dunno if i posted this before or not...

[symbioidlj]

A few weeks back, I had heard the song "signs" on the radio, and for some reason, as I listened to the chorus, I started to think of post-structuralist theory.

"Signs signs everywhere is signs...
blocking up the scenery
breaking my mind.
Do this don't do that,
can't you read the signs."

Language as signifier. The scenery is the reality that we percieve directly. The words obfuscate as a billboard does. Except, instead of an advertisement, the billboard is pasted over a tree, and it says "green leaves, brown trunk, tree" or something of that nature. No longer is the direct perception achieved. The mind is broken. It's unity with the universe/cosmos/gaia, is now in shambles.

Do this. Not that. The prison of language. Language creating barriers and a prison around reality, influencing our behaviors and possibilities. This is sort of the idea behind neuro-linguistic programming. Breaking the hold of language. (although, NLP tends to create it's own linguistic boundaries) I have a love/hate relationship with the concept of lingustic escape. I've posted it before.

I believe there are two tracks to take. One is silence. The meditative approach. Direct observation, without the murky cloud of language to get in the way. The more you practice the more you directly percieve. No-thought. This is one way to break the stranglehold of language. It seems to be eastern in orientation, to me... Taoist, Buddhist. It is of the void. It is the concrete. Not the abstract.

The other, though it seems contradictory, and am not sure if this is the best route, but it seems to me, it is the more western approach. Is the use of language and it's refinement and evolution to enhance our lives. Orwell's newspeak is the antithesis... It's a dark-side of the "silence" approach. It does not silence, but merely reduces. The words are strictly delimited and have one and only one meaning and they are very tightly controlled, and there cannot be too many words. Thus, if you can't think it, you can't act it, or believe it. The opposite then, and the escape method I'm thinking of is embodied in such writers as Terence McKenna and Hakim Bey, and goes with the grand literary tradition of the west, with the mystic poets like Blake, and the greats like Goethe, to modern gnostic prophets like Philip K Dick and assorted other writers who explore the mind/reality interface. And that is: The expansion of language as the key to escaping the limits of language, creating new metaphors to escape this linguistic prison. New colors and new modes of thought. This is the shamanic/ecstatic approach. Psychedlic in spirit. It is aetheric. The abstract, the imaginal.

But aren't we playing into the games of language then? I don't have a clue what the best approach is, but think it must be somewhere between the two in a healthy balance of direct perception, but also, after perception, when description must be utilized, the second technique of increased wordplay and expansive linguistic ability is much preferable to the blanket assumptioning that occurs in most automatic thought. Instead of "green tree"(and the process of stereotyping that entails) The specific green tree must be described in precise detail with respect to it's own "selfness"(which again is a contradiction in my own thought, since I do not believe in a "self" as such)

The removal of automatic thought: Greater awarenes of that which surrounds.
The removal of stereotyping: Greater awareness of the uniqueness of that which surrounds.

These are the two keys for spiritual awakening.

I think we do not do this nearly enough in our culture.

Comments

[thaumaturge.livejournal.com]

That's all very dubiously Whorfian.

[symbioid.livejournal.com]

what, you don't believe in the sapir-whorf hypothesis?

[thaumaturge.livejournal.com]

I don't think that such strong metaphors ("the prison of language") are really supported by any real evidence. I mean, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is a really neat idea, but I doubt that language has that strong of an effect on thought. It may have some guiding effects with certain cognitive styles, but overall I wouldn't call it a prison at all.

But I don't understand what's so evil about our concept of tree. Yes, they've got green leaves and branches and a trunk and grow upwards from the ground. There is a lot of variation in that, of course: birch tree, oak tree, pine tree, cypress tree. All have distinct leaves, branch structures, bark textures, etc. But a general concept of tree is still extremely useful...

And the neat thing about modern media is that a general concept can be represented without specifying anything particular. You can draw a generic tree by illustrating a few characteristics... and that abstract concept is communicated.

Though your idea of rejecting generalized words is interesting... if we just thought of everything as its own entity and not a part of any taxonomic hierarchy. It would be interesting. Though it would make communication quite impossible.

[symbioid.livejournal.com]

in some ways I agree, and in others I disagree.

language is a prison in the sense that it is, ultimately, how we model reality. We cannot escape it's clutches. Even through meditation techniques. I do find it humorous all these books(ie: tao te ching, etc...) that go on and on about how the infinite cannot be bound by language, and then proceeds to use language to explain it anyways.

I'm not saying modelling of objects is necessarily a bad thing. A tree was an example. But it points to the very root of stereotyping and categorization, which can lead to the strife in the world. Of course, I'm not about to make any claim as absurd as "language is the root of all evil"(we all know that that's money! :)

I agree with you about taxonomic hierarchies being necessary for communication. The process of abstraction is, in some ways, what "sets us apart" from other animals. Of course, there's no way to purely prove this at this point in time. But it's our general current thought of linguistics, isn't it?

There is no way to escape abstraction with language, because as precise as we try to be, there are always qualities that cannot be known or described by mere language. Or rather, the amount of information needed to convey *exactly* what is trying to be conveyed is absurd to the point of irrelevance. Thus, abstraction is necessary.

However, and this is what I was getting at with Orwellian newspeak. Pure abstraction into very simple, and very few categories is as much a problem as it's opposite of too much information.

Perhaps there is a delicate balance and proper "ratio" of language and reality. What I was trying to get at with the "western" model was that I think the best approach to modelling reality is both getting at a deeper, meditative awareness of existence(an intuitive approach, if you like), and a much more intense vocabulary in regular language, in order to further our understanding of the world. This is Terence McKenna's idea... That in order for humanity to evolve, we need to push for the conscious evolution of language. He posits that Psilocybin was the basis for the linguistic evolution(of course, there's that gene, (what, p53, is it?) that's been discovered that mutated in a way that our vocal structures can allow more complex speech) Terence then claims that if we enter into psychedelic states and the imaginal world, we can use this realm to evolve language. We need to learn to evolve a language of the imagination, and once we do that, we can bring forth the power of "Logos" the ideal into the real. We do it to a limited degree. This is what the grand sweep of history is... The further evolution towards novelty.

Language, of course, doesn't just constrain our perception of the world(ok, maybe you don't feel that way, but it's how I percieve it), but it is, itself, constrained by the realities of the world. We exist in a 4D universe, and thus we've evolved a language fit to describe this. We cannot branch out into a multi-polar/multi-path/parrallel language, because our minds are not equipped to deal with such a thing(I'm being quite vague here, because I'm vague myself on exactly what I'm alluding to)

Anyways, I can agree with you. And mostly when I write these things, I never fully believe any of it. I think reality is too messy and complex of an affair for one model to be the "One true" model. Hence my skepticism of scientific fundamentalism and religious fundamentalism.

Maybe, as I said, this is all just shit... I guess, ultimately, it's a way for me to find my own truth, which is what I set out to do for the majority of my life, and specifically when I decided that if I were to be a "christian", then I would have to "seek" and jesus said I "will find"... So I decided to not just accept what was given and embarked on this knowledge quest. As finite and limited as the human capacity for understanding of the cosmos can be.

Don't get me wrong, models are powerful things. They're important. We wouldn't be where we are today without them. But then again. where the fuck are we? really? I guess in that regards, I can be a bit of a pessimist. But not completely. I'm one big ball of confusion. :) ain't life grand.

[trisquareangle.livejournal.com]

wonderful read my friend

Once I dined with Ezekiel...

[vega-33.livejournal.com]

Nice post. I'm kinda of the opinion that both techniques are mutually complimentary. Its ironic that you used the example of a "green tree", because in one heretical alchemical offshoot, the dead tree that must be greened is Man's imagination :), the instrument which properly honed allows us to sense the ding-an-sich. Poetry, music, story telling or reading... they all involve a deepening of the capacity to "visualise", or sense on an inner plane. I've heard it said that poets are often the first to sense the onset of a change in humanity because of their sensitivity, which is not merely an inbuilt effeminacy, but a greater capacity for interacting with the world. Thats why I called my web page "Imaginal Realms".

On the other hand, to receive the thing in itself, to sense it with the least loss of detail, you either need to be in harmony with it, or be passive-receptive to it, and that seems to me to be where silence comes in. For this reason Mark Hedsel's teacher in "The Zelator" told his class that when appreciating something on a subtle level, such as classical music, one needs to be still... not just physically but receptive and silent mentally. This receptivity for the thing in itself is called Love, which is then confused with the human emotion and gets people into knots of syntactical masturbation.

Blake was an interesting character, a true revolutionary. Ever read Marriage of Heaven and Hell?

[symbioid.livejournal.com]

unfortunately, I haven't read these classics(ie: blake, goethe, etc...) But i do intend to someday. I still have a copy of Gravity's Rainbow to slog through at some point. I see what you mean about appreciation of music. That's how I love to listen to autechre and boards of canada. open and receptive to all the nuances. And to find, years later, even after hearing something countless hours, one tiny piece percolate from regions previously unheard, it's the greatest delight. And it only happens when I'm not trying to listen too hard. It just arises out of the void.

[javina.livejournal.com]

I don't feel qualified to comment on this post. But I will anyway.

As a writer I use both the abstract and mindful detail to form new concepts. I push the borders of language in order to both be more evocative and to create original thought, which I believe expands language. Abstraction and symbolism help to cram more concepts into a single sentence. It's playing chords on a piano while the other hand creates a melody.

I think that meditative observation (which is really what all (good) writers/poets/etc. do and communicate) and expansion can and do work together.

But I'm still not a linguist. (Hmm, what does that one signpost word "linguist" imply, anyway?)

greetings

[liquidmantle.livejournal.com]

Dave, we go along way back. Remember: H.S. bible study, random visits at Taco Bill A.K.A. 'chilitto man', and the parking lot full of skaters. Not to forget the visit to madison, club experience and the ideas revealed later. Even though i'm schooled in psychology, I'd like to pick your mind someday, for enlightenment's sake. Contact me and we'll talk over a White Chocolate Mocha.

I'm an open book with no words on the page...

Alaska aka rich