of this,but it's well written. You must write a book!!! You must, cause you have talents. Don't listen to anyone's objections. If one publishing office rejects your writings – skip it and go to another one. Maybe you don't want to publish, so it's also ok, but what I don't understand is – either you have important something to say, and you don't want to share it, or you haven't found the central theme you wish to write. In any case writing a book allows you to stay tuned or to stay focused. |
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Aug 17, 2021 16:16:34 GMT
I'm sure you've noticed that the more you read the classics, the novels; as good you're in the art, in architecture, and so on - the more better you can handle with your phenomenological way of the world describing. Ok, I'll be short, let's take an example of Helena Keller. (If you don't know who's she, I leave this link here.) Her development or the progress - is a result of her learning, and her studying the language. The specific one, but the language. So, if our senses and our feelings is what brings us the resource of what the special product of this world - the product of our interaction with this world - then, why phenomenologically we're much more better when we provide some language analysis to it - the senses, the feelings, and so on? Why language is so helpful for us in the expanding our phenomenological limits? The more connections made, the deeper the understanding. Semantics makes connections that provide material for the choice of which connections to select for progress on the road to further understanding. Without words, we are stuck with superficial and unclear perceptions. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 17, 2021 17:25:45 GMT
I'm sure you've noticed that the more you read the classics, the novels; as good you're in the art, in architecture, and so on - the more better you can handle with your phenomenological way of the world describing. Ok, I'll be short, let's take an example of Helena Keller. (If you don't know who's she, I leave this link here.) Her development or the progress - is a result of her learning, and her studying the language. The specific one, but the language. So, if our senses and our feelings is what brings us the resource of what the special product of this world - the product of our interaction with this world - then, why phenomenologically we're much more better when we provide some language analysis to it - the senses, the feelings, and so on? Why language is so helpful for us in the expanding our phenomenological limits? The more connections made, the deeper the understanding. Semantics makes connections that provide material for the choice of which connections to select for progress on the road to further understanding. Without words, we are stuck with superficial and unclear perceptions. That's true. Wittgenstein said it, objecting Russell and Frege's name-sentence theory. But later Carnap and Church used freely name logic that uses formal semantics only. Actually, we cannot be completely sure whether there's semantics; there might be some symbols chaining. I don't trust to Hegel self-mind, I think we all might be puppets on strings, and our thinking of the ratio might appear only the dreams. I don't really differ animals and human being. John Wisdom said once that the grownups are just kids with a really complicated language. |
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Aug 19, 2021 18:09:09 GMT
Signals Aren't Language; That's Why Animals and Virtue-Signalers Aren't Intelligent Beings The more connections made, the deeper the understanding. Semantics makes connections that provide material for the choice of which connections to select for progress on the road to further understanding. Without words, we are stuck with superficial and unclear perceptions. That's true. Wittgenstein said it, objecting Russell and Frege's name-sentence theory. But later Carnap and Church used freely name logic that uses formal semantics only. Actually, we cannot be completely sure whether there's semantics; there might be some symbols chaining. I don't trust to Hegel self-mind, I think we all might be puppets on strings, and our thinking of the ratio might appear only the dreams. I don't really differ animals and human being. John Wisdom said once that the grownups are just kids with a really complicated language. The Sixties Put Enlightenment on Dim
Hayakawa's textbook on semantics, Language in Thought and Action, minimizes the importance of grammar. Yet grammar is the starting point of all semantics. So I reject Postmodern Semantics. All academic authorities on the subject must be thrown in the same trash bin where the alchemists reside. The whole 20th Century was a wrong turn. Best to start over with the classics and proceed by ignoring the deceptive road signs set up by the decadent braintrust.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 19, 2021 18:28:44 GMT
Wittgenstein is On the Horse. Trojan Semantics has no RemorseThat's true. Wittgenstein said it, objecting Russell and Frege's name-sentence theory. But later Carnap and Church used freely name logic that uses formal semantics only. Actually, we cannot be completely sure whether there's semantics; there might be some symbols chaining. I don't trust to Hegel self-mind, I think we all might be puppets on strings, and our thinking of the ratio might appear only the dreams. I don't really differ animals and human being. John Wisdom said once that the grownups are just kids with a really complicated language. The Sixties Put Enlightenment on Dim
Hayakawa's textbook on semantics, Language in Thought and Action, minimizes the importance of grammar. Yet grammar is the starting point of all semantics. So I reject Postmodern Semantics. All academic authorities on the subject must be thrown in the same trash bin where the alchemists reside. The whole 20th Century was a wrong turn. Best to start over with the classics and proceed by ignoring the deceptive road signs set up by the decadent braintrust.
Yes, I don't like postmodernists' nonsense either. And I do agree that the classics is a helpful thing. Besides, we're so missing it now – these times. However, there have occurred too many mind collapses during last hundred decades, so I don't know how people will be washing it all? It must've taken centuries to fix what the postmodernists' degenerates have done. |
|
