The language we use to define our reality is limited by its very definition. We assume we know something because a word defines it. Consider the source. Who made up that word? Why? Did they have expert knowledge? By accepting that word, and its definition, you're limiting your ability to further understand anything about that, whatever. Do men really have the ability to describe anything not man. Personally I don't think people can accurately describe themselves , much less anything else. The language I'm using now is predominately noun based, it's a quantitative language. I think a qualitative or verb based language may more accurately describe your environment.
I believe what is going on around you is more relevant than the things around you. The relationship between things is more important than the things themselves.
Let's go back to the beginning of the development of language, the why of it. The language was developed to control our environment, to assume we know something, to assuage our fear of the unknown. To live without fear, to live longer, to feel good, not scared. To assume. Once something is defined, you think you know it, you understand it, you can predict its behaviour. You can survive. Once this happens though, you instantly limit your ability to know it further. So in early mans' overzealous haste to define his environment fueled by the need to survive and furthered by the notion that this newly acquired knowledge would also increase the quality of life. He overlooked the true nature of his environment and limited future knowledge. Where is the need to know if you think you already know something? A tree for instance, man describes a tree from mans' perspective, limited. Did you ever consider how the tree would describe itself to you? That might be a more accurate definition. You might say trees don't talk. How do you know? Have you ever been a tree? Well they don't speak English in way that you can currently understand and your definition limits your need/desire to further your knowledge. You assume you already know. Trees were around before men, I wonder what they would be preferred to be called? Have you ever called someone by the wrong name? Repeatedly?
Everything in your environment has the ability communicate the same way you do, by the means of waves traveling through the environment. You assume because you're not currently hearing, seeing, feeling, smelling or tasting it, its not happening. Really? If you look at things in your environment from their perspective you start to realize that everything might be a bit different, that your understanding and your ability to understand are limited by the definitions of the words, assumptions and the language itself. These are all abstractions, constructs of the human mind, an excellent tool, but self-limited and not natural, found in nature. A rock might have a life and you might have to sit with it for a few billion years to get this through your tiny little skull.
Action or verb based languages seem to me to more accurately define the environment, Whats going on. Its the relative characteristic of the environment that accurately depicts the qualitative aspects, the relationships things have with each other. I believe that's more important than the things themselves. Before you read this, as for as your concerned I didn't exist, you didn't know I existed. Now there is a relationship that we have based on this communication,that's the value. This can be expressed as a mathematical equation. But I also have a huge Problem with Numbers.
No comments:
Post a Comment