Getting Up Underneath a Very Foundational Belief

[Joseph Maynor]

Hey folks.  I’ve been puzzled by one belief that keeps gnawing at me.  That’s kinda how I work, issues get stuck in my craw until they dissolve or get resolved in some way.

One of our biggest beliefs is that our words or vocalizations match up to reality in some way.  Now, here me out.  This is the basis of all theory, is it not?  It’s the basis for all conceptual-truth.  But what is this theoretical truth really?  Isn’t it just words and vocalizations?

Doesn’t this seem like when you were a baby you started seeking names for everything in reality?  Don’t beliefs and theories seem like an extended version of that process?

And then we have the custom of inheriting ideas.  The veneration of past ideas.  This is a huge mistake, no?  We see this happening in our history of ideas.

There is obviously a utility to gathering thought-stories, words and vocalizations, and we do seem to make practical use of it.

But can reality be known through linguistic means?  

Is our belief that a set of words and vocalizations link up with a similarly ordered reality a good one?   That’s a metaphor, is it not?  Aren’t we taking a metaphor to be true here?

Edited February 22, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[Saumaya]

@Joseph Maynor True Knowledge isnt possible

[Telepresent]

Have you ever dug into semiotics? It's the study of signs, symbols, and the making of meaning. All words are signs, language is complex and self-referential semiotic system. A sign is not the thing itself. I think this is one of the most important things to understand if you're trying to break through the issue of conceptualisation and language. 

It's also something we have to get over in discussing this stuff. All words are semiotic. All thoughts are semiotic. The notion that we can say or think anything that is not semiotic is... very troublesome, if not outright false. 

It also makes it pointless to play the "that's just a concept!" game. Of course it is. Simply to think about communicating it I had to conceptualise and symbolise it.

So, yeah, veneration of ideas can only be the veneration of signs, I.e. not the thing itself. Worship not thee false idols...

Edited February 22, 2018 by Telepresent

[Telepresent]

Ok I need to expand on this because my mind is now restless on the subject! 

Firstly all words are referential: they refer to something. So the word "cow" refers to an animal. The word itself is not the animal, it is a symbol referring to that animal. 

But a word usually refers to more than one thing. So in the case of "cow", the word refers to the animal, but it also refers to the sound you hear in your head or say out loud. Similarly the sound can refer to the animal, or to the shapes we put on paper to write down the word. 

But "cow" can also mean a specific cow, or the idea of cows in general. It might also refer to something else entirely, say a woman I don't like. 

But then it gets more complex, because "cow" might mean something different for me than it does you. You might picture a black and white dairy cow, while I might picture a highland cow. This is the first point where communication falls down; say I tell you a story about a cow. For ages you're picturing a dairy cow, but then I say "and then it got its horns caught on the bramble" - we've now got a confusion because we thought we were on the same page, but we've just revealed we weren't. Of course, maybe I never mentioned the horns: you think you have an accurate image in your head of my story, whereas one of the most fundamental parts is wrong.  And we'd probably never know that a misunderstanding had taken place. 

But wait, there's more! The word "cow" doesn't just bring up the idea and sound of cow, but also is connected to all kinds of other ideas which come with it: milk, animal, farm, whatever. And your associations and mine will be different. So maybe for you they are milk, animal, farm, but for me they are sacred, holy, etc. On the basic level of "cow" this might not seem too much of an issue, but what about more complex ideas? Because...

We learn the meaning of most words in relation to other words. We define words and concepts in relation to words and concepts we already know. "It's like..." "It's similar to..." So we compound differences we might have in understanding on a level-by-level basis, with the potential for misunderstanding getting iteratively greater and greater each time. 

But hey, let's dig a little further. Have you ever considered how you first came to understand language? You had to work it out for yourself, one association at a time. In a sense, all meaning to language, as you understand it, was developed by you. And every single person's language meaning, while appearing consensual, might be significantly different. 

Which is why direct communication is so difficult. Because there's so much potential variation in what I think I'm writing here, and what you think I'm reading. With one additional wrinkle:

When we first made those initial language associations, what do you think we associated them to? Sights, sounds, etc. sure, but also to emotion.  And as much as language is a self-referential system, it's a sense-referential system and an emotional-referential system. These combine to create the meaning we ascribe to any word, phrase, sentence, or concept. There is far, far more contained in a word than just what we think it directly means, and most of what it contains are references to meanings which refer to meanings which refer to meanings which refer to meanings... all of which are subjective. 

In amongst all that, reality would be lucky to get a passing glance

[TheEnlightenedWon]

Isn't it fascinating how the same exact word can have two completely different meanings depending on the context? Like saying the word "gay" in support of equal rights marriage, versus using it as an insult. One word, two meanings.

How could something so variable and subjective be a direct representation of an absolute reality? Assuming reality is absolute...

 

[TheEnlightenedWon]

What has been helpful to me to get underneath my beliefs about language is to notice the way sensations can give rise to internal verbalizations. Eventually, the sensations become meaningless and no longer require the assistance of language for interpretation. Meaninglessness aside, there is no interpretation to make and no one who would make it.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/50684/it-possible-think-without-language

[Ether]

@Saumaya Tell that to Buddha

[TheEnlightenedWon]

2 minutes ago, Ether said:

@Saumaya Tell that to Buddha

 

1 hour ago, Saumaya said:

@Joseph Maynor True Knowledge isnt possible

You're both right. And not even paradoxically. Wow.

[Saumaya]

@TheEnlightenedWon Knowledge can be a justified belief but not true because it lacks perfect certainty.

[TheEnlightenedWon]

5 minutes ago, Saumaya said:

@TheEnlightenedWon Knowledge can be a justified belief but not true because it lacks perfect certainty.

Oh, of course. Glad we've defined knowledge I was starting to get worried.