William Ian Beardmore Beveridge quote on the guidelines page

The way I read it, it's quite accurate.

How is anyone supposed to correctly understand what you mean if you haven't thought out your words before speaking your mind?

I don't think it is rubbish.

Mezzie has been very articulate elsewhere on this forum on the matter of language and thought.

Personally, I find language structure useful in formulation of my blossoming ideas, rather as the quote states. In the elaboration of the thought into words coherent to others, one who is observant may notice himself, or herself, lacking clarity in one aspect or another, and that attention can lead to further nuances along the same line, or reconsideration of one's viewpoint.

It is true that for me this described situation occurs as a kind of feedback to my first inkling of a thought, so that thinking and grammatic expression become a process, not just a one shot blurting out.

Agrote, I'm curious. What is the nature of your objection to Beardmore Beveridge's prescription?

Well I always find that the more precisely I use language when writing, the larger the gap between what I actually think and what I am saying. In writing an essay I often find myself arguing a point which I'm not entirely sure I agree with myself - I come to a sort of compromise between what I actually think about the matter and what I can actually formulate into some kind of cohgerant argument. And it's nothing deliberate, it just happens - the constraints of language mean that my thoughts have to be converted into something simpler. Or maybe they're not all that complex in the first place anyway. I don't know.

But basically I find that trying to write down what I mean just makes me more confused about what I mean. And that could be because my original thoughts are irrational or something like that, but it could also be because language can't do everything - for example some people say that God is beyond words, and there's no use in trying to understand him through language.

A convenient point of view for those who would otherwise be obliged to defend the gross imposition of superstition . . .

Well yes that's one way of looking at it. And that's not my point of view, not about God, that was jsut an example. But do you not think that it would be a pretty huge coincidence if our language just happened to be equipped to deal with all manner of truths and sufficient for the expression of all ideas?

I don't think either that our cognitive ability is defined nor delimited by language, nor that language is a comprehensive path to omniscience. I rather think of it as the "exercisde of a muscle." When you require your body to do things with which it is unfamiliar, you strain your muscalature, and make myriad small tears in the tissue, which "builds up" your muscles. I consider it a valid metaphor to speak of exercising one's mind in similar manner. I find your use of the word coincidence odd in this context. It rather suggests to me that you do, or wish to, believe in a creator.

Yes, that seems to make sense.



I don't understand this, can you please explain?

agrote, welcome to A2K.

The quote is interesting to me, in that we can either write someone else's words, or come up with our own. If we are to do that with efficiency, we must know and comprehend what we are thinking first. One can not write effectively about what they do not see clearly in the mind's eye. To be able to say a lot in a few well chosen words is the most difficult of all.

(I don't know what Setanta meant by "coincidence" either)

I agree that the attempt to write down one's IDEAS clearly requires that our ideas be clear, to us. But I also think, Agrote, that your self-revelations are profoundly honest and not without substance. I know for myself that my mental perspectives on things are not always translatable into clear ideas. The private cannot always be made public. Some of us here have been arguing for the epistemological primacy of non-dualism in dealing with Reality on its own terms (see how I screwed that up? I tried to say something that required a metaphorical conversion of Reality into something that "sets" terms. That is not clear writing, but it said what I meant). Language is inherently dualistic, so any attempt to make clear our non-dualistic notions has led to frustration, no matter how clear we have tried to be. After a while I gave up the quest for clarity and brought down upon myself the charge of ambiguity and obscurantism. So I see what you mean! Indeed, some things must be expressed poetically, but that does not mean that one's effective efforts at poetic expression will be effective acts of linguistic communication. Language can conceal as well as reveal our internal imagery. It's grammatical structure forces us to structure notions that do not really fit within the frameworks of subject-objective, agent-action,, etc. I was talking a couple of years ago to a cognitive linguist at my university, and the topic of the Sapir-Whorf thesis came up, the notion that language determines thought. She argued that her field has gone beyond that notion, insisting instead that thought contains extra-linguistic ingredients not always captured by language. So, I guess what I'm saying is that while language is essential to thought and communication, it may not be omnicompetent for all mental needs; it it were, we would not need music, mathematics and mysticism.
I HOPE THAT'S CLEAR.

edited, 6-30

But I can't seem to write effectively about what I do "see clearly in the mind's eye" (if I have a mind, or an eye). That could be because I lack the necessary English skills, or it could be because language can only convey the essence of what the speaker or writer is trying to say. It's a bit like how a CD recording of an orchestra playing only gives you a sense of what it is like to hear the orchestra play - it's not the same as actually hearing the orchestra live.



Yes, well that's pretty much what I'm trying to say. Although it might not be necessary for thought. Hard to tell really.

Okay,then. Try an experiment right here and now. (your language skills are good, I think)

When is the last time that someone/something impressed you and how would you explain it in writing.

Urm, right, okay, I'll try...

The last time I heard the new single by Modest Mouse I was impressed by how emotionally powerful the lyrics were, despite their simplicity. Will that do? I've probably contradicted myself by saying I was profoundly affected by a set of simple words. Oh well. So what's your conclusion?

agrote, that was excellent and succinct. Er, who is Modest Mouse?

Agrote, you wrote: "But do you not think that it would be a pretty huge coincidence if our language just happened to be equipped to deal with all manner of truths and sufficient for the expression of all ideas?"

Leaving aside the absurdity of a contention that language suffices for the expression of all ideas (and that all expression is dependent upon the ability of the individual to articulate her/his thoughts), i was pointing out that suggesting that such being true constitutes a "huge coincidence" reads very much as though one suspects that there is in fact no coincidence, and that it is intended to be so. Intent infers design, design infers a designer, ipso fatso, sozyeroldman, it seemed to me you implied the existence of a creator.

Agrote, I edited my response to your initial comment. Please re-examine it. Thanks

Letty, Modest Mouse is a rock band. I've only heard the one song - they've been around since 1993 but they're only just becoming known in England. But it's a very good song!

Setanta, I see now how what I said suggests that I believe in a creator, but that was not deliberate. I don't believe in a creator (well, I'm open to the possibility), and it may well be that my non-belief is inconsistent with my claim that language is insufficient to fully express thoughts and ideas, which as you have suggested implies that there is a creator. So I'll have to rethink things a bit I suppose...

Thanks JLNobody. I'm still not sure how language is "essential" to thought - can people who are born deaf and blind not think?

Good question, Agrote. I know nothing of the psychology of Helen Keller, but I can't imagine that she had no mental life before her revelatory entrance into the cognitive world of "normal" people. Had she no such life, she would not have been sufficiently resourceful to grasp the symbolic connection between the sensation of water and her teacher's "signing" on her arm. The notion of a tabula rasa is unfounded.

Well, my goodness, Agrote. I should have known about them meeses. Their modesty probably accounts for the fact that I have not. Use your explanation to me as a beginning, and finish up with the last sentence as an evaluation, and you have a great critique. Wasn't so difficult, was it.

I think that we are all responding on different levels.

JL as a well educated philosopher;
Setanta, as a well rounded everything
Osso, as a fantastic painter
General, as a "cut to the chase" questionnaire.
Letty, as an erst while writing teacher in the secondary school system.

Therein lies the beauty of collaboration