AUTHOR’S PREFACE: Understanding the PSYCHO-DYNAMICS of LANGUAGE ARCHITECTURE

 

Imagine YOURSELF as an ARCHITECT of LANGUAGE. If you do, you will come to a GREAT DIVIDE in ARCHITECTURAL OPTION which can be compared to observing the GATHERING and SCATTERING of ants as the fetch from a pool of honey beneath a dripping bees nest high above. On the flat ground, the ants come and go in WAVES; i.e. they GATHER and SCATTER as the come to collect and depart to deliver the honey. What the OUTSIDE OBSERVER SEES is a GATHERING and SCATTERING pattern which, although it is in continuing flux, impresses upon us a REPRESENTATION featuring “A CLUSTER” which undergoes cycles of GROWTH and SHRINKAGE, even though the actual dynamic is cluster-ING and the CLUSTER part of it is APPEARANCE and WE HAD BETTER BE CAREFUL because if we ARCHITECT a LANGUAGE which employs the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR, we will end up IMPUTING LOCAL BEING to ‘the CLUSTER’ and compound this FIRST ERROR with the SECOND ERROR of GRAMMAR which imputes to the FIRST ERROR, i.e. ‘the CLUSTER’, its own (notional) POWERS OF AUTHORING GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT.

This DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR that imputes LOCAL AUTHORING where there is one, gets to play an AMAZING ROLE in our WESTERN CULTURE SOCIAL DYNAMIC by GETTING INTO THE PSYCHE OF THE WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT through the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR LANGUAGE-BASED FRAGMENTATION scheme.  So, instead of an understanding in terms of GATHERING-SCATTERING as in CLUSTERING (an innately fluid dynamic), we INVERT our understanding and CONJURE UP a SUBSTITUTE REALITY featuring LOCAL AUTHORING of GROWTH and SHRINKAGE.  Instead of WAVES of GATHERING and SCATTERING as in CLUSTERING, we have ‘the CLUSTER’ and instead of the GATHERING phase of CLUSTERING, we have GROWTH of the CLUSTER, and instead of the SCATTERING phase of CLUSTERING, we have SHRINKAGE of the CLUSTER, such the we end up constructing a SUBSTITUTE REALITY which imputes AUTHORING POWER to the CLUSTER, a vision-and-psyche contrived ILLUSION.

The SIMPLIFYING of REALITY by reducing the RESONANCE based WAVES of GATHERING and SCATTERING to a LOCAL AUTHOR based SUBSTITUTE REALITY is what distinguishes indigenous aboriginal languages from WESTERN CULTURE Common Average European languages.  Instead of acknowledging as BASIC, the RESONANCE based features such as the CLUSTERING or the TOWNING, our WESTERN CULTURE approach to LANGUAGE-BASED REPRESENTATION is to SIMPLIFY, the TOWNING in the same sense as the CLUSTERING EXAMPLE, using the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR (Nietzsche) to impute LOCAL AUTHORING of actions and developments.

GOODBYE RESONANCE BASED TRANSFORMATION, …HELLO FRAGMENTATION.

UNDERSTANDING the PSYCHO-DYNAMICS of LANGUAGE ARCHITECTURE IS WHAT THIS ESSAY IS ALL ABOUT.

 

* * *

 

 

That is, the SHORTCHANGING in the REPRESENTATION of REALITY in indigenous aboriginal languages “IS FAR LESS” than the SHORTCHANGING of REALITY in WESTERN CULTURE Common Average European language architectures, and the following explains (a) how this is the case, and (b) some of the important ramification that come from our ACTING on the basis of these INACCURATE LANGUAGE-based REPRESENTATIONS..

 

There must first be a reminder that there are two basically different types of language architectures (A) flow-based (nonlocal-implicit) as with indigenous aboriginal language and Bohm’s ‘Rheomode’ language architecture, and (B) object-based (local, explicit) as with the Common Average European language architecture;

 

–1- EXAMPLE of FLOW-BASED LANGUAGE ARCHITECTURE: “There is TOWNING in the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE”.  Note the ANDROGYNOUS FEMALE-ACCOMMODATING — MALE ASSERTING combined inference, characteristic of FLOW.

 

–2- EXAMPLE OF OBJECT-BASED LANGUAGE ARCHITECTURE: “The TOWN is GROWING, DEVELOPING and PRODUCING goods and services.  Note the ONE-SIDED MALE ASSERTIVE inference (This come with the SUBSTITUTION of absolute empty and infinite space IN PLACE OF the FEMALE accommodative conjugate).

 

THAT IS; THERE ARE TWO LANGUAGE ARCHITECTURES; (-1-) the “LESS-SIMPLE” (quantum logic) NONLOCAL, IMPLICIT FLOW-BASED (indigenous languages, Bohm’s Rheomode) LANGUAGE ARCHITECTURE which is capable of DIRECTLY expressing BALANCE and IMBALANCE, and, (-2-) the SIMPLE (binary logic) LOCAL, EXPLICIT OBJECT-BASED (Western Culture Common Average European LANGUAGE ARCHITECTURE) which is INCAPABLE of DIRECTLY expressing BALANCE.

The respective examples illustrate the fact that the FLOW-BASED language architecture (e.g. ‘there is TOWNING in the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE’ avoids any LOCAL and EXPLICIT CONSTRAINING so that the entire FIGURE and GROUND combination is free to transform as ONE; i.e. This language architecture which is capable of expressing FIGURE and GROUND as ONE is said to have a QUANTUM LOGIC capability.  This can be understood in that the TOWNING in the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE is like the BOILING in rapidly flowing stream where BOILING and the FLOWING are ONE.   For example, we would be in error to speak of the BOIL ‘growing’, ‘devloping’ and ‘producing turbulence’ as if it HAD ITS OWN LOCAL AUTHORING POWER, which would also, at the same time, imply its INDEPENDENT EXISTENCE, a inference that would FORCE on the viewer the necessity of CREATING an ABSOLUTE EMPTY AND INFINITE CONTAINING SPACE.

 

In other words, for FLOW-BASED language architecture supports the representation of “FIGURE” and “GROUND” as “ONE” as captured with ‘There is TOWNING in the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE’) , …  and DOES NOT INVOLVE the SPLITTING APART of “FIGURE” and “GROUND”, so that the THEN-LIBERATED “TOWN” is free to do its own one-sided MALE-ASSERTING “ACTION”, “DEVELOPMENT”, “PRODUCTION”.

(more…)