So, whereas I agree with you that languageper se could be considered peripheral to a discussion of 'proof', its role as the currency of social contexts, including forum exchanges, cannot be simply pushed under the carpet.
It wasn't my intention to imply that it should be pushed under the carpet . My understanding of language is that it does a number of things:
- it structures the brain / creates pathways for thoughts to follow
- it has character traits (English is power, French is romantic, Arabic is passionate, etc) that influence how the culture evolves of the specific language speakers
- it's concepts create limitations
Further, words themselves are concepts, and the structure of language is also a concept. But what a word means to you, is not precisely the same as what it means to me, and I structure my communication slightly different to how you structure yours. There are many implications of this understanding.
And yet those are not all the aspects of language, nor the mind.
is closely allied to other neologist committee members whose social viability requires a 'God concept' for their integrity
I don't know that I agree with this conclusion, and the use of social viability and integrity in the same sentence creates issues.
P.S. I find the use of the term 'committee' bemusing, but it seems easy enough to understand. I would use the term aspects. Committee implies distinct personalities, whereas aspects does not require personalities, but can be portions/sections of a persons mind that compete within the same being/individual..