Commentary on Language

They say that to write is to be found out. But to speak publicly is to slowly expose oneself, to slowly disrobe in front of the audience. If one speaks long enough, one will eventually be quite nude. And to the hairless primate whose integument is vulnerable to prickers and bites, this metaphysical exposure generates a 'sense of vulnerability'. We do not wish to be bitten or cut. Beyond youth with its beautiful and invulnerable honesty, perhaps we should leave our clothes on! This is why most people talk about baseball , cars, and other people! Behind these 'metaphysical clothes' they can still relate to others and satisfy their social urges, yet remain hidden and out of 'sight' of the piercing eye of intellectual judgment, protected by the garments of blarney and blather.

But, one cannot protect himself/herself from prosody, the truth of oneself demonstrated in the intensity and tone and other qualities of the voice. For these are also revealing. One cannot easily protect himself from what is exposed or expressed unconsciously in posture, gesture, facial expression, choice of subject, grammar, vocabulary, attitude, and in one's conceptual position. There are profound messages conveyed during speech in the carrier tone of one's voice which expresses one's intensity of mind, depth of thought, firmness of belief. One's intelligence may be questioned and one's personhood intimidated.

It takes courage or perhaps foolhardiness to express one's genuine beliefs publicly through speech and language. One is standing there, immediately available to being assailed by questions and comments as well as physical assault. One cannot hide from these as can the authors of books who can hardly be found, recognized, or directly questioned. They can speak silently unchallenged for centuries! Subsequent detractors are almost irrelevant. Ergo, the popularity of writing one's opinions and beliefs rather than publicly speaking them. I have long held that the likelihood of truth being spoken out loud is inversely proportional to the size of the room and the number of people in the audience. The truth, if we dare speak it, is most comfortably expressed in a confessional or some similar protected setting with only God or a very, very good and trusworthy friend as listeners.

The Bible says "the truth shall come through the ear." Perhaps so, but not likely through public speech. All speech exposes us!

The Uniqueness of Language. Describing and Defining a Pen.

[Describe and define some commonly known object, i.e., a pen.]

Bet: no two people in a room would or could define and describe a pen using precisely the same language!

Even in describing even that which we know most in common, we would still necessarily use different words, sentences, and syntax. Each person's definitions and descriptions would be different. It is important that the 'propositions' be the same, that they carry the same meaning. To claim understanding of someone else's discourse requires that we recast them into our own language! Memorizing someone else's words would not qualify as 'understanding'. It might demonstrate a good memory but not an in-depth grasp of meaning. To claim understanding requires that we interpret and translate their language into our own and that both contain the same propositions. What chance do we have to understand one another regarding experiences which are private, internal, and not subject to interpersonal experience or agreement? This is what we are up against, each of us alone, solipsistic entities trying to relate, trying to understand, each looking for synthesis.

One can never overestimate the power of speech and language in human affairs. Many Cuban people walk the streets of Miami who were displaced by the ideas and language of Karl Marx. Millions were made to suffer and die by Adolph Hitler and more millions were elevated and enlightened by the Buddha. The words of Jesus have reverberated for over 2000 years! What did these historical figures ever do but perpetrate ideas through language, both vocal and written. As Martin Heidegger said: "words and language are not wrappings for those who write and speak It is in language that things first come into being and are." Language is a creative force!

We live in a metaphysical sea of ideas, concepts and words. We live in a sea of language! Air provides the physical sea in which we stand but philosophy creates the metaphysical sea in which we live. Talking about language is like fish talking about sea water. Fish are as much part of the sea as oxygen is part of the air. They help comprise the sea and are elements of the sea, as we are elements of the sea of conception and language. Sometimes I feel we are floating in this sea of words and language, and certainly drowning in bad news.

Language can be conceived of as a living entity. Languages live and have ontological status in the world of Reality, the metaphysical world created by Intellect (Logos). Language exists "as" a concept. Languages are born. Languages develop and grow. They are extremely dynamic phenomena; they extend, branch and proliferate. They bud and give birth to new languages which in turn develop and grow, often competing with and replacing the parent language, much as young trees in the forest replace the old. Languages also whither and die. We still have evidence of Aramaic and Latin in the bones of old manuscripts which can barely speak.

Ideas (concepts) can behave like living organisms, like viruses. Viruses enter the body and the cells and alter the function and behavior of the cells. Ideas are like metaphysical viruses. They enter the mind and alter the function of the mind and consequently, the behavior of the person. And like viruses, ideas spread. Through use of language, they infect other minds and in turn, others. There is no power like an idea whose time has come! One must "immunize" the very young with advice against the onslaught of tempting and destructive metaphysical virus-ideas to which they will be exposed later. Life is always tested and always at risk. Nature has a way of stamping out the weak, the susceptible, and the unimmunized!

Modes of Language:

There are many languages and modes of language. Basically, I propose four conceptual modes of language: interpersonal and intrapersonal; non-intellectual & intellectual.

Interpersonal language is what we use "between" us, with which we communicate with other persons. These languages are largely Symbolic Languages. Intrapersonal languages are the languages of our internal dialogue, the languages which we use in the private world of our own silent mentation and thought. These are Sensational Languages as well as Symbolic Languages, both experienced privately.

Non-intellectual languages or Intuitive languages emanate from the non-intellectual areas of the brain. They include body movements, gestures, facial expressions, tones of voice. They also include sensations, emotions, feelings, and spontaneous images. Prosody is the term for the message carried in the tone of the voice which comprises speech. Intellectual Languages emanate from the "language areas" of the brain in the left cerebral hemisphere (in 95% of people). They are believed to primarily be vocal languages. Most, but not all, have a developed script which corresponds to or represents the vocal language. These are "symbolic" languages." Language is intentional in that the symbols "represent" (re-present) and "stand for" something other than themselves. We create our "understanding" of various subjects using these symbolic representations.

What is there to talk about? Experience, of course! What else can we talk about except the phenomena of our own minds. And these phenomena are essentially experiential or derived from experience, directly or indirectly. I suspect he term 'matter' derives from the Latin term 'mater' because it is the mother of all experience. The term 'material' contains the word 'mater' and conveys the realization that material gives birth to experience. Our experience is "born of material." Man strives to become master of the world and the "master of material." Through the use of tools in the right hand, came development of areas of the brain in the contralateral left cerebral hemisphere for the dextrous manipulation of matter and eventually tools. These are the areas that later developed into areas responsible for language. It is not surprising that language is best applied to the material world (the "hard" sciences). Language itself became man's metaphysical and philosophical tool. There is a relationship between the right hand, the use of tools, the development of intellect, conceptual ability and language. It is not surprising that scientific languages have proliferated and become so powerful in our understanding of the physical world. Yet metaphysics, the spiritual world, the intangible domains of mind, soul and spirit, remain elusive to formulation and similar understanding through language.

Not only do we discourse in language, we also teach and learn with language. You have all heard of and probably understand the fundamentals of psychoanalysis, developed by Sigmund Freud. In the psychoanalytic situation, the patient is encouraged to "free associate" and to talk about the sensations, emotions, feelings and images which are generated during the sessions. The question I pose is this: In the psychoanalytic situation, who learns? The answer is, of course, the patient! In fact, the psychiatrist earns while the patient learns! The speaker learns something about himself/herself through simply hearing what he/she says. The part of the brain that speaks is not same part that listens. However, it is vitally important that the patient believe that the psychiatrist is listening. The patient, like the praying supplicant or the writing author, must believe that there is a listener or a reader that he is 'speaking' to. However, the analyst could daydream or fall asleep and the patient would not even be aware of it. The patient would continue to talk and 'free-associate' and learn. We must realize that whenever we talk, we also listen and hear. We hear every word we say. Only the speaker knows what he/she wanted to say, and can contrast that with what they did say and hear. One learns something by talking because a listener implicitly demands that the speaker put his thoughts and ideas in order, that he present them in an organized and understandable manner, and that he interpret and translate them into proper language. A listener demands that the discourse be coherent, internally consistent and hopefully correspondent to some aspect of the actual world. Of course, one learns very different kinds of things by talking than by listening. If one wants to learn about the 'internal world', the metaphysical world, I believe he must talk about those things and practice interpreting and translating them into language. If one wants to learn about the 'external world', the physical world, one would best listen and read.

Philosophers consider language, like consciousness, 'intentional'. It is always about something, directed at something, or referring to objects and states of affairs in the world other than itself. But talk 'about' something is never the thing itself! Likewise, talk "about" the truth is never "the truth." itself. In this sense, all speech is false! However it is often very useful! And a useful falseness is called a lie! Therefore we should be very careful about believing any talking primate, especially if it looks human. Everything they say will be in the mode of LIE! All of our conceptual understandings of the world are in this mode. They are concepts and explanations, formulated in intellectual language, which satisfy our desire to understand. When they are useful, especially in predicting, or "if they work for us," we claim that they must be "true." But careful consideration will reveal that 'truth' is not the issue, but expediency & utility. It matters little that the concept of the atom, the little planetary Bohr model, does not, in fact, correspond to the actualities of atoms. It does matter that it is has explanatory power. We create our explanations to fit the facts, as we see them! This intellectual-type knowledge might be what was once called 'false knowledge'. In fact, it may not be knowledge at all, but intellectual understanding posing as knowledge.

Language creates 'worlds'. Philosophically, a world is something one can speak consistently about. Give me a word and I'll give you a world! Over the centuries, perhaps beginning with the Greek PreSocratic philosophers, men have been studying the world and formulating concepts and language with which to understand and explain it. The philosophical process has been the creation of multiple language systems covering the myriad categories of human experiences. Philosophers have created the language systems of Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Sociology, and all the other 'subjects' listed in any large college catalog. Many scientists have never considered themselves philosophers, but they were, nevertheless. They were performing the fundamental philosophical task of 'making experience intelligible'. This is why, when one studies and becomes proficient at any of these specialized language systems, one is awarded a Ph.D. degree, which of course stands for Doctor of Philosophy in that language, i.e., a Ph.D. in Chemistry!

Language is the tool of the philosopher. Over the millenia, man's physical tools have evolved. They developed from the rudimentary stick and club, through the myriads of hand tools, weapons for hunting and defense, all the way to the literally amazing array of small and intricate tools for highly specialized purposes, and massive tools and machines like cranes, bulldozers, oil drilling platforms, etc., etc. There is no end to the proliferation of man's physical tools. Likewise, man's metaphysical tools of language have proliferated and refined. Language is the tool of understanding and communication and by means of which we symbolically manipulate (note term for hand) conceptual models and then the material world. We have become masters of matter!

Philosophy is the attempt to understand experience, to understand, in intellectual terms of language and concepts, what we know intuitively through experience. It is an intellectual process employing language in order to realize and understand the universe. Arthur Schopenhauer wrote:

"Intuitively or In Concreto, every man is really conscious of all philosophical truths, but to bring them to abstract knowledge, to reflection, is the work of philosophy, which neither ought nor is able to do more than this."

Since physical phenomena seem most amenable to being realized and understood with language, the physical sciences, language systems 'about' the material world, have flourished and proliferated. The material world seems able to be cast into concepts and attendant language. These are also thought of as conceptual paradigms along with their attendant 'language systems'.

Philosophers have created many language systems over the past twenty-five centuries. Each language system has its central theme. Each central theme can be thought of as the 'ultimate concern' of that language system. I borrow this term from the philosopher, Paul Tillich who suggests that God is our Ultimate Concern. The ultimate concern of each language system provides the central core and the defining limits of that world. For example, what is the language of biology about? Clearly, biology is concerned with life in all its forms. Biology is a language who's ultimate concern is Life itself. Other language systems have their own ultimate concerns which I suggest are as follows:

Paul McClean. Theory of Triune Brain^* (3 Phases of Brain Evolution)

Language Systems & Their Ultimate Concerns:

Each language system has its own unique Ultimate Concern. If we could speak only the language of Aesthetics, our ultimate concern would be Beauty. All talk and all thought would be about and concerning Beauty. In this sense, Beauty would become a sort of god in the language system of Aesthetics. If we could speak only the language of Epistemology, if there were nothing else to think about or talk about than Truth, Truth would become our god in that language. In the language of Sociology, god is Love. Ergo, we have heard the phrase that God is Truth, Beauty and Love! Now we can understand it. Each is the 'ultimate concern' in its language system.

In order to understand, we must select the correct sublanguage. For example, if we wanted to understand the functioning of a television set, it would be inappropriate to select the language of Sociology or use a Sociology Dictionary of terms and their attendant concepts. To understand a TV set, it would be best to use the language system of Electronics. To understand creation, we might best use one of the sublanguages of Cosmology, Evolutionism or Creationism. To understand Beauty, we should use the language of Aesthetics. Sometimes sublanguages subtly become very powerful and even dominant as conceptual paradigms shift. These are usually large collective-mind events which sweep masses of people along without them even being conscious of it. For example, Christianity or Religious Language was dominant in Europe for centuries during the Middle Ages. But the dominant religious paradigm and its attendant language are being displaced by Humanism and by Humanistic Languages. Sociological Language is a growing power at the present time. This is manifest as a tendency toward thinking socially, even globally, fostering the idea that all humanity is one, a worldwide call to love one another. No differences count! After all, we are all human, all part of the human family, bound together with mutual obligations to one another. The forces of Eros are dominant.

In summary, language and speech are powerful magic. Language creates and language destroys. Speech can be a gentle touch and or a hammer's blow. With language we make love or provoke war. One can never overestimate the power of language, either in the affairs of individual people or the collective history of mankind.

How did I become interested in language and philosophy? As a diagnostic radiologist, my function was to interpret medical images. These images were "reflections" of the state of another human being, the patient. I realized the simple fact that what I did was to interpret and translate 'the meaning' of the images into medical language, into the symbolic language of medical English. Further thought suggested that I was interpreting from one language into another. The visual image could be construed of as a language itself, having meaning. Vision was a non-intellectual language in that it was presented immediately by intuition. If one thinks about it, the images were presented in the language of 'visual sensation'. And visual sensation could be thought of as a sublanguage of the major language of Sensation, much like Chemistry is a sublanguage of the major language of English. If one approaches Sensation as a language and not as "raw sense data" as many have suggested, one realizes that man's mind is comprised of the languages of Sensation and Symbol. Symbol is the language of Intellect (Logos); Sensation is the language of Intuition (which I refer to as Analogos in the sense that it is behind Logos).

Henri Bergson, French philosopher, 1849-1941, quote:

"To analyze, therefore, is to express a thing as a function of something other than itself. All analysis is thus a translation, a development into symbols, a representation taken from successive points of view.....In its eternally unsatisfied desire to embrace the object around which it is compelled to turn, analysis multiplies without end the number of its points of view...., and ceaselessly varies its symbols that it may perfect the always imperfect translation".

Thus, image analysis is the interpretation and translation from the language of Intuition, Sensation (Sensations-Emotions-Feelings-Images) into the Intellectual language of Symbol (Concepts, conceptual models and associatedverbal & written symbols).

The two languages, Sense & Symbol, are clues to two different and separate judgmental systems using different languages. Ideas of psychic duality are ancient and many.

The following is a list of philosophers, psychologists, and thinkers who have proposed two modes of conscious mentation, or two modes of knowing. I suggest these refer to our two judgmental systems.

PHILOSOPHER'S REFERENCES TO ANALOGOS & LOGOS PHENOMENA:

The list in the left column are the results of Intuitional Judgments (Analogos mentation) and those in the right column are manifestations of Intellectual Judgments (Logos mentation).

In summary, I believe that man is best conceived 'as' a creature of dual psychic nature, having two simultaneously operating judgmental systems using different languages. Man, thereby, becomes the first creature capable of severe internal conflict but with the advantage of an alternative judgmental system called Intellect (Logos) which generates for him a new world, novel possibilities and alternatives to the truths he so dislikes.

Albert M. Iosue, MD

Bibliography