LONE RANGER:  Tonto, I would like to return to our discussion on language and while I appreciate that the Comanche language has some subtle capabilities beyond the capability of English, I am still not clear why you do not acknowledge the superior clarity and precision of English.

TONTO: Kemo sabe, sometimes, clarity is achieved in language at the expense of reality, as in the common practice among English speakers of applying the simple EITHER is OR is NOT logic which we Comanche’s do not use since our logic comprehends BOTH is AND is NOT.

LONE RANGER: That’s part of the lack of clarity that I am referring to, a clarity that is readily achieved in the English language.

TONTO: We Indians are all for clarity, providing that it does not involve a sacrifice of understanding, as is the case in English language clarity which is based on DIFFERENTIATION which DROPS OUT perception of INTEGRATION.  Where you say, ‘the TOWN is GROWING’, which differentiates the TOWN from the transforming landscape, we say the equivalent of ‘there is TOWNING in the transforming landscape’.

LONE RANGER: But this is exactly my point since that is more information than we need.  We don’t need to draw a map of the world in order to address what is going on in a local town.

TONTO: When we Comanches use words to describe reality, we are describing THE WORLD WE ARE INCLUDED IN and NOT some limited portion or FRAGMENT that we pick up with a Crow’s eye voyeur stare.  In other words, our language is designed to let us speak in terms of the INTEGRAL WHOLE within which we all share inclusion in, as is intended in ‘mitakuye oyasin’.  Our language is NOT designed to FRAGMENT reality as the White man’s languages do.

LONE RANGER: But you must be able to see the benefits of ‘homing in’ on the specifics of our immediate local and explicit concerns, like the need to construct shelters for our families.  For this we need language that helps us coordinate actions needed to construct the local and explicit house or town we are working on, and this language must have the capability of breaking things down into parts as used in construction.

TONTO: What you are describing is the fragmentation that we indigenous aboriginals avoid which is YOUR use of DIFFERENTIATION based language where WE use INTEGRATION based language. While you speak of the GROWTH of the TOWN, we speak of TOWNING in the TRANSFORMING continuum which is what is actually occurring in the world we all share inclusion in.  In other words, our language speaks from the point of view of INTEGRATION rather than DIFFERENTIATION, acknowledging that we and all things are included in this ONE world so that if any of us mess it up, we all experience the consequences.

LONE RANGER: But language capable of DIFFERENTIATION allows us to focus in the LOCAL and EXPLICIT so that we can optimize our overall environment by improving each part, such as a TOWN with a well-focused improvement initiative such as the CONSTRUCTION of new homes, schools and businesses.

TONTO: While your language of DIFFERENTIATION may develop the ILLUSION that what you call SUBOPTIMIZATION is possible, our language of INTEGRATION reminds us that SUBOPTIMZATION IS AN ILLUSION due to the reality that ‘everything is related’ or as we say, ‘mitakuye oyasin’.  While DIFFERENTIATION in your language may have you thinking in terms that your TOWN is a little isolated FRAGMENT of reality that you can ‘improve’ ‘on its own’, the reality is that we all share inclusion in the ONE “GREAT HARMONY” wherein everything is related.

(more…)