OVERVIEW:

Many people believe that LANGUAGE is a technology supporting RE-PRESENTATION of things we have seen or experienced.  THIS IS NOT SO!  “The Tao that can be told is not the true Tao”  — Lao Tzu … and what is intended here is that the world of our sense-experience is of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum aka the all-including WAVE-FIELD which is NOT something that can be “REPRESENTED” in LANGUAGE since LANGUAGE can only deliver SYMBOL-BASED INFERENCES.

SYMBOLS ‘work’ by “BRINGING COMPLEX SENSE-EXPERIENCES TO MIND”, BUT the complex sense-experiences are BEYOND REACH OF REPRESENTATION.  For example, using the thumb and forefinger on one hand to form a closed, circular opening and pushing the forefinger of the other hand rhythmically in-and-out of the opening, is symbol-based ‘sign language’ for sexual intercourse, IT IS NOT A ‘REPRESENTATION OF SEXUAL INTERCOURSE’.  Sexual intercourse is sense-experience based.

The KEY POINT HERE is that LANGUAGE works by constructing SYMBOLS that remind us of various aspects of our complex “BEYOND REPRESENTATION” sense-experience of inclusion in the all-including transforming relational continuum aka the WAVE-FIELD.  There is a problem when we think in terms that our LANGUAGE is capable of constructing REPRESENTATIONS of REALITY when all that LANGUAGE is capable of, is to deliver symbols that may be able to ‘put people on the same page’, not by constructing LINGISTIC REPRESENTATIONS of the complex reality of our sense-experience but by constructing symbolic ‘triggers’ that can bring into our consciousness, memories of the complex reality of our sense-experience or memories of the complex experiences of others that we have learned about, which we can only ‘translate’ by association with our own somewhat ‘similar’ experiences.

The point is that LANGUAGE does NOT have the capability of REPRESENTATION of our sense-experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum, it HAS ONLY THE CAPABILITY OF BRINGING TO MIND SYMBOLIC LINKAGES TO COMPLEX SENSE-EXPERIENCE similar to the example of the fingers-based symbol suggesting sexual intercourse.  LANGUAGE ‘WORKS’ by putting people ON THE SAME PAGE  which means bringing to mind the same sort of complex sense experience; i.e. LANGUAGE “DOES NOT WORK” by “constructing REPRESENTATIONS of complex sense-experience reality that is in any case BEYOND CAPTURE BY THE LIMITED TECHNOLOGY OF LANGUAGE”.

The gifted writer’s GIFT is NOT measured by the quality of the language-based REPRESENTATION she has constructed, although it is popular to say so.  The PRIMARY goal of language is NOT the accurate REPRESENTATION of a scene or event but to put a group of disparate people ON THE SAME PAGE so that A COMMON UNDERSTANDING IS FACILITATED.   Words are symbols for familiar material forms and when people learn to use the same words for the same forms, language-based communications are enabled.

We make jokes about the arbitrariness in this process; e.g. “In France, they call this “une fourchette”, in Germany they call this “ein Gabel  and in England, we call it a ‘Fork’ which is what it actually is.”

We seem to have a problem with LANGUAGE here.  As Korzybski says, “the WORD is NOT the THING’.

Polish-American scientist and philosopher Alfred Korzybski remarked that “the map is not the territory” and that “the word is not the thing”, encapsulating his view that an abstraction derived from something, or a reaction to it, is not the thing itself.

But the deeper issue is that“THERE ARE NO THINGS” , there are only condensations in the transforming relational continuum aka the WAVE-FIELD which brings QUANTUM LOGIC into our language architecture and gets rid of the TOO SIMPLE BINARY LOGIC concept of MATERIAL OBJECTS seemingly existing ‘in their own independent right’, as if in an ABSOLUTE EMPTY SPACE.

So, the points is, again;

LANGUAGE ‘WORKS’ by putting people ON THE SAME PAGE  which means bringing to mind the same sort of complex sense experience; i.e. LANGUAGE “DOES NOT WORK” by “constructing REPRESENTATIONS of complex sense-experience reality that is in any case BEYOND CAPTURE BY THE LIMITED TECHNOLOGY OF LANGUAGE” (the Tao that can be told is not the true Tao). 

Conservative language uses representations wherein individuals stir up the social collective which is like the geometry of hurricanes assertively stirring up the atmosphere while Liberal language uses representation wherein the social collective stirs up the individuals which is like the geometry of the atmosphere inductively stirring up hurricanes.  Neither of these BINARY LOGIC based, purported ‘representations of reality’ are ‘representations of reality’.  They are simple BINARY LOGIC based abstractions (OF MUTUALLY OPPOSING POLARITY) intended, AS LANGUAGE TYPICALLY IS INTENDED, at getting people ‘on the same page.’  THE MUTUALLY OPPOSING VIEWS ARE NOT ‘REPRESENTATIONS OF REALITY’ (the transforming relational continuum is beyond the reach of LANGUAGE), they are simplified abstractions designed to ‘get people on the same page’.   

The ‘real reality’ is too complex for words (everything is in flux), however, the QUANTUM BOTH/AND LOGIC of the INCLUDING MEDIUM (WAVE-FIELD) takes us closer to the ineffable Tao by having us realize that we can forget about the BINARY LOGIC debate where Conservatives argue that HURRICANES ARE MALE ASSERTING AND STIR UP THE ATMOSPHERE, while Liberals ARGUE THAT THE FEMALE ACCOMMODATING ATMOSPHERE INDUCTIVELY STIRS UP THE HURRICANES .  This is because in the QUANTUM  LOGIC BOTH/AND view, THE SOLAR IRRADIANCE FIELD INCLUDES BOTH FEMALE ACCOMMODATING ATMOSPHERE and MALE ASSERTING HURRICANES, dissolving the LANGUAGE based ERROR of the BINARY LOGIC SPLIT THAT “WE SEE OUT THERE through our Voyeur eyes” and OPENING OUR AWARENESS TO OUR INCLUSION IN THE ALL-INCLUDING WAVE-FIELD.

 

 * * *

 

 

 

REALITY “JUST IS” but it is the habit of us TWO-LEGGEDS to use LANGUAGE to fabricate REPRESENTATIONS of our experience of INCLUSION in this TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM.  Right away we run into the problem that ‘the Tao that can be told is not the true Tao’ because ‘everything is in flux’.   SO, THE ‘WORK-AROUND’ is to INVENT A SYSTEM OF SOUNDS or SYMBOLS THAT CAN AT LEAST STIMULATE MENTAL IMAGERY THAT ‘REMINDS’ US of OUR “IN-THE-FLOW’ SENSE EXPERIENCE ADVENTURE.

 

We call such a system ‘LANGUAGE’ and right from the GET-GO we can FORGET about the HOPELESS QUEST of ARCHITECTING a LANGUAGE that will give us a FULL and ACCURATE PRESENTATION because our sense-experience is of inclusion in THE ONE TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM which is, at least as far as us finite HUMANINGS-IN-THE-FLOW are concerned, UNBOUNDED in SPACE-TIME; i.e. it is THE TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM.

 

LANGUAGE ‘comes out in little sound-bytes’ so for sure, in developing a system of LANGUAGE, we are going to have invent LEGO-LIKE PIECES that we can PIECE TOGETHER to come up with REPRESENTATIONS PRESENTATIONS that can tap into and remind us of COMMON SENSE-EXPERIENCES that we retain in our ‘MEMORY’ so that LANGUAGE is, at base, a MEMORY-JOGGING SYSTEM where what’s being conveyed IS NOT COMING FROM SOME LITERAL CONSTRUCTION but from some sense-experience.   The ADVERTISER understand this and the ‘AD’ for a bottle of whiskey that says CANADA AT ITS BEST is using the natural relational association power of the mind to catch hold of the ‘TITS’ imagery.  This is called SUBLIMINAL ADVERTISING but LANGUAGE ITSELF is a game of communicating by using SUBLIMINAL STIMULATION because as Korzybski and others have pointed out,  ‘THE WORD IS NOT THE THING’ which would be more realistically expressed ‘the WORD is NOT THE SENSE-EXPERIENCE’ since there are no ‘THINGS’ in our sense experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.

 

So, LANGUAGE is a scheme based on constructing SYBOLIC REPRESENTATIONS PRESENTATIONS.  Note that, as just explained in the critique of what Korzybski said, LANGUAGE is a SCHEME for constructing PRESENTATIONS (not REPRESENTATIONS OF THINGS) such as ‘CANADA AT TITS BEST’ or simply ‘TITS’ which does its job at the SUBLIMINAL LEVEL which is where the memory of SENSE-EXPERIENCE persists. If I say that I want a HOT-DOG what I get will be what the other person ASSOCIATES with the word HOT-DOG.

 

The point is, and this is an important point in understanding how LANGUAGE BASED COMMUNICATIONS WORK, that the MEANING is NOT IN THE WORD ITSELF but in the THINKING that is stimulated by the utterance of the word which in this case is NOT a HOT, SWEATY LIVE ANIMAL, but something entirely different that comes to mind in the minds of members of the INSIDER GROUP using the same word-based signaling scheme.

 

IN THE END, LANGUAGE is not ‘talking about things’ but is INSTEAD LANGUAGE is PUTTING PEOPLE ON THE SAME PAGE or more-or-less the ‘same page’ since ‘CANADA AT ITS BEST’ is not going to put women on the same SUBLIMINAL PAGE as men.   But no-one-said that LANGUAGE is a perfect system where the messages convey understanding in LOCAL, EXPLICIT TERMS, because what’s involved is the CONJUGATE RELATION of TRANSMITTER and RECEIVER which is LESS SIMPLE than a PLUG and SOCKET in the manner that QUANTUM LOGIC is less simple than BINARY LOGIC.

(more…)