 by -
Aule
(Thu May 1 13:12:00)
|
|
In the back of my mind, I've been thinking for some time about what we consider to be logic. Specifically, I've wondered whether we are too narrow in the scope of our thinking, and are actually missing out on ways of thinking (alternative logic, if you will) that perhaps we once had but have somehow lost.
Kiplingkat's thread OT - Rant - Psudeo-Science and Archeology, and the subsequent discussions regarding Atlantis, the pyramids, Stonehenge, etc. prompted me to reaquaint myself with these things - particularly Atlantis. In so doing, I found an intriguing web-site wherein the East Indies was put forth as the probable location of Atlantis.
For your reference, here is the site: http://www.atlan.org
Among other things, they make a case for the cultures and mythologies of all or most cultures stemming from this. They suggest that the mythologies of the world contain certain commonalities that stem either from Hinduism or from whatever Hinduism stemmed from. They say that India was the second Atlantis - Indonesia being the first. The melting of the glacial ice at the end of the Ice Age caused the seas to rise 150 metres or so. That being the case, Indonesia would have been a large continent, as much of the South China Sea is less than 60 metres deep, and India would have been larger than it now is.
The people of this supposedly advanced civilization spread out as their continent diminished and influenced the cultures of more primitive peoples elsewhere, or simply founded new civilizations. Eventually, the original civilization and much of the knowledge from our pre-History was lost. Or was it?
Tolkien's approach was that Middle Earth et al was a pre-History. It contained little in the way of scientific knowledge. Rather, it contained a sort of matter of fact magic. Galadriel didn't consider it magic - she considered it an understanding of nature and energy. This was fundamental to Elven civilization.
What intrigues me is a statement they made about language and logic. This is:
Myths, symbols and rituals work at several different levels, simultaneously, according to the 48 Fundamental Sciences: Philosophy, Metaphysics, Ethics, Theology, Religion, History, Geography, Astronomy, etc.. In other words, myths work not according to so-called Aristotelian logic, but to "fuzzy logic", where concepts and ideas are somewhat diffuse and vague, as in Quantum Mechanics.
We Westerners are not used to this kind of logic, in contrast to the ancients and to the Orientals, and the Hindus in particular. Our difficulty in understanding myths and their hidden truths derives above all from the essence of our monosemic tongues, which accustom our minds to reason literally, rather than "diffusedly".
Does our language affect our logic such that it steers us down a narrow path? Are we missing out on knowledge and understanding because we have pigeon-holed ourselves into thinking in certain ways? Are we preventing ourselves from rediscovering lost wisdom and knowledge, the evidence of which may exist in the writings and legends of earlier polysemous languages, if only we could adjust our thinking to account for it? Is what we consider magic just a different way of understanding the universe that we have somehow excluded ourselves from? Is common logic fallible in that it excludes fundamental principles and ideas that we are not considering? Are we somehow restricted by the logic of Aristotle?
And finally, could Indonesia have been the cradle of civilization?
|
|
|
Wow. Wonderful and insightful post, Aule. It all comes down to what we innately believe in. Is magic real? Is magic part of ourselves as spiritual beings? Would there actually be magic in the world if we used our entire brain? Hmm...I'll have to come back to you on this...
Gaby 
"There's only one person in the whole world like you." 
|
|
|
Just a quick, knee-jerk kind of response for now - the kind of comprehensive response of which this post is worth will have to wait (pesky life).
Does our language affect our logic such that it steers us down a narrow path? Are we missing out on knowledge and understanding because we have pigeon-holed ourselves into thinking in certain ways? Are we preventing ourselves from rediscovering lost wisdom and knowledge, the evidence of which may exist in the writings and legends of earlier polysemous languages, if only we could adjust our thinking to account for it? Is what we consider magic just a different way of understanding the universe that we have somehow excluded ourselves from? Is common logic fallible in that it excludes fundamental principles and ideas that we are not considering?
Yes, I absolutely think that this is true. I would say, though, that it is not really due to language - more due to the different cultures and world views that there are, the different ways diverse peoples think. This, of course, is as a result of 1,000's of years of social conditionng - but then, so is language.
Proper reply in due course.
"Life is a tragedy when seen in close-up, but a comedy in long-shot."- Charles Chaplin
|
|
|
| by -
Cozza
(Thu May 1 13:45:53)
|
|
Yeah great post, very interesting, obviously a lot of thought gone into this and I don't want to try to tackle too many of the points straight away in case I go and spoil it all by saying something stupid........ Must resist urge to sing.
But on a similar note I saw a program about the structure of language on TV the other night (Discovery channel or similar).
The presenter was mainly talking about things such as grammatical structure etc rather than logic but he mentioned that there was a tribe (african i think) that believed that the spirits could hear everything you said and that if you talked about things involving people you know the spirits would hear and bring some misfortune upon them or you.
This belief strongly influenced their language and totally altered the structure of their conversations and as such had a big effect upon their thought processes.
So for example instead of saying that uncle Fred was coming to visit tomorrow at 3 O'clock instead of sunrise they might say something like...
The man near to us who visits with sun will arrive when the tide rises
or in some other equally convoluted way.
So in this case their logic or their spiritual beliefs (magic?) affect their language, so possibly there is a reciprocal effect of language upon logic I'm not sure.
Speak friend and enter
|
|
|
Since many of the posters on this board seem to have some strange mind-connection with me, I’m sure others will be able to organize my thoughts much more coherently than I possibly can, but I’ll give it a go.
The first thing that popped into my mind while reading your thread was “the unexplained”. Surely everyone has had at least one experience in which things happened that the logical side of our brain simply could not compute. Perhaps if we were to approach thinking as you suggest these things would no longer be “the unexplained”.
Also, many scoff at others who strictly follow superstitions, whether well-known or of the person’s own device. Yet there does seem to be some validity to these peoples beliefs and actions. For example, baseball players are notorious for being superstitious about an enormous variety of things. You and I may feel that their actions are silly, but time and again these players are successful as long as their rituals are followed. Could it be that these players, by believing in a type of “magic”, are actually accessing the parallel to common logic that your post addresses?
As for whether or not Indonesia could be the cradle of civilization, my first-impression-gut-instinct says “no”, but I’m always open to the possibility, if more proof could be provided. Opps! There I go, being all logical again.
bovilexia: The uncontrollable urge to lean out the window & yell "Moo!" every time you pass a cow.
|
|
|
E-V, something springs to mind when you mention the 'unexplained' - I'm not sure if it's what you're referring to, but Freud's theory of the uncanny? Maybe? I can't remember it precisely right now...in fact I'm not even sure it's even relevant to this...and now I'm just lost...but it was the first thing that sprang to mind. Just wondered if that's what you meant - I might try and look it up and see if it clicks with me in reference to this thread.  confuzzlywuzzlied.
Honest, I don't have an obsession with Freud or the phallus. 
 the bells the bells! SANCTUARY! The bells are my friends you know...
|
|
|
| by -
Broc
(Thu May 1 14:23:30)
|
|
Maybe you just explained the "fallacy" of your thought!
As Shakesaid Speare in the Verchant of Menace -- "All that Golders is Not Glit!"
|
|
|
Broc, put on some green tights, slap your thigh, and say in a jovial manner "ho ho" - Dame Broc. Hehehehe. What an image!  
the bells the bells! SANCTUARY! The bells are my friends you know...
|
|
|
| by -
Broc
(Thu May 1 14:39:19)
|
|
All of that with a full beard?
Anything for an encore!
As Shakesaid Speare in the Verchant of Menace -- "All that Golders is Not Glit!"
|
|
|
I freely admit that all I really know about Freud is what Bill & Ted taught me. And of course all of the jokes about his obsession with phallic symbols and his mother. I never had a desire to be a psych nurse.
Please give us a brief explanation of the theory and I'll let you know if that's what is bouncing around in my head, yearning to be free.
bovilexia: The uncontrollable urge to lean out the window & yell "Moo!" every time you pass a cow.
|
|
|
Ay ay ay, I'm not sure I can remember it well enough to explain it...it's kind of...hard ...I'll have a root around and see if I can find any of my notes on it, but I think I've probably left them all at the flat in which case you may have to wait until next week for the potential key to free the balls in your head.
It's almost too easy isn't it?!
the bells the bells! SANCTUARY! The bells are my friends you know...
|
|
|
*groan* Was the man truly that bad or do people exaggerate just for the bad jokes? 
bovilexia: The uncontrollable urge to lean out the window & yell "Moo!" every time you pass a cow.
|
|
|
Well, Freud was a man. Men do exaggerate. It was this big!
No, he truly was that bad - seriously seriously seriously. He once suggested that a young boy's fear of horses was a transference of his fear of his father, whose power and dominance (i.e. penis) was what prevented him from fulfilling his desire for his mother. True story. Little Hans I think his name was. Funnily enough...
the bells the bells! SANCTUARY! The bells are my friends you know...
|
|
|
| by -
GaugeMistress
(Thu May 1 14:30:48)
|
|
 UPDATED Thu May 1 22:24:53 |
I'm just not sure that I'll be able to take up this thread -- I have some specific time constraints and a busted computer monitor at home.
There is some very interesting background material here for which I have little historic context and from which I could learn much. As far as any actual contribution from me... If I were able to formulate a response (or if I become able -- doggone monitor  ), these are some ideas I might try to defend or expound:
1) Natural languages do not shape and restrict thought in many of the ways commonly supposed; current research and critical re-examination of popular wisdom debunks many long-held and under-justified beliefs that groups of people think in fundamentally different ways as guided by or reflected in their language. (There are cases where access to any natural lanuage is denied; that's a different story.)
2) There are a number of terms that are used (and sometimes blurred together) for alternatives to or variations on classical logic. These include fuzzy logic (which is probalistic, and not a good avenue for those trying to avoid math ), temporal logic, and alternative logics (in which variations on fundamental axioms or inference methods are explored, such as alternative formulations of implication). These concepts mean different things and are useful in different arenas.
3) Humans (Westerners or not) are not naturally adapted/designed to think in terms of the principles of classical logic or fuzzy logic except as it provides advantage to us (or provides/provided advantage in certain environments). I could provide some simple fun examples** that expose both the overlap and the gap between our intuitive logic and the actual principles on which the systems operate.
**Um, yes, "fun" is very much a relative term here.
If these ideas are of interest to anybody, I'll try to recover my regrettable computer situation and follow-up on any part that strikes somebody's fancy. However, I could see this thread going in very different directions than the ones I mentioned, which I would also enjoy. I don't want to hijack the thread away from its purpose. However, if anyone asked for follow-up on these, I would probably be helpless to resist. 
Thanks again, Aule!
EDIT: Just to clarify, I realize that I'm just tossing surprising statements out there, without much justification! The intent is just to suggest topics or claims that I could delve into, not to act as if the ideas were self-evident or even interesting without elaboration.
"If you're not for yourself, then who will be for you? If you're only for yourself, what are you?"
|
|
|
| by -
Broc
(Thu May 1 14:52:29)
|
|
Your first main point --
If we have a common language, and have two groups insiolation -- you'll end up with two different languages. Example: Latin to Italian, Latin to French.
If we have a group of people who think literally, and another who think figuratively--they are going to develop in quite different directions.
If we have one group who think in concrete terms, and another who speak in spiritual, even mythos, terms -- the languages are going to evolve differently.
Who we are, where we are and what/how we think will strongly impact the development of language.
All language in all cultures is in the process of evolving/deevolving.
What does it mean for a language to de-evolve. Well -- I'llagree it's really evolving, the "de" is symptomatic. But, here goes.
As New language is created, the language is very complex. Example, Latin. Latin has gender, nominative case, accusative, dative, ablative, etc.
As this Latin evolves, the language "de"-evolves, becomes much simpler, and becomes an entirely different language. Ex: French has a weaker gender concept than Latin, and cases yield to objects [D.O., Ind. O, etc]
Ultimately, languages merge, as in French and a form of German [Anglo-Saxon]. German has gender. French has gender. But the child of these languages, English, has not [functionally speaking]. Cases are gone. The subjunctive has disappeared. By the time you get to American English, the language deevolves so much that Americans can barely communicate with each other, let alone with anyone else.
Does culture affect language? Ever heard of Rap. Sub-standard Eubonics?
This making any sense?
~ Broc
As Shakesaid Speare in the Verchant of Menace -- "All that Golders is Not Glit!"
|
|
|
It does -- I would love to follow up on this more! I have to leave, and I don't have a working machine at home. Arrrrgggghhhh. Much more to say on these points. I'm too concerned that any short response would seem like some combination of empty agreement or just being dismissive, so I think I'd best put this off for now. Except for this: Steven Pinker wrote a great controversial book, The Language Instinct, which explores many of these issues. Is that title familiar, by any chance?
"If you're not for yourself, then who will be for you? If you're only for yourself, what are you?"
|
|
|
| by -
Broc
(Thu May 1 15:07:14)
|
|
I have to leave, also.
Another time, Kiddo!
Wish we could do a face-to-face. We've landed on one of my fav subjects. Language and archaeology.
Best Wishes!
As Shakesaid Speare in the Verchant of Menace -- "All that Golders is Not Glit!"
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Thu May 1 18:45:53)
|
|
You're a smart man, Broc.
|
|
|
| by -
GaugeMistress
(Thu May 1 20:48:41)
|
|
| UPDATED Thu May 1 21:06:46 |
The footnote that goes at the top: If at any point I start sounding more pedantic and less like a person who has forgotten how very much she has to learn, please do me a favor and point it out to me sooner rather than later!
You can tell we both have an interest in language, because it sounds like neither of us would put up with any notion of languages being static expressions of some prescriptive set of rules! In fact, if languages didn't change, evolve/devolve, and mingle the way they do, I might actually be more inclined to believe that they reflect fundamental intrinsic differences in the mental processes of those that speak them. Languages change, and the boundaries around a single language are less definable than the boundaries that circumscribe a single organism or a species. 
I think if there's a somewhat non-standard idea that I'm supporting, it's that we come with much more complex innate machinery than we might have guessed, including something like a mental language. That doesn't in any way minimize the significance of learning or culture in my opinion; to me, it just says that our cultures are... <<grasping at straws for an analogy here>> symphonies played out on an instrument of unprecedented complexity? journeys in an amazingly engineered vehicle, with far more underlying features than are immediately apparent?
Cases and gender vary, but these are not necessarily reflective of different attitudes about sexuality. (In general, that idea doesn't seem to hold up under scientific study.) Rather, these are choices in the space of "decisions" which every human language needs to make, along with concept ordering, and how to put in the right amount of redundancy to ensure coherency without being wasteful. All that is intended in reference to spoken language -- my opinions about written language, both its form and its influence, are quite different.
I have heard ebonics, used in reference to the dialect or language of black people (particularly in North America), used to draw conclusions about the people that speak it. One such conclusion is that it reflects a people rebelling against authority imposed rules, hence the "ungrammatical" tendencies. However, genuine study of the dialect reveals that it has a grammer of its own, which simply occupies a different space in the many dimensions of choices that each language makes. The speakers are neither more nor less grammatical (faithful to a self-consistent set of rules) than speakers of "standard English" and the rate of information transfer is about the same. Non-native speakers, trying to imitate the speech, make the same kinds of mistakes that any non-native speaker makes and sound quite ridiculous to those who have naturally acquired the grammar.
There are languages with only two, three, or four words for colors (if there are two, black and white; if three, add in red). There are languages with only three words for number (one, two, and many). However, these people reason about color and number in much the same way we do. There are languages that have no word for grief or mourning. (Tahitians use words for physical ailments in this context.) However, all evidence seems to indicate the same basic gamut of emotions in Tahitians and people everywhere, even very isolated people groups. (Of course, the situations that inspire those emotions are very culturally dependent!)
I suspect that you and I both greatly enjoy words that show up in other languages and perfectly name a concept we knew which lacked a word. (I'll bet I could learn some good ones from you.) Still, much of the enjoyment here is because we did know the concept. Here's a quote from that guy I mentioned before, Steven Pinker: "And does it not say something profound about the Teutonic psyche that the German language thas the word Schadenfreude, pleasure in another's misfortunes? ... When English-speakers hear the word Schadenfreude for the first time, their reaction is not, 'Let me see ... Pleasure in a nother's misfortunes... What could that possibl be? I cannot grasp the concept; my language and culture have not provided me with such a category.' Their reaction is, 'You mean there's a word for it? Cool!'"
There is a very different issue which comes up when the natural acquisition of language is blocked for any reason. That absolutely affects ability and approaches for reasoning and navigating this world. I propose only that spoken natural languages provide avenues to the different types of thinking for which we are naturally, intuitively equipped. (I don't count classical logic as one of those types, though! When it comes to written languages and learned techniques like this, we have left the realm about which I'm trying opine.)
Anyhow, these are all just tiny points from what is a huge discussion, worthy of genuine scholars on the topic and not imitations like myself. I just hate to see myself putting claims out there without the justification that's in my thoughts. As you said, it's a shame we can't chat about such topics. In the mean time, I hope this brazen and unorganized sampling of stuff-I've-read-about has been more enjoyable than irritating.
EDIT: Darn it! All that verbage and I forgot one of my main points. With all that said, I specifically chose to study American Sign Language because it was so different from most of the other languages available to me for study (particularly with the opportunity to have a native speaker as a teacher). I learned it in the hope that I would be able to say and even think concepts in ASL which I might never have expressed or even conceived in my native language. I do believe that has happened. The downside -- anyone out there speak ASL? Doesn't do us much good here, does it?
"If you're not for yourself, then who will be for you? If you're only for yourself, what are you?"
|
|
|
"...All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us."
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Thu May 1 19:00:55)
|
|
What if current researchers are not capable of understanding the logic of a forgotten past? What if there is a type of thought process that has either not occurred to them or we are no longer capable of it?
Obviously, as Broc said, culture affects language, but how much is the reverse true? In both an individual and a larger sense (i.e. cultural development), I think that language does have a significant effect. Our neural pathways form at an early age, and we become pretty much who we're going to be in the first 8 to 10 years. More than anything, during that time, we are learning how to communicate. The type of communication and the way it is learned must have a major impact on our thought processes as different areas of the brain are stimulated in different ways.
Take that and extend it to a civilization, and the resultant reinforcement that would come from this, and possibly expand. I can see how it would result in a group of people who look at and approach things in a different way from others.
What we think is based on fundamental assumptions. Logic is based on assumptions at some point. What if we started from a different set of assumptions and had a different approach, very much alien to the way we think today? Maybe our brains aren't formed that way anymore, or we are just using them differently. The possibilities of such a thing are very intriguing to me.
|
|
|
| by -
GaugeMistress
(Thu May 1 21:34:56)
|
|
| UPDATED Thu May 1 22:29:57 |
I think I probably shouldn't be allowed to post more in one night than the response to Broc's post above. It's also a response to you though -- particularly the note about American Sign Language at the end.
I feel that American Sign Language does highlight some aspects of human reasoning in a unique way, and there's a marverlous interaction between the language and the culture. (As always, I'd be glad to chat about that more, but I feel I should wait for an indication of interest from someone other than myself, before launching into another observation avalanche.  )
We have any interesting question running here about alternatives to Aristotelian or Euclidean logic, but I want to stop and question the initial premise that classical logic is truly is fundamental to how we modern Western folks think, or encoded in our language. We can acquire this behavior, but there are some indications that classical logic simply doesn't underly or drive our reasoning in the way that we sometimes assume.
One example (again from Mr. Pinker). Suppose that we have a deck of card with letters on one side and numbers on the other. (An independent third party has verified this for us.) Now, you want to test the following hypothesis:
Cards with a D on one side have a 3 on the other.
I show you four cards, as follows:
D F 3 7
You are suspicious of the hypothesis and want to falsify it; that's your only goal. Which cards should you turn over?
<< pausing for a moment's reflection here -- but don't take too long!>>
The principles of classical logic say that you should turn over two cards -- the D and the 7. The other two cannot possibly falsify the hypothesis. Most people say the D and the 3. Okay, suppose you turn over the 3 and see a D. So what? That doesn't tell you the hypothesis is true, nor that it's false. The F isn't interesting; it has some number on the other side. But... you could turn over the 7 and see a D. You might be one of the 5% that answered according to classic logic, but this one trips up people who study logic! (It also helps if you take longer to think about it -- but that's further indication that you need to get away from your intuition and formalize the problem apart from its English description.) The same results in appear in other languages and cultures.
There are other variations on this problem that give some interesting hints about the logic that actually does underly our reasoning; that was the most surprising part to me.
Anyhow, I hope this isn't too far afield of what you actually wanted to discuss. Thank you again for investing such thought and skill into our discussions.
"If you're not for yourself, then who will be for you? If you're only for yourself, what are you?"
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Fri May 2 12:38:44)
|
|
Shouldn't the problem presented indicate something like how to disprove the claim with the fewest number of cards? The simplest solution is to just turn them all over. I did understand what you were getting at, and I assumed that is what you meant, since the only relevant cards are those two, and I did get the right answer - but then, I've done a lot of such puzzles, various IQ tests, the Mega test, etc. You get used to it. My enthusiasm for such puzzles and tests is not what it once was. Burning out I guess.
I like the conundrum with the three light switches and the light bulb on the other side of the door. You can only open the door once. Which one turns on the light? Were you around for any of my conundrum threads? I did a bunch of them a while back, but I did one of them a few months ago here.
Another fun puzzle is this:
\
\/\
/\/
/
Use toothpicks to create the above representation of a fish. Moving only three toothpicks, how do you make the fish face the other way? Most people don't get it because they are trapped in a mindset. They think in one direction.
Don't worry about going too far afield of what I actually wanted to discuss. Most of my threads are purposely meant to allow people to take things in different directions and to examine things from different perspectives. I love it. Just trying to come up with a starting point.
I'd be happy to hear about how American sign language highlights some aspects of human reasoning in a unique way. Bring it on.
|
|
|
| by -
GaugeMistress
(Fri May 2 13:02:13)
|
|
| UPDATED Fri May 2 13:03:32 |
I thought about trying to express a cost per card that you choose to turn over. However, I didn't want to get into the question of evaluating the cost of turning the card over against the probability of a fruitful outcome. I decided to just say with "should turn over". If the simplest solution is to turn them all over, that's still an indication that the answer is not intuitive; why do extra thinking about irrelevant data? Searching the larger space is still a hint that people are intuitively pruning the space. Or maybe I was just a lazy question poser. That might be it.
This particular exercise isn't just supposed to be about doing puzzles; I picked it specifically for the way it distinguishes between classic logic and alternative logics. Classic logic defines implication, p->q, with this familiar truth table:
[pre]
p q p->q
- - ----
0 0 1
0 1 1
1 0 0
1 1 1
General dissatisfaction with the first two lines of that truth table inspired some of the alternative logics the people muck around with. Now, this question about cards is trying to distill the essence of a problem in which the classis notion of implication is directly applicable, to determine what groups of people naturally or intuitively prune the possibilities. The results indicate that it's not about intelligence! (Though, as you point out, getting used to doing similar puzzles certainly has an effect. )
So, I'm not trying to say, "Look, this puzzle probably confused you, people are illogical." Rather, I'm trying to say, "All these years of indoctrination in Western philosophies and the native learning of Romance languages does not naturally equip people to take the most basic reasoning step in classic logic." Alternative logics may certainly unlock insights which don't come naturally to classic logic -- but classic logic doesn't underly our mental processes to begin with.
An interesting twist: Clearly you can couch this problem several ways. Here's an isomorphic version that people always answer correctly: You are assigned to search for underage drinkers in a bar. Whom do you approach: The person drinking a margarita, the person who appears to be about 50, the person who appears to be 14, and/or the person drinking soda water? Of course, you can rephrase the question many ways, and put it in a variety of cultural contexts. What seems to happen is that people have a basic, intuitive sense for catching cheaters. In fact, you can give the same options but ask a different question, and they will still pick out the person who appears to be 14 and the person drinking a margarita. It's as though people use a logic of utility rather than a logic of implication.
Sad to say, I was not around for the conundrum threads, or not attentive enough to notice them. 
"If you're not for yourself, then who will be for you? If you're only for yourself, what are you?"
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Fri May 2 13:16:14)
|
|
I know exactly what you were trying to say about classic logic and alternative logics, and I agree. It's pretty much what I was getting at with my original post, although I couched it in a question about diverse languages. I'm wondering what alternative logics we are missing, and what affects things like culture, language, etc. have on this. It's tough to put into words.
Too bad you weren't around for the conundrums. It was fun, and I have a feeling you would have done very well on them. I had a teacher in highschool who used to spend at least one class a week presenting us with a conundrum. I wish I could remember them all.
|
|
|
Yes, there is something telling about our natural discomfort with the idea of slapping the "truth" label on "p implies q" just because p can be shown to be false. Vacuous truth gives us the heebie-jeebies, yet we start to lose our bearings when we build formalisms apart from it.
For that matter, changing one little postulate out of Euclid's favorite five can lead to useful but disorienting conclusions.
Another random thought: Greek mathematicians were moving along quite well up until the discovery of numbers which could not be expressed as fractions -- it took a while to overcome their aesthetic sense and to follow where their logic was leading them, into the revealingly titled "irrational numbers". It's table napkin exercise to show that the square root of two is irrational, but it was a difficult cognitive leap to make. (And we won't even start psychoanalyzing the name "transcendental numbers" -- I always liked that one. ) I'm inclined to believe that there are places our hearts wander where our logic(s) cannot take us, and also places that logic(s) would lead and which we would not dare follow.
"If you're not for yourself, then who will be for you? If you're only for yourself, what are you?"
|
|
|
For all that bantering on my part about belief in common underlying mental processes for humanity, I do believe that languages are different in their expressivity, and that they may highlight and display different mental features the way different styles of dance may bring out different features of human movement.
American Sign Language draws out spatial reasoning and three dimensional memory in a way that I just don't see (hear?) in other languages. Suppose you ask someone how to get to the nearest gas station. If you don't know the area, you may stop them once they get as far the fourth turn, and ask for time to write all this down. (If you have a good sense of direction, you may be able to take in quite a lengthy and detailed set of instructions.) In ASL, you would just sign "left turn", "one block", "right turn" in sequence; you would pick an anchor point for "here" and then move all your signs as if building a 3d map. You can change scale, but never orientation (unless you choose to indicate, "Okay, save that, we're gonna make a new picture now"). I am always surprised to see how much detail is being stored at any one point when directions are given in sign.
All language uses spatial metaphors for abstract concepts. However, I'm inclined to think that naturally acquired ASL trains the mind to accomodate a greater range of mental symbols in an imagined space, and to break out of some two dimensional thinking modes into a third dimension (and possibly more, since hand shape, orientation, and motion, along with position, determine the distinct phonemes that exist).
Just wanton speculation on my part, though.
"If you're not for yourself, then who will be for you? If you're only for yourself, what are you?"
|
|
|
| by -
Broc
(Thu May 1 14:34:49)
|
|
I had a prof, back during the Second Age, who taught "scientific Russian." This doesn't mean, "science." It means the logic and evolution[and devolution] of the linguistic code we know as Russian.
He was so fascinating!
He explained how [for example] Russian and Slavonic were close related, but so far apart,because of differing roots of religious thought flowing into the two languages, and the collision of the two sources, brought about by the "invasion" of Christianity mythos and pagan mythos, which formed the bases of modern Russian.
For example, why is Slavonic "city", grad, but Russian is gorod?
Why are masculine nound for uncle, and grandfather, feminine?
His lectures focused on "revealed" religion versus "pagan" mythos, and how language was imbued with meaning.
Right down your alley! However, reinforced your thesis: Language is the product of thought [mythos included], which in turn, creates more/deeper thought, religion and mythos.
He explained all of this as a cycle -- unbroken -- ongoing. He also decried the "modern," "scientific" thought processes which kills mythos, and stifles the human spirit [including religious essence].
Why do we respond to Tolkien?
Maybe the answer is so very simple: he give us a fulfillment of a sunconscious yearning to have mythos in our lives. Why else do we love even simpler fairy tales? Why have such stories persisted for centuries, millenia?
This prof's thesis extended to answer our mutual need for religion -- an extension of the core of the human spirit to communicate with force[s] more powerful than ourselves.
Isn't this essential Tolkien?
~ Broc
As Shakesaid Speare in the Verchant of Menace -- "All that Golders is Not Glit!"
|
|
|
Sounds fascinating, Broc! Wish some of my courses in college were that interesting. 
bovilexia: The uncontrollable urge to lean out the window & yell "Moo!" every time you pass a cow.
|
|
|
| by -
Broc
(Thu May 1 15:04:10)
|
|
I wish my college courses werethis interesting, also! Had a few profs I loved, but most of the time it was grit-your-teeth-and-get-through.
This particular instructor was in a professional language school. We studied Russian, and Russian only, 8 hours a day, five days a week, for two years. Each hour of the day, we had a new instructor. Every six weeks, we had eight new [different[ instructors, so we were exposed to regional dialects and highly varying philosophies and teaching methods.
Our first year was Russian, Russian, Russian!
Our second year was math, science, philosophy, history, culture, etc., all with Soviet textbooks.
From Day One, everything was in Russian -- no English allowed in the classroom. I'll never forget that first hour, with some woman damn-near chanting the same thing, over and over, making us repeat -- we didn't have a clue what we were saying, but whenever we said it wrong, we were corrected [never reprimanded. Only sabatoge was reprimanded, never a legit mistake].
What is this?
This is a pencil [masculine nominative]
What is this?
This is a book [feminine]
What is this?
This is a pen [neuter]
Is this a pen?
No! It's a book.
Is this a pencil?
No, it's a pen.
What are these?
These are pencils [nominative masc plural]
Etc... ad nauseum!
Then, to accusative
Follow by dative
Instrumental
15 new words every day for the first year.
25 a day the second year.
How did I survive? I couldn't do that now! My brain has moved into Slo-Mo.
There were eight students to a class, sitting at tables in a U shape. The prof was in the middle, and could reach out to touch us at any time. Close proximity. The goal was to have each of us reciting/responding once a minute. Rapid fire!
I don't know what those instructors were paid, but it wasn't enough!
I'm sure you're all bored to death. Sorry...
~ Brrraaaawwwwwwwwwwwwk!
As Shakesaid Speare in the Verchant of Menace -- "All that Golders is Not Glit!"
|
|
|
| by -
sinaes
(Thu May 1 15:00:13)
|
|
| UPDATED Thu May 1 15:02:39 |
If Plato had only known what he was starting.
As far as Atlantis, it would be nice for archeologists if they could point to one place and say, "this is where civilization comes from." The truth is however that civilization evolved simultaneously everywhere.
The bulwark of civilization is invention. The more techniques available, the more tools to work with, the more ideas being exchanged .. the more advanced the civilization.
Now since nessecity is the mother of invention, it's easy to see how different tribes would evolve similarly. Being in a hostile environment, having to get food, provide shelter from the elements, relate with other tribes, maintain order within the tribe, etc. Each of these problems requires a solution .. technical, cultural, whatnot.
There's only so much a tribe could do for any one of these, take food for example. You can hunt, gather, grow your own food, trade for food, get another tribe to do the work for you (through war or whatnot), or a combination. There's really not much else you can do unless they want to starve.
So if we scatter thousands of tribes throughout the world, they'll come up with similar ideas, similar solutions .. cause they are faced with similar problems and there are only so many possible solutions. I can easily see a situation where a tribe went from gathering what was available, then the tribe grew to a size where that wasn't enough, so they had to hunt, but traveling on and on finally got to some of them, so they decided to take root, etc.
So yeah an Atlantis would be nice, but I don't think it's really necessary to explain the commonalities between people.
Does our language affect our logic such that it steers us down a narrow path? Are we missing out on knowledge and understanding because we have pigeon-holed ourselves into thinking in certain ways? Are we preventing ourselves from rediscovering lost wisdom and knowledge, the evidence of which may exist in the writings and legends of earlier polysemous languages, if only we could adjust our thinking to account for it? Is what we consider magic just a different way of understanding the universe that we have somehow excluded ourselves from? Is common logic fallible in that it excludes fundamental principles and ideas that we are not considering? Are we somehow restricted by the logic of Aristotle?
That's a lot of questions Ultimately I think you're asking an ethical question ... what is the best way to reason?
Logic is restricting. Humans beings are capable of thinking just about anything. Doesn't mean that everything we think of is susseptible to reasoning.
Human imagination can run wild .. and all its products can be unreasonable.
If philosophers had to examine all those thoughts .. whoah. I don't think they'd ever get anywhere. So logic's funtion in a sense is to narrow things down to give them something to work with. Do we (science) miss out on things this way, sure .. but that's what art is for, to deal with everything else.
I'm like a good haines t-shirt: tagless 
|
|
|
| by -
Broc
(Thu May 1 15:09:26)
|
|
As Shakesaid Speare in the Verchant of Menace -- "All that Golders is Not Glit!"
|
|
|
| by -
kiplingkat
(Thu May 1 15:44:29)
|
|
| UPDATED Thu May 1 18:58:24 |
Well, Aule you do ask some interesting questions, worthy of consideration. But I don't think langauge is the issue so much as human nature.
"Does our language affect our logic such that it steers us down a narrow path?"
Language, yes and no. I can see yes, because I remember the discussion we had a few weeks back on the use of the world "gay" for "bad", but that is a value judgement. Broc also does make some good points about languages influencing attitudes. But english retains very few gender associations for objects. And english, of all the languages, is an incredibly mutable thing, we add words and change meanings yearly. So I don't think language is the factor in the acceptance of "new" ideas.
"Are we missing out on knowledge and understanding because we have pigeon-holed ourselves into thinking in certain ways?"
Almost certainly. It is human nature to fear the unknown and a different way of being is as unknown as it gets.
"Are we preventing ourselves from rediscovering lost wisdom and knowledge, the evidence of which may exist in the writings and legends of earlier polysemous languages, if only we could adjust our thinking to account for it?"
Ever read the Popul Vu? That's some intesnely alien mythos, yet they were human beings who dreamed it wrote it were inspired to worship by it. So, yes, not being able to live in their time, in their environs, and their lives greatly hinders our ability to understand, and therefore we miss the deeper meanings as well. But that is human nature, we cannot crawl into another skin and experience their life first hand. We have to cultivate your own experiences, learn our own lessons, gain our own wisdom. Wisdom is not something that can be taught in a book, it is experiential. (I'm talking wisdom, not knowlege. Knowlege is facts and those are written out plainly for us. Even if what we are reading is a myth, we have events and characters of the story, the Facts, even if the deeper meaning of those characters and events escapes us.) It would be great to be able to understand the ancients better than we do, I would love it! But in the end, we all must find our own path.
"Is what we consider magic just a different way of understanding the universe that we have somehow excluded ourselves from?"
Yes.
"Is common logic fallible in that it excludes fundamental principles and ideas that we are not considering?"
Yes. There is no one point of view or one way of thinking about things.
"Are we somehow restricted by the logic of Aristotle?"
If one is a strict "Aristotelian", yes. As I said, there is no one way to think about things. However, such logic is key to science, research and experimentaion so it should be never be tossed out with the bathwater.
"And finally, could Indonesia have been the cradle of civilization?"
It is possible, but I would have far rather have seen a discussion on Java Man and Peking Man than this....
I will repeat what I said in my thread, but which I think is very revevant.
"I think when condering the similarities between cultures, we must consider the universal human experience. We are all born, grow up, go through puberty, eat, create, dream, worship something higher than ourselves (in ancient times, or at least I haven't heard of any culture of ancient atheits yet), have families, have friends, form "romantic" attachments, have or interact with children, grow old and die. While every culture may look on the life of a human being differently, it is still a human life. I don't think it explains away all the smiliarities between cultures, but I think it explains a lot of them."
Now, I can tell you from scanning this website's "Atlantis Checklist" I saw three ... errors.
-Plato does not talk about pineapples or coconuts.
-He does not talk of perfumes or incenses.
-He says nothing of a pyramid cult. (He talks of temples.)
-Thor Heirydal has been proven a fraud by the native who came forward a said he was paid to carve simlar statues and small boats and such as Inca artifacts (The Smithsonnean magazine just had a spread on this a couple months go). I'm not saying that his theory is invalid, but he has only proved that it is possible, not that it happened.
-The crossed circle apears extremely rarely in very early ancient Egyptian tombs. (The only examples I've seen were under a boat and representing a mill wheel, I have never heard of it being referred to as "the land of paradise" by anyone but these people) Where did they get this interpretation?
I love that way they just pull this stuff out of their butt, unreferenced, and pass it off for fact. This is one way to discern an article or book of value from something that is based on shoddy and manipulated facts: The references and footnotes.
Now, I can see where they got this theory in that the Aryan language groups spread to create the european languages. And that would be a facinating study. There are many mysteries in the world that deserve real accedemic attention, but not like this. They deserve reseach and scientific scrutiny, not the twisting of facts to suit someone's pet theory.
P.S. Great post Guage!
A little peace? Why so modest? How about eternal peace? Now there's a thought.
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Thu May 1 19:18:30)
|
|
I'm not so much thinking about the meanings of words and how they change (although that is a part of it), but the structure and style even. Hmmm, it's really difficult to put down in words what I'm really thinking here. I'm not sure it's possible without writing a 50 page essay. It can be taken so many ways.
Almost certainly. It is human nature to fear the unknown and a different way of being is as unknown as it gets.
Very good point, and it touches on part of what I'm thinking. People don't just seek knowledge because they need to know - people are comfortable believing that they know. So, what they have accepted tends to remain accepted. Once we accept, we are no longer looking. If we as a people stop looking, then the option to do so will eventually cease to exist. Perhaps we stopped looking in certain directions somewhere along the way - maybe before recorded history.
Perhaps we now look at things entirely differently than some lost civilization. We can't find it because we can't understand it or the clues that we have before us. Hey, it's tough in some respects to understand cultures that existed only a few hundred years ago. How hard is it to study something that presumably existed before our known, written history?
Aristotlean thought dominated western philosophy right up until pretty much the time of Descartes, I believe. Thomas Aquinas and a few others did their thing but they pretty much just adapted Aristotle. That's a long time. I wonder how much it became ingrained in us.
As for the evidence on that web-site: yeah, you're right, there are some questionable pieces of evidence, but they make some seemingly good cases too. I say "seemingly" because I'd have to do research to prove or disprove much of it, but some of it makes sense. The main thing is - it makes you think, and examine the possibilities.
Thanks for the post. With your history background, and your previous thread, I was interested in what you had to say.
|
|
|
| by -
kiplingkat
(Fri May 2 13:32:53)
|
|
| UPDATED Fri May 2 14:13:50 |
Hrm, I think you would. Quite frankly it sounds like a linguists doctoral thesis. But that's hardly the first thesis-worthy subject brought up on this boards.
"Once we accept, we are no longer looking."
Perhaps on an individual level, but scientists and mathemeticians are constantly revising, creating or chucking theories. The number of changes and permutatations evolutionary theory has gone through in it's relatively short life span. Think about how the science of genetics alone has changed it. Theories on astrophysics have gone through great evolutions. For the longest time, Summerian was considered the first writing in the world, then we found an Egyptian tablet that predates it. Linear B was deciphered, as well as Mayan heiroglyphs. Good lords, in the last century how many sciences have we invented/discovered? We've never stopped looking, the public just hasn't taken an interest. Reality is too boring I guess. But science is hardly the dusty halls of rigid dogma.
Yes, it takes time and it takes proof to overthrow a prevailing theory, and it should. How much snake oil was sold before Jenner stepped in? How long were the ideas of racial supremecy held as a biological fact until scientific study told us we are all like? How many wrong directions have we gone in before we established these guidelines of study, research and development? How many wrong directions would we go in if we abandoned them?
The scietific method does not hold all the answers, but the answers we come up outside of it with should go through that method of testing to verify their viability.
As for the website, that was just on a peripheral scan that I picked up those "errors" and that alone made me throw out everything they had to say. If someone has a theory to present they should do so honestly instead of mixing up what could be an intersting theory with lies and half truths.
A little peace? Why so modest? How about eternal peace? Now there's a thought.
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Fri May 2 15:41:49)
|
|
I'm not sure we can throw out everything they say because it appears there are errors. I haven't seen too many historical writings that are entirely accurate. They do explain that they are trying to see it from the perspective of the Egyptians from whom the story descended. They may be making assumptions as to some of the vague descriptions Plato gave.
For example, perfumes could be Plato's "distilling drops of flowers or fruits" when describing some of the "fragrant things". Perhaps "fruits having a hard rind" was interpreted as coconuts.
They reference a great many cultures and mythologies and make some subjective comparisons. It would take some time to evaluate it all. There are aspects of the theory regarding Thera as Atlantis that just don't seem to jive with Plato's writings either. What did Plato get wrong, if any of it was correct? What was exaggerated or added or left out or misrepresented to him or those who told him?
|
|
|
| by -
kiplingkat
(Fri May 2 16:12:59)
|
|
| UPDATED Fri May 2 16:20:21 |
The two points where Thera doesn't jive with Plato is size: "Libya & Asia put together" (North Africa and to the Greeks, Turkey) and location, "Outside the Pillars of Heracles" (Atlantic Ocean). The biggest indicators (but not he only ones) that it is are the Eruption of Thera, which was 5 or 6 times Krakatoa which sunk the island, and the Minoan Diaspora. The Minoans were and advanced civilization for their time in government, art, architecture, trade, industry. And surprisingly, little of no military (Probably because they were an island nation and transporting troops over sea was a difficult and dangerous task at best in Plato's time, the Minoans felt safe.) The tsunami from Thera that destroyed their coastal cities on Crete, inclusing their capital, was followed by an invasion of Mayceans. The Minoans scattered to the nearest coasts of the Mediteranian, most to Greece, where they had a heavy influence on the Mycean and Hellenistic culture.
Now, I don't see any evdience of such a culture in this region of the world before the time of Thera.
This is the entire quote: "Also whatever fragrant things there now are in the earth, whether roots, or herbage, or woods, or essences which distil from fruit and flower, grew and thrived in that land." This only says that whatever fragrant plant that the Greeks enjoyed in Plato's time grew on Atlantis, not that Atlantians created inscences or oils.
However, Coconuts would fit this passage, "we call them all by the common name pulse, and the fruits having a hard rind, affording drinks and meats and ointments"
It is probably rash of me to toss the whole thing out, but I can't tell you how disgusting it is to see such nonsense, with no references or validity, passed off as fact. And people buy it. Like I said, if one is going to discuss Asia as the birthplace of civilization, I would far rather see Peking or Java man, Rapa Nui, etc. brought into the dicussion rather than misrepresented egyptian visual minutiua. I'm sure one could come up with enough fact to create a such a theory of an Indochinese Atlantis, rather than making vain attempts to validate their theories through lies. In the end, that what all the archeologists and anthropologists have been saying, "Prove it." and none of these types of fantical shysters have, but they just go ahead and keep publishing their books, filled with their inaccuracies anyway and the public just eats it up. How is something supposed to make me think when it insults my intelligence at the same time?
A little peace? Why so modest? How about eternal peace? Now there's a thought.
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Fri May 2 16:40:13)
|
|
This is the entire quote: "Also whatever fragrant things there now are in the earth, whether roots, or herbage, or woods, or essences which distil from fruit and flower, grew and thrived in that land." This only says that whatever fragrant plant that the Greeks enjoyed in Plato's time grew on Atlantis, not that Atlantians created inscences or oils.
Here's an interesting point. The version I found says this:
"Also, whatever fragrant things there are in the earth, whether roots, or herbage, or woods, or distilling drops of flowers or fruits, grew and thrived in that land"
and the second part:
"the cultivated fruit of the earth, both the dry edible fruit and other species of food, which we call by the general name of legumes, and the fruits having a hard rind, affording drinks, and meats, and ointments, and good store of chestnuts and the like"
Different, and yet similar.
In addition to size and location, another problem with the Thera theory is time. Plato claimed Atlantis ceased to exist some 9000 years before his time.
There are many that think that any theory about Atlantis having really existed is bunk. They think that Plato's account is nothing more than a parable. I don't think that any theory is proven.
|
|
|
| by -
kiplingkat
(Fri May 2 16:53:51)
|
|
| UPDATED Fri May 2 17:18:25 |
No, no theory is conclusive. And it is hard to discern facts in a 9,000 year old tale told to Plato by a friend, who heard it from his father, who heard it from his Poet friend, who heard it from an Egyptian preist.... Ever play the telephone game?
And then there's translations...let's not bring up the Bible shall we? 
I agree, it's probably just an excersise in intellectual masturbation, but it's a fun one nonethelesss. I just don't enjoy the dissemenation of falsehoods that often goes along with such ventures. What's the point in seeking ancient knowlege if you are perverting it at the same time?
A little peace? Why so modest? How about eternal peace? Now there's a thought.
|
|
|
Hi Aule,
Kiplingkat's thread OT - Rant - Psudeo-Science and Archeology, and the subsequent discussions regarding Atlantis, the pyramids, Stonehenge, etc. prompted me to reaquaint myself with these things - particularly Atlantis. In so doing, I found an intriguing web-site wherein the East Indies was put forth as the probable location of Atlantis.
Thoughts on Edgar Cayce; he maintained that Atlantis had a civilization which was technologically superior to our own, and that its last surviving islands had disappeared in the area of the Caribbean some ten thousand years ago. His most specifically timed forecast was that Atlantis would rise again in 1968 or 1969. Needless to say, Cayce was wrong on that count. However, it was in that timeframe that the "Bimini Road" was located in the Atlantic Ocean. Whether this is a "road" or "natural, geologic erosion" is being hotly debated.
Cayce said the size of Atlantis was equal to "that of Europe, including Asia in Europe." He saw visions of a continent which had gone through three major periods of division; the first two about 15,600 BCE, when the mainland was divided into islands. The three main islands Cayce named Poseida, Og and Aryan. He said the Atlanteans had constructed giant laser-like crystals for power plants, and that these had been responsible for the second destruction of the land. Cayce blamed the final destruction on the disintegration of the Atlantean culture through greed and lust. But before the legendary land disappeared under the waves, Cayce believed there was an exodus of many Atlanteans through Egypt and further afield. Cayce attributed history's Great Flood in part to the sinking of the last huge remnants of Atlantis.
paul
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Thu May 1 19:30:48)
|
|
Fascinating stuff, Paul. These guys also attribute the fall of Atlantis to the flood story. It's interesting that he named one of the islands Aryan.
I did hear about that road stretching eastwards out of Bimini.
|
|
|
Excellent question!
But like several others I don't think the language itself is the reason we are resticted in our thought. The language is derived from our culture and thought so it is a product of the closed (or open) mind. If we don't have a word to describe something that we don't understand that is because we refuse to allow for the fact that something we don't understand exists. Wow, that came out really well- . Okay- try to be a bit more clear (Be the Thread!)
For a completely different example if I may. Acupuncture- for many thousands of years it has been used to treat and cure diseases successfully. My understanding of the medicine comes from the veterinarian that I work with. She is a certified veterinary acupuncturist. I have seen some wonderful things (including on my own dogs) that I would describe as magic. The language of acupuncture is not the language of Western medicine, and because of that it is difficult to wrap our very western taught minds around it. The fact that many western medical professionals chose not to even examine it further does not rely on the fact that the language is different. It is because if they can't understand it or quantify it by their western means then it does not exist. We use acupuncture in conjunction with western meds and have had some very successful results. Of course, as in EVERY medicine, it does not work for everyone, or every pet. But it should not be written off.
PLEASE NOTE:
This is not meant to become an argument about the medical usefulness of acupuncture. They are now currently testing the "scientific effects" of acupunture and finding that there are "measurable" and "useful" effects. And I expect that it will become more "acceptable" as those tests are published and reported.
So I guess what I am saying is that:
1) Yes we do limit ourselves by our imposed logic. (See sig line)
2) I have no idea if Indonesia is the cradle of civilization. But looking at some of the results of "civilization" these days, I'm pretty sure no place is going to take credit.
The universe is full of magical things, patiently waiting for our wits to grow sharper.
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Thu May 1 19:44:13)
|
|
Excellent answer!
You succeeded in taking the general idea of my premise and applying it to a practical and current situation. I'm thinking the difference is more profound than that, but the analogy is a good one. Would western medicine ever have come up with acupuncture? If nobody was around to tell them, would it be lost?
RE: language
I think that language is not only a product of the closed or open mind, but also a vehicle of transference, and possibly a cause of the closed or open mind.
Have you ever met a stupid person with a good vocabulary and command of the language? I haven't, but I've seen the reverse. Maybe the two are independant, but I don't think so. I think that reading and language development heavily stimulate many areas of the brain. It's not the only thing, but I think it does play a significant role.
|
|
|
I'm moving closer to my BTF- just wait!
No, I don't think that Western medicine would have come up with Acupuncture. The basis of acupuncture is that you have the ability within yourself to heal yourself (medical Gnosticism) and that is an over simplification- sorry. And western relies on putting something in to change what is going on. Why not use both is my question? My Tory lasted three very happy and COMFORTABLE years in congestive heart failure because of both.
About language. First, I agree that if you inherit the language then in some ways you have no choice but to "think" along those lines. However, if something is important enough to express to a generation or to a culture there WILL be a way to express it. They will create a way to express it. Therefore, the fact that something goes "unexplained" or "unexpressed" shows a lack of the generation or culture to want to understand it. (In my humble opinion that is.)
I do think that reading and language stimulate many areas of the brain. I have to strenously agree that there are some very intelligent people out there that do not have good command of their native (or other) language. And I do think that there are people out there that have learned to "talk around" the fact that they don't really know anything about a topic. I think that language abilities are somewhat inborn and somewhat learned and you can cover for a lack in one or the other. I actually have known some really stupid people (and I don't mean people who don't agree with me) who sound really good. Just because others don't "get" what they just said, does not make it profound.
This has been a really great train of thought, by the way!!
The universe is full of magical things, patiently waiting for our wits to grow sharper.
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Thu May 1 20:21:57)
|
|
The ability to "talk around" a topic, and sound really good is indicative of intelligence. It is also indicative of a lack of knowledge about the issue. But lack of knowledge does not equate to stupidity.
As for what affects what, it may be a chicken or the egg kind of question, but I think it's both.
And thanks. This is something that I am extremely interested in.
|
|
|
Very true- I'm not sure how I would exactly define "stupid". And that sounds really brilliant itself doesn't it. But I guess it doesn't come down to one thing.
And I agree- probably a bit of both.
Goodnight!
The universe is full of magical things, patiently waiting for our wits to grow sharper.
|
|
|
I'm not sure about Indonesia being the cradle of civilization, I personally believe it was elsewhere. Nevertheless, we do come from some common place, as genetics, biology, anthropology etc have determined. I watched an interesting show, don't remember the name of it, but geneticists are able through DNA to find out where someone's ancestors came from thousands of years ago. I'm sure everyone has heard the argument that the Epic of Gilgamesh was the basis for Noah and the flood in the bible. While that could be possible, almost every culture in the world has a flood myth, and they are astoundingly similar. The layout is usually this: the whole world is flooded, generally thought to be the wrath of a god, but a good man and woman (sometimes their children also) survive and they re-populate the earth. So was there at some point a worldwide flood and only two people survived? Who knows. Immanuel Velikovksy has some interesting theories about that in his World in Chaos series. But what I'm trying to say is that at some point there was a common culture, and then people gradually dispersed around the world. And so there are bound to be residues that exist everywhere from all those thousands of years ago.
As for language, we are certainly pigeon-holed by logic. There are certainly things out there that science has not yet found an answer or explanation for. And because as a whole we have gotten way from "superstition" and magic, things for which no explanation exists are dismissed or explained away. I personally don't believe in magic, but I do believe there are "miracles," things which appear to be impossible. The fact that we don't have an answer for them or that they seem to go against everything science says doesn't mean it can't happen. And because it's easy for people to dismiss ancient explanations of certain events as superstition or rubbish because surely we are a more advanced people than they, we maybe overlook information that could help find answers. There are quite a number of ancient languages which scholars haven't been able to decipher yet, and so many languages which were lost because they were oral rather than written. And so because we have texts which we can't unravel and forgotten languages, there are huge gaps in our understanding and our knowledge because that history is lost to us.
I must wield the cleaver, it's most annoying.
|
|
|
Aule, if we take LOTR as an example… looking at it monosemically, wouldn’t we just read it as an adventure story, and nothing more? But even in this small forum, we have discussed LOTR in terms of religion, theology, mythology, symbolism, history, warfare, love, idealism…
I don’t think it’s a language problem. Languages evolve to fit the times we live in.
Our perception of the world differs with time. Perhaps we need to have a more childlike, naïve view of the world in order to fully “understand” the myths or knowledge of the ancient past. Tell a child a fairytale, and he will accept without question the existence of ogres, dragons, fairies etc. They do not need to behave logically, or obey the laws of physics, in order to be “real” to that child. As we grow older, we lose that ability to accept the unexplainable; everything must “make sense” in order to be real. Maybe ancient peoples never lost that childlike acceptance.
Today, there are those who can still think in such terms. For just one example, think of the art of Picasso (a favourite of mine!). His cubist paintings do not depict the subject in a “logical” way; nothing exists in the real world that looks like that. And yet, the art speaks to us emotionally; it touches us in a place beyond our logical thoughts, and takes us back to that sense of childlike wonder. That, for me, is the mark of a great artist – any artist can paint what is out there; but only a truly great one can paint what we feel inside.
It takes a leap of courage to challenge accepted boundaries of artistic or intellectual merit; but once those boundaries are crossed, it opens up new avenues of perception to us all.
Not all those who wander are lost
|
|
|
Generally in the West people follow very rigid life regiemes. School at 5, college at 19,(or straight to work), then 9-5 or 40 years retire and die. We are encouraged to aspire to this 2.4 childern lifestyle from early age. Thinking along alternative lines is frowned upon, we disallow much of our scope for imagination and exploration of our minds. Humans are reputed to only use 15% of available brainpower. We still follow a basic survival strategy, except we have swapped hunting and gathering for intensive farming and banking. Im no expert on eastern culture, but India China etc, seem to have far more mystical societies, accepting more easily things we question. Many eastern cultures seem to have much less of the cynicism we seem to pick up in spades from the age of 10. EG how many westerners actually use acupuncture. I personally never have or probably never will use it, because I am scientific and can see the proof that ani biotics etc work.
Yet the potential still exists in the power of the human mind. People have recovered from iillnesses whilst taking placebos. People can get drunk drinking water they are convinced is vodka. Hypnosis can help with smoking, obesity etc. Who is to say sticking a pin in your foot cant cure migrane. Maybe if you believe it can you are half way there. Maybe that is the price of our civilisation, an inability to believe without proof
Handses?...Knife?...String or nothing!!
|
|
|
Great topic, Aule!
This made me think of Benjamin Whorf's work with the Hopi language, quite some time ago. I researched this subject very superficially while writing a paper on Whorfian Language Analysis and Game Theory, a very ambitious project for an undergraduate.
Whorf studied the linguistic basis of the Hopi language for quite some time. Hopi is very different in conceptual structure from European languages in how it handles the concept of Time.
In SAE (Standard Average European) languages, Time is an object, with definable limits and boundaries. Time is measured in units in much the same way as physical characteristics, it has length, duration, start and end points- in short Time is a mearurable thing. People who grow up speaking SAE learn this concept of Time through our languages. Time, hours, minutes, seconds, nanoseconds, yesterday, today, tomorrow, last year, next summer, wristwatches, millenia ago, Tomorrowland, Back to the Future- our entire thinking is bound up with these measures of Time that give it substance. Much of our lives is structured around the way we think about Time. We have a word for every aspect of Time, and in learning those words, we learn about Time. We also learn to live our lives according to Time and to place ourselves not only in space but in Time.
The Hopi language doesn't have this concept of Time. It equates events not with temporality, but with physical distance from the observer. Events are either moving closer toward you, or are with you or are moving farther away from you. Events are always on the continuum and always on the move, but they aren't placed in Time, only in Space. (This is all Whorf's theory, by the way). A people who don't think in terms of Time being in units also don't structure their lives around where they are in Time. They are in Space and the event is there with them. This leads to a certain kind of ambiguity in daily life, as one doesn't make plans in the temporal sense, one 'receives' the event, holds it and releases it. But one is part of the event also, so one is eternally on the continuum, one's acts never really fade but go farther away.
This is hard to puzzle out, because there does seem to be a colliding place between coming and going, a Here place, that implies some sort of stability of self, but when/where is the Self the Self, as opposed to the coming-Self and going-Self? Aule, I hope I'm staying on track here! It seems to me that this language creates a very different way of thinking of Selfness and Realness- that everything exists on the continuum but has more meaning at some place and is less relevant in other places. It certainly gives one a whole different sense of what's going on in the world, almost fatalistic view of inescapability.
I'd better stop here, I'm beginning to think of alternative languages that describe things that don't have names in SAE.
"I sang of leaves, of leaves of gold, and leaves of gold there grew..."
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Fri May 2 19:59:56)
|
|
Terrific post. I'll have to look into this Hopi language thing. Exactly the kind of thing I was getting at. Perceptual change based on method and structure of communication within a culture.
|
|
|
...the angels had guitars even before they had wings...
|
|
|
Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow,
Bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow.
|
|
|
This message has been deleted by the poster
|
|
|
A friendly bump from Sponsor #11593: Lady Éowyn
 You are a daughter of kings. A shieldmaiden of Rohan.
|
|
|
A friendly bump from Sponsor #11593: Lady Éowyn
You are a daughter of kings. A shieldmaiden of Rohan.
|
| |
| | |
company.
Advertise on IMDb.
License our content.
