PDA

View Full Version : Without language, there is no thought.



noprophet
1st June 2012, 00:16
Without language, there is no thought.

Go ahead and try to think of something without a voice in your head.
You may visualize scenery, shapes or colors but you will doubtfully be able to construct an elaborate vision of history or conceptualization of self in this field. Without language there are simply no tools in the sandbox to do these things.

So then what is language in relation to thought?

Did we "think up" language or did the language "think up" us?

http://www.hermes3.net/images/Thoth/thoth5sm.jpg

If there is some kind of control/matrix/game paradigm here that is sustaining reality in some function as so many theories dictate this would be the place to look.

RMorgan
1st June 2012, 00:24
Hey mate,

Personally, I don´t agree with you.

I´m sure newborn babies are full of amazing thoughts, even without knowing any language.

Or, imagine a deaf and blind person, who was born deaf and blind and never heard a voice or saw any images; I´m sure their minds are full of thoughts as well, maybe even more than ours.

The essence of thought is abstract.

Cheers,

Raf.

noprophet
1st June 2012, 00:29
Hey mate,

Personally, I don´t agree with you.

I´m sure newborn babies are full of amazing thoughts, even without knowing any language.

Or, imagine a deaf and blind person, who was born deaf and blind and never heard a voice or saw any images; I´m sure their minds are full of thoughts as well, maybe even more than ours.

Cheers,

Raf.

I see where you're coming from Raf but even someone like Helen Keller learned language through brail and constructed in her mind more elaborate ideas through the use of language.

I'm not saying there is nothing beneath the language, only that it is a unified abstraction that we then put into play through language.

It's the play I'm interested in. I think that grand unified abstraction is just god.

RMorgan
1st June 2012, 00:44
I see where you're coming from Raf but even someone like Helen Keller learned language through brail and constructed in her mind more elaborate ideas through the use of language.

I'm not saying there is nothing beneath the language, only that it is a unified abstraction that we then put into play through language.

It's the play I'm interested in. I think that grand unified abstraction is just god.

Hey mate,

I understand your perspective.

During all these years, as a creative professional, I´ve been examining the idea behind the idea phenomenon.

Personally, I see the abstraction of thought as the most useful tool to creativity.

If the apex creativity is creating things that no one has ever created, it´s essentially the ability to look at everyday things from a completely unique perspective.

As an example, imagine if you could look to a tree as something you´ve never seen before. You look at it and find no previous identification with it´s shape; you find no name for it.

Could you imagine the wonderful sensation of looking to a tree without preconceived values, from a complete abstract point of view?

That´s why artists have a very abstract way of thinking, because it´s the only way to create, and, what is creation, if not playing god?

Also, during mediation, which I practice for many years, I achieved states of mind where there´s thought without thought. It´s impossible to explain it in words because of the very abstract nature of the experience itself.

Anyway, it´s a very nice subject! :)

Cheers,

Raf.

Ellisa
1st June 2012, 01:04
noprophet--- I could not disagree with you more. If anything language curtails abstract thought.

I once wrote a thesis on non-verbal communication---- That is language without words--- that is feelings, expressions, symbols etc.

The frustration of interacting with people unable to communicate with language is not because they have no thoughts, abstract or otherwise, but the fact that they do- and we are the ones who cannot access them. Thankfully people with more sympathy and imagination than you have are designing various technological devices which will help us to communicate-- maybe not in words but with shared sympathy and feeling.

Sorry--- I have been a bit rude to you- but I get very upset when people feel that if others cannot communicate using their own preferred method then they have nothing to 'say'. It's not true.

nearing
1st June 2012, 01:05
I agree and disagree with the OP.

I agree with ti if we are talking about the lower Ages of man. In the lowest, he cannot comprehend anything outside of his 5 senses. And a language must be used to describe tat comprehension.

But in the higher ages, I believe man is telepathic and doesn't need language to communicate, only feelings that are directly comprehended telepathically.

In between those times, I think we communicate via tones or vibrational sounds. That is the intermediary step.

So before we all become telepathic again, we will start using sound frequencies first.

Whiskey_Mystic
1st June 2012, 01:09
My experiences with dreams, shamanic journeying, and telepathy have shown me that the most profund "thinking" is done without the use of language. In fact, the language "crutch" can be a barrier. Deep inisghts on all manner of things can be found when we let go of our need to use language to label and describe.

Carmody
1st June 2012, 01:17
language could be seen as temporally related transference of information, in a temporally based environment.

Imperfect transfer in an imperfect system.

As it is individualized, internally, thus... each interpretation and transmission is different. The aspect of time makes it so.

It is borne of reflection. In either transmission or reception.

The medium is of both unity and quanta, thus the rise of the temporal aspect - quanta to quanta differentials.

noprophet
1st June 2012, 01:20
noprophet--- I could not disagree with you more. If anything language curtails abstract thought.

I once wrote a thesis on non-verbal communication---- That is language without words--- that is feelings, expressions, symbols etc.

The frustration of interacting with people unable to communicate with language is not because they have no thoughts, abstract or otherwise, but the fact that they do- and we are the ones who cannot access them. Thankfully people with more sympathy and imagination than you have are designing various technological devices which will help us to communicate-- maybe not in words but with shared sympathy and feeling.

Sorry--- I have been a bit rude to you- but I get very upset when people feel that if others cannot communicate using their own preferred method then they have nothing to 'say'. It's not true.

Please understand that we are in agreement. I believe there is a unified underlying structure which thought is growing atop. I am familiar with these places where thought feels like waves and language comes later.

However those places do not construct elaborate economic systems or constitutions. The place you refer is the place of peace and real existence. A place that I do not wish to negate by any means.

However our "matrix reality" is created from symbols and the ideas attached to those symbols on an individual and global scale. Our communication right now is a demonstration of this.

NancyV
1st June 2012, 01:27
We communicate telepathically (with thoughts) as soon as we leave our body and these communications are so much more detailed and complete than communication with language. Some people can communicate telepathically while in body but most of us rarely tap into that ability. It is a latent ability within us all. Language is a pale shadow when compared to the richness of telepathy just as sex is sadly lacking when compared to the awesomeness of merging with another consciousness.

Carmody
1st June 2012, 01:35
I agree and disagree with the OP.

I agree with ti if we are talking about the lower Ages of man. In the lowest, he cannot comprehend anything outside of his 5 senses. And a language must be used to describe tat comprehension.

But in the higher ages, I believe man is telepathic and doesn't need language to communicate, only feelings that are directly comprehended telepathically.

In between those times, I think we communicate via tones or vibrational sounds. That is the intermediary step.

So before we all become telepathic again, we will start using sound frequencies first.

I do like my ambient music (without voice), I feel that this sort of thing is the cutting edge of musical expression.

as in:

4V2H_qg01xY

and (exhibit B):

EDFv-8Cvbbg

...and so on.

To clear the mind requires to engage in 'no voice', thus I don't listen to, for the larger part, any music that has any voice that I can coherently discern as 'words'.

That is a 3d trap and time trap, and locks ego and mind/body/avatar into the mode of controlling our perceptive communication aspects.

Basically, you can't clear the self, with words in the head. the trick is to shut off the part of the mind that forms words, and that requires the silencing of the entire channel. To ease it into sleep....

I've been on the ambient ride since age 13, when it was nearly solely the providence of 'Tangerine Dream'. (Stratosphere, rubycon, Tangram, etc)

noprophet
1st June 2012, 02:12
I feel that I should note that I am separating feeling and thought as two different things.

Feeling being receptive and thought being productive (without the positive/or/negative connotation).

Feeling is an occult [read hidden] intelligence. Inherit.

Thought is a constructed intelligence built from the information gained from feeling. Information which must be symbolized outside the personal self in order to attempt to recreate the experience[or feeling] in someone else at a distance. Any system of "enlightenment" is attempting just this. It cannot communicate the goal but it can show a path. i.e. magic.

Language does not apply to feeling only to communication through distance especially when conveying complex formula. (i.e. the internet)

Carmody
1st June 2012, 03:08
It is my direct experience that there is more intelligence outside of conscious worded thought than there is in it.

any human time based existence, by it's very nature will possess a smaller circle of logic than a system of transfer that is outside of time. Logic, plain and simple.

The lack of time, means, in this case, infinite, all or any time, thus the system has a reach that does not exist in the time base system, which has finite aspects.

Thus, those who work or exist outside of a purely time based existence (larger circle of logic and expression) will naturally exceed that of people who live in a purely time based existence.

Silencing the mind's internal voice and silencing the emotional situation that gives rise to it, brings this aspect out and it can be understood and possibly even articulated. It is far more potent and expressive, though, within the context of it's native environment, which is multidimensional and timeless.

And what comes in from there, cannot be entirely articulated into words. Only partially. Thus this partial aspect does not serve the system of translation in the 3d time based world and the data can be perceived as meaningless or incompatible.

From a no time expression into a time expression, means there is simply not a rational medium of transfer of this timeless information... into a time based medium.

This is another aspect or expression of what NancyV said, but sometimes it is needed just to get that point of incompatible transfer mediums and incompatible translation mediums across to the given individual, an individual who is basing their experiences purely in time and 3d.

I'm sorry. I just described infinity as an all translation, all communication, outside of time construct. Apologies.

Perhaps that is why it is perceived as some form of infinity, like god... outside of that, as seen or perceived within the flow of time. The all communication or all translation or all god, infinity, cannot be wholly perceived within the segmented or quantified finite construct. Which leads to the misconstruing of what it is, as a natural case or state of affairs.

But since the individual can connect to that through the doorway of the no voice state, then the view is entirely personal and not translatable or transferable.

Ellisa
1st June 2012, 03:22
noprophet-- how do you deal with the fact that language is a cultural construct? It evolves with regard to our need and so a mono-language speaker will differ in interpretation of facts as his/her language will lack the nuances that the 'other' language has.

Many misunderstandings arise through language. For instance there is no word for numbers larger than 2 in many of the languages of the Australian aborigines. It was not needed. If you needed to indicate more than one you repeated the word. That is why we have Yarra Yarra, Wagga Wagga etc. which are the name of some towns. This seemingly complete lack of mathematical thinking as expressed by language, along with other examples,caused the sort of misunderstanding that still plagues the relationships between the two peoples today.

There are areas where higher level thinking can progress without language--- mathematics, painting, sculpture, music, a really good game of your favourite form of football. They all speak to you and they don't need words. They also can be enjoyed by all of us, no matter what language we speak, what community rules we follow, it is communication at its purest form.

In fact if one day all those aliens people are waiting to meet do make it here, this is probably the way they will attempt to communicate with us. Think of a sequence of notes (like Close Encounter...) rather than a little green man saying 'Take me to your leader'. After all which language would the alien use?

turiya
1st June 2012, 03:40
Without language, there is no thought.
Without thought, there is only being.

When there is thought/language, being is lost.
Intellect is not the same as intelligence.
Thoughts/language are related to intellect. Being is related to intelligence.
They are diametrically opposed.


So then what is language in relation to thought?
Did we "think up" language or did the language "think up" us?


This is concerning Descartes' absurd claim "I think, therefore I am."
This logic has been widely accepted as a basis for the education systems across the world. And it is the reason why the world is in such a mess.

Just look at the statement, how it is constructed - "I think, therefore I am."
Descartes' arrangement puts thinking before being-ness. This is a deranged arrangement. It is a mal-arrangement, a sick arrangement.

This precedence is the basis for so many illnesses & dis-eases that exist. For example, it places thinking about love as having precedence over actually being in love. It places thinking about god above actually living a godly existence.

"I think, therefore I am" has got the world standing on its head." Because in that statement, in living that philosophy, one is putting their head (the intellect) as having priority over their heart center.
In other words, the head (mind) is the Master, and the heart is the servant. This relationship is upside down & backwards. The mind, with all its thoughts, can be a very useful tool. A tool to be used by the heart.

But, instead, in the many educational institutions (programming centers) across the planet, the servant (the mind) has been incorrectly worshiped as being the Master over one's being. And so, it is not any wonder why the house is in such a mess, why so many lives are in such a chaos, why this planet is in such disarray.

To regain health across this planet, and sanity back into humanity, the order has be reversed.

"I am, therefore thought is possible" - turiya

the_vast_mystery
1st June 2012, 04:12
Without language, there is no thought.
Without thought, there is only being.

When there is thought/language, being is lost.
Intellect is not the same as intelligence.
Thoughts/language are related to intellect. Being is related to intelligence.
They are diametrically opposed.


So then what is language in relation to thought?
Did we "think up" language or did the language "think up" us?


This is concerning Descartes' absurd claim "I think, therefore I am."
This logic has been widely accepted as a basis for the education systems across the world. And it is the reason why the world is in such a mess.

Just look at the statement, how it is constructed - "I think, therefore I am."
Descartes' arrangement puts thinking before being-ness. This is a deranged arrangement. It is a mal-arrangement, a sick arrangement.

This precedence is the basis for so many illnesses & dis-eases that exist. For example, it places thinking about love as having precedence over actually being in love. It places thinking about god above actually living a godly existence.

"I think, therefore I am" has got the world standing on its head." Because in that statement, in living that philosophy, one is putting their head (the intellect) as having priority over their heart center.
In other words, the head (mind) is the Master, and the heart is the servant. This relationship is upside down & backwards. The mind, with all its thoughts, can be a very useful tool. A tool to be used by the heart.

But, instead, in the many educational institutions (programming centers) across the planet, the servant (the mind) has been incorrectly worshiped as being the Master over one's being. And so, it is not any wonder why the house is in such a mess, why so many lives are in such a chaos, why this planet is in such disarray.

To regain health across this planet, and sanity back into humanity, the order has be reversed.

"I am, therefore thought is possible" - turiya

The converse to this however is that pure being is by no means a guarantee of love, harmony, godhood, etc. If you refuse to think about your actions and only mindlessly go about your day in the interest of "purely being yourself" you are only allowing yourself to essentially run on a program on a rail with which you have no ability to alter as you may never review a single decision before it is made and instead must blindly act in all situations according to whatever is your first instinct.

Thought is an important component of being, it can provide balance if used properly.

noprophet
1st June 2012, 04:15
Perhaps that is why it is perceived as some form of infinity, like god... outside of that, as seen or perceived within the flow of time. The all communication or all translation or all god, infinity, cannot be wholly perceived within the segmented or quantified finite construct. Which leads to the misconstruing of what it is, as a natural case or state of affairs.

But since the individual can connect to that through the doorway of the no voice state, then the view is entirely personal and not translatable or transferable.

Yet we construct elaborate methods of spiritual development in an attempt to achieve the incommunicable. We construct symbols which we then place the experiences around attempting to transfer the untransferable.

What was an experience of awe and glory gets transliterated into fear and cruelty through anothers associative patterns surrounding the textual interpretation due to the inconsistency of the 'transfer' medium; the human psyche.



noprophet-- how do you deal with the fact that language is a cultural construct? It evolves with regard to our need and so a mono-language speaker will differ in interpretation of facts as his/her language will lack the nuances that the 'other' language has.

I agree with the statement but I'm not sure I understand the question. Could you clarify how you believe I am opposed to this concept?



Many misunderstandings arise through language. For instance there is no word for numbers larger than 2 in many of the languages of the Australian aborigines. It was not needed. If you needed to indicate more than one you repeated the word. That is why we have Yarra Yarra, Wagga Wagga etc. which are the name of some towns. This seemingly complete lack of mathematical thinking as expressed by language, along with other examples,caused the sort of misunderstanding that still plagues the relationships between the two peoples today.

This is exactly my point. The misunderstandings result from the variant ways of thinking and the variance is a result of the language. The language, in a sense, controlling/manipulating/creating the thoughts.



There are areas where higher level thinking can progress without language--- mathematics, painting, sculpture, music, a really good game of your favourite form of football. They all speak to you and they don't need words. They also can be enjoyed by all of us, no matter what language we speak, what community rules we follow, it is communication at its purest form.

Math, painting, music are all languages. I am defining language as a construct of expression. Math terms are a construct to express values, painting expresses through the language of color and form, music is the closest to a true universal language actually finding it's foundations in human "resonance" and definintion in the purer laguage of mathmatics. Language != Words.

Something I have been thinking in relation to language is Babel. A language system-- a representation of piece of the abstract/true reality--be it math, physics, english, spanish, western-musical-scale, eastern-musical-scale, etc. is symbolically the tower of babel. The abstract reality is god and the tower is being constructed to rival god in an attempt to better define reality than it has already defined itself. Language is the great challenger. Without our towers we wouldn't know that we didn't know. It shines some light on the situation.

noprophet
1st June 2012, 04:27
Without language, there is no thought.
Without thought, there is only being.

When there is thought/language, being is lost.
Intellect is not the same as intelligence.
Thoughts/language are related to intellect. Being is related to intelligence.
They are diametrically opposed.


So then what is language in relation to thought?
Did we "think up" language or did the language "think up" us?


This is concerning Descartes' absurd claim "I think, therefore I am."
This logic has been widely accepted as a basis for the education systems across the world. And it is the reason why the world is in such a mess.

Just look at the statement, how it is constructed - "I think, therefore I am."
Descartes' arrangement puts thinking before being-ness. This is a deranged arrangement. It is a mal-arrangement, a sick arrangement.

This precedence is the basis for so many illnesses & dis-eases that exist. For example, it places thinking about love as having precedence over actually being in love. It places thinking about god above actually living a godly existence.

"I think, therefore I am" has got the world standing on its head." Because in that statement, in living that philosophy, one is putting their head (the intellect) as having priority over their heart center.
In other words, the head (mind) is the Master, and the heart is the servant. This relationship is upside down & backwards. The mind, with all its thoughts, can be a very useful tool. A tool to be used by the heart.

But, instead, in the many educational institutions (programming centers) across the planet, the servant (the mind) has been incorrectly worshiped as being the Master over one's being. And so, it is not any wonder why the house is in such a mess, why so many lives are in such a chaos, why this planet is in such disarray.

To regain health across this planet, and sanity back into humanity, the order has be reversed.

"I am, therefore thought is possible" - turiya

I pretty well agree with what you've presented here but in terms of solutions... Do you think the language is repairable, replaceable or do we wait for another abstraction of ascension to bring about unified communication via removing the interpretation barrier. -OR- is this an evolutionary process of a species communications and simply by discussing the triumphs and fallacies of language we are already participating in "3d-matrix" aspects of our communication-evolutionary-process?

the_vast_mystery
1st June 2012, 06:14
Language as a mechanism of conveying understanding can only function well under a very high level of strict centralization of meaning to the point some might consider it oppressive of their free expression. (We wouldn't have much debate over what a house, horse, or chair was. But Fascism, communism, oppression, or hell even what Rape is would be hotly contested if we tried to create a central unalterable meaning for what constituted those things and what didn't.) Realistically the only way to convey understanding would be to directly impart a full experience into someone else. Not telepathy in the sense of "hearing voices" or "seeing pictures" but in the sense of communicating a full experience and all accompanying thoughts, sensations, etc in one go as if that other person had suddenly lived it in the other's body.

Anything less than that, giving someone a full slice of what you took in, will fall short as people have an individual need/desire to interpret their own experiences and this will color any attempt at conveying it with some level of bias. Both the speaker of words and receiver must be able to first of all have the correct frame of reference for understanding all parts of the event, the emotions, the physical pain (or pleasure) and then the speaker must be able to carefully choose the exact phrasing and timing needed to elicit a vivid reproduction in the mind of the receiver. (And the receiver be open to receiving it at the time) It'd be easier if people could just "be there" and experience it first hand.

Carmody
1st June 2012, 06:37
Language as a mechanism of conveying understanding can only function well under a very high level of strict centralization of meaning to the point some might consider it oppressive of their free expression. (We wouldn't have much debate over what a house, horse, or chair was. But Fascism, communism, oppression, or hell even what Rape is would be hotly contested if we tried to create a central unalterable meaning for what constituted those things and what didn't.) Realistically the only way to convey understanding would be to directly impart a full experience into someone else. Not telepathy in the sense of "hearing voices" or "seeing pictures" but in the sense of communicating a full experience and all accompanying thoughts, sensations, etc in one go as if that other person had suddenly lived it in the other's body.

Anything less than that, giving someone a full slice of what you took in, will fall short as people have an individual need/desire to interpret their own experiences and this will color any attempt at conveying it with some level of bias. Both the speaker of words and receiver must be able to first of all have the correct frame of reference for understanding all parts of the event, the emotions, the physical pain (or pleasure) and then the speaker must be able to carefully choose the exact phrasing and timing needed to elicit a vivid reproduction in the mind of the receiver. (And the receiver be open to receiving it at the time) It'd be easier if people could just "be there" and experience it first hand.

Congratulations!

You just described a good number of the facets of the reasoning behind repeated incarnation as a human on earth.

markpierre
1st June 2012, 08:07
Without language, there is no thought.

Conceptual thought. That sucks anyway. It's always wrong.
Abstract thought is where the fun is.
Can't communicate that anyway, because there's nothing to communicate it to.
Not even yourself.

[/QUOTE]So then what is language in relation to thought?[/QUOTE]

Annoying? Irrelevant? Distraction?
A tool we use to fix broken thinking?

music
1st June 2012, 08:22
Disputed. I would agree if you said "with language, there is no pure thought".

markpierre
1st June 2012, 08:27
Disputed. I would agree if you said "with language, there is no pure thought".

Music is a language isn't it? Or is it pure thought and not contrived?
or both or neither or sometimes?

Just an interesting question.


Added: Hey remember the crickets? they were in on each others thoughts. Or something really cool.

Heart2hearth
1st June 2012, 08:53
Mozart...and.. Heavy metal... same musical language ..or just a different dialect ?

:violin: :fencing: :drum: :lock1::rockon:

There is only one true language... the language of the heart...the rest is mindstuff..

H2H

phillipbbg
1st June 2012, 10:56
Language controls what we think.
Pictures teach us how to think.
You have to use your mind to read a picture and you find it easy to remember.
Compared with language where we have to write it down to remember it.
Language makes us lazy to use our minds and not think anymore...

By having our own languages we divide ourselves...

Interestingly we all understand when we see someone crying or laughing etc just by seeing, no need for language.

<8>
1st June 2012, 11:51
Thanks Noprophet..

My view..

Of course there are thoughts when your mother gave birth to you, most babies cry, a feeling of uncomfort of a sort.
This may be the first emotion you remembered, and so your first thought of this experience is through the feeling of uncomfort.

But there aren't any other thoughts in your mind yet, because you have to experience to get more information.
How can you know something you don't know?, it's what the whole experience is about.

You may now most likely be conditioned through your experience in life, and believe many things, but they are not true.
Because they are only thoughts and emotions you have picked up as information, and you choose to believe in them, that's all.


So then what is language in relation to thought?

Did we "think up" language or did the language "think up" us?

Humans are copycats all through life, how to walk, talk, read, and what you learn in school..etc..

There are of course creativity, and this is the interesting part. Ask anyone who came up with something, and they tell you all more or less the same thing.
It just came to me, in whatever shape or form, as in a dream or whatever.

It's through the language we express our thoughts and emotions.
We did not think up the language, because you cannot know what you dont know, it came from who we really are.

The more you are in tuned with who you really are, the more happier you are in whatever you are doing.
And through this state of being who you are, you get creative.


..8..

Carmody
1st June 2012, 14:12
Language shapes 'mind', and 'mind' shapes language.

This is similar to how a given book, that is to be considered immutable..over time..like a breeding program, can shape and control the entire life thrust of a group of individuals.

These are known in modern terms, as a Koran, a Bible, a Talmud & Torah, and Vedic texts, whatever the case may be. For good or bad, that is the reality.

For the book stays, and the people come and go, thus, over time, the book shapes the people.

Maia Gabrial
1st June 2012, 14:15
What if language is how we lost our abilities to be telepathic?

RMorgan
1st June 2012, 14:21
Hey folks,

I think you should watch these videos.

This is the first of a series of six:

i9VaU8EOR8k


This other one is pretty relevant to this thread as well:

HcvaanIM_Pg

Cheers,

Raf.

GoodETxSG
1st June 2012, 14:44
W/out language there is NO THOUGHT or no way to communicate thought? Hmmm, not sure I agree. Many animals show that they think and reason and even work together in groups. Most of the science I studied showed that we "Think" in Icons or Pictograph type symbolology... We have what we call an "Internal Monologue" but that is a higher way of thought and a way to communicate with the part of our awareness that communicates with others and makes sense of their communicated thoughts. Just an opinion based on studies... When practicing RV and going deep into Theta I experienced having to put words to the symbolic and mental pictures that I was observing. Some times there was not a base of reference for words to visual stimulus I experienced and of course it was like a cave man trying to describe a 747 scenario... but there was through, but no words to associate with them. So I believe there is though and as it melds with our highly communicative societies and way of life we have melded our internal monologue and make it a universal translator (At least universal to those who speak our language) as it converts the icons of the mind to words so they can be verbally communicated and share the thought. Notice how when someone that communicates well, has the give of verbal communication speaks you see in your minds eye what they try to communicate.
Anyway, food for THOUGHT...

GoodETxSG
1st June 2012, 14:51
What if language is how we lost our abilities to be telepathic?

I like this observation. Indeed there must be truth to it... before we had written language we had ICON based pictograph written language... I am sure that during those early times spoken language was new and not very sophisticated... they probably relied on the iconography more than spoken language for quite a bit of communication... slowly we developed arts of communication, song, poetry and just standing up and speaking as an orator and the iconography and their translations started to fade away and we went to the character based written language... most of the communication prior to that had to be hand signal and some sort of telepathic communication in my opinion.

turiya
1st June 2012, 16:00
[QUOTE]Without language, there is no thought.


The converse to this however is that pure being is by no means a guarantee of love, harmony, godhood, etc. If you refuse to think about your actions and only mindlessly go about your day in the interest of "purely being yourself" you are only allowing yourself to essentially run on a program on a rail with which you have no ability to alter as you may never review a single decision before it is made and instead must blindly act in all situations according to whatever is your first instinct.

Thought is an important component of being, it can provide balance if used properly.

Correction: Thought is an important component in contrast to one’s being. Becoming lost in thought, is an example of being totally disconnected from one’s being, of totally being disconnected from this present moment & occupying the immediate space.

For example, everyone has had the experience of forgetting where one placed their house keys. “I just had them in my hands, now where are they?” Scurrying around & trying to remember where they were placed, only to find them later in an obvious place.

Now, the significant question here is: Where were you when the keys were put down? Where did you go? What exactly happened to cause this scenario of unlocking the door with the key in your hand, and then not knowing where you placed the key immediately afterwards?

I will tell you where you were...
In that moment of laying the keys down, you had become totally unconscious & unaware – you were lost in thought, engaged in thinking. During that instant, you became a robot.

While you were acting in a robotic state, either you were thinking of some event that happened in the past, or thinking of some event that will come in the future.
This is the nature of thinking mind. It is either engaged in thinking about the future, or it is engaged in thinking about the past. To be in the present moment & to think is not at all possible. The two occurring simultaneously is an impossibility. It is an either/or scenario. Either thinking of future/past or being in the present moment. These are the only two possibilities.

To find out whether this is true or not, it only takes the time to observe this for yourself. You can prove it to yourself thru self – examination. Do not simply pre-conclude. Just look to see the fact of this for yourself. If you don’t want to look to see this for yourself. Then you are content with continually deceiving yourself.

There is a distinct difference between being ‘mindless’ and being ‘mindful’
It is understood that Buddha used a word in his language to describe meditative states as being ‘mindful’ states.
Being full of awareness & to be fully conscious is a mindful endeavor.

To not be willing to self-examine the workings of one’s own mind is to go about in a mindless robot-like state of affairs.

If the tinman only had a heart.

Totally your choice...
Cheers - turiya

Camilo
1st June 2012, 16:11
It seems it's the other way around.

Maia Gabrial
1st June 2012, 16:14
I truly believe that ALL things are WITHIN us. We've chosen to express in words that outer ears would hear, instead of using telepathy and our inner ears....

Anything that brings our abilities outside of ourselves will eventually make us lose those abilities. We're telepathic beings who have chosen to use technologies like phones and internet. We used to be connected to EVERYONE in the cosmos through telepathy. IMO this is a major loss for us.

We used to be able to teleport, but now we travel by boat, plane and cars. We used to be able to self-heal, but now we have doctors and drugs and con men.... We used to understand our place in this universe and to our Creator, but now we have someone's meaningless, stilted religious dogmas that guarantees that we'll be farther from the truth as ever....

It's no accident that we've been lured away from what we truly are by all the cool technologies. At the present rate we're going, eventually we'll have antigravity cars and air computers. But it'll just be that much farther away from understanding what we are... Technologies make life more comfortable, but they won't make us desire spirituality....

Our Creator designed us with EVERYTHING we needed to exist. I believe that we were never meant to pray to our Creator like helpless victims when we had it all within us. I think our Creator wanted us to be just like IT.... Someone knew this and stymied us.

So, who's to say that our changes didn't start out with something as simple as speaking a language....?

ljwheat
1st June 2012, 17:06
Following this line of thought when did it go wrong. One clue is in the bible. The unwritten or burned records of such accounts may still exist in our silent witness/watcher files. Waking up to or remembering watchers all knowingness- - - is in our now grasp. We need to get out of this sticking thinking we were taught and perpetuate. Here is a possible beginning/root cause?.

• Gods saying in Genesis 11:6, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them." (NIV) Gods realizes that when people are unified in purpose they can accomplish other wise imposible feats, both noble and ignoble. This is why unity in the body of and mind is so important.

"If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them."?

Then nothing they plan to do will be impossible. ?

So: Lets back engineer this bubble we have been forced into, by GODS? Looking at the ancient gods, as defined by religion and dogma it’s forbidden or untouchable (blaspheme) taboo, don’t go there. Why who put this barrier up/why? It’s been in place for so long it’s become Gospel, burned at the stake should you talk about it or change it.

• When Gods speak in this story, they uses the phrase, "let us go," referencing the trinity or a committee of gods/ et‘s.

Drop the trinity. “LET US GO” who is US - I thought there was only one GOD ? -- US?

What if: The GOD/gods were the faction that won the war over humanity between the ET's/gods and the great fall as is suggested in today’s thinking, were none other than advanced ET“s we chose to call Gods?.

As a result, The gods heads confused their/our language and wording of that now time line, causing them to speak different languages so they would not understand each other. By doing this, The god/gods heads thwarted humans seeing the self and silent watcher. They also scattered the people of the main dominate city- Babble depositing them all over the face of the earth.

Then:--- Began the reeducating of the masses, as they burned the original record/books teachings of the one language and culture that gave us power to create and be anything we chose to be, even as the Gods. i believe we knew silent watcher then or was very close as we are once again.

Just like processed food is bad for you, because raw food holds all that is needed for the ultimate needs of the body.

So to the unprocessed original raw Language or telepathy/no speach we used to speak/convey gave us spiritual living/correct irrational power for the soul and the body (self and watcher) to sync and prosper at that now time line.
John XXX

dan i el
1st June 2012, 19:49
I would humbly suggest taking a look into Pierre Sabak's etymological investigations, noprophet. peace

the_vast_mystery
1st June 2012, 21:29
The converse to this however is that pure being is by no means a guarantee of love, harmony, godhood, etc. If you refuse to think about your actions and only mindlessly go about your day in the interest of "purely being yourself" you are only allowing yourself to essentially run on a program on a rail with which you have no ability to alter as you may never review a single decision before it is made and instead must blindly act in all situations according to whatever is your first instinct.

Thought is an important component of being, it can provide balance if used properly.

Correction: Thought is an important component in contrast to one’s being. Becoming lost in thought, is an example of being totally disconnected from one’s being, of totally being disconnected from this present moment & occupying the immediate space.

For example, everyone has had the experience of forgetting where one placed their house keys. “I just had them in my hands, now where are they?” Scurrying around & trying to remember where they were placed, only to find them later in an obvious place.

Now, the significant question here is: Where were you when the keys were put down? Where did you go? What exactly happened to cause this scenario of unlocking the door with the key in your hand, and then not knowing where you placed the key immediately afterwards?

I will tell you where you were...
In that moment of laying the keys down, you had become totally unconscious & unaware – you were lost in thought, engaged in thinking. During that instant, you became a robot.

While you were acting in a robotic state, either you were thinking of some event that happened in the past, or thinking of some event that will come in the future.
This is the nature of thinking mind. It is either engaged in thinking about the future, or it is engaged in thinking about the past. To be in the present moment & to think is not at all possible. The two occurring simultaneously is an impossibility. It is an either/or scenario. Either thinking of future/past or being in the present moment. These are the only two possibilities.

To find out whether this is true or not, it only takes the time to observe this for yourself. You can prove it to yourself thru self – examination. Do not simply pre-conclude. Just look to see the fact of this for yourself. If you don’t want to look to see this for yourself. Then you are content with continually deceiving yourself.

There is a distinct difference between being ‘mindless’ and being ‘mindful’
It is understood that Buddha used a word in his language to describe meditative states as being ‘mindful’ states.
Being full of awareness & to be fully conscious is a mindful endeavor.

To not be willing to self-examine the workings of one’s own mind is to go about in a mindless robot-like state of affairs.

If the tinman only had a heart.

Totally your choice...
Cheers - turiya

Can you please define the qualities that separate this meditation completely from focused thought and yet still allow it to exercise all of the duties that thinking would normally enable so as to make a strong case for why it is a different and yet preferable method to achieving the same ends? (enabling deliberation and decision making to function off of a higher level than the animal self and its conditioned instincts.) If you are emptying your head you by definition have no thought and cannot be aware beyond your body's nervous systems and the immediate response/reflexes that come about via conditioned behavior. If there is something else that exists besides this I have not personally seen it and do not possess any frame of reference for specifically recognizing it.

If however, you are focusing intently on a single thing (The other type of meditation I've heard of) then I am not sufficiently versed in understanding how this is even the slightest bit different than the use of focused thought/disciplined mind. Therefore this leads me to wonder how one can be mindful without a mind. Would it not be perhaps, that in clearing the mind we allow "Another's" mind to make our decisions, and that for better or worse this "Another" could be anyone a person has inadvertently allowed in? Thus negating the universal applicability of empty-mindedness as a method to gain enlightenment? That is not to say you are not correct at all, I'm merely wondering exactly how applicable this idea is to everyone. Some may be able to quiet their ego and may hear only their "Higher self" which has the highest good in mind, yet others may hear a parade of sources competing for attention despite their best attempts to quiet the mind and allow a single source to flow through it as a "knowing."

Not all of this "Thinking" or programming occurs on a conscious level, you don't need to do anything to "think in the past" once it's been conditioned into you, and you need to often expound a huge amount of proactive thought and discipline to dig out that response pattern to release it for good. This very much requires active introspection, which again I cannot understand how is separate from this form of "Thought" being spoken of. Therefore your statement that one should simply immediately "stop thinking in the past" isn't something I can understand. In many cases without having realized it, I, or hell anyone else may have (I know I have) put any number of roadblocks or detours that prevent direct realization except through a specific mental/emotional disarmament process. (Hell, look how long it took us to get the USA and Russia to stop holding enough nukes to destroy the whole planet in one swoop and we're still not home free despite 30 years or more of it.)

kreagle
1st June 2012, 21:54
noprophet--- I could not disagree with you more. If anything language curtails abstract thought.

I once wrote a thesis on non-verbal communication---- That is language without words--- that is feelings, expressions, symbols etc.

The frustration of interacting with people unable to communicate with language is not because they have no thoughts, abstract or otherwise, but the fact that they do- and we are the ones who cannot access them. Thankfully people with more sympathy and imagination than you have are designing various technological devices which will help us to communicate-- maybe not in words but with shared sympathy and feeling.

Sorry--- I have been a bit rude to you- but I get very upset when people feel that if others cannot communicate using their own preferred method then they have nothing to 'say'. It's not true.

Ellisa,

The concept behind your post is beautiful,.....in every way!!!

I would love to read your "thesis" on the subject. Perhaps you could forward it to me via a "PM".

As I read this post,....I'm reminded of many "episodes in life" where things were observed in life by two or more people,...who then consequently made eye contact with each other,....and without saying anything,....gave each other a "knowing nod of approval",....or a "kind and warm smile"!

It's moments like these that we, as humans, are able to,....if only for a brief period of time,.....access a commodity of God known as "agape love".

"Agape" is the apex of love,....attributed to the love of God for humankind.

Even though, in the above scenario, nothing "orally" was said,......in reality plenty was actually "spiritually" said,.....and in an "agape type" manner.

Communication was definitely happening,.....and in the highest form possible, to boot!

Thank you for such a wonderful post.

Love and Peace,......kreagle

turiya
2nd June 2012, 01:01
Communicating Without Language - at its best!

I have heard one story. It is tremendously beautiful. It happened in the middle ages in Rome.

"Back in the medieval times, the Roman pope was persuaded by some of his more conservative advisers to endure no longer the presence of Jews in the very heart and core of the world of Christianity.

The Jews of Rome were therefore ordered evicted from their home by a certain date.

To the Jews of Rome, this was a great tragedy, for they knew no refuge where they might not expect worse treatment than in Rome. They appealed to the pope for reconsideration, and the pope, a fair-minded man, suggested a sporting proposition. If the Jews would appoint one of their own members to engage in a debate with him in pantomime, and if the Jewish representative were to win the debate, the Jews might remain.

The Jewish leaders gathered in the synagogue that night and considered the proposition. It seemed the only way out, but none of their number wished to volunteer to debate. As the chief rabbi said, 'It is impossible to win a debate in which the pope will be both participant and a judge. And how can I face the possibility that the eviction of the Jews will be a result of my specific failure?"

The synagogue janitor, who had been quietly sweeping the floor through all this, suddenly spoke up.

'I will debate,' he said.

They stared at him in astonishment. 'You, a chief janitor,' said the chief rabbi, 'debate with the pope?"

'Someone has to,' said the janitor, 'and none of you will."

So in default of anyone else, the janitor was made the representative of the Jewish community and was appointed to debate with the pope.

Then came the great day of the debate. In the square before St. Peters was the pope, surrounded by the college of cardinals in full panoply, with crowds of bishops and other church functionaries.

Approaching was the jewish janitor, surrounded by a few leaders of the jewish community, in their sombre black garb and their long grey beards. Pope faced janitor - and the debate began.

Gravely the pope raised a finger and swept it across the heavens. Without hesitation, the janitor pointed firmly toward the ground, and the pope looked surprised.

Even more gravely, the pope raised one finger again, keeping it firmly before the janitor's face. With the trace of a sneer, the janitor raised three fingers, holding them before the pope just as firmly, and a look of deep astonishment crossed the pope's face again.

Then the pope thrust his hand deep into his robes and produced an apple. The janitor thereupon opened a paper bag that was sticking out of his hip-pocket and took out a flat piece of matzo. At this the pope exclaimed in a loud voice, 'The jewish representative has won the debate. The jews may remain in Rome."

The janitor backed off, the Jewish leaders surrounded him, and all walked hastily out of the square.

They were no sooner gone than the church leaders clustered about the pope. 'What happened, your holiness?' they demanded. 'We didn't follow the rapid give and take."

The pope passed a shaking hand across his brow. 'The man facing me,' he said, 'was a Master at the art of debate. Consider... I began the debate by sweeping my hand across the sky to indicate that god ruled all the universe. Without pausing an instant, that old Jew pointed downward to indicate that nevertheless, the devil has been assigned a dominion of his own below.

'I then raised one finger to indicate there was but one god, assuming I would catch him in the error of his own theology. Yet he instantly raised three fingers to indicate that one god had three manifestations - a clear acceptance of the doctrine of the trinity.

'Abandoning theology, I produced an apple to indicate that certain blind followers of so-called science were flying in the face of revealed truth by declaring that the earth was round as an apple. Instantly he produced a flat piece of unleavened bread to indicate that the earth, in accord with revelation, was nevertheless flat. So I granted him victory."

By now the Jews and the janitor had reached the ghetto. All surrounded the janitor, demanding, 'What happened?"

The janitor said indignantly, 'The whole thing was nonsense. Listen. First the pope waves his hand like he is saying the Jews must get out of Rome. So I point downward to say the Jews are going to stay right here. So he points his finger at me as if to say drop dead, but the jews are leaving. So I point three fingers at him to say drop dead three times, the Jews are staying. So then I see he is taking out his lunch, so I take out mine.""

-*-

source: http://oshosearch.net/Convert/Articles_Osho/Nirvana_The_Last_Nightmare/Osho-Nirvana-The-Last-Nightmare-00000005.html

Hermeticus
2nd June 2012, 01:20
Perhaps, the next question should be not whether there are non-language based thoughts, but rather how is it possible to convey a non-language based thought without the use of language?

turiya
2nd June 2012, 02:48
If you are emptying your head you by definition have no thought and cannot be aware beyond your body's nervous systems and the immediate response/reflexes that come about via conditioned behavior. If there is something else that exists besides this I have not personally seen it and do not possess any frame of reference for specifically recognizing it.

In viewing a sunset, to be taken away by the beauty of it, is it necessary to verbalize it, to put it into words? Is it really necessary to say, "Oh, how beautiful is the sunset!"
The moment the words are said, the moment the mind is engaged, you have instantly moved away from being immersed in viewing the sunset.

Have you ever fallen in love?
When you kiss your man, or your woman, is there a need to verbalize it, is it necessary to have a monologue going on while doing so? If you are, then your love is superficial, it is not total, your kiss is pseudo, to do so is a pretense and an insult to the other. If the other is consciously aware, then they will feel it - that you are being partial, you are not total in your love.


If however, you are focusing intently on a single thing (The other type of meditation I've heard of)

If you are focusing intently, then this is concentration, it is not meditation.
Concentration is focusing intently, it has a tension to it. That is what 'intent' means. There is tension involved.

To focus on one thing, is to try to keep other distractions out. It is a closing down of consciousness.
For example, you go to a rose bush to meditate on a rose flower. You sit and begin your gaze. Then suddenly, in the background there is a dog barking. Your intention is to focus on one thing - gazing at the flower, but the barking dog becomes a distraction. You may try to block out the barking dog, so it doesn't disturb your gaze upon the flower. To do so adds tension to the thing you are calling meditation. It is not. This is concentration. It involves a preconceived notion of what you would like to have happen. The barking dog becomes a disturbance.

Meditation on the other hand is an opening up of consciousness. It is accepting whatever is happening. Gazing at the flower with the dog barking in the background - both are accepted. If you find thoughts coming in to distract (and they will come in), then trying to block out the thoughts turns the meditation into a concentration. Instead, accept the fact that thought has entered, a distraction has taken place, then return to gazing at the flower & whatever else comes into the situation.


this leads me to wonder how one can be mindful without a mind. Would it not be perhaps, that in clearing the mind we allow "Another's" mind to make our decisions, and that for better or worse this "Another" could be anyone a person has inadvertently allowed in?

Take listening as a meditation.
Listening is a beautiful meditation. Listen to music... Listen to birds singing in the morning.
The more quiet the mind is, the more you will be able to hear the birds.
If you are distraught with thoughts, if your mind is flooded with thoughts, emotions, desires, you will not hear the singing birds, and the variety of birds that are there making their song.

Now if you have a fear that some ET entity is going to enter your being because you have an empty mind, then this is not meditation. This is a pre-conceived notion that meditation is bad for you. This has been taught by many of the so-called "established" religions. You have been programmed to believe that "an idle mind is the devil's workshop."
This is something for you to look at and to resolve. Its not a very healthy attitude to have.

Children are susceptible to what parents tell them, what priests tell them, what school teachers tell them.
This shows that you don't trust existence, you don't trust yourself.
You have been programmed to live in fear, that you are not ok as you are.
This is also called "the dark night of the soul". It is something that you will have to go into and come out of. It is something that you need to look at if you want to be free of this notion.
Find out where all these ideas that have been planted within your brain come from.


Not all of this "Thinking" or programming occurs on a conscious level, you don't need to do anything to "think in the past" once it's been conditioned into you...

With this you are correct. You have been conditioned from the moment you came out of your mother's womb. You have been taught to move your mind. From the goo-goos to the ma-mas & to the da-das. All kinds of people have surrounded you to get you to move your mind.
By now, it has become a very deep-seated habit. You are constantly thinking, there is no need to go into thinking, it has become an automatic, robotic, habitually learned behavior pattern. Its like an addition. Addicted to thinking.

For example, if you wear a watch, you usually wear it on one wrist. Try this, for one day put it on the opposite wrist, and then see how much you act as a robot for the rest of the day - how often you will be looking at the wrist where there is no watch.


...your statement that one should simply immediately "stop thinking in the past" isn't something I can understand.

I have never said that one "should stop thinking in the past". I have only suggested to watch your thinking process. You will see that whenever you think, it will be of the past or the future. And the simple act of just watching will affect your thought process.

As you watch thoughts, thoughts disappear.
As you watch feelings, feelings disappear.
As you watch being, you are no longer separate.
Only the witness remains, which is you eternal reality. it is universal.

Cheers
-*-

noprophet
2nd June 2012, 06:42
Stumbled upon this video while looking for information.
QlNnlXgCIoA

// and I wasn't going to post this because it seems very non sequitur but I believe it's extremely related in metaphor concerning patterns within patterns (wheels within wheels) and how they evolve.

ZUCZYHSD8dg

ljwheat
2nd June 2012, 14:53
G2uSi_ehHRg
click on Source link to follow the rest of this audio book to part #16 cover's everything in this thread and some. John XXX:flame:

noprophet
2nd June 2012, 20:22
I might be a bit to mercury headed right now, so please do forgive my pathology, but what the hell; sometimes word play is just good fun. :)

You got me thinking about the formation of language after birth Morgan and I couldn't resist having some fun with the words after attempting to conceptually trace out how the initial "word-impulses" might form.

Disclaimer for possible insanity. :P

-



I´m sure newborn babies are full of amazing thoughts, even without knowing any language.

-
The (*arch)e(types) of thought... what language references in its inception.
A primal language? Instinctive?

The modus of the psyche - focus, retrieval, harmony, disharmony, want, give, do

A baby is born, it is (re)ceptive and therefore a(ware) of a sharp separation, a (du)a(bi)lity-induction by sharp-(con)trast of being born.

The basis of the "thinking" is born from this though(t) it would not yet be (s)words yet, however there is a snake-like-motion-complex.

It creates (Mem)ory through a (du)a(bi)lity -(con)trast, the first inception of ego-self, an(core)s in the pre(*vi-os) state of understanding as comfort, the (*wom)b. The new-state is one of separation.

The (ev)lovE produced between mother and child a strong (mag)netic at(traction) for reuni(*fication) (re)presented* materi(ally) in the align(ment) of gene(*tics), but not (be)cause of it--spirit *forms matter.

The spirit fields, of child and mother, are the same though (con)taining the disharmony of the father so that they may separate.*

Separate, serpent.

*The history of arch building doesn't apply only to stone.

*Latin: vi(way)os(bone), pre-bone-way - what is the affixation(asphyxiation) of Skull & Bones?

*mom

*Fiction - the illusion of separateness.

*RePresentEd - Re Given by the Gift of (r)education

*Tic Toc, measurement of time. The time the gene has been evoLving. Come on alchemist :)

*Forms, farms, arms

*Your only Jewish if your mother was Jewish.

-

Maybe to far... I don't know anymore... I do really enjoy this kind of thing though.

<3

Eric
2nd June 2012, 21:44
If you want to know which came first
Ask the tree
Tree or Baum , it matters not

Carmody
2nd June 2012, 21:52
First? The Rooster. Obviously.

ulli
2nd June 2012, 21:56
First? The Rooster. Obviously.

Is that because it has a "root" ?

noprophet
2nd June 2012, 22:38
First? The Rooster. Obviously.
5gHiR1xeOSs
:rolleyes:

turiya
2nd June 2012, 22:57
...Do you think the language is repairable, replaceable or do we wait for another abstraction of ascension to bring about unified communication via removing the interpretation barrier. -OR- is this an evolutionary process of a species communications and simply by discussing the triumphs and fallacies of language we are already participating in "3d-matrix" aspects of our communication-evolutionary-process?

Hyper Communication
"It should be born in mind that the nature of extraterrestrial communications, that in a majority of instances, Star visitors communicate with humans by telepathic transfer of mental images and concepts, rather than by words and speech." - Dr Boylan

"Tracy Taylor explains it this way, "…everything is made up of the same matter resonating at different harmonics, so the ETs are able to communicate with us, directing thought on subatomic levels… and so activate subconscious…. these symbols are meant to communicate the nature of the macrocosm.""


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMpCEbIChDY

To View Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=difMsiXe2f0&feature=fvwrel
-*-

noprophet
3rd June 2012, 02:48
ScienceDaily (Nov. 3, 2010)
The language we speak may influence not only our thoughts, but our implicit preferences as well. That's the finding of a study by psychologists at Harvard University, who found that bilingual individuals' opinions of different ethnic groups were affected by the language in which they took a test examining their biases and predilections.

The paper appears in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.

"Charlemagne is reputed to have said that to speak another language is to possess another soul," says co-author Oludamini Ogunnaike, a graduate student at Harvard. "This study suggests that language is much more than a medium for expressing thoughts and feelings. Our work hints that language creates and shapes our thoughts and feelings as well."

Implicit attitudes, positive or negative associations people may be unaware they possess, have been shown to predict behavior towards members of social groups. Recent research has shown that these attitudes are quite malleable, susceptible to factors such as the weather, popular culture -- or, now, by the language people speak.

"Can we shift something as fundamental as what we like and dislike by changing the language in which our preferences are elicited?" asks co-author Mahzarin R. Banaji, the Richard Clarke Cabot Professor of Social Ethics at Harvard. "If the answer is yes, that gives more support to the idea that language is an important shaper of attitudes."

Ogunnaike, Banaji, and Yarrow Dunham, now at the University of California, Merced, used the well-known Implicit Association Test (IAT), where participants rapidly categorize words that flash on a computer screen or are played through headphones. The test gives participants only a fraction of a second to categorize words, not enough to think about their answers.

"The IAT bypasses a large part of conscious cognition and taps into something we're not aware of and can't easily control," Banaji says.

The researchers administered the IAT in two different settings: once in Morocco, with bilinguals in Arabic and French, and again in the U.S. with Latinos who speak both English and Spanish.

In Morocco, participants who took the IAT in Arabic showed greater preference for other Moroccans. When they took the test in French, that difference disappeared. Similarly, in the U.S., participants who took the test in Spanish showed a greater preference for other Hispanics. But again, in English, that preference disappeared.

"It was quite shocking to see that a person could take the same test, within a brief period of time, and show such different results," Ogunnaike says. "It's like asking your friend if he likes ice cream in English, and then turning around and asking him again in French and getting a different answer."

In the Moroccan test, participants saw "Moroccan" names (such as Hassan or Fatimah) or "French" names (such as Jean or Marie) flash on a monitor, along with words that are "good" (such as happy or nice) or "bad" (such as hate or mean). Participants might press one key when they see a Moroccan name or a good word, and press another when they see a French name or a bad word. Then the key assignments are switched so that "Moroccan" and "bad" share the same key and "French" and "good" share the other.

Linguist Benjamin Lee Whorf first posited in the 1930s that language is so powerful that it can determine thought. Mainstream psychology has taken the more skeptical view that while language may affect thought processes, it doesn't influence thought itself. This new study suggests that Whorf's idea, when not caricatured, may generate interesting hypotheses that researchers can continue to test.

"These results challenge our views of attitudes as stable," Banaji says. "There still remain big questions about just how fixed or flexible they are, and language may provide a window through which we will learn about their nature."

Ogunnaike, Dunham, and Banaji's work was supported by Harvard's Weatherhead Center for International Affairs and the Mellon Mays Foundation.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101103111206.htm

noprophet
6th June 2012, 00:53
I've got one more for ya.

Thoth = Thot = Thought = Represented by the IBIS - Conception
http://www.bakerartistawards.org/files/projects/thumb_thoth1.jpg

Black Sun = Represented by the IRIS - Reception
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_6hgSmco4R9M/SaGmJyuGVHI/AAAAAAAAAzE/SsgzTkSOyrI/eye_big_thumb2.jpg

Remove IR & IB = IR IB = 1 RIB

We create ISIS :)

EVE is the EYE, Reception, that's why she eats the fruit. She can perceive it.

Adam is Thought, conception, that's why it is not until she gives it to him that shame is created. (why shame? fear maybe? this i don't get.)

:bowl:

a11 work and no play.

the_vast_mystery
6th June 2012, 02:53
In viewing a sunset, to be taken away by the beauty of it, is it necessary to verbalize it, to put it into words? Is it really necessary to say, "Oh, how beautiful is the sunset!"
The moment the words are said, the moment the mind is engaged, you have instantly moved away from being immersed in viewing the sunset.

If I didn't force myself to stop, look and acknowledge it verbally then I'd never even notice it exists. In fact until recently I rarely noticed the passing of daylight to night beyond feeling much more comfortable going out during the night than during the day. (Eyes have always been very sensitive to sunlight, caused me a lot of back problems before I started wearing sunglasses.) So yes, for me verbal repetition is very important because it's the only way to hammer into my subconscious what I'm noticing in such a way as to form a specific recall memory so I can actually ask myself "what beauty in nature have I seen lately?" and not draw a total blank and then be hit with a hammer of negative subconscious responses towards all of the things I've seen I didn't care for.

Bottom line: With how my day goes by I wouldn't notice anything not on a computer screen without a lot of effort on my part to stop, notice and ensure a good memory was made around it.


Have you ever fallen in love?
Depends on whom you ask. ;p


When you kiss your man, or your woman, is there a need to verbalize it, is it necessary to have a monologue going on while doing so? If you are, then your love is superficial, it is not total, your kiss is pseudo, to do so is a pretense and an insult to the other. If the other is consciously aware, then they will feel it - that you are being partial, you are not total in your love.

Actually when I kiss I've usually had visualizations playing for two purposes.
1: To ensure I make the proper bodily motions as quite honestly I don't have as much experience with physical intimacy. The few relationships I've had were all rather bereft of intimacy and it depressed me a lot.
2: To ensure the same good memory formation as above around each kiss I'll usually run specific reinforcement loops to identify to my subconscious that its goals are being met, this moment should be inscribed as one of bliss, etc.

Without doing any of these things the experience would've been awkward and I'd probably never have even gotten as far as I have with women either. I had to do these things to counteract very powerful negative perceptions I've gained in my life. If I didn't pro-actively force those moments to occur in my mind in a specific way then I would've labeled them all as lacking, negative, etc. and reacted very badly too them and probably and be a lot more of a depressive person.


If you are focusing intently, then this is concentration, it is not meditation.
Concentration is focusing intently, it has a tension to it. That is what 'intent' means. There is tension involved.

Hrmm, then nope, never been there. I don't think I can imagine what that would be like. If I'm not mentally focusing or physically focusing on something I tend to get extremely sensitive and irritable. (or fall right to sleep)


To focus on one thing, is to try to keep other distractions out. It is a closing down of consciousness.
For example, you go to a rose bush to meditate on a rose flower. You sit and begin your gaze. Then suddenly, in the background there is a dog barking. Your intention is to focus on one thing - gazing at the flower, but the barking dog becomes a distraction. You may try to block out the barking dog, so it doesn't disturb your gaze upon the flower. To do so adds tension to the thing you are calling meditation. It is not. This is concentration. It involves a preconceived notion of what you would like to have happen. The barking dog becomes a disturbance.

In my own case I actually have the opposite problem. It's easy for me to filter things out of my perception I don't want to see, but rather hard for me to then notice them again until I stumble onto them. I'd probably immediately screen out everything else, forget the dog existed after the first three or so barks (as soon as I got a handle on bark pitch/tempo) and then accidentally bump into a person passing by or that dog because my focus became so myopic that I noticed only that flower.


Meditation on the other hand is an opening up of consciousness. It is accepting whatever is happening. Gazing at the flower with the dog barking in the background - both are accepted. If you find thoughts coming in to distract (and they will come in), then trying to block out the thoughts turns the meditation into a concentration. Instead, accept the fact that thought has entered, a distraction has taken place, then return to gazing at the flower & whatever else comes into the situation.

I'm not sure how that's any different than what I do. I ignore any inputs I am not immediately interested in. I accept that they are there but I do my best to keep my focus on one area. Sometimes that requires small reminders but generally I can do it pretty easily when it's something I really want to focus on.


Take listening as a meditation.
Listening is a beautiful meditation. Listen to music... Listen to birds singing in the morning.
The more quiet the mind is, the more you will be able to hear the birds.
If you are distraught with thoughts, if your mind is flooded with thoughts, emotions, desires, you will not hear the singing birds, and the variety of birds that are there making their song.

So it seems you're saying the difference is being able to simultaneously listen to everything at once and respond appropriately in a non-linear fashion to the entire environment? That seems like a lot more work because it requires both a very narrow and very wide focus at the same time. Being able to take in the big picture and yet every small detail of every crevice simultaneously. I've yet to be able to do this in the present, just when I remember certain important events. It's actually kind of weird because when I remember things they feel almost more vivid than when I was there since I can re-play the event at different speeds or from different perspectives. It's not with every memory, but it's been slowly creeping up lately.

It seems more work will be needed to have this fuller depth of focus in my life. But part of that starts with being able to force myself to individually notice things before I would have never recognized or appreciated and that currently is taking a lot of work.


Now if you have a fear that some ET entity is going to enter your being because you have an empty mind, then this is not meditation. This is a pre-conceived notion that meditation is bad for you. This has been taught by many of the so-called "established" religions. You have been programmed to believe that "an idle mind is the devil's workshop."
This is something for you to look at and to resolve. Its not a very healthy attitude to have.

It's quite possibly a holdover from a past existence then. I don't have any "overt" fear of this, but I do recognize the possibility of "voices" able to be interjected into people's mental planes and I put this as an example as to why perhaps not everyone can immediately do what was said. Someone could quite potentially never be able to achieve this perfect silence of existence. We make very complex choices and agreements many of us are entirely unaware of and this alone I think means that some people may for one reason or another never have this "quiet mind."


Children are susceptible to what parents tell them, what priests tell them, what school teachers tell them.
This shows that you don't trust existence, you don't trust yourself.
You have been programmed to live in fear, that you are not ok as you are.
This is also called "the dark night of the soul". It is something that you will have to go into and come out of. It is something that you need to look at if you want to be free of this notion.
Find out where all these ideas that have been planted within your brain come from.

Currently priority #1. :)


With this you are correct. You have been conditioned from the moment you came out of your mother's womb. You have been taught to move your mind. From the goo-goos to the ma-mas & to the da-das. All kinds of people have surrounded you to get you to move your mind.
By now, it has become a very deep-seated habit. You are constantly thinking, there is no need to go into thinking, it has become an automatic, robotic, habitually learned behavior pattern. Its like an addition. Addicted to thinking.

For example, if you wear a watch, you usually wear it on one wrist. Try this, for one day put it on the opposite wrist, and then see how much you act as a robot for the rest of the day - how often you will be looking at the wrist where there is no watch.

Already there, I habitually twirl pens and such when thinking really intensely about something. In fact I often have to force myself not to move my hands or grab something if I'm really in there. It can take a lot of effort to even stop the precursors to all this, LOL.


I have never said that one "should stop thinking in the past". I have only suggested to watch your thinking process. You will see that whenever you think, it will be of the past or the future. And the simple act of just watching will affect your thought process.

As you watch thoughts, thoughts disappear.
As you watch feelings, feelings disappear.
As you watch being, you are no longer separate.
Only the witness remains, which is you eternal reality. it is universal.

Cheers
-*-

Well then it may take me a lot longer to finally realize this "witness." I introspect a lot and notice my thoughts and form theories about where they come from. But even this I can identify as an application of what little psychology and problem solving I know to my own meta-cognition, itself a form of thought. It's still not the same as perfect stillness like you're saying though. I can watch my feelings though and I can certainly tell you they don't disappear. I'll meta-cognitively identify my bad periods part way in, and then attempt to separate myself from everyone around me and do a lot of breathing exercises to take my focus onto the physical and away from the mental.

I've been in a great deal of situations where I recognized my own irrational state of mind and been able to do nothing about it. Because at the time, while I can identify and observe the feeling, pointing out its own irrationality to itself only makes it stronger. I usually suppress emotions though and that's probably at least part of why. I think it'll probably be a long while before I arrive at that point. Either way, interesting discussion thank you. :)

Carmody
6th June 2012, 05:51
First? The Rooster. Obviously.

Is that because it has a "root" ?

sort of.

It's the humorous human answer to the eternal question of 'who came first, the chicken or the egg?'

The answer is neither.

It was the rooster.

Arrowwind
6th June 2012, 06:37
To me language is a tool used to interface within 3 dimensional reality. The greater our scope of language the more we can manipulate the third dimension in a three dimensional way. It gives us the capacity to do science and philosophy, mathematics and even music into some of the highest realms. Language potentiates the image into the physical. It is part of our third dimensional creating tools created though shared agreement of symbols. It is not the only tool we have but it is a tool that allows for us to record vast amounts of information and to store it and to gain access to it when needed, hence expanding our brain capacity profoundly.
Upon this ability great and complex civilization has been created. In a sence it creates for us an expaned mental capability. Through language we can access what others think and even feel when they are not in our presence... for an example consider Shakespear or Maya Angelou.

Language is the means to put into symbol all our thoughts and potential realities so that we may access them at will and share them with others.

Yes, telepathy and other psychic phenomena is possible but for the vast vast majority of us here it is not reliable or accessible and consistent enough to get work done and we are here in the third dimension to do some very physical works.

It is the means by which we transfer down from the dream, from the core archtype symbol, from the godhead into physical reality. ... and there is reason why English is leading the world ... it has encompassed more symbols, more potential reality, than any other language. It has created itself to be infinite in potential, pliable, due to the blending of core root language structures in unique and open ended ways

panopticon
6th June 2012, 06:42
Without language, there is no thought.

Go ahead and try to think of something without a voice in your head.
You may visualize scenery, shapes or colors but you will doubtfully be able to construct an elaborate vision of history or conceptualization of self in this field. Without language there are simply no tools in the sandbox to do these things.

So then what is language in relation to thought?

Did we "think up" language or did the language "think up" us?

If there is some kind of control/matrix/game paradigm here that is sustaining reality in some function as so many theories dictate this would be the place to look.

G'day All,

I often use this quote from Alan Watts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Watts) to explain this:

We seldom realize, for example, that our most private thoughts and emotions are not actually our own. For we think in terms of languages and images which we did not invent, but which were given to us by our society. We copy emotional reactions from our parents... Our social environment has this power just because we do not exist apart from society. Society is our extended mind and body.
Society...pulls [a] trick on every child from earliest infancy....the child is taught that he is...a free agent, an independent origin of thoughts and actions...[The child]...accepts this make-believe for the very reason that it is not true.... He has no way of resisting this kind of social indoctrination.
-- Alan Watts originally 1966 copy by Vintage Books 1989 [from The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are, pp. 70-72.]

Does thought exist prior to learning language?
Of course it does.
The difficulty is in the expression of thoughts that are symbolic or abstract.

When a baby wants something the parent/carer "guesses" based on previous experience.
When the baby develops enough it points at an object, if it can see it, removing some of the "guess work".
When the child learns an objects name it asks for that object, removing the "guess work" completely.

Let's not forget that language is limited by prior experience though.

For example: Explain to me the colour "red".

The explanation of an individual is based on personal experience that dates back to when someone pointed at a red object and said "this is red"...

This again comes to the base of human perception and how our understanding of the world is "coloured" by what some biologists refer to as a species 'umwelt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umwelt)'. We perceive the world different to a dog for example. A dog sees in black and white, has heightened smell and hearing and as a result perceives the world different to a human. This means a dogs umwelt is different to a humans. Also a person who is colour blind perceives the world different to one who isn't. This also applies to someone who has synaesthesia (http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s528838.htm) (smelling colours, seeing sound) or is a seer. Their perception of the world is different to others.

So, from my perspective, my perception of the world is reliant on my umwelt. My thoughts are reliant on my previous experiences, the language I think in and the various socialisation processes that form the way in which I think (as both confined and defined by the various discursive process acting both on the through me).
Kind Regards, :yo:
Panopticon

Arrowwind
6th June 2012, 06:44
*Your only Jewish if your mother was Jewish.
<3

What happened to Jewish by injection? :noidea:

:sarcastic:

Arrowwind
6th June 2012, 06:55
[ Alan Watts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Watts) to explain this:

We seldom realize, for example, that our most private thoughts and emotions are not actually our own. For we think in terms of languages and images which we did not invent, but which were given to us by our society. We copy emotional reactions from our parents... Our social environment has this power just because we do not exist apart from society. Society is our extended mind and body.
Society...pulls [a] trick on every child from earliest infancy....the child is taught that he is...a free agent, an independent origin of thoughts and actions...[The child]...accepts this make-believe for the very reason that it is not true.... He has no way of resisting this kind of social indoctrination.
-- Alan Watts originally 1966 copy by Vintage Books 1989 [from The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are, pp. 70-72.]



I agree and disagree with Watts...
our language is co-created by the Human co-creative consciousness, the collective human soul, that moves in a tide of creation acrosss experience. It is a collective experience within the third dimension. -Yes we give it to our children, but as reincarnational beings we have been co-creating this for many thousands of years, developing it to the point to where it is today.

Society does shape us but we have entered into it by agreement on a soul level. We believe we are free, and truely we are, but we mistake our surroundings to be our oppressor when in fact we chose to be here in this time, in this social construct... and when you understand this then you really know who you are. Society is not something that happens to you it is your co-creation. You are responsible every step of the way by the choices you make both in this world and in the great beyond.

panopticon
6th June 2012, 07:15
Alan Watts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Watts) to explain this:

We seldom realize, for example, that our most private thoughts and emotions are not actually our own. For we think in terms of languages and images which we did not invent, but which were given to us by our society. We copy emotional reactions from our parents... Our social environment has this power just because we do not exist apart from society. Society is our extended mind and body.
Society...pulls [a] trick on every child from earliest infancy....the child is taught that he is...a free agent, an independent origin of thoughts and actions...[The child]...accepts this make-believe for the very reason that it is not true.... He has no way of resisting this kind of social indoctrination.
-- Alan Watts originally 1966 copy by Vintage Books 1989 [from The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are, pp. 70-72.]



I agree and disagree with Watts...
our language is co-created by the Human co-creative consciousness, the collective human soul, that moves in a tide of creation acrosss experience. It is a collective experience within the third dimension. -Yes we give it to our children, but as reincarnational beings we have been co-creating this for many thousands of years, developing it to the point to where it is today.

Society does shape us but we have entered into it by agreement on a soul level. We believe we are free, and truely we are, but we mistake our surroundings to be our oppressor when in fact we chose to be here in this time, in this social construct... and when you understand this then you really know who you are. Society is not something that happens to you it is your co-creation. You are responsible every step of the way by the choices you make both in this world and in the great beyond.


G'day Arrowwind,

I agree with you. Watts was referring, in this passage, to what is understood by many here as the limited 3-d perception of an individual. Remember this was written in 1966 and that Watts was writing to a particular philosophical "audience" at the time.

To understand that we are part of the various discursive process (on multiple levels of self) that create our thoughts and understandings, and not external from these processes, is an important observation that many never come too.
Kind Regards, :yo:
Panopticon

noprophet
6th June 2012, 07:48
*Your only Jewish if your mother was Jewish.
<3

What happened to Jewish by injection? :noidea:

:sarcastic:

Illustration of religious dogmas literalized from spiritual studies through the passing of the abstract meditations through language. :P

ulli
6th June 2012, 10:12
First? The Rooster. Obviously.

Is that because it has a "root" ?

sort of.

It's the humorous human answer to the eternal question of 'who came first, the chicken or the egg?'

The answer is neither.

It was the rooster.
Yeah, I got all that the first time, then I took that ball and ran with it.
And doubled it.
A) rooster..root-ser...root...see?
B) most plants go in this order, seed, root, plant.

I guess you just don't know me yet,

TraineeHuman
7th June 2012, 05:59
The word "language" can refer to many different things. Let me suggest that maybe one of the most interesting ones is:


"language" in its broadest possible sense.

OK, some may say that's being metaphorical about or playing loose with the notion of "language". But I'd like to suggest that maybe such people haven't deeply considered what the purpose of language is.

So, let's consider language in that sense. Not just spoken or written language. Probably something even broader than pattern languages. What I'm saying is, let's look at any means of communication between two beings -- or between or within a being themself/itself.

In this sense, "language" is anything that creates or is (inter)relationship or interaction. The fifth dimension is the world of thought. Obviously, since there are dimensions higher than the fifth, all relationship in dimensions six plus doesn't involve thought!

An interesting question is: just how real a phenomenon is "language" in this broad sense? Well, in all my experience spiritual enlightenment is all about being able to let go, in a profound way. Let me be more specific. It's all all about being able to accept that in your relationship with yourself, the relationship is what's more real -- not "you"!

So, "language" in this broad sense is intimately tied up with whatever is the deepest, fullest reality. May I suggest you could accurately say "language" in this sense is God, or the Divine? That's provided you don't of course have some unfortunate notion that God is anything like an object, or similar to a what a noun can be used for, or like a "me".

Tane Mahuta
7th June 2012, 06:14
16776

Without thought there is no language!

TM

Mulder
7th June 2012, 07:10
This is a philosophical question - The principle of linguistic relativity holds that the structure of a language affects the ways in which its speakers conceptualize their world, i.e. their world view, or otherwise influence their cognitive processes. Popularly known as the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, or Whorfianism, the principle is often defined as having two versions: (i) the strong version that language determines thought and that linguistic categories limit and determine cognitive categories and (ii) the weak version that linguistic categories and usage influence thought and certain kinds of non-linguistic behaviour. The term "Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis" is a misnomer as the men never co-authored anything and never stated their ideas in terms of a hypothesis. Also the distinction between a weak and a strong version of the hypothesis is a later invention, as Sapir and Whorf never set up such a dichotomy although in their writings at times their view of the relativity principle are phrased in stronger or weaker terms.

The idea was first clearly expressed by 19th century thinkers, such as Wilhelm von Humboldt, who saw language as the expression of the spirit of a nation. Members of the early 20th century school of American Anthropology headed by Franz Boas and Edward Sapir also embraced forms of the idea to one extent or another, but Sapir in particular wrote more often against than in favor of anything like linguistic determinism. Sapir's student Benjamin Lee Whorf came to be seen as the primary proponent as a result of his published observations of how he perceived linguistic differences to have consequences in human cognition and behavior. Harry Hoijer, one of Sapir's students, introduced the term "Sapir–Whorf hypothesis",[1] even though the two scholars never actually advanced any such hypothesis.[2] Whorf's principle of linguistic relativity was reformulated as a testable hypothesis by Roger Brown and Eric Lenneberg who conducted experiments designed to find out whether color perception varies between speakers of languages that classified colors differently. As the study of the universal nature of human language and cognition came into focus in the 1960s the idea of linguistic relativity fell out of favour among linguists. A 1969 study by Brent Berlin and Paul Kay claimed to demonstrate that color terminology is subject to universal semantic constraints, and hence to discredit the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis.

From the late 1980s a new school of linguistic relativity scholars have examined the effects of differences in linguistic categorization on cognition, finding broad support for weak versions of the hypothesis in experimental contexts.[3] Some effects of linguistic relativity have been shown in several semantic domains, although they are generally weak. Currently, a balanced view of linguistic relativity is espoused by most linguists holding that language influences certain kinds of cognitive processes in non-trivial ways, but that other processes are better seen as subject to universal factors. Research is focused on exploring the ways and extent to which language influences thought.[3] The principle of linguistic relativity and the relation between language and thought has also received attention in varying academic fields from philosophy to psychology and anthropology, and it has also inspired and colored works of fiction and the invention of constructed languages.

TraineeHuman
7th June 2012, 08:30
Mulder: As far as I’m aware neither Sapir nor Whorf were philosophers, even though you acknowledge that it’s a philosophical question. (Philosophy being the discipline which investigates what kinds of things can potentially exist, and what the nature of the world is, and how knowledge works or fails to work.)

The Linguistic Analysis school of philosophy was certainly by far the most dominant movement in twentieth century English philosophy, and was certainly very highly influential on most of twentieth century American philosophy. As far as I’m aware, its central principle – that language is not a passive vehicle but very actively shapes what we are able to think and what type of world we can live in -- is accepted as true and valid by all philosophers today, though to varying degrees of emphasis.

Philosophy doesn’t deal in hypotheses. Rather, it investigates those things that must necessarily be true. The scientific method – which was invented by the philosopher Descartes – is partly based on several false assumptions. So, for that reason alone (among others),it would be absurd to attempt to apply the scientific method to philosophical discoveries.

panopticon
7th June 2012, 08:35
G'day Mulder,

Please show links to sourced material:

Linguistic relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity)
Kind Regards, :yo:
Panopticon

deridan
7th June 2012, 09:32
Without language, there is no thought.

Go ahead and try to think of something without a voice in your head.
You may visualize scenery, shapes or colors but you will doubtfully be able to construct an elaborate vision of history or conceptualization of self in this field. Without language there are simply no tools in the sandbox to do these things.

So then what is language in relation to thought?

Did we "think up" language or did the language "think up" us?


If there is some kind of control/matrix/game paradigm here that is sustaining reality in some function as so many theories dictate this would be the place to look.

did we think up language or did it think us up..
also remember coming upto this dilemma.
if i have to connect time periods of revelation to advance from that 'statement/[question..dilemma]'
it would be, that as human consciousness advance through millennia then the language stream provides us with our beginning point for the present time, since we left off the workings in our previous times.

can thought be present without language.
2 separate components examined here-within.
...for a child having consciousness of there own needs, the thought of need is present, though not articulated in language, and then the task is for the child to 'transmit the knowledge of the need' to those who can provide for it. .....language in this instance merely being a transmittance tool.

..and for those who are aware of thought. (say teenagers and up),
they would sometimes find something better embodied in an instinct or visualization (3d), and then struggle to translate it into a 2d-medium[language]

finally, let us be aware, as the philosopher Adorno was aware, that sometimes, this 'instinct'(which can only be fidel-ly carried over in telepathy to ones with as high or higher frequency of evolution), can be mistranslated in language, and that sometimes language gives us different trouble-shooting points than would be from the thought in and of-itself

Ernie Nemeth
10th June 2012, 18:46
I was proof-reading one of my books when I came upon this excerpt.
Thought it might fit in here...


Now we can continue with the idea that commerce is employed to maintain the illusion of separation. Commerce is the idea that to have one must get. It does seem logical, no doubt. However, in order to get, someone else must have it to give away. Thus it would seem that some have more than others. If they have more they are different. If they are different there must be a boundary between the two, dividing them and ensuring their permanent separation. Where separation is seen fear must follow, for those who need what they think they do not have must worry about their very survival.
Language was invented to fortify this belief. When we speak we employ symbols that are already twice removed from reality. Firstly, the symbols represent ideas and concepts that are by definition limits on reality. Secondly, we arrange these symbols in various random ways, yet the meaning is transmitted according to the arrangement. Thus meaning would seem to be haphazard at best and meaningless at worst. The meaning conveyed by language is a percolation, a distillation - a contrivance. Communication based on language is a compromise, which is exactly what commerce is. Commerce is the substitute for relationships and is often mistaken for it. Commerce is nothing more than the compromise position agreed on between those that seem to have more and those that seem to have less. Thus, commerce is language used as a means to align false beliefs amongst individuals who believe they are different and ultimately separate.


Somewhere I have written about this idea in more detail but right now I cannot find it.