Faðer uor som ast i himlüm, halgað warðe þit nama. Tilkomme þit rikie. Skie þin uilie so som i himmalan so oh bo iordanne. Wort dahliha broð gif os i dah. Oh forlat os uora skuldar so som oh ui forlate þem os skuüldihi are. Oh inleð os ikkie i frestalsan utan frels os ifra ondo. Tü rikiað ar þit oh mahtan oh harlihheten i ewihhet.

The more I "think" about this. Including language with thought and in the process of "processing" those thoughts is a conditioned behavior from having to learn to communicate with others. We are so used to using language to describe our thought to others, we naturally believe we need it to communicate with ourselves. If that makes any sense.

It makes perfect sense to me.

This is what I was attempting to get at when I speak of the Zen and the Tao, and transcendental meditation.

It is precisely this language-type of thinking that we need to transcend. True understanding comes from our natural essence, not from the mumblings that we use to attempt to convey our natural feelings to others.

When it comes to rules of logic, and building formal systems of that sort, then language plays a valuable rule. However, I would still hold that the logic itself is intuitive.

Language is nothing more than a symbolic method of attempting to convey and record these intuitive notions. Understanding doesn't come from language. It's precisely the other way around.

At least, that's my view.

I'm in no way saying that langauge is trivial. I'm simply saying that, from my perspective, understanding must come FIRST.

Understanding does not arise from language, but rather language arises from understanding.

This is how I see things. Whether this holds any absolute truth or not I have no clue. It's just the way I see things. That's all I can offer.

Thoughts..
Unspoken
Silently lay upon my eye
Doors closed... thoughts tear'd
Unspoken... this verbal door
Tongued.. Tie'd
My
Unspoken... Inner voice
Yet
Heard

The Emperor's Clothes?


The poets are coming, Hoora, Hoora!
conveying emotions so utterly raw
in unspoken words of emotional awe
as teardrops fall from Los Angles' Ma

Emotions conveyed through words in a verse
devoid of prose' inarticulate curse
the power of language can be so perverse
lest nurtured by the hand of a poetic nurse

There must be a reason that poets exist
sharing their thoughts through the words that they twist
how ironic that language would otherwise miss
the beautiful feelings that come with a kiss

The emotions that flow in the trails of our tears
the feelings we have in the midst of our fears
the cries that can only be heard through our ears
the timeless abyss that can't be measured in years

How poetic our thoughts in spite of our prose
the feelings we have when we speak of a rose
Did the label come first, or was it our nose?
Are we truly ourselves, or the emperor's clothes?



Abracadabra 7/2/2009

James,, my Dear James
You fill me with delight.. you truely are and will always
be,, Magical

The magic came from you my dear.

Your very presence inspired that write entirely. All one needs to do is see LAMom on the screen and the Earth trembles, and the mountains rise up and spew forth inspiration that flows throughout the land stirring the creative juices within every soul in the valleys below.



LAMom is inspiration's dream
Sparking fields of poetry like a verbose mountain stream
Enchanting conversations
Inciting motivations
Encouraging the attribute of healthy self esteem

Thank you for being you!

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh myyyyyyyyyyyyyyy,, had to compose myself
Kinda left me speechless,, and tear'e' eyed

Muahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh to you dear sweet James

Abra,, as in Cadbra
Magical with his wit
Wisdom of Earth
fills his Spirit
sharing.. his Heart & Soul

I adore the you in all you see
I adore the voice in the songs you sing
I adore the Man in you
I wish you strength on your journey of life
I wish you blessings when you take flight
I wish you more than you ask for

Yes,, this man I so have come to adore
Abra...... sweet Abra
Blessed are we
Touched by you
Namaste'

Yes, but so does any information processing system.

Computers have to do this. I would only imagine so do brains.

At a very, very fundamental level all data processing is a basic sort of language.

I do not however go for the Cartesian model of the brain, or the linguistic model.

I am just willing to see the parallel between language and any information reference tagging system.

That's an interesting point too, because it seems to me that one of the fundamental concepts that Michael is proposing is that language is fundamental to understanding.

But does understanding come from simple data processing? If it does, then we would have no choice but to conclude that comptuers understanding what it is they are processing.

It seems to me that it is awareness that is genuinely required for understanding and not merely the basic idea of labeling, categorizing and processing of data. There needs to be an underlying awareness for there to be understanding.

At least this is how I see things. Our understanding arises from awareness. Data processing merely allows us to record, convey, and organize a large quantity of data. Therefore in this sense, language (or more to the point, our computer-like brains) allow us to store, sort, and recall, large quantities of data. However, the understanding is limited to only that which we are aware of at any given point in time.

Our attention (our awareness) is limited to only that which we can be conciously aware of in the moment. The brain allows for the storage and processing of memory.

In fact, many neurologists question precisely how it is that we actually remember anything. It appears that there is no single place where memory is stored, and that memory is ultimately an ensemble of 'clues' that we put together to jog our awareness.

In fact, this was covered in great detail in one of those two lectures I had watched recently. I think it was the one one "The Neurological Origins of Individuality". Although it might have been in that one on "Consciouness and Its Implications".

See, I'm already not even able to recall precisely. Yet at the same time I know some things about this thing that I'm attempting to remember.

What I do remember is that they used Alzheimer's patients as an example to make their point. Alzheimer's patients don't loose their memory in one fell swoop. What happens is that they begin to lose the ability to recall information, and it make take more and more suggestions for them to recall a piece of information.

Deepak Chopra who is also an M.D. familar with neurology has suggested that memory may ultimately exist outside of the brain altogether. Of course, he's pantheistically minded. He has no problem in scientifically believing in a universal consciousness into which we can all tap. He ultimately views the brain as an interface into this cosmic consciouness. Memory would then depend on how well the brain can interface into the cosmic mind.

This is not an idea that is beyond science. In fact, quantum physics allows for this.

That's another lecture from the teachings company that was really well done. It's simply called "Quantum Mechanics". The last four lectures or so specifically dealt with quantum information which was quite interesting.

Ok – let me try another feminine approach – do you all realize that language is actually masculine?? Do you realize that all philosophical approaches to ethics (until more recent years) have been male oriented and therefore, coming from a strictly male dominated social and linquistics perspective, even ethics was assumed to be reducible to a set of quantitative theories more so than qualitative.

Here, in this thread, I see the same thing happening. So let me interject with a strictly feminine approach – and I don’t mean in a lesser capacity, simply a different perspective.

Going back to when Abra brought up "The Incompleteness Theorem":



If I might elaborate just a bit more – please bear with me. In Abra’s example the brain is the self-contained system and the framework of the closed system it uses (to think) is language. So far, everyone is ‘thinking’ analytically (masculine). But Abra touches on something which is not given its due.



Just keep his second point in mind a moment:

In later posts creative says:


In the meantime Bushi is still trying to relate to some formal definitions:



Then Massage hammers the nail in but it has not yet been recognized.



What has been missed is what philosophers through the ages, in their emasculated societies and an emasculated language, have also missed—Emotions, feelings.

Abra first recognized this when he brought up the concepts of Zen and Tao and “spiritual pure conscious awareness.” Creative skimmed over it dismissing it as instinct, while Bushi puts hammer to nail with



Message gets it but can’t seem to find the words (language barrier) because our language is so completely enmeshed in emasculation that the thought process can not be completed through language alone – could this be the closed system error Abra brings up? Just wondering?

Anyway, getting back to instinct—both social psychologists and philosophers have proven empirically that we DO misinterpret instinct, which social psychologists have proven is due to the over dependence on heuristics. Using heuristics takes very little, if any, real conscious awareness, it comes into view somewhat like a flash card – it picks a ‘memory’ category flashes an answer to a sensory stimuli and rather than stopping to ‘think’ we immediately (and falsely) attribute our ‘feeling’ to instinct.

Because we respond to instinct in the same way that we respond to these heuristic feelings we assume they are instinct. The truth is they are emotions more often than they are instinct. We have simply NOT given emotion its due because we have not STOPPED to think about it. Emotion is not encoded into our language except by gender. Women tend to think ‘emotionally’ while men think analytically, though only becasue they were not socialized to respond emotionally.

So I’m suggesting that, at least in part, emotion is a language and we do think emotionally and it does bring us to respond to external stimuli and we do interject it into our abstract thought processes and can resolve problems using it.

What seems to be happening in this thread, is that this part of language is being ignored.

Creative - is thought process not, at least in part, driven by emotional language-that which we can not put into words, simply because the 'framework' (as Abra puts it) in this case is a closed system because it can not include what can not be readily analyzed objectively as it exists on a subjective level.

I hope you stayed with me on all that, it’s difficult to explain.

Faðer uor som ast i himlüm, halgað warðe þit nama. Tilkomme þit rikie. Skie þin uilie so som i himmalan so oh bo iordanne. Wort dahliha broð gif os i dah. Oh forlat os uora skuldar so som oh ui forlate þem os skuüldihi are. Oh inleð os ikkie i frestalsan utan frels os ifra ondo. Tü rikiað ar þit oh mahtan oh harlihheten i ewihhet.

and that is what I think about that.

Ok just read Smiless opinion - which brings up another question.


WHY IS IT that we somehow think that we can take any other spoken language in the world and then spell it out with the english alphabet?

Ok everybody, if language is stricktly that which can be vocally, and visually represented, then as a closed system any given language is basically incomplete because not all possible sounds which a human can vocalized is represented in any single language. Yet we can still find some aesthetic properties in and relate to music which encompasses sounds we cannot physically reproduce - but someone THOUGHT to turn it into art.

Did they do so out of emotion??????

Well, I've been attempting to address the concept of intuition without defining it. Because after all, to define it destroys its very essence. It's an experience so to think it could be understood via definition alone is a fallacy, IMHO.

I also made every attempt not to refer to intuition as mere emotion. The reason being, that emotion itself is not intuition, (again IMHO).

An argument could easily be made that emotions merely drive analytical choices. In other words, if you reduce intuition to just mean emotion, then you've lost the concept that I have in mind when I attempt to convey what I mean using the label "intuition".

How can we even trust labels that cannot be defined, and can only be known through experience?

When we use a word like intuition we can only HOPE that the other person has a clue what we mean. I like Deepak Chopra's explanations of intuition. I'm not going to attempt to quote him here. But I remember that I liked his elaborations on the concept when I listen to his lectures. He also speaks in terms of Meaningful Coincidence and Synchronicity when discussing the concept of intuition. Of course, it goes far beyond that, but my point is that it's not merely emotions. It's far more than that.

Its all abut pattern. Structure and superstructure.

Relationships all the way down.

Di...

As usual, you are on the same page as me, even if you did not realize it!

Are you calling me feminine?



Of course thoughts are influenced by emotions. Those 'feelings' can only be understood IF they are first identified, recognized, and correlated to other things. This is done through language alone. I have been wanting to incorporate this for some time, and almost did last night, but instead I offered only a few questions in order to get that aspect in the forefront of thought.

It seems to have failed to be read by those who possess opposing thought... no surprise here!

I asked the following, without due response...



Back to the masculine!




James...

Once again my good man, you have misquoted me and extrapolated upon that. Not to mention the fact that you have no idea what those things are(to me). It makes it very hard to have a conversation with you when I am the only one listening. I am not forcing anything upon you James, and for you to even say that is utterly absurd! Have you even read this thread? I am beginning to believe that you are so absolute in your own beliefs, that you are not even able to consider another's. This has shown in this thread.

So be it!




Wench brings up a good point with urges - which are born of unconscious perception in my thinking.

Bushi, while not agreeing with my definition of 'representational understanding' applied to the term language - and I may actually agree - has the very 'basic' premise understood for the most part...



I just want to write a few thoughts down here...

We have the concepts of thought, belief, knowledge, and understanding to consider here... not just one. Add to those things the content of the unconscious and the various emotional aspects which - it seems to me - have been misunderstood as some form of intellectual understanding called 'awareness'...



Here is the way that I 'see' awareness.

Awareness - the term - has no role in this whatsoever. It removes value from the topic by loss of focus. The term only leads to more deflection from what is actually being meant here, and can be replaced by terms which have a clearer meaning behind them.

In my view - conscious perception is the most basic degree of awareness, and requires no language or understanding to be realized. This is shown in varying degrees throughout the animal 'kingdom', and it - in no way - can be equated to 'higher' degrees of awareness, such as conscious recognition.

So, just basic awareness does not - in any way - constitute some form of understanding... however,

Conscious recognition is not just being 'aware' of another thing, as is conscious perception. It is to have perceived and to have registered this perception into conscious memory via some form of representational understanding. Thus... RE - COGNITION!!!

THAT constitutes thought, and is completely dependent upon the ability to make those correlations. It requires the objects to be considered in relation to one another. There is no thought without this element. The more correlations one recognizes, the greater the depth of the understanding.

Language facilitates that correlation, and not necessarily through words alone.

That is another thing here which needs to be openly addressed. Some continue to apply to their beliefs of my thoughts as though they are my thoughts on the matter. I do not view language by the confines of it's most commonly understood definition.

Communication requires listening.

Faðer uor som ast i himlüm, halgað warðe þit nama. Tilkomme þit rikie. Skie þin uilie so som i himmalan so oh bo iordanne. Wort dahliha broð gif os i dah. Oh forlat os uora skuldar so som oh ui forlate þem os skuüldihi are. Oh inleð os ikkie i frestalsan utan frels os ifra ondo. Tü rikiað ar þit oh mahtan oh harlihheten i ewihhet.

By the way this is an ancient Norse language not spoken anymore

I've considered everything you've offered Michael. I just don't see things your way. Do I have to agree with you in order to consider your views?

You started this thread by ASKING a question.

Then you get all bent out of shape if everyone doesn't accept your answer.

Who is it that isn't able to consider the points of view of other people again?

I don't really care Michael. I was simply attempting to share my answer to the question you asked. But you seem to be determined to demand that only your answer is valid.

If you knew that before you started the thread, then why even post it as a question? Why not just state your assertion right off the bat?

Gee whiz.

I'm not the one who said to you:



You're the one who's telling me that I'm kidding myself and what is or isn't possible for me to think. Who are you to tell me how I must think?

I never made any comments at all about your beliefs. All I said is that they don't fit into my world view. If you want to believe the way you do, it's fine with me. I never told you how to believe Micheal. I just disagree with your whole presentation. Many of your assertions were actually shown to be false. Or at the very least, good reasons were given why alternate views are just as valid. (for example, whether or not bees think, is open to personal opinion).

You also demanded at one point that a recgonition that water quenches thrist requires a concept of language. Yet, surely animals and bees make this connection, but you've already asserted that they can't think.

As far as I can see your logical constructs are nothing more than a flimsy house of cards that has long since collapsed.

Again, I'm not telling you how to think. But you really blew it when you told me that its impossible to think like I do, and that I'm kidding myself. All the while your house of cards has collapsed and is blowing in the wind.

Next time you ask a question in an open forum the least you can do is respect the answers that other people give from there point of view.

James...

Oh man... where to start, and what difference could it even make? Some - I hope, because I do not want to feel like I have wasted my time. Fortunately, that is not yet the case.



You do not have to agree... could you start by at least developing what I do say, rather than your belief of that which you think I believe?

I hope you can understand that.

On top of all of the misquoting there has been so many completely inaccurate... dare I say wrong expressions by you about what I believe. You have failed to even quote me correctly, so where is the warrant to believe that you understand what I write, let alone consciously consider it?



Those are your thoughts about your perception about how you think I feel.

Your wrong.



I am still in the process of identifying and recognizing the correlations. I am still gaining understanding, are you, or are you just shoring up your own preconceptions and presuppositions about what you think I believe?



You are... and were... and will always be kidding yourself as long as you make claims like the one you made.

You claimed - with absolute certainty - that one cannot know anything for certain. Jeeez James... do I really need to elaborate here?



Show me!



Everything is open to opinion James, what difference does that make? What grounds that opinion?

That is the question!

For me considering the insects and simple awareness is much more a matter of the depth of understanding. That was one of the relevent points mentioned by yourself which actually added to my own understanding. In fact, if you go strictly by my construct, bees must think. I am ok with that. One some very primal and basic level - bees think, and we already know that they possess some rudimentary language for communication.



No - I have never asserted in this thread that animals cannot think. Are we even having the same conversation? I have repeatedly said otherwise. Do you even read what I write? More misquotes upon misquotes...

Does communicating require listening?



How does one see when their 'eyes' are closed? In order to make that claim, you must first know what it is that you are judging to have 'fallen'. Knowledge is not had without understanding.

You do not understand the claims. You understand your own wrongful presuppositions... which are ridiculous... I agree!



I like the impartiality of the umpiring. I blew it? It is your loss of understanding, my friend... not mine!



At least I read them and genuinely entertained their possibility, which is more than I can say for one who cannot even make an accurate quote.

You have also conveniently 'skipped over' everything which you cannot find fault with - whereas if you would incorporate those things - like I have done with several different posts in this thread - perhaps your understanding would grow as mine has.