GENIUS FORUMS

Thinking of the vocal form of english, I believe it to be an unnecessarily hampered form of expression. By it, we may only express ourselves in sounds producible by air passing our vocal chords that create a sound that resonates in our mouth. From an idealist perspective, translating ideas into these sounds as a means of expression seems lame. Written english requires being able to draw symbols (most of which represent sounds in vocal english) but (graphing in general) allows some more complicated types of expression; some examples could be advanced physics or non-real-life paintings. Graphing moves from a more human language (vocal language) to a more universal language (in this case toward a more logical language, by mathematics). Logic seems closer to the way the human brain works (interconnected neurons transmitting electrical signals). The concepts of on, off, and, or, ... have analogies in neurons as charged, non-charged, many-charged, one-of-many-charged, ... What is a language more amenable to ideas? If logic is closer than graphic is closer than vocal, is there something called ideic?

How long will persons speak english?

What elements should a better language have?

You may want to look into constructed languages, such as Esperanto or Lojban.

These are generally constructed to be highly logical and unambiguous.

DHodges wrote:You may want to look into constructed languages, such as Esperanto or Lojban.

These are generally constructed to be highly logical and unambiguous.

True. But since they are constructed, few people speak them as a first language. As a result, few people speak them as a second or third language. And since the problem in the shrinking world is that there are too many languages, the survival of yet another, artificial one is questionable. It's doubtful communication via a necessarily second language to everyone can be much less ambiguous than what we already have. It's too... idealistic.

brokenhead wrote: True. But since they are constructed, few people speak them as a first language. As a result, few people speak them as a second or third language. And since the problem in the shrinking world is that there are too many languages, the survival of yet another, artificial one is questionable. It's doubtful communication via a necessarily second language to everyone can be much less ambiguous than what we already have. It's too... idealistic.

A related question is: is a universal translation matrix possible?

Maybe it is better that not everybody speaks the same language since then humans would have more varied perspectives, by the sapir-whorf hypothesis. Would a universal translation matrix be a language itself? The closest thing I can think of to a universal translation matrix is "google translate".

Assuming that many languages should exist, how should people be exposed to languages that well suit them?

Some people prefer languages that are not vocal, such as a particular computer programming language or another school of art; how should persons find languages that suit them?

brokenhead wrote:True. But since they are constructed, few people speak them as a first language. As a result, few people speak them as a second or third language. And since the problem in the shrinking world is that there are too many languages, the survival of yet another, artificial one is questionable. It's doubtful communication via a necessarily second language to everyone can be much less ambiguous than what we already have. It's too... idealistic.

True enough, they are unlikely to catch on as a universal language, a lingua franca if you will.

They may have other specialized uses, though. Learning a second language is good for the brain. Constructed languages may be ideal for that, and for the study of language in general.

Scott Brooks wrote:Graphing moves from a more human language (vocal language) to a more universal language (in this case toward a more logical language, by mathematics).

You could say that "Thought" as part of the absolute has its own language, and it is universal. It's also visual in a way, so I'd say you are correct. Only, it need not be invented, only recognized. It is not for expression, though, since it is non-existent within the physical (it's unmanifest).

A language of networking, which forms its own unique logic based on the absolute, can be expressible visually and within feeling. An "ideic" language would be one where words are not needed but where relationships are conveyed wholesale, so to speak. Expressing one idea would automatically express all ideas and their relationship to that one. The closer the relation, the more to the "forefront" another idea would be within the expression.

divine focus wrote:Only, it need not be invented, only recognized.

Talking of it in these terms, I could then ask: what would be a good mode of communication for this language? This language allows unication (unification) of the person that has it; what is a good mode of communication between persons that understand this language, given their particular constitutions?

divine focus wrote:Expressing one idea would automatically express all ideas and their relationship to that one. The closer the relation, the more to the "forefront" another idea would be within the expression.

Intriguing. This reminds me of physics, where a system is defined inside of which anything outside the system (including the observer of the system) does not affect the elements inside of the system. This way of defining a system has the flaws treating an observer specially and, more generally, assuming that a system can be defined whereby the qualities of the elements of the system do not depend on those of the elements outside the system. Resorting to quantity of qualities seems a better approach; the quantity of affectation (interaction) of elements within a system by elements without is less than that the quantity of affectation (interaction) of elements within a system by elements within. I wonder what a better approach than (the aristotelian) quantity of qualities would be. Once a system is identified, the problem is an artificial distinction between what is inside and outside of the system. This is useful for simplifying the calculations (by ignoring small quantities). Maybe this is the problem of knowledge generally; in order to enlarge our system (universe of discourse) we must refine our calculations.

As for language: what is the interplay of language, science and action (art)? Maybe a language and a science correspond; we say what we see (not necessarily visually, but scion (the root word of science) means sight). What is (and what should be) the interplay of language and art, of science and art? Are language and art distinct? Is art the creation of language (art being active and language being passive)? Does art fill in the gaps suggested by science?

Scott Brooks wrote:

divine focus wrote:Only, it need not be invented, only recognized.

Talking of it in these terms, I could then ask: what would be a good mode of communication for this language? This language allows unication (unification) of the person that has it; what is a good mode of communication between persons that understand this language, given their particular constitutions?

If any two or more people understand this unifying language, which is where all understanding exists and is revealed, any mode of communication may be beneficial, depending on the people.

divine focus wrote:Expressing one idea would automatically express all ideas and their relationship to that one. The closer the relation, the more to the "forefront" another idea would be within the expression.

Intriguing. This reminds me of physics, where a system is defined inside of which anything outside the system (including the observer of the system) does not affect the elements inside of the system. This way of defining a system has the flaws treating an observer specially and, more generally, assuming that a system can be defined whereby the qualities of the elements of the system do not depend on those of the elements outside the system. [...] Maybe this is the problem of knowledge generally; in order to enlarge our system (universe of discourse) we must refine our calculations.

It seems to me the "ideic" system you suggested previously would be self-defining and self-refining, such that there is no outside. It would be open-ended in that there would be room for an infinite number of ideas whose usefulness would ebb and flow through changes in circumstance, and whose immediacy of expression would vary accordingly. It would include the observer as the main or primary idea, which may also change or self-refine in some way.

As for language: what is the interplay of language, science and action (art)? Maybe a language and a science correspond; we say what we see (not necessarily visually, but scion (the root word of science) means sight). What is (and what should be) the interplay of language and art, of science and art? Are language and art distinct? Is art the creation of language (art being active and language being passive)? Does art fill in the gaps suggested by science?

Language and science do correspond the way you say, within this definition. I would say art and language are distinct, but art is the basis or the drive of language. Language is meant to increase understanding, to see more of science, and art is the motivation for this seeking of more. I don't know if art and science have an interplay as such, but they seem related somehow. Like distant cousins, something connects them in a way the leads language to reach for science.

What do you mean when you say science is suggestive of gaps, and how might art fit into that?

divine focus wrote:What do you mean when you say science is suggestive of gaps, and how might art fit into that?

Our science of the universe extends further than our art with the universe. I am reminded of Kant where there is the manifold of perception that we resolve by our categories into objects, and objects can be acted on. Put another way; to understand art, the science of the artist must first be understood. Science shows gaps that art could fill because art grows on science. Science is built on sensations and art is built on science. If this view is relevant, then what can we or do we build on art? In other words; what does a language communicate when its subject-matter is beyond art?

Scott Brooks wrote:Science shows gaps that art could fill because art grows on science. Science is built on sensations and art is built on science. If this view is relevant, then what can we or do we build on art? In other words; what does a language communicate when its subject-matter is beyond art?

Maybe it's like a cycle: science grows art, art grows language, language communicates science. Science is, though. Maybe you can say it's built on sensation (non-art), but I can't see a "before science." Can't say what I can't see. ;-)