Amos

Quick note here and I may return later.

Whe I did the Wasteland I was swamped with books and had no time to research. I was not familiar with the source of his "borrowed" achetypal images that he tied together into a whole, I agree, but it seemed chaotic at first. Eliot researched images to present his picture while Joyce just looked the archetype itself and wrote his story. Joyce is original and Eliot's Wasteland is more like a quilt of partial images. This was my critique on Eliot as compared with Joyce.

Amos

Hello Luise, thanks, I agree with Eliot that artistic expression is symptomatic of a flourishing society, wich really, is the only place where art has any value. This, in turn, could mean that the value of art is an expression of our artistic impoverishment. Well, you can't have one without the other, I guess, or am I rushing to a conclusion here?

Ok, am I now to conclude that "Ile fit you" really means "I'll fit
you?"

So now we have spelling error as yet one more way to make the poem more difficult to read. I resent being anyone's puppy dog and don't find it fun to decipher his stuff for the sake of playing his game if he has nothing much to say.

Hieronymo must be an archetypal images and I think it is an allusion to the "temptation in the desert" while ". . . why then I'le fit you" is an involuntary consent towards righteousness wherefore Hieronymo is mad again. I have no problem with that but I don't see the need for such an obstruction.

Luiseach

Actually, I don't think it was a spelling error...it's more likely an archaic spelling of 'I'll,' but I'll have to double-check that.

I don't think Eliot was making the poem difficult to understand just for the sake of being obfuscatious; rather, I think he wanted the poem to be a challenging read, laden with allusions to other texts which we as readers might or might not be familiar with. One of the central complaints of the poem is, after all, the loss of cultural awareness in modern society.

Amos

Don't worry about it and they probably mean cultureless modern society. I am glad you cleared that up for me. Yes, it puzzled me.

phaedrus

Amos

yes I meant Siddharta Gautama who became "the" Buddha but teaches that "this" is Buddha. I read Herman Hesse once and the kingdom Siddharta left behind fo find his destiny along the river of life (that he called "the valley of the Ganges") he found it while "at rest under a Bodhi tree." This kingdom he left behind is here called "the wasteland."

Hesse's Siddartha doesnt become "buddha", he just finds his own path. And this siddartha is not a king, just a gifted brahmin boy. In fact, in the book siddartha meets the real mcckoy and tells buddha that he wants to find his own way.

(Arguna along for the ride while Krishna is the new charioteer).

What are you suggesting here? Arjuna refuses to fight and hence Krishna's Gita comes into picture.

Not-non is a double negative and is rational.

Read that as " Cant one infer from this notion that whenever we are expressing non-thoughts, we are being non-rational?"

Hello phaedrus, so what is wrong with being non-rational?

Did i state that there is something wrong with feelings, intuition ...etc?

I think that our faculty of reason is the source of all evil and this, indeed, can become part of our soul nature.

So, dont think, remove all clothes, lets de-evolve or de-learn whatever we learnt and get back to being hunters ?

Regarding your thoughts on the redeemed man and incarnate evils and religion. I dont subscribe to any religion, so cant identify with what you are saying...

Lets see.....do you think a chap who slogs for 18 hours a day and goes through his life in a very predictable manner, the usual stereotype.....going through the motions....is going with the "flow"? For this particular chap, going with the flow is not questioning the status quo and just go with the herd.

phaedrus

John Page

I'm wondering what the hidden agenda is behind your questions.

Hidden agenda? We are just having a conversation and exploring thoughts mate

I don't see why you think this (or think that I do). Thought and language are different types of thing, although language may be instantiated/effected through thought processes as per description in prior post. We "think" about things and "communicate" about them using language. The communication requires brainpower.

As i had asked earlier, is language used only to "communicate" or it is so ingrained in us that we used it to "think" as well? thinking in english......or does a natural language exist?

However, that our minds have some way to associate visual, aural, chronological and verbal events does not (IMO) imply or require entwinement of "language" in the way Penny implied - that of a specific dependency.

You are saying that there is no dependency between language and thoguht? Then dont you have to take a position that both are mutually exclusive entities....

As mentioned before, the multiplicity of languages leads me to suspect that any apparent entwinement or dependency on language itself is superficial. If you include "body language", perhaps this is deeper.

Please elaborate....in the sense...why does multiplicity of languages makes the connection superficial? Agree, most of communication could be non-verbal...but we are not really talking about communication here right, we are exploring 'thinking'.

jp

John Page

...but my ideal reader always has something going on in their minds which is hidden from them and from me....
IMO its used to communicate externally and for some "higher level" internal communication that helps us to rationalize our thoughts in terms of language. e.g. Talking aloud without actually saying the words. (I do love contradictions, but I don't have to say them )

Please clarify your meaning in asking about the "existence" of "natural language".
I wouldn't equate dependency with entwinement. I am dependent upon my legs for walking but I'm not entwined with them.
Example: An Hungarian and a Russian both think "Beer", remembering experiences of drinking beers. They are both thinking the same thing. The Hungarian is asked what he is thinking about and says "sort" (sorry, don't know how to do the dots above the letter o!) and so is the Russian who says "peva". By this example one can see that the word used is dependent on the thing and not the other way round. What evidence do you have that thought takes place using language?

Thanks for the interesting questions - your turn to answer.

Cheers, John

phaedrus

John

IMO its used to communicate externally and for some "higher level" internal communication that helps us to rationalize our thoughts in terms of language. e.g. Talking aloud without actually saying the words. (I do love contradictions, but I don't have to say them )

Umm...internal communication is what? Talking aloud and thinking are entirely different ? Intenalized speech is thinking.

Please clarify your meaning in asking about the "existence" of "natural language".

Am basically going back to the language of thought thesis and fodor's innate non-natural language, mentalese and the subsymbolic processes of connectionism ... and whether mentalese is sufficient enough to explain our mind and language. If mentalese is used for cognitive activities....is the same used for "unconscious" cognition? We will again land up at the so-called homunculus.

The Language of Thought Hypothesis (LOTH) postulates that thought and thinking take place in a mental language. This language consists of a system of representations that is physically realized in the brain of thinkers and has a combinatorial syntax (and semantics) such that operations on representations are causally sensitive only to the syntactic properties of representations. According to LOTH, thought is, roughly, the tokening of a representation that has a syntactic (constituent) structure with an appropriate semantics. Thinking thus consists in syntactic operations defined over such representations.

One could look at LOTH as an attempt to "naturalize" this whole thing ...take a look at Hearing Yourself Think

Coming to 'natural language'

I wouldn't equate dependency with entwinement. I am dependent upon my legs for walking but I'm not entwined with them.

Then why did you say this? However, that our minds have some way to associate visual, aural, chronological and verbal events does not (IMO) imply or require entwinement of "language" in the way Penny implied - that of a specific dependency. Isnt this statement implying that entwinement suggests dependency?

Example: An Hungarian and a Russian both think "Beer", remembering experiences of drinking beers. They are both thinking the same thing. The Hungarian is asked what he is thinking about and says "sort" (sorry, don't know how to do the dots above the letter o!) and so is the Russian who says "peva". By this example one can see that the word used is dependent on the thing and not the other way round. What evidence do you have that thought takes place using language?

Err...you have just suggested that two individuals (with different thought systems) belonging to different cultures/languages will use different words for the same experience. It doesnt make thinking and language two different entities. I havent yet taken a position on the issue...still exploring it with you......Language....verbal or mental language...does the latter have phenomena like equivocation and synonymy. Does a society's language (complexity, structure have an effect on the thinking ability of its constituents?

laters

John Page

Internal communication does not require formal language in the sense used by deconstructionism - you may remember that I asked you earlier to provide a definition of language for the purposes of this discussion and the above is an example of why. To define "language" as the "movement of material" doesn't seem sensible yet that is what the "transmission of data" requires. Communication, then, requires the organized displacement of (physical) material to transmit symbols or signs between the points of communciation. Language cannot be realized without a means of communication, but communication can take place without language.
Not what I meant or said. Some of out thoughts perform the verbalization of language and others involve us rationalizing what we are about to say or might say. Other thought processes involve language to decode the meaning of incoming speech. Thus, in my model of thought and its realtionship with language, language requires thought processes to be realized - indeed that's why I've said previously that IMO language is a type of thought process.

Example. I hear someone shout "Watch out below". I process that speech to determine that my friend is shouting at me. (As an aside, I understand it is my friend communicating with me separately from the language content of the message, its simply a characteristic of their voice). I recall that my friend was climbing in tree under which I am sitting. Having extracted the meaning from the language I have the mental image a branch is falling toward me and consequently I spring to my feet and flee away from the tree. No language was used apart from understanding the danger implied by my freinds message - the rest occurs through non-verbal internal communication within my nervous system and thence actuation of my muscles.

That is not to say that some language is not reflexive/unconsciously used - e.g. I might in the above example also have shouted "Run" to my other friends.

Finally, in relation to your comment on "mentalese", if all thought patterns are defined as a kind of language, this is a different debate!! I would ask, then, what characteristics of "mentalese" qualify it as a language.
I stick with the position I posted before, our minds can attempt to rationalize our thoughts be verbalizing them and 'listening' to them internally. This does not require all thoughts to go through this language rationalization step.
I understand, "interdependency" or "codependency" would have been much better than "specific dependency".
No, but it does indicate a 1:n relationship between thought and language(s). Going further, even if all thoughts require (some definition of) language in order to operate, such a 1:n relationship requires that some thought is in a different language than Russian, Hungarian etc. IMO this exposes a "thought requires language" hypothesis to be false. I stick with language requires a thought process.
Clealry, yes, it is needed for the society's individuals to communicate with each other and pass concepts/information/understanding around. How about "language is an emergent property of thought"?

Cheers, John

phaedrus

John

Internal communication does not require formal language in the sense used by deconstructionism - you may remember that I asked you earlier to provide a definition of language for the purposes of this discussion and the above is an example of why.

And as i had pointed out earlier...i have indicated what i meant by language....when i said "the very means i am using to communicate this thought to you". When i posed the question "Do we require language to think?", thats what i meant by language. We can change the definition as and when it suits us

To define "language" as the "movement of material" doesn't seem sensible yet that is what the "transmission of data" requires. Communication, then, requires the organized displacement of (physical) material to transmit symbols or signs between the points of communciation. Language cannot be realized without a means of communication, but communication can take place without language.

Umm ...what is "means of communication" that you are referring to here? When you say communication can take place without language are you pointing out to non-verbal communication, body language ...etc? Are you stating that "all communication" can take place without language? If language is nothing but a shared resource off signs and signified and symbols and meaning...wouldnt sign language also be a 'language'?

Some of out thoughts perform the verbalization of language and others involve us rationalizing what we are about to say or might say.

What is difference between these two types of thoughts? How do thoughts perform verbalization and is language used for rationalization before we say something?

Other thought processes involve language to decode the meaning of incoming speech. Thus, in my model of thought and its realtionship with language, language requires thought processes to be realized - indeed that's why I've said previously that IMO language is a type of thought process.

You clarified that language is the 'product' of a type of thought process. And since as of today it is difficult to construct thought processes in a lab and find which of them is responsible for language, we sorta stopped. (or did we?)

Regarding your example......thats what i meant when i offered this earlier in the thread

Finally, in relation to your comment on "mentalese", if all thought patterns are defined as a kind of language, this is a different debate!! I would ask, then, what characteristics of "mentalese" qualify it as a language.

Then maybe you should read up on Fodor and his theories....take a look at thisLanguage of Thought Hypothesis: State of the Art

I stick with the position I posted before, our minds can attempt to rationalize our thoughts be verbalizing them and 'listening' to them internally. This does not require all thoughts to go through this language rationalization step.

So we require language only for certain 'types' of thoughts?

No, but it does indicate a 1:n relationship between thought and language(s). Going further, even if all thoughts require (some definition of) language in order to operate, such a 1:n relationship requires that some thought is in a different language than Russian, Hungarian etc. IMO this exposes a "thought requires language" hypothesis to be false. I stick with language requires a thought process.

Here you are assuming that all of have the same thoughts when we say "beer", the point is we dont....'A' might think of a cool beer down going down is throat....since it is bloody hot, 'B' might think of budweiser...since he/she has seen the ad or likes the brand....'C' might assocaite the word with 'great time'...since all parties where beer is served were happening parties....so on and so forth. Dont assume that 'beer' signifies a bottle/moniker to everyone.

And say if we go by your above hypothesis....your explanation still doesnt establish that multiple languages indicate that some thoughts will have to be in a different language. Why do you say?

So language requires a thought process...but the thought process doesnt require a verbal language ?

Clealry, yes, it is needed for the society's individuals to communicate with each other and pass concepts/information/understanding around. How about "language is an emergent property of thought"?

So the ease/complexity and intricacy of a language is a reflection of the sophistication of that society........?

jp