Textkit Logo

Is the mind bound and determined by language?

Philosophers and rhetoricians, Welcome!

Is the mind bound and determined by language?

Postby eliyah » Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:51 pm

There seems to be three states of consideration. I know not if these are complete, but for the present inquiry, i can think of no more. Now, these three states are in relationship to the mind:reality, thinking and communication. Reality is related to the physical world in which one finds oneself. this is in communication the external medium about which ideas are formed and by which communication is affored. However, if considered in an absoult sense, language and thought are subsistant upon reality and never the other way around. Yet, it is function within reality, which is my present concern. That is, the relationship of reality, thinking, and language. It is of concern for this reason: does speaking in a certain language (like Attic Greek, for example) determine the thinking process in any fashion as compared to those who speak another langauge.

Knowledge is oringianlly acquired in the world in which we function. Sensry experince allows original ideas to be formed. These ideas are then associated with other ideas, which become more and more complex as the individual ages; this process is mental categorization.
However, this process is an unreasoned one, at least up until this point. The mind related to sensary knowledge acquired is like the eye, it has a function which it is to complete; for example, the eye is not told to see; it opens and functions. The mind is the same in this aspect, it recieves sensary information and functions. the eye lacks abilty to reason though. the mind does not, and as soon as it starts to receive information, it begins the thinking process. However, this procees can be manipulated by language.
Language is a symbolic representation of mental ideas; language is used for the exchanging of ideas between two minds, which without language would be unable to communicate. The exchange of these ideas is where the question is to be asked. For communication to occure there must be a standard independent of both interlocutors, namely, the physical world, reality. language symbolizes this world, but it is also that by which the meaning of the world is to be communicated. It is this communication of meaning that binds the mind.
Consider, when a child is told to think upon certian things in a certain way, to categorize ideas together in accordance with a cultrual system, which lays the foundation of the thinking process. From these processes of catergorization, more ideas are built up; for exmple, "one is told that to kiss another is an act of love. This relationship between two ideas becomes established. Later on in life the individual is having marital problems and is told to love his wife more, in a process called spreading activation, the mind will seek to find relationships to love, which in are example is kissing; therefore, the man will kiss his wife more." Now, i understand this is a silly example, but think what would the result be if the esablished relationship was not kissing, but punching: he would punch his wife more. My point is thus, language by cultural application, being thet all that belong to that culture speak the same language, apply meaning to reality by langauge, which people then live in accordance with.
When one considers the complexity of the human mind and how many levels of ideas have been established from original sensary expeirnce, can it be that we think independently of this mental structure. However, what if the solution to a problem was in an incorrect relationship, but, then, other more complex ideas are established on that way of thinking, is it possible for the solution to be discovered. I would submit not, concluding that langauge binds human thought process and causing resolutions to be hidden within mental presuppostion.

Forgive me, brevity is not my skill and i only hope that my excessiveness in writting has not hidden that which i ment to be plain.

Scott. :)
phpbb
eliyah
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 7:39 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Postby Paulos » Fri Aug 25, 2006 5:42 am

Eli,

There are a few flaws in your reasoning, but nevertheless it sounds logical.

Can the Infinite create the Infinite? And still remain God?

First we have to ask the question, is there a God? And does this God have all power?

Eli? Who is God to you chap? Who is the Rock?[/color]
Paulos
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 5:25 am

Postby Rameses_Rex » Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:15 am

I used to think that one could only think what one could say, but as thoughts get more and more complex, there will be a certain point where language isn't adequate anymore for thinking. Then it's just a question of whether you can rule out language in the thinking process. Instead of words, use images in your thinking process. I personally find that when I do this, I think at an incredible velocity, and… without any restrictions. It's a very liberating experience, and an answer to your question.
phpbb
User avatar
Rameses_Rex
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 10:14 pm
Location: Antwerp; Belgium

Postby Geoffmar » Thu Feb 14, 2008 11:11 pm

I think the definition of 'language' is the ability to utilize sense-perceptable signs. Clearly, one has to be able to somehow "experience" the sign, whether reading, feeling (morse code) seeing (sign language) or hearing (spoken word).

But notice that thought, taking place within the mind, precludes the possibility of 'experience.' Now no doubt we can think in terms of language, i.e. as I am doing as I write this. But to say that thought is entirely constructed by language seems to be intuitively false. Why? Because imagining a word is no closer to 'using' it than imagining a horse is 'using' it. ( I am fully indebted to an article by Dallas Willard for this argument).
Geoffmar
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 10:54 pm

Postby Estoniacus Inoriginale » Sun Jun 29, 2008 4:15 pm

No. I can turn of language and thoughts and still be conscious, in samadhi mediation. The mind is not bound by language. The mind is bound by something else, if it is bound. Without conceptualisation, awareness is MUCH MORE DISTINCT AND LASER-LIKE than with neurotic thught, for example. One should learn to become aware while emoting and thinking, not identifying with emotions and thoughts. People can be so within their thoughts and emotion that for example, if one is angry, often it feels that anger is me, but there comes a point when there is distinct awareness that is nonjudgemental in essence that sees emtions and thoughts more clearly, from a perspective that is not clouded by the phenomena that are under observation, in this case, thoughts and emotions and mental images. For example, when people worry about the future, in hindsight, it feels as if one was already in the future. To do tasks, one often visualises. It can be more skillful when done in an aware manner, while not identifying with the thoughts and emotions, but letting productive thoughts dominate. In meditation, depending on the type of meditation, thoughts will recede, maybe just a little bit, so that identifycation with thoughts ceases. The thoughts are not consciousness, they occurr in consciousness, in my experience. There is primordial awareness in all of consciousness. While being completely succumbed by emotions, there is a subtrate that is attending to the situation that. This subtrate is nondualistic.
OINOM ANNOM STVDIAVEI DINGVAM LATINAM OREIGENEBOS VARIONS
HANCE SICNATOVRAM VIDETE ET REDITE

ITEM BOLVNTAS BIXET BERITAS BIVAT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxc0qxl4Hfk&feature=channel_page&fmt=18
Estoniacus Inoriginale
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 7:43 am
Location: VRBS PRIMVS VEL CAPVT REVALIA IN ESTONIA

Postby Estoniacus Inoriginale » Sun Jun 29, 2008 4:30 pm

Rameses Rex, I agree. I should try it. I do think that images are still linguistic in nature, though, as in symbols. An image of a chair is still a symbol. However, we all should take note of what you said: instead of audible/"inscribed" and cumbersome symbols, one could iniciate a super-sped-up slideshow that does the work. I have experienced something like this, perhaps I can do that again if I find the pertinent mind state. Thinking and consciousness are not synonymous, especially according to current neuroscience and psychonautism. The latter imeans introspection, for example being aware of thoughts, their very existence is already liberating. Zen meditation is pretty much introspection of all the senses: seeing; hearing; smelling; tasting; tactile sensations; of course the mind-space is also a sense also being called the ideation sense; a deeper version of the mind-space is thought-apprehension in buddhism; the last one known in buddhism is the storehouse consciousness. The seven prior consciousnesses are based and founded upon the eighth. It is the aggregate which administers and yields rebirth. Rebirth is not the same as reincarnation into the next life, but it is so if reincarnation turns out to be correct. Rebirth is the continual renewal of the sense of awareness, or continual change of the agregates that can change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Store_consciousness
OINOM ANNOM STVDIAVEI DINGVAM LATINAM OREIGENEBOS VARIONS
HANCE SICNATOVRAM VIDETE ET REDITE

ITEM BOLVNTAS BIXET BERITAS BIVAT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxc0qxl4Hfk&feature=channel_page&fmt=18
Estoniacus Inoriginale
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 7:43 am
Location: VRBS PRIMVS VEL CAPVT REVALIA IN ESTONIA

Postby ThomasGR » Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:41 am

Recently, I came across the Piraha and the Rotokas language. It looks, language can determine the mind, or should we better speak about culture? I wonder how accurate Daniel Everett's research is, but the fact that they are not able to count, is striking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_language
ThomasGR
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:49 pm

Postby Essorant » Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:08 pm

I don't think our minds are bound to artistic additions such as linguistic structure and symbols, but they may be bound to the human ability to make such artistic additions, the which additions the mind may partake in or not partake in, and more or less and better or worse. Native things (seeing, hearing, voice, eating, moving, etc) may be put in, or taken out of various artistic structures, just like our limbs may be dressed in many ways, but they are not automatically dressed nor bound to the clothes we put on them. We are not bound to these things. We are just so familiar with them and find them so useful that we have a hard time imagining our lives without them. <pre> </pre>
Essorant
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 282
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 6:35 pm
Location: Regina, SK; Canada


Return to The Academy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests