Language, is especially subject to the depredations of self-deception, perhaps because it is a wholly human construct. Ones habit of calling all flowers bluebells (insert any such habit here), regardless of their variety divorces the word from living reality and turns it into abstraction. In written form, words can be just as inadequate to deeper understanding and meaningful communication—perhaps even more so than spoken words for they are fixed and motionless, and we tend to worship them as we worship artifacts generally. Whether spoken or written, however, language as modern man uses it is yet another of the abstractions he makes in an effort to deny the vitality, energy, and change that characterize real life. The consequences are grave, in Bely’s view; for language—or, “the word”—is our only means of knowing the world and ourselves. The living word, is sound or speech. Without it, “there is neither nature, nor the world, nor anyone cognizing them.” If modern thought and modern society are in a state of crisis, then that is because language, as modern man employs it, is dying. Here is the position that is just the opposite as Emerson’s, who wrote: “The corruption of man is followed by the corruption of language.”
"The Word"
- Thread starter speed
- Start date
Frank the tank
Member
Cythraul
Active Member
- Dec 10, 2003
- 6,755
- 134
- 63
I'm not quite sure how one can coherently claim that language is impoverished or inadequate in some way, since what you've just done here is accurately characterized the very things with language that are supposed to escape the limits of language. But if you haven't succeeded in doing that then I'm not quite sure how I, or anybody else for that matter, is supposed to find your claims the least bit comprehensible. It just seems paradoxical to me. How could one even formulate the claim without running into paradox?
Cythraul said:
Haha, i didnt write it, I merely came upon it yesterday, and was hoping one of you could better explain it.
But it obviously hinges on the fact that language=humanity, thought, and consciousness. Thus, if langauge is corrupted, then so will our conception of eveything else. Thats my take on it. Where's Justin S when you need him?
Silver Incubus
Dead Hands Justin
There are some parts of language that are to describe concrete things like foot, rock, metal, water, and there are the abstract parts of language, love, softness, relaxed, etc that are only verifiable by the experiencer and are indeed different for every person. So it is easier to describe the outside world with people because those are things which they can verify, qualitative and quantitative, but the real problem with language is ultimately the abstract ideas of peoples imaginations that are anchored to specific experiences that only they have.
Demiurge
This user has no title
speed said:
Who wrote it? It reminds me of General Semantics. but GS does not believe that "the word" is the only way of knowing the world or ourselves.
hibernal_dream
A Mind Forever Voyaging
Frank the tank said:
Yep - I could've written the same post in 2 lines without the 'however's and metaphorical nonsense. That was probably the point of the thread.
Demiurge said:
I found it in a book on the turn of the 20th century Russian Symbolists--Blok, Bely, Sologub and others. The symbolists were quite keen on Solovyev, Kant, Nietszche, and believed the creation of art,music, etc, was the highest end of man. They also believed the world was on the verge of some sort of cultural apocalypse (which was quite prescient, as the Soviets took over as the Symbolist movement was in full swing, putting an end to it). So they made constant use of symbols, and tried to fuse all of the arts into one: Bely attempted to write like a symphony, and include the feeling of visual art within the text(and Petersburg may be the best novel I've ever read--it was considered by Nabokov to be the second greatest book of all time, but it was released in 1916, and essentially banned by the Soviets)
Anyway,this book (that was printed in the 1960's) was written by a Robert Maguire, a lit professor at Princeton. I read it, then reread it, thought I got it, then said fuck it, I'll post it on this site, maybe they'll understand it.
Norsemaiden
barbarian
Language is something that elevates humans from animals. So, the original post seems to be suggesting that human understanding of the world, as far as it excedes that of animals, is reliant upon us having words for things, particularly for abstract concepts that require categorisation. When these words are taken out of circulation, our understanding of the concept is also taken away. Dumbing down of culture leads to an impoverishment of language in that many words for ideas are lost through lack of use. Some, dubiously, claim that the dumbed down culture adds new words, slang, and that this enriches the language.
This would be the "corruption of man is followed by the corruption of language". This happens, but also it can be true that a corruption of language corrupts men, because the more intelligent people are denied the exposure to language necessary to increase their mental development.
As well as this, there is the Orwellian threat of "newspeak" whereby words are deliberately changed, made up, or withdrawn by the Culture Distorter (Francis Parker Yockey's term) in order to better control the minds of the population.
For example, "respect" has become synonymous with fearful admiration and grovelling, and loses the meaning of honouring something considered valuable. The aim of newspeak is to make alternative thinking into a crime
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak#Real-life_examples_of_Newspeak
This would be the "corruption of man is followed by the corruption of language". This happens, but also it can be true that a corruption of language corrupts men, because the more intelligent people are denied the exposure to language necessary to increase their mental development.
As well as this, there is the Orwellian threat of "newspeak" whereby words are deliberately changed, made up, or withdrawn by the Culture Distorter (Francis Parker Yockey's term) in order to better control the minds of the population.
For example, "respect" has become synonymous with fearful admiration and grovelling, and loses the meaning of honouring something considered valuable. The aim of newspeak is to make alternative thinking into a crime
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak#Real-life_examples_of_Newspeak
Frank the tank
Member
i only know a few things about language. im not sure this answers anyones questions but maybe it can open a few doors. animals do have language but it's all interpreted differently because it's all body language and tonal recognition. it's estimated that humans came to communicate like animals only through body language and tonal recognition -characterisitcs that we still have to this day before language came to be when humans started to pick words for concrete things. it's estimated there are(were over 2,000 languages in the world, 7 are most widely spoken . before language appearantly we do not have memories. i read something in a science book that said that babies do not have memories before language is developed in their minds and that history was not recorded until language came about. it also said the younger a person is, the easier it is to learn language/ a new language, and in fact , music. music is the universal language. it is all played in four bars and four measures. also little kids have some phenomena, like the things they say for (ie the ' na na na na na nah) which is found all over the world. interesting
Justin S.
Member
speed said:
How did I overlook this thread? Maybe I turned away knowing what a can of worms it is...
I agree with the statement that language and symbology in general certainly are powerful forces in affirming metaphysics, that they can be abused easily.
I dont know how much I agree with the spoken gaining such primacy over the written. I tend to feel that the rigidity and idolatry of preserved symbols has more to do with our societies' general relationality than "writing" as such.
I do agree that language has lost its radical force, but this is expected when it is conceived of as a tool of commerce and mass "understanding"- basically crude code to have a smoother running system (language viewed only as another logistical hurdle). This is exacerbated to limits when "the word" becomes "advertisement" and language is metaphysical grape-shot.
Rather than advocate the spoken (which is certainly not immune to the dangers, look at our age of chatter!), I see the only way to properly engage language is to use it cautiously, sparingly, with great concern, and to understand that the key is this relationship.
To interpret Wittgenstein:
“What finds its reflection in language, language cannot represent.
What expresses itself in language, we cannot express by means of language.”
“What can be shown, cannot be said”
Justin S. said:
This is I suppose the principle point of the Symbolists, that holds even more true today. Langauge is no longer conceived in America at least, of being anything more than a tool of commerce and mass "understanding".
Americans have developed a jejune attitude towards language; it is so bad, no one even understands my delightful paranomasias. However, I do say that in say Britain, one would find a much richer use of language, and a serious dedication to both the spoken and written word. This would of course, infer Britain has a more robust culture, and hasnt been besmirched by mass commerce (and I dont know if one can make this inference).
Anyway, thus perhaps the aforementioned comment that first language is doomed, then society, is correct.
Norsemaiden said:
I was going to bring up Orwell but you got the lead. The following link has George Orwell's essays which includes language:
http://www.resort.com/%7eprime8/Orwell/
On Orwell's essay on "Politics and the English Language", he makes some good points on how language can be misleading and vague. Sometimes due to the fact that it may be done on purpose to hide something. Or done as a mistake due to a lack of direction.
On "Why I Write", Orwell claims most (serious) writers tend to be more selfish and vain in nature. Would you agree? Do thinkers in general seem to be more self-conscious?
