Reply
Sun 7 Jan, 2007 08:49 am
The history of a language, the principles of a language and the principle of mind
Here the history of a language is a personal learning history or a thinking history, while not a history like the developing of English.
When I learn a language, maybe, I don't know the meanings of the characters while I can read, write, listen and speak. I.e., maybe, I can speak in some language while I cannot talk to others in this language. Anybody can to try a new language, and will find such phenomenon.
When, only when
I link the characters or the pronunciations to some direct senses, feelings, experiences or facts,
and I feel I have some desires or purposes,
then, I can talk to others.
And when I gain the same feelings or senses
or have the same desire or purpose as others',
and I think things in the same way as others think,
then, I can understand others and be understood by others.
Then I draw conclusions as follows,
1. Any mentally normal person has the ability to develop his/her own language when he/her gains facts, phenomena or experiences and tries to find ways to solve his/her needs via those things, which show him/her the facts or phenomena.
2. Only when people want to get understood by each other, they have to speak in a "common language" like English. Or the "common language" is not necessary for thinking or solving problems.
3. Parts of the principles of mind are
a. Mind can not think without language, but once mind gains the facts, under the pressure of needs, and tries to find solution of his needs via those facts, mind thinks naturally. I.e., the function of thinking is natural, not created by us intently, though it needs the above conditions satisfied.
b. The world in mind is a mapping of the real world. It makes empirical thinking possible. But both satisfying our needs and communication should go back to the original real things to get real solution or to get understood.
4. To exchange thoughts or opinions will be difficult when both sides cannot go back to the same facts or experiences of the same things or cannot think in the same way. (I think this phenomenon is obvious. Maybe, everyone here has experienced the same.)
@Nates Mind,
Two people who do not speak the same language can easily share bread with each other as long as they both have a word for "bread" in their respective languages, and therefore have a common experience with bread. Is that what you are saying? The bread's function is the same for both regardless of what it's called?
Also, if someone lacks the vocabulary for something, do they also lack the "reality" of this something? By example, there is a person I know who seems to demonstrate only very basic emotions. This person also seems to lack the vocabulary to express more complex emotions. Can this person actually experience complex emotions? Is this also a part of what you have outlined?
@chad3006,
Hello Chad3006,
Suppose you get a book written in a language you have never known, then how can you understand the book?
only if you link the words to those real things which can be got by our feelings or senses directly, and if you think in the way the auther thinks, you can understand it.
In this case, it is not important whether you can pronounce the words right or wrong. The important ones are the "reality", "feelings or sense", "links" and "the way to think".
vocabulary and "reality"
Let's imagine a young baby.
Obviously, the baby has few vocabulary, but the baby has many "reality"s. And the baby can express in his/her way, and can think. That's their language.
Another example, dialect
Differenct people can speak in the same language, but in different dialect. It means that people can think in their own language if there's no restriction on the language.
Nate
@Nates Mind,
OK, I'll have to ponder this some more.
@Nates Mind,
Nate's Mind wrote:The history of a language, the principles of a language and the principle of mind
Here the history of a language is a personal learning history or a thinking history, while not a history like the developing of English.
When I learn a language, maybe, I don't know the meanings of the characters while I can read, write, listen and speak. I.e., maybe, I can speak in some language while I cannot talk to others in this language. Anybody can to try a new language, and will find such phenomenon.
When, only when
I link the characters or the pronunciations to some direct senses, feelings, experiences or facts,
and I feel I have some desires or purposes,
then, I can talk to others.
And when I gain the same feelings or senses
or have the same desire or purpose as others',
and I think things in the same way as others think,
then, I can understand others and be understood by others.
Then I draw conclusions as follows,
1. Any mentally normal person has the ability to develop his/her own language when he/her gains facts, phenomena or experiences and tries to find ways to solve his/her needs via those things, which show him/her the facts or phenomena.
2. Only when people want to get understood by each other, they have to speak in a "common language" like English. Or the "common language" is not necessary for thinking or solving problems.
3. Parts of the principles of mind are
a. Mind can not think without language, but once mind gains the facts, under the pressure of needs, and tries to find solution of his needs via those facts, mind thinks naturally. I.e., the function of thinking is natural, not created by us intently, though it needs the above conditions satisfied.
b. The world in mind is a mapping of the real world. It makes empirical thinking possible. But both satisfying our needs and communication should go back to the original real things to get real solution or to get understood.
4. To exchange thoughts or opinions will be difficult when both sides cannot go back to the same facts or experiences of the same things or cannot think in the same way. (I think this phenomenon is obvious. Maybe, everyone here has experienced the same.)
Can I tell you what I know of language...
First of all language is history. History did not exist before written language, and yet language tells us what is essential everywhere because that is what we have words for.
From looking at French and English I can see that the two most important verbs are to have and to be as these are used to conjugate all verbs. What one is, is more essential, naturally, than what one has; but language, society, philosophy, and all relationships are built out of the combinations of what one is and what one has.
All words are concepts. Every word has a definition and every definition is a concept. We might build a pyramid out of scrabble pieces, but it is easier and less costly to build first out of words and then out of reality.
All language is a form of relationship, as every concept is. If you talk like a physics dictionary you will be heard only by one so schooled. In this sense language can be used to include and exclude. All forms of relationship are about recognition and realization. I talk to you for recognition, and when you recognize me we are both made real, you to me, and me to you. The language that I use, the language that I choose are each essentially related to who will recognize and realize me. No matter how complex or simple the issue of language is made to seem, when one talks about language it is the second intention. As long as we are just talking talking it is the first intention, which is realization. Language is for the living. Have fun with it. Make it talk funny for you.
@Nates Mind,
Yes, you can. But it came a bit late, for I had already known that before the very beginning of my research.
Thanks and Regards,
Nate
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace