The Magic of Words

[speed]

Language is the most powerful instrument of creation. When I name an object with a word I thereby assert its existence. Every act of cognition arises from a name. Cognition is impossible without words. The process of cognizing is the establishment of relations between words, which only subsequently are related to objects corresponding to them. Grammatical forms, responsible for the very possibility of the sentence, are themselves possible only where there are words: only then can the logical articulation of speech be fuly accomplished. When I assert that creation precedes cognition, I am asserting the primacy of creation, not only because creation is epistemologically superior, but also because it is prior in actual genetic sequence.

If words did not exist, then neither would the world itself. My ego, once detached from its surroundings, ceases to exist. By the same token, the world, if detached from me, also ceases to exist. "I" and the "world" arise only in the process of their union in sound. Supra-individual consciousness and supra-individual nature first meet and become joined in the process of meaning. Thus consciousness, nature, and the world emerge for the cognizing subject only when he is able to create a designation. Outside of speech there is neither nature, world, nor cognizing subject. In the word is the given the original act of creation. The word connects the speechless, invisible world swarming outside my individual ego. The word creates a new third world: a world of sound symbols by means of which both the secrets of a world located outside me and those imprisoned in a world inside me comet to light. The outside world spills over to my soul. The inside world spills out of me into the break of day and the setting sun, into the rustling of trees. In the word and only in the word, do I recreate for myself what surrounds me from within and without, for I am the word and only the word.

 

[judas69]

Words also manifest an illusion of understanding via the labels we create. We all know what light, gravity and time are, but do we understand them? We virtually sticker up the world with these labels and convince ourselves we have everything mapped when at the end othe day, all we really have is a means of reference.

Words also do a great job of skewing understanding depending on the shortcomings of your language. The english language for example, only gives you the option of viewing things as either actions or objects, and not an object that is an action (ie. a fist).

Words also divide up a world that was never divided in the first place. As soon as I label that swimming thing over there a fish, I instantly and unnaturally separate it from it's environment. No matter how much I study this "fish", I will never understand it completely unless I consider it's environment.

Words are also very dull when compared to the actual real world experience. They say a picture is worth one thousand words well, experience can never be completely captured in words alone. Does a piece of paper with the word "Ice Cream" written on it, taste as sweet?

In short, I disagree that "cognition is impossible without words".

 

[speed]

What of the magic of other "words", or human languages with structure and grammatical form? I am thinking of math, music, of computer programming (I'm terribly ignorant of all computer programming--but it is a language, correct?).

Do these not have the same magic of creation?

 

[Horus]

Computer Programming has a few different sub-languages, including HTML, Java, or even Binary, which is really just a form of math. I'm taking a Computer Science class right now, in which we learn to use Linux and create programs with it.

Speaking of Computer Programming, it's still a wonder to me as to how the right combination of digits can actually execute these programs, how little silicon chips are able to do such advanced tasks nowadays, as run entire networks that stretch across the world. None of these websites actually exist. They're all only interactive illusions that we all collectively see and interact with. It's amazing how so many little pieces of Silicon and metal are able to do something as amazing as that. That's how the language of Computer Programming is an amazing feat. It's one language that should be considered one of Mankind's all time greatest creations.

 

[judas69]

Just to clear up a few technical points. Binary (like decimal, hexadecimal etc) is a number system, not a language. Also, linux is an operating system with a strong programming environment, though not a language itself.

There are hundreds of programming languages out there, some more popular than others, and yes they follow the same rules of spelling and grammar as any other language.

BNF notation is used for example, to define the grammar or syntax of a language.
http://cui.unige.ch/db-research/Enseignement/analyseinfo/AboutBNF.html

To the topic of language and computing, there is a mathematical model developed by "Alan Turing" (called the Turing Machine) and without going into a lot of detail because this is a very deep topic, it outlines the limitations of computation. Anyway, many years ago now, I actually coded up a Turing Machine Simulator for purposes of illustration, created it's own language (the TMS language) and instead of the single head and tape from the original definition, I added multiple heads and tapes just for the sake of being nerdy, though this really offered nothing to the model itself.

If you're interested, you can download my program here.
http://members.shaw.ca/tmsv20/

 

[Silver Incubus]

If you really want to learn how MAGIC the language really is, I suggest reading Richard Bandlers Structures of Magic vol. I or II. If you don't know who Richard Bandler is, then I suggest you do. Since reading his work, there have been so many things about language and how it is used that were recently unknown to me and probabbly most people.
If you experience phobias and such, you can find his book Frogs to Princes in a pdf if you do a good search of "Frogs to princes pdf"

As to the most powerful thing. Well speed, instead of language, although very powerful, I think the imagination of people is the most powerful instrument in creation. With imagination we are able to hallucinate solutions to our problems, ending up with such things as language, inventions or simply innovations.

 

[speed]

If you really want to learn how MAGIC the language really is, I suggest reading Richard Bandlers Structures of Magic vol. I or II. If you don't know who Richard Bandler is, then I suggest you do. Since reading his work, there have been so many things about language and how it is used that were recently unknown to me and probabbly most people.
If you experience phobias and such, you can find his book Frogs to Princes in a pdf if you do a good search of "Frogs to princes pdf"

As to the most powerful thing. Well speed, instead of language, although very powerful, I think the imagination of people is the most powerful instrument in creation. With imagination we are able to hallucinate solutions to our problems, ending up with such things as language, inventions or simply innovations.

Well I think I covered that imagination idea in my inspiration thread. For some reason Ive been on some sort of neo-platonist kick lately; going on about the theurgic powers of words, and the sublime importance of an almost platonic idea of inspiration.



This book you mention is a psychology book. I dont know. I have serious, serious misgivings--of Tom Cruise proportions--of the science of psychology. Not neuroscience, etc. Quack, Quack i say. But I suppose if they provided case studies of how linguistics affected persons, then it might be interesting.

 

[Silver Incubus]

Well I think I covered that imagination idea in my inspiration thread. For some reason Ive been on some sort of neo-platonist kick lately; going on about the theurgic powers of words, and the sublime importance of an almost platonic idea of inspiration.



This book you mention is a psychology book. I dont know. I have serious, serious misgivings--of Tom Cruise proportions--of the science of psychology. Not neuroscience, etc. Quack, Quack i say. But I suppose if they provided case studies of how linguistics affected persons, then it might be interesting.

Well, simply put, Richard Bandler doesn't really like Psychologists and the like. What and who Richard Bandler is, is a Modeler. He and a few other people like John Grinder, have used Modeling(not runway modeling) to find out the processes of the mind. In some of the videos I have watched, most of them are very much about the experiences he has had with patients that were deemed hopeless by modern psychology. He is know to have 'cured' people with multiple personality(usually created by psychologists) Scizophrenia and other cronic things like Catalysm.
He was the first person to start the field of NLP(Neuro Lingustic Programming) and was the first to notice things like Eye accessing patterns, which refer to the system of experience you are accessing. By modeling the ways in which people have overcame things such as phobias, and other mental illnesses, he has developed systems of the processes that can taught to anyone. Edit: I can also be noted that before he did this kind of stuff, he was a physicist working on the computers back when they were very cold rooms. His knowledge of computer language is very apparent in his earlier works with lingustics.
Certainly don't take my word for it. Read it yourself and find what he is saying. I think Modelling is a mathematical process that he learned(i may be confusing this with another term) in which they find an equation that explains more complicated things.

Just think, every word that you read is an anchored symbol to a specific meaning to somewhere in you life that you encountered the word originally without context for that symbol to exist in any sort of meaning. It isn't until you understand the context of the word that it becomes anchored in a meaning that reflects your experience of the word. The word red for some people may bring up feelings about strawberries their taste and expeiences with strawberries. In another person, the word red my remind them of bloodshed on the battlefeild and seeing their close friends die. At a conscious level we never really understand how language effects us, or even how we understand it or learned it. Its all unconscious behaviour when you begin to type the thoughts you are trying to present in words. Giving your history with words and the ones you are exposed to, you then find that to experess yourself in a meaningful way only to you, you will uses words that best fit that situation of experience.
People think that you cannot learn a behaviour the first time, but that is obviously so untrue that it hurts(literally). Phobias are certainly a good example of how a response to a stimulus can be imbedded into your response that you may not even know why you act the way you do, but you cannot change it consciously because it is in fact an unconscious response to the stimulous, and was at the time, the best way for you mind to compensate and deal with that situation.
This is a short exerpt from the book Frogs to Princes which i just read.

I came to psychology from mathematics. The first thing that made
sense to me as I entered the field of psychology is that what they were
doing was not working, at least with the people who were still in the
hospitals and still in the offices—the other people had gone home! So
the only thing that made sense to me is that what they were doing with
their clients was what I didn't want to do. The only things not worth
learning were what they were already doing that wasn't working.
The first client that I saw was in somebody's private office. I went in
and watched this therapist work with a young man for an hour. She
was very warm, very empathetic, very sympathetic with this guy as he
talked about what a terrible home life he had. He said "You know, my
wife and I really haven't been able to get together, and it got so bad that
I really felt I had strong needs and I went out and had this affair," and
she said "I understand how you could do that." And they went on and
on like this for a full hour.
At the end of the hour she turned to me and she said "Well, is there
anything that you would like to add?" I stood up and looked at the guy
and said "I want to tell you that I think you're the biggest punk I have
ever met! Going out and screwing around behind your wife's back, and
coming here and crying on this woman's shoulder. That's going to get
you nothing, since you aren't going to change, and you're going to be as
miserable as you are now for the rest of your life unless you grab
yourself by the bootheels, give yourself a good kick in the butt, and go
tell your wife how you want her to act with you. Tell her in explicit
enough words so that she will know exactly what you want her to do. If
you don't do that, you're going to be as miserable as you are now
forever and no one will be able to help you." That was the exact
opposite of what that therapist had done. He was devastated, just
devastated. He left the office and went home and worked it all out with
his wife. He did all of the things I'd told him to do, and then he called
me up on the telephone and told me it was the most important
experience of his life.
However, during the time he did that, that therapist utterly convinced
me that what I had done was wrong! She explained to me all
these concepts about therapy and about how this wouldn't be helpful,
166
and convinced me that what I had done was the wrong thing.
Man: But she didn't stop you from doing it.
She couldn't! She was paralyzed! But she was right. It wouldn't have
worked with her. However, it was perfect for him. If nothing else, it was
just the opposite of what she had been doing all that time. It wasn't that
what I did was more powerful than what she did, it was just more
appropriate for him, given that all those other things hadn't worked.
That therapist didn't have that flexibility in her behavior. She did the
only thing that she could do. She couldn't do gestalt therapy because
she couldnt yell at anybody. It wasn't a choice for her. She was so nice.
I'm sure there were some people who had never had anybody be nice to
them, and that hanging around her was such a new experience that it
had some influence on them. However, that would still not help them
make the specific changes that they came to therapy for.

 

[speed]

That is pretty interesting actually.

I suppose in my case, I take a rather poetic approach to each word, and place multiple meanings within my comprehension of each word, depending on context, tone, rhythm, sound, etc. So that would be my argument against it; that words have a myriad of meanings, and hearing or seeing the word itself, would not necessary trigger past experiences, phobias, etc.

 

[judas69]

You know, I think I'm going to write a novel this winter and see where it goes. I will use the "magic of words" to make people feel guilt, and pain, and anguish; using my morbid intellect to write the ulimate psychedelic horror novel !

 

[Demiurge]

I am not at all surprised that "new age" kind of guy like Silver Incubus would be drawn towards NLP. Speed, if you have misgivings about psychology, then I suspect you will not care for NLP, which is to psychology as astrology is to astronomy. Mayhap I am being especially harsh, but it overblows its merits without providing empirical justification to an extent well beyond what I can tolerate without having my ire raised. The NLPers rely almost exclusively on testimonials and have subjected themselves to little peer review....not good signs.

 

[Silver Incubus]

That is pretty interesting actually.

I suppose in my case, I take a rather poetic approach to each word, and place multiple meanings within my comprehension of each word, depending on context, tone, rhythm, sound, etc. So that would be my argument against it; that words have a myriad of meanings, and hearing or seeing the word itself, would not necessary trigger past experiences, phobias, etc.

Well all words have variable meaning. Tone definately has an impact on how people respond to language.

My point was, if I told you to "think of a dog, and then not to colour it purple. You would have to think of a specific representation of a dog from your memory, and then think of the colour purple in order to comprehend that sentence.
Everyone who reads this will imagine a different dog, and that is the nature of language. Its even more subjective with abstract concepts like Love, Fear, God, etc. Where the only association is the one you have.
You also have to take into consideration that some people's primary sensory representational system is visual, making it easier to use their imagination, whereas other people use kinesthetic or auditory as their primary sensory represnetaional system wouldn't be as good. So when i say think of a dog to them, they might instead of picture it, hear the barking, or feel the fur on the dog.
For example:
This doesn't feel right
This doesn't look good
something sounds amiss
all of these esentially say the same thing, but are represented in different senses. And when two people talk, you can observe the predicates they use and determine which is their primary sense.

 

[Demiurge]

I think you got your info wrong. Richard Bandler is not a physicist.

 

[Silver Incubus]

I am not at all surprised that "new age" kind of guy like Silver Incubus would be drawn towards NLP. Speed, if you have misgivings about psychology, then I suspect you will not care for NLP, which is to psychology as astrology is to astronomy. Mayhap I am being especially harsh, but it overblows its merits without providing empirical justification to an extent well beyond what I can tolerate without having my ire raised. The NLPers rely almost exclusively on testimonials and have subjected themselves to little peer review....not good signs.

Those are some tough claims that seem to be supported only by your ignorance. If you knew anything about myself or NLP then you might have grounds to say something, but because of the incongruency in your paragraph I know your are full of shit. I don't know why Insults like these even exist on a board where its members pride themselves on how smart and great they are.

 

[Demiurge]

Those are some tough claims that seem to be supported only by your ignorance. If you knew anything about myself

I know very little about you except that you are a conspiracy theorist and a new age type with faith in unsubstantiated beliefs about the magical powers of the "unconscious mind." I do not profess to know more about you than this

or NLP then you might have grounds to say something, but because of the incongruency in your paragraph I know your are full of shit. I don't know why Insults like these even exist on a board where its members pride themselves on how smart and great they are.

Could your skin be any thinner? Are you angry because I called you "new age" or because I do not subscribe to your religion?

 

[speed]

I know very little about you except that you are a conspiracy theorist and a new age type with faith in unsubstantiated beliefs about the magical powers of the "unconscious mind." I do not profess to know more about you than this



Could your skin be any thinner? Are you angry because I called you "new age" or because I do not subscribe to your religion?

Well, its always fascinating to learn about new ideas--even if they are from a new-age conspiracy theorist, hehe.

Amazing that psychologists could consider other sects of their profession, frauds! It just seems so...ironic.

 

[Silver Incubus]

I know very little about you except that you are a conspiracy theorist and a new age type with faith in unsubstantiated beliefs about the magical powers of the "unconscious mind." I do not profess to know more about you than this



Could your skin be any thinner? Are you angry because I called you "new age" or because I do not subscribe to your religion?

hahahah you crack me up. I know that behind your smugness you really appreciate my contributions to this forum.

 

[Demiurge]

Amazing that psychologists could consider other sects of their profession, frauds! It just seems so...ironic.

I do not believe that all psychologists are frauds. The charlatans who have dominated psychology in the past and turned it into a laughingstock come from the psychoanalytic school, which also placed great importance on the unconscious and unverified theories about the way it operated.

 

[Demiurge]

hahahah you crack me up. I know that behind your smugness you really appreciate my contributions to this forum.

Frankly, I don't mind you.

 

[Silver Incubus]

I do not believe that all psychologists are frauds. The charlatans who have dominated psychology in the past and turned it into a laughingstock come from the psychoanalytic school, which also placed great importance on the unconscious and unverified theories about the way it operated.

SO wouldn't something that gets results be the real deal?