08-12-2004, 10:15 PM
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" - Ludwig Wittgenstein
This statement is one of the truest statements I have ever heard. In 11 words it contains the grasp of many ideas and theories that I can't even begin to touch base on.
So if language is the limits of my view of reality, then how might I explain language and in such a way explain my very reality? Simple task to do in the process of one's mind, but complex and intricately confusing when put to words. I will start by labeling language as a system and dividing it into 2 categories. Even though precedence would lead to 3 in the form of body language. But in my own view, it doesn't count as a language but as more of a course of emotions expressed through impulsive action of thoughts. A side effect so to say. The 2 categories are verbal and written. For me written is more flexible and can bring grasp to a deeper level of thought through word order and examination. Written form is not linear or in connection to time, meaning I can write a sentence here but can later precede it with another statement that fits in context and adds to the overall comprehension. In theory, written form is an equation that is worked out over a period of time and divided into separate sections or steps, each with its own subject, an equation that equals understanding. For me I find written form better fits my view of reality and how I understand it. For I find the prime subject to understanding and fast approach to input with the outside world is through one's eyes. The eyes work the most like our brain on a principle level. What better way of understanding is there than the mind's eye and I don't mean anything mystical of the sort but to what some call the light bulb or the big picture. Where one sees the answer and all possible meanings in one's head. The problem I see with language as it is today is that it has de-evolved. It may have a larger vocabulary but in essence much of that comes from play on words and their sequence and the subtle and many times not so obvious meaning. So one has to define his own reality of the words but keep in accordance with the procedure and order of things. The other category is verbal, which although it has the advantage of distance and for the most part quick response, is by far disadvantaged in understanding. For the maker must construct in a linear fashion and inflexible approach for which the brain is not suited and making it sustainably harder to process within the time allotted unless simplified and generalized to only the basic structure of the thoughts in mind. Yes I do agree. Language is the limits of our world.
This statement is one of the truest statements I have ever heard. In 11 words it contains the grasp of many ideas and theories that I can't even begin to touch base on.
So if language is the limits of my view of reality, then how might I explain language and in such a way explain my very reality? Simple task to do in the process of one's mind, but complex and intricately confusing when put to words. I will start by labeling language as a system and dividing it into 2 categories. Even though precedence would lead to 3 in the form of body language. But in my own view, it doesn't count as a language but as more of a course of emotions expressed through impulsive action of thoughts. A side effect so to say. The 2 categories are verbal and written. For me written is more flexible and can bring grasp to a deeper level of thought through word order and examination. Written form is not linear or in connection to time, meaning I can write a sentence here but can later precede it with another statement that fits in context and adds to the overall comprehension. In theory, written form is an equation that is worked out over a period of time and divided into separate sections or steps, each with its own subject, an equation that equals understanding. For me I find written form better fits my view of reality and how I understand it. For I find the prime subject to understanding and fast approach to input with the outside world is through one's eyes. The eyes work the most like our brain on a principle level. What better way of understanding is there than the mind's eye and I don't mean anything mystical of the sort but to what some call the light bulb or the big picture. Where one sees the answer and all possible meanings in one's head. The problem I see with language as it is today is that it has de-evolved. It may have a larger vocabulary but in essence much of that comes from play on words and their sequence and the subtle and many times not so obvious meaning. So one has to define his own reality of the words but keep in accordance with the procedure and order of things. The other category is verbal, which although it has the advantage of distance and for the most part quick response, is by far disadvantaged in understanding. For the maker must construct in a linear fashion and inflexible approach for which the brain is not suited and making it sustainably harder to process within the time allotted unless simplified and generalized to only the basic structure of the thoughts in mind. Yes I do agree. Language is the limits of our world.
- so we may don't have some words which seem "important" for some other people) - but if there is no word, there is still a description of the subject.