Without language, there is no thought.

[noprophet]

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.

[RMorgan]

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]

Posted by RMorgan (here)
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]

Posted by noprophet (here)
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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Posted by Ellisa (here)
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]

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]

Posted by nearing (here)
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:

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4V2H_qg01xY

and (exhibit B):

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Posted by TURIYA (here)

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]

Posted by carmody
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.

Posted by ellisa
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?

Posted by ellisa
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.

Posted by ellisa
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]

Posted by TURIYA (here)

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]

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]

Posted by the_vast_mystery (here)
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.