Re: [xmca] The "Semantics" of Vowels and Consonants?

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

David and Joseph.

A question. The alphabetic character, M, may represent a phoneme. But can
one say the letter M without there being two phonemes there?
mike

On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 4:26 PM, David Kellogg <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>wrote:

> I just want to pick up on ONE aspect of this (very long and almost
> completely unsourced) document, and try to source it, because it's a truism
> in our field that none of us can stand alone.
>
> Even if this were not true in an epistemological sense (there is only so
> much brilliance a lone genius is capable of) it would be absolutey true in a
> publishing sense (a long document is unpublishable without a long list of
> references, preferably including all of its potential reviewers).
>
> It's this:
>
> "The vocal sounds express/communicate states of the emotions first and
> foremost, and as an afterthought, so to speak, they are used to refer to
> things. They communicate emotion by moving the auditory apparatus of the
> hearer in a manner analogous to the movements of the vocal apparatus of the
> speaker, thereby creating in the hearer an emotion analogous to the emotion
> present in the speaker. Just as the touch of the hands conveys the intent of
> the toucher, so the vocal motion of the vocalizer creates in the hearer an
> emotional state analogous to that of the vocalizer."
>
> This is the "reception through production" theory of speech perception that
> was popular in the 1980s. It does have BIG advantages over passive theories
> of reception that preceded it(for one thing, it's much more parsimonious;
> the same system can be used for receiving speech and for transmitting it).
>
>  There are really TWO variations of this theory:
>
> a) The "motor" theory, associated with Alvin Liberman and the Haskins
> Laboratories. This theory relies on the idea of "articulatory gestures". By
> recognizing the kinds of "articulatory gestures" required by particular
> sounds, the hearer, through an act of empathy with the speaker, asks
> himself/herself "What would I be saying if I were making gestures like that
> in this situation?"
>
> b) The "analysis by synthesis" theory, associated with Chomsky and Halle at
> MIT. This theory relies on pure unempbodied ACOUSTIC knowledge rather than
> articulatory gestures. By recognizing the acoustic patterns (see the theory
> of "distinctive features" laid out in Chomsky and Halle, The Sound Patterns
> of English), the hearer through an act of empathy with the speaker, asks
> himself/herself "What would I be saying if I were making gestures like that
> in this situation?"
>
> I think that BOTH of these variants of the theory have in common a
> recognition that in perception we get a lot more than we hear; people do NOT
> rely on the stream of vowels and consonants as their sole source of
> information. Perception is a supreme act of what Bruner calls "going beyond
> the information given".
>
> Contrary to this, all theories of perception which are based on an analogy
> with the ALPHABET assume that the stream of vowels and consonants really
> does carry the information (or, as Joseph Gilbert puts it, emotion).
>
> In Vygotsky's time, this theory was advocated by the brilliant futurist
> poet Khlebnikov, who wrote quite extensively on the "emotional valence" of
> particular phonemes, and constructed whole poems on this association (e.g.
> "Zangezi", which was composed after a long series of experiments on the
> "semantics" of individual phonemes). As you can imagine, they don't
> translate very well!
>
> David Kellogg
> Seoul National University of Education
>
>
> --- On Mon, 10/11/10, Joseph Gilbert <joeg4us@roadrunner.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: Joseph Gilbert <joeg4us@roadrunner.com>
> Subject: Re: [xmca] The Genetic Belly Button and the Functional Belly
> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Date: Monday, October 11, 2010, 11:03 PM
>
>
>                                                                 1
>
>                      Language Creates Culture
>
>     Language functions, in human society, as the generator of culture. By
> the effects on
> us of the sounds we utter, we inform ourselves of the effects on us of the
> things which
> make up our world. Since the only sense of the meaning of any thing is one
> and the same
> as the effect on us of the thing, and since we relate to our world through
> our words, language informs us of the meanings of things. This informing
> takes place when we use vocal sounds as words to refer to things.
>
>     We exist in a vacuous condition vis-à-vis any objective knowing the
> ultimate meaning of anything. We do not know the ultimate affect on us of
> anything. If we operated by instinct, our choices would not depend on
> knowing, as our choices do. In this culls context, we are informed by the
> affects on us of the sounds of our words of the affects on us of the things
> to which our words refer.
>
>     In the vacuum of outer space, a ship can be propelled by the constant,
> subtle force of an ion drive. In the outer space of our cluelessness as to
> the meaning of anything, we are informed of that meaning by the affect on us
> of the sounds of our words.
>
>     Spoken language is sound made by the body and used to refer to, to
> signify, things. We must thoroughly understand the basis of language in
> order to understand anything else about language. Why do we use certain
> words to signify certain things? Why are there similarities and differences
> among the various languages in how sound is used to refer to things? Is
> there a correlation between and among emotional states and vocal sounds?
> These and other questions must be answered if we are to know how language
> works.
>
>     We are born into a language-using group and learn the meanings of the
> things that
> make up our world simply by learning our group’s language.
>
>     We have a distinct and unique reaction to each vocal sound just as we
> do to
> each facial expression and postural position. All forms of body language,
> postural, facial
> and vocal, are expressions of states of our internal goings-on, are born of
> those feeling/emotional states. and recreate these states by resonant
> entrainment.
>
>         The languages we humans speak currently are the results of the
> experiential contributions of our ancestors. However they, (our distant
> relatives), felt about whatever they had words for, we now feel again in the
> present moment, when we utter the words they originally uttered. Therefore
> language functions somewhat as a seed: the experience of past peoples was
> represented in the words they spoke and now, when we voice those words, we
> re-experience what they did.
>
>     Language is institutionalized perception. How we, as a society,
> perceive our world, is
>                                                     2
>
> determined by the the affects on us of our vocal sounds, (a form of body
> language), we use to refer to the things that make it up.
>
>     Our actions are determined by our perceptions. If we want to change the
> way we act we must change the way we perceive our world. And we can change
> how we perceive our world by changing how we refer to the things that
> constitute our world.
>
>     The feelings/emotions of actors on stage and of all of us, are
> communicated by our actions. The way someone moves tells us much about how
> they feel. Our face conveys extensive and subtle information about our
> emotional state. The sounds of our voices carry emotional content. And,
> although we normally are not aware of it, the articulate vocal sounds, (the
> sounds of our vowels and consonants), are loaded with information about our
> emotional goings-on. The information that comes from the articulate sounds
> of our words rather than from the emotional overlay we place on them due to
> our transitory emotional states, is the same no matter what moods we may be
> experiencing while we speak. That aspect of information conveyance is
> institutionalized/standardized. The tone of voice, cadence, and volume
> dynamics can be unique to each situation without altering the fundamental
> referential communication.
>
>     One can experience the effect on ourselves of the various vocal sounds
> by, while in a sensitive, receptive mode, saying those sounds out loud and
> sensing their effects. I have done that and have, it seems, discovered their
> meanings. You can do that also. Doing so oneself will give one a more
> complete sense of the effects of vocal utterances than one could experience
> by reading what someone else has written about the effects of the vocal
> sounds on the emotions.
>
>     This covert function of language must be brought to light  in order for
> us to be able to understand the importance of recreating culture. We must
> understand that our behavior, as a society, is fundamentally linked to our
> culture, which is a result of our language.
>
>     We do not objectively know the ultimate meaning of anything and
> consequently experience our sense of the meanings of things from the effects
> on us of our words.
>
>     These familiar phrases suggest a perception, perhaps a mystical
> perception, of the importance of the spoken word.
>
>     The final word.
>
>     What’s the word?
>
>     In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word
> was God.
>
>     The tongue is the rudder of the soul. It is not what passes into our
> lips that defiles us but
>                                                     3
>
> every untoward utterance that proceeds out of our mouths.
>
>     Words, as sounds, affect us subliminally, supplying us with a feeling
> for whatever we name. It is that feeling that we experience from the sounds
> of our words that supplies us with a subliminal consensus for our
> world-view.
>
>     We cannot realistically expect humans to act in a way contradictory to
> their culture’s bias. Marx’s economic/social theory was used as a rallying
> standard to
> enable regime change. After those individuals who had experienced the
> tyranny of the czar had left the scene, the body-politic eventually rejected
> collectivism, (the transplanted economic organ). Russian culture is
> fundamentally the same as it was when the roots of its present language were
> established and Russian society naturally reverted to its cultural default
> mode after the revolution. After a short time, the czar was replaced by the
> head commissar. Marx held that the economic relationships within society
> create all other human relations. It seems that culture is the cause of the
> nature of human relationships within any society.
>
>                                                       The Culture Made Us
> Do It
>                                           “The unrecognized function of
> language”
>
>     As an iceberg exists mostly under the surface of the water which
> supports it, the fundamental consequence of language tends to be hidden
> under the surface of our awareness. Most crucial human activities go on
> without awareness, for example, all of the bodily functions. Many conscious
> activities proceed without much deliberate awareness. Once one knows well
> how to drive a car, much less awareness is needed to operate the vehicle.
> The subconscious mind supports the same kinds of activities as does the
> conscious mind, however with less effort. Anything that can be automated,
> is.  Automating essential activities frees the conscious mind to focus on
> issues about which we feel we need to learn in order to more effectively
> cope, (those issues that require conscious attention until new behavioral
> patterns are in place). There is no need to be aware of processes that take
> place well enough without attention. It is only when a problem arises that
> we
>  humans, in an attempt to solve it, focus our awareness on it. If we are
> coping well enough without awareness, why be aware? We don’t fix something
> if it doesn’t seem broken. We don’t reinvent our wheel as long as it’s
> rolling. However, upon examination, our human condition appears to have been
> painfully broken for as long as we can recall, and must be repaired. How may
> we fix it?
>
>     Could it be that our behavior is governed by something that we cannot
> see, something of which we are not cognizant? Is there anything in our
> nature that would preclude such a possibility, the possibility that our
> behavior may be directed by influences not within the purview of our
> everyday consciousness? What could such a force be?
>
>     The ability to produce simple vocal sounds made it’s appearance on the
> scene before our
>                                                     4
>
> progenitors made words of those sounds. The ability to vocalize
> articulately is a prerequisite to the ability to verbalize. Words appeared
> when our ancient ancestors became cognizant of the relatedness of stimuli to
> their own vocal reactions to them. When they began deliberately using
> vocalizations to bring to mind things, they made the transition between
> deriving their sense of the meaning of things by direct experience of the
> things to deriving a sense of the meaning of things by experiencing the
> affects of the sounds of the words for the things. This supersession of the
> primal world by the linguistic world was the start of culture.
>
>     Being able to talk about things was very advantageous to our distant
> relatives. They could confer and plan. More important, they experienced a
> common sense of the meaning of the things in their world by using common
> symbols with which to refer to them.
>
>     Culture was advantageous to our ancestors in the ancient,
> pre-industrial environment. Now our technology provides us with the power to
> create and reside in an artificial environment, however one made according
> to the values inherent in our primitive culture. Our culture provides us
> with marching orders and our technology enables us to march very forcefully.
> Are we marching toward the edge of a precipice?
>
>     All action is preceded by a decision to act, be that decision
> consciously or subconsciously made. All decisions are based on a
> consideration of the consequences of those decisions. These effects on us of
> the consequences of our actions are the same as and identical with the
> meanings of those actions. How do we know the meanings of things? How do we
> know the affects on us of any thing? Do we know the effects on us of things
> directly as a consequence of our direct experience with them or by indirect
> experience with them by using and experiencing the words for those things?
>
>     Language is the factory and culture is the product. Culture is an
> abstraction and language is the physical mechanism from which it springs.
> Language is emotionally evocative sounds used to represent things, thereby
> conveying to us a sense of the affects-on-us/the-meanings-of those things.
> Our sense of our own role in our culture provides us with our identity and
> therefore with guidance for our behavior. The cultural values, derived from
> our ancestors’ experiences long ago, as represented in our language, are
> instilled in us and direct our behavior today. A body continues in its state
> of motion unless it is acted upon by an outside force. Human culture will
> remain fundamentally unchanged unless it is deliberately changed; and that
> will not happen unless we feel the need to do so and know how to do it.
>
>     Culture resides in the subconscious mind. Many others have spoken about
> the need to change the way we, as a society, think: many have tried, by
> using means such as meditation, sleep deprivation, psychoactive substances,
> chanting, philosophical inquiry, etc. to accomplish this change and may have
> been successful to a degree. However, it seems they were not able to
> lastingly infuse into society at large their newfound vision, due to not
> addressing the status quo at the
>                                                     5
>
> root/source, which is the culture. Understanding how language functions
> makes it possible to change our culture.
>
>                        How did language arise?
>
>     How did language arise? Originally, our progenitors’ vocalizing only
> expressed internal-goings-on/emotion and did not refer to anything external
> to them. It was advantageous to members of the group to be informed of the
> emotional conditions of other members. Much later, when consciousness
> developed enough for them to see the connectedness of the sounds uttered to
> the things the sounds were uttered in reaction to, they realized that they
> could bring to mind the thought of the things by uttering their associated
> sounds, (names). The beginning of talking about things was the start of
> culture,and the talking about things refocused the talkers’ conscious
> attention away from the experience of the emotional reactions to the sounds
> of the words, and toward thoughts related to the things to which the words
> referred. While they were busy directing their attention to thoughts related
> to the things to which the words referred, they were being emotionally
>  affected by the vocal sounds they were making to form their words. So, the
> effects of the sounds they were making vocally were experienced
> subliminally, while
>
> consciously, they were dealing with the thoughts of the things referred to
> by their words. The affects-on-us/meanings-of things cannot be proven. All
> they had and all we have to go on are the effects on us of the things and
> the effects on us of the sounds of the words that represent the things.
> While the effects of the things are changeable through time and somewhat
> unique to each individual, the effects on us of the sounds of the words are
> relatively consistent and universal. Having nothing else to go on, we accept
> the effects on us of the vocal sounds of words as revealing/representing the
> effects on us of the things referred to by the words. In this way, culture
> is formed and passed to succeeding generations. Our world views typically
> come from the sense of the meaning of things as represented by the sounds of
> our words rather than from the sense of meaning we may gain from the direct
> experience of the things themselves.
>
>     Do vocal sounds, themselves, communicate? When someone utters a vocal
> sound, such as a sigh, a growl, a whimper, a scream, etc., do we get a sense
> of how they are feeling? If so, they are communicating their condition. How
> does that communication take place? Do we receive information communicated
> in such a manner consciously, subconsciously or by both ways? What is the
> means by which an emotion can be conveyed by sound? Can emotion, or anything
> else be communicated by the articulate sounds of our vowels and consonants,
> or do only non-articulate vocal sounds convey meaning? If we allow that
> vocal sounds, simply as sounds, communicate,  then is it possible or likely
> that the vocal sounds we use to make words also communicate as well when
> used as words? What would be the effect of using inherently emotionally
> meaningful sounds as symbols to represent external things? Would the
> inherent meaning of the sounds affect our perception of the things
>  represented by the sounds?
>
>                                                     6
>
>     These considerations may shed light on the issue of the root causes of
> human behavior. Naturally, those who contemplate our condition and would
> improve it if they could, would be attentive to these matters.
>
>     All of life’s processes exist as movements. Emotional conditions are
> patterns of motion. Similar structures, in keeping with the mechanics of
> resonation, impart, on each other, their movements. Our vocal apparatuses
> facilitate our ability to move with each other.
>
>     The vibrations made by the body convey the condition of the emotional
> body to other similar/human emotional bodies, and to some degree, to other
> animal emotional bodies. The more similar the other body, the more the
> condition is transposed. Humans receive each others’ vocal and other
> body-language communications more readily than other species receive human
> communication. Similar structures transmit their resonation/vibration to
> each other more readily than do dissimilar structures.
>
>     My quest for understanding of human behavior began long ago. When I was
> around the age of six, I became increasingly aware that the folkways and
> formal institutions of our society were lacking in humanity and common
> sense. I asked myself why this was so. As a child, I attributed the problem
> to people’s personal psychology and it was not until I was in my late teens
> that I realized that the cause of the problem is our culture. It was shortly
> after that that I understood how verbal/vocal communication works. The cause
> of The Problem seemed and seems to be the culture which is created by the
> relationship between vocal sounds and what they, as words, refer to.
>
>     Some of the reasoning that preceded this realization was first, that we
> are not created evil, but rather simply with survival instincts. Second,
> that if we were able to act sanely/rationally, we would be doing what
> produces the best results for everyone. Third, it must be something we
> learned, some misinformation, that causes us to behave in ways not in our
> own self-interest. Fourth, when I considered the question of from where this
> false information came, I identified as the source, the culture. Later, I
> realized that we do not, for sure, know the meaning of anything, and that,
> as far as we know, the only thing constant and predictable about any thing
> is its name, (the word-sound we produce in order to bring to consciousness
> whatever thing to which we choose to refer). After a time, I became aware of
> how the different vocal sounds we produce when we speak words, each create
> in us a unique effect and how those effects inform us subconsciously of
>  the affect on us, (the meaning), of the thing itself to which the word
> sounds refer.
>
>     At this time, I also learned that the sequence of sounds of the letters
> of our alphabet represents a sequential delineation of
> emotional/experiential events. From A to Z, the succession of the sounds of
> the letters of our alphabet is an example of pattern-projection/recognition,
> the pattern, in this case, being the seminal emotional events that humans
> experience during their lives, in chronological order.
>
>                                                     7
>
>     Emotions happen to us: They seem to come from the “great mystery”, God,
> or whatever image we may use to portray a place from which strong and
> compelling feelings emanate.
>
>     Given, all the vocal sounds that people can make, how would one arrange
> the sounds sequentially and from what archetype, (model), would the pattern
> of that sequence come? Even if the originators of the present alphabet
> deliberately imposed a pattern on their arrangement of the letter-sounds,
> whatever world view that existed in their minds caused them to feel most
> comfortable with the sequence of sounds they chose. The sequence they chose
> must have been agreeable with the story that was represented in their minds
> by those sounds in that sequence. If one admits that vocal sounds affect us,
> then how could a story, a sequence of affects,  not be told by the sequence
> in which the sounds exist? Whether or not the originators of any particular
> alphabet had a conscious reason for arranging the sounds of that alphabet in
> the sequence in which they appear, subconscious reasons were influencing
> their arrangement none the less. Does this story, told by our
>  alphabet make sense? Does it seem to be an accurate representation of the
> main events in a human’s life?
>
>     We tend to cling to our culture as if our lives depended on it, as a
> drowning person might cling to a life preserver. Culture offers an answer,
> -in this case subconsciously apprehended-, to the question,  “What are the
> meanings of things?” Without culture, there tends to be no consensus about
> what things mean. Language informs us of the meanings of named things by the
> affects on us of the sounds of our words. Those who use the same language
> experience the same sense of the meanings of the things that make up their
> worlds. That sense emanates from the deep levels of their subconscious and
> their final assessment of the meanings of things results from their
> processing that deep, culturally caused base sense of meaning through the
> lens of their perception of their own relationship to the society in which
> they live.
>
>     For the sake of clarity, let us consider, hypothetically,  what the
> result/s would be of using meaningful sounds to refer to things. Would the
> meanings of the sounds spill over into the perceived meanings of the things
> or would the meanings of the things influence the perceived meanings of the
> sounds? Or would neither influence the other or would they influence  each
> other? Which has a stronger meaning-pressure, the sounds we make with our
> voice or the things which, with the sounds, we name?
>
>     The vocal sounds express/communicate states of the emotions first and
> foremost, and as an afterthought, so to speak, they are used to refer to
> things. They communicate emotion by moving the auditory apparatus of the
> hearer in a manner analogous to the movements of the vocal apparatus of the
> speaker, thereby creating in the hearer an emotion analogous to the emotion
> present in the speaker. Just as the touch of the hands conveys the intent of
> the toucher, so the vocal motion of the vocalizer creates in the hearer an
> emotional state analogous to that of the vocalizer.
>     Just as our becoming-human progenitors were gaining consciousness, (the
> ability to
>                                                     8
>
> contemplate the consequences of their actions), they were, for the first
> time, using vocal expressions as words to refer to specific things, not only
> to express immediate emotional goings-on. Since they vocalized primarily
> under duress, their words were expressions born of fear rather than of
> conscious understanding. The mind concentrates on problems, on issues that
> could potentially be destructive to the perceiver. When this fear-based
> thinking bias becomes institutionalized in language, the language itself is
> a source of anxiety. The more we verbalize about any given problem, the more
> stressed-out we become. This reminds me of an Eskimo method of killing a
> wolf. They would smear congealed blood on a very sharp knife and set it out,
> with the blade pointing upward, where wolves frequented. When a wolf licked
> the blood, it would bleed and lick its own blood not knowing it was bleeding
> to death. We are wolfish for knowledge and we pursue it by using our
>  main thinking tool, our language.
>
>                        The Unrecognized Role of Language
>
>     Culture is the hidden law-of-the-land. We are creatures of culture, and
> its subjects. Our culture originally  enhanced our survivability and, in a
> technologically advanced world, may become the instrument of our
> destruction. Our culturally motivated ways of relating to one another may
> have once been viable, although perhaps immoral, and now, with our powerful
> ability to cause environmental change, are untenable.
>
>      ”The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of
> thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If
> only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker.” --- Albert Einstein
>
>     I wish to change what is in that “heart”.
>
>     The referential function of human language is merely the “tip of the
> iceberg” of the role of language. Its larger and more profound function is
> unacknowledged: It is spoken language’s informing us of the meanings of all
> to which we verbally refer. We are moved in a primal way by the sounds we
> produce with our voice and, in the absence of any “objective”, absolute
> information regarding (the affects on us)/(the meanings of) the things of
> our world, we accept the affects on us of the vocal sounds of our words as
> representing the affects on us of the things to which our words refer. In
> this way, we are informed subliminally, simply by learning our language, of
> the meaning of our world. How else could we, as very young children, have
> achieved a sense of how we were affected by the numerous things that made up
> our world?
>
>     This matter is of paramount importance because we act in accordance
> with how we perceive our world, (with what our world means to us), and our
> sense of that meaning is derived from  the affects upon us of our words.
> Much of human behavior that is commonly attributed to “human nature” is
> actually motivated by cultural nature, which is created by language.
>                                                     9
>
>     How and what would our society be if we had a culture which instilled
> in us the values that we would consciously choose to hold? Presently, we
> simply assimilate the culture in which we are born. Once we understand the
> mechanism of cultural transmission, we will be able to change our group
> program.
>
>     However, it seems that many of us may be too timid to venture forth
> from the false security of our unquestioned and familiar values. Some have
> expressed to me that language is a product of nature and that to change it
> deliberately would produce an unnatural result, a Frankenstein culture, the
> consequences of which would probably be destructive. To those I suggest that
> we are inherently unable to venture out of the natural realm, as we are
> inextricably woven into the web of nature. Furthermore it is entirely
> correct and wholesome for us, with the goal of improving our survivability,
> to choose to correct our culture at its source. Once we see how we may help
> ourselves, we would be within our progressive evolutionary tradition to use
> all our knowledge to do so.
> .
>     Vocal sounds either communicate as vocal sounds or they do not. If we
> assume that vocal sounds do not communicate, then language only blindly and
> unintelligently refers to things. If we assume that vocal sounds do
> communicate something, as vocal sounds, then language does more than merely
> refer to things: it also informs us about the things named. Which is true?
> Do any of us believe that our vocal sounds do not express/communicate
> anything? If we believe that vocal sounds communicate/express something,
> then what is it that they communicate/express? If vocal sounds do
> communicate as sounds, do they loose that communicative function when
> incorporated into words or do they continue to be expressive when used in
> words?
>
>     If vocal sounds that constitute words communicate something as sounds,
> then what effect does the sound of a word exert on our perception of the
> thing to which that word refers?
>
>     Many seem to have difficulty accepting the idea that the primary
> meanings of vocal sounds, including the sounds of words, are the effects
> they cause within each of us and not the things to which they refer when
> uttered as words. Another point that aided me in understanding the function
> of language is that we really do not know the meaning of anything but rather
> behave as though our taken-for-granted assumptions are valid only because
> they have not been held to the light of inquiry. It is only that which
> resides in our subconscious and of which we are not conscious and
> consequently do not question, that we act as if we “know” for sure. Remember
> the caterpillar in Alice in Wonderland? When asked how he managed to
> coordinate the movements of all those legs, he became aware of the
> previously unconscious process of walking and then could not walk. The only
> sense of the meanings of things that we dependably share with the others of
> our society is
>  instilled in each of us by the relationship between the sounds of our
> words and the things to which those words refer. Words are the link between
> our autonomic, cultural sense of meaning and the things that make up our
> world. We give things a familiarity by attaching to them sounds created by
> our body. Our words are related to things because the vocal sounds of our
> words are related to our reactions to those things. We may not ordinarily
> experience an emotional reaction to the things that
>                                                     10
>
> make up our world. It is during our seminal moments that we experience
> emotional reactions to things.
>
>     What meaning, if any, do things have if we are not affected by those
> things? All meaning is relative. If we were totally unaffected by something,
> would it be meaningful? How would whatever meaning it may have be perceived?
> Clearly, what we want to know about something, (anything), is how it affects
> us, (what it is?).
>
>      After many attempts to share these findings with those in academia,
> their lack of understanding, even more their lack of interest in
> understanding the ideas I was putting forth , dampened my impulse to reach
> out to those whom I previously had thought were most likely to understand
> these findings.
>
>     I figured that what I was saying was challenging on a deep level to
> most, who would otherwise gain a glimpse of it. My discovery, seems to
> threaten the sense of security of those who consciously or otherwise treat
> their culture as an idol. Some of us, especially those of highly exercised
> intellectual abilities, feel that security is to be had by being able to
> “explain” the meaning of things. By uttering words, (sounds), about things,
> what meaning is revealed? Doing so may create the illusion of understanding
> by seeming to make the named things familiar. But does it, only inform us
> with the effect/meaning of the sounds of words, or with the meaning of the
> things as well? What are the meanings of the things?
>
>     It appears that culture is the root of all normal human behavior. We
> all behave according to our values and assumptions and those derive from our
> culture. Do our academicians know what culture is, how it relates to the
> people who are instilled with it and how it may be changed?
>
>     We are informed subliminally of the meaning of our world by the
> language that we speak.
>
>     Why is it so difficult for people to understand how language generates
> culture? What is/are the missing piece/s of information that they need in
> order to grasp that concept?
>
>     A better way is possible. We need only the vision of this better world,
> as an everyday experience, in order for us to act in accord with it. The
> consciousness of how to act in order to create the world we wish must be the
> status quo, not the rarity that it now is. This changing of the status quo
> can be accomplished by changing the culture and changing culture is
> accomplished by changing language.
>
>     Are we conscious that we are affected by the sounds we make with our
> voice? We are commonly aware that the quality of singers voices affects us.
> We know that great orators and actors affect us with their delivery and
> vocal character. Everyone’s voice affects us. We are aware of the affect of
> tone of voice but not of the affect of articulated phonemes per se.
>                                                     11
>
>     We have no way of knowing the final meaning of anything. We might think
> we know what a thing will do to us in the immediate future but what about
> how it will affect us much later? When we become aware of something, we
> question its meaning and once something is questioned, we never gain a sense
> of its absolute meaning Only that which remains in the subconscious we do
> not question. The feelings that well up from our subconscious, in reaction
> to various things, seems to be true absolutely. Our feelings strongly affect
> our train of thought.
>
>     The certainty of the uninformed is typically replaced by the wonderment
> of the “enlightened”.
>
>     Our culture/language supplies us with a sense of knowing the meaning of
> all things for which we have a name. This sense of the meaning of things
> helps us to feel secure in the face of an uncertain, threatening world. We
> gain that sense of knowing the meaning of things simply be having words for
> things. Our subconscious accepts the affects of the sound of the words as
> being the affects of the things to which the words refer.  The words stand
> for the things we name with them and replace, subliminally, our perception
> of the things referred to with our perception  of the words themselves. The
> words are all we have to go on for the sensing of the meaning/effect of the
> things.
>
>     Having words inform us of the meanings/effects of things seems to have
> some advantages compared to being informed of the meanings/effects of things
> by direct perception of the things themselves.  All those who use a
> particular language have the same basic subliminal sense of the meanings of
> named things and consequently, are able to participate in the group dynamic
> of their society. The words for things stay constant through time while how
> we are affected directly by things changes. We can share experience,
> knowledge and wisdom with words. Without words, our own personal experience
> would be all we would have and we would not be able to share it. Words
> enable abstract thought and planning.
>
>     We think, influenced by the feelings of the sounds of words for things
> and feel as though we were thinking with the perception of the things
> themselves.
>
>     Are we conscious that we are affected by the sounds we make with our
> voice? We are commonly aware that the quality of singers voices affects us.
> We know that great orators and actors affect us with their delivery and
> vocal character. Everyone’s voice affects us. We are aware of the affect of
> tone of voice but not of the affect of articulated phonemes per se.
>
>     When we utter vocal sounds that are simply sounds and not words, we
> may, more easily,  experience consciously, the effects of the sounds, than
> when we speak words. When we speak words, we typically experience
> consciously the referential function of the words and not the affects on us
> of the sounds of the words, while we experience the effects of the vocal
> sounds of words subliminally. Because we experience the one thing, (the
> referential meanings of the words), consciously, and the other thing, (the
> affects on us of the sounds), subconsciously, we
>                                                     12
>
> subconsciously interpret the subliminal effects of the vocal sounds as
> being the effects of the things to which the words refer. The subconscious
> mind supplies us with the bottom line of the meaning of whatever it is we
> are considering because we cannot reason with the subconscious mind and we
> can with the conscious mind. Whatever we are conscious of, we can question
> and whatever we question becomes uncertain. However we have a language-based
> subconscious reaction to that which the (meaning-of)/(effect-on-us) is
> consciously unknown as long as we have a word for it, and that subconscious
> reaction creates an experience of and hence a sense of knowing the meaning
> of that which, prior to being named, did not seem to be known. The word,
> made of sounds of our body, stands in for the unknown thing, the thing
> separate from our body. In the absence of any objective sense of the
> meanings of things, we rely on our words to provide us with a sense of
> knowing,
>  because knowing relieves us of the stress of anxiety. We are driven into
> the perceived safety of our familiar culture, as represented in our
> language, by the stress of the fear generated by not knowing. One must be
> willing to accept the mystery of existence in order to experience, free from
> the bias of existing culture.
>
>     Considering words to be things in and of themselves, (sounds), and not
> only a means to refer to things, will enable us to examine them for their
> inherent meaning. The primary meaning of a word is not the thing which it
> represents. It is, rather, the affects on us of it’s sounds. We consciously
> consider the meaning of the word to be the thing to which the word refers
> and we subconsciously experience the meaning of the word as the effects on
> us of its sounds. Because we experience, profoundly and consistently, the
> effects on us of our human vocal sounds while we experience less intimately
> and less consistently the effects on us of the things to which we refer with
> words, the emotional effects of the words as sounds overrides the emotional
> effects of the things named, and informs us of the nature of named things.
>
>     In a similar way that explorers laid claim to land in the name of the
> monarch, we tend to lay claim to that which we name in order to render it
> seemingly familiar and known.
>
>     Everything that we perceive subconsciously creates an emotional
> reaction that may be experienced consciously and everything that we perceive
> consciously affects us subconsciously as well. We consciously perceive the
> sounds of spoken language and we are also affected subconsciously by those
> same sounds. In the course of verbal communication, we think of the things
> to which our words refer while subconsciously we are emotionally affected by
> the sounds of our words. This simultaneous occurrence of the thought of a
> thing and the subconscious experience of the emotion generated by the sound
> of the word we use to refer to that thing, subliminally informs us of the
> affect-on-us ,(the-meaning-of), the thing. In this way, we acquire a sense
> of the affects-on-us, (the-meanings-of), everything for which we have a
> word. This is important because our actions in relation to the things that
> make up our world are motivated by our perceptions of the meanings of
>  those things. Therefore, if we would change, for the better, our
> societies’ behavior, we ought to change our languages.
>     Since spoken language is crucial in determining the course of human
> events, it would be
>                                                     13
>
> better if we consciously agreed with the subliminal sense of the meanings
> of things which is instilled in us by our language.
>
>     We humans are not doing so well with our relationships with one another
> that we should be complacent regarding the improvement of our culture.
>
>     People have been attempting to address social and economic challenges
> ever since there were people. All the religions were attempts to provide a
> basis for our behavior. Marxism was/is an attempt to remedy social and
> economic inequality and exploitation. “Hippie” communes were typically
> instituted to provide healthy social environments. Organized politics and
> codified legal systems were/are created, supposedly, to improve our
> condition. Why is it unclear whether any of these deliberate social
> structures actually made/make our situation better or worse? Could it be
> that the cause of our malaise is something that is not being recognized by
> those who strive to improve our lot? For how many years, for how many
> centuries and millennium will we try to fix our broken world by creating
> laws, religions, political and economic institutions before we decide that
> doing so does not deal with the source of the problem? Marx’s mistake was
> believing that
>  economics is the foundation upon which all of society’s other institutions
> are based. It seemed reasonable to him that since life is based upon the
> biological economics of survival, that economics must be the determining
> force in society. He did not see that our culture provides us with a sense
> of the meaning of all recognized things thereby assuaging the fear/terror
> that naturally arises as a result of our consciousness of our physical
> vulnerability and that we tend to protect and defend that culture because of
> the perceived security which it provides. Once culture is established, it
> causes the economic and social relationships to be what they are, and they
> cannot be lastingly changed without changing the culture.
>
>     The culture, created by language forms our values which then strongly
> influence the decisions we make consciously and  subconsciously.
>
>                                                              What is
> culture?
>
>     I define culture as the common fundamental values held by the members
> of a society. These values derive from our perception of the meanings of,
> (the affects on us of), the things that make up our world. “Things” are
> whatever we identify as being distinguishable from other things, which
> include feelings, thoughts, values, people and ideals. The meanings of
> things are one with and the same as the affects on us of those things. How
> do we acquire our sense of, (the affects on us of)/(the meanings of),
> things? Is it from our own individual experiences with things? Is it from
> what we say to ourselves and to each other about things? If it were based on
> individual experience, how would we achieve consensus and if we could, why
> would all cultures not be pretty much the same?
>
>     Most would hold that even within a given society our individual values
> are not the same and
>                                                     14
>
> surely the popular view of what our values are, indicated by a cursory
> survey of our behavior, seems to support that conclusion. When attempting to
> assess the values that underlie behavior we should consider the influence of
> the role that each individual sees themselves as playing within their
> culture. Given the same subliminal, fundamental values, individuals within
> any society tend to behave not only relative to those basic values but also
> relative to how they perceive themselves, (who they perceive themselves to
> be), within their society.
>
>     It seems that the cause of the problem of why we do so many seemingly
> destructive and self-defeating things must be so basic, so fundamental as to
> escape our awareness. It must be housed in the subconscious mind since all
> our attempts to address it have been futile. It is that which we don’t
> consciously know that we subconsciously know that sometimes makes us wonder
> why we do what we do. Our emotional reactions are influenced by that which
> resides in the subconscious just as they are by that of which we are
> conscious, and often, we create rationales to explain our behavior, while
> the actual reasons for the feelings that motivate us may be other than what
> we choose to think.
>
>     What does every cultural group share within itself that affects its
> members profoundly and without their conscious knowledge? Where are the
> hidden rules, by which we live, to be found? Our culture is an artifact,
> inherited from distant ancestors, formed in an environment vastly different
> than today. Ways of interacting with one another that may have seemed to
> work then now appear to be dysfunctional. The primary example is war, which
> before weapons of mutual destruction, was rationalizable by the victors. But
> now, with nuclear weapons, would there be any victors? We still think as we
> did then but we cannot afford to act today as we may have believed we could
> then. Our technology has evolved tremendously but our culture has not. We
> are ill-equipped to cope with the situation our technology has enabled us to
> create. Furthermore, even if war seemed winnable, wouldn’t we prefer peace?
>
>     If we admit that vocal sounds inherently affect us, as do facial
> expressions and general body posture, then we may ask how our sense of the
> meaning of the things which make up our world is affected by using
> inherently meaningful symbols to refer to them. What is the relative
> strength of the emotional effects upon us of our symbols compared to the
> emotional effects of the things to which they refer? Considering that the
> emotional effects of the things themselves vary with context and is peculiar
> of each of us, and that the emotional effects of the vocal symbols is
> relatively consistent and universal, can we assume that the meanings of the
> symbols create the perceived meanings of the things? Is this relationship
> the same or different within the conscious and subconscious minds? Does our
> conscious or subconscious mind more strongly influence our behavior? Are our
> behaviors affected by our subconscious minds even when we are trying to do
> what we
>  consciously think we should do?
>
>     We either are or are not affected by our vocal utterances. I see that
> we are. If we were not affected by our vocal utterances, we would not
> vocalize. The whole purpose of vocalizing is
>                                                     15
>
> communication! And in order to communicate, we must be affected by that
> which we use to communicate.
>
>     What, we may ask, is communicated by vocalizing? What is communicated
> when other animals vocalize? It is clear that animals communicate their
> instantaneous emotional states by their vocalizations. How is this
> communication accomplished? The vibrating of the body of the vocalizer,
> (sender),  causes the body of the receiver to vibrate in sympathy. The
> receiver experiences the motions and consequently the emotions of the
> sender. This simple process is the foundation of our vocal activity, our
> verbal activity, (our language), and our culture. Many of us seem to balk at
> accepting the idea that our lofty retorical proclamations are founded upon
> such primal processes. If you are one of these, consider that our genetic
> blueprint is shared, in the majority, by all other vertebrates and largely
> by all other animals. To those who disparage animals, please be reminded
> that the Grand Creator authored ALL of everything, not only us and those of
> whom we
>  approve.
>
>     What are the ingredients that make up the mix of influences that
> determine human behavior? Given that we are intelligent enough to appreciate
> and cherish the truths that are our guiding principles, and given that we
> are not born self destructive, then for what reason/s did we act as we have?
> From where does the false information come that motivates much of our
> behavior? “Human nature” does not account for our inhuman actions. The cause
> of our destructiveness must exist among the things which we learn.
>
>      From what ultimate source do we acquire our information regarding the
> meaning of our world? Our culture is that source.
>
>     What have we got to go on in order to achieve a sense of the meaning of
> our world other than the words we speak?
>
>     Do we have a benchmark for establishing the meaning of things?  If
> everything is relative, what is it relative to? We need not look further
> than ourselves to find that. How could it be otherwise? We look out from our
> eyes and hear with our ears and think that we can objectively determine the
> nature of each and every thing that we examine. However, with our survival
> in the balance, as it inescapably is, how whatever it is that we examine
> relates to our survival determines what it must mean to us. How we are
> affected by the things that constitute our world establishes their meaning.
> The vocal sounds we make express and convey the different emotional effects
> we experience. Our words are made up of these body-sounds. Therefore, our
> words convey emotional meaning and inform us of the affects on us of things
> for which we have names.
>
>     Language exists in both the conscious and the subconscious. We are
> conscious of the words we speak and of the things to which they refer, while
> they inform us subconsciously of the effects on us, (the meanings of), those
> things to which they refer.
>     Does it matter what things mean? Does it matter what we think they
> mean? Do our actions
>                                                     16
>
> relative to them depend on what they mean to us?  Do we act in relation to
> things according to what they mean to us? How do we know the ultimate effect
> on us of any thing? Is the effect on us of any thing its meaning? How can
> any thing mean to us anything other than what its effect on us is? How do we
> obtain a sense of the meanings of things? Do we get that sense of the
> affects-on-us/ the-meanings-of things directly from our own experience with
> things or as mediated by language?
>
>     Of all forms of body language, (vocalization, facial expression and
> overall body posture), only one of them,vocalization, is commonly used to
> represent things other than conditions of the emotional body. Our general
> posture is very communicative of our physical-emotional state without our
> deliberate intent and is sometimes used deliberately to convey the same.
> Facial expression can be more finely communicative of our state of
> being/feeling than is general body posture. Vocalization, while being
> profoundly expressive/communicative, is, by civilized people, ordinarily
> exclusively reserved for uttering words. While we are not aware of the
> affect upon ourselves of the phones we utter, we are aware of the effect
> upon ourselves of the emotional embellishments we add to them. Often, we
> consciously add emotional content to our words in order to embellish their
> referential meaning. Since we are busy, often consciously, processing the
> referential meaning of
>  our words, we are unaware of the emotional impact of the sounds that make
> them up. Each distinct articulate vocal sound affects us in its own unique
> way. Understanding this is crucial to understanding the workings of the
> culture-creating function of language.
>
>     We not only refer to things with our words. More profoundly, we inform
> ourselves of the very meaning of those things simply by using a word, (a
> vocal sound), to refer to them.  This information as to the affects upon us,
> (the meanings of), the things which make up our world, constitutes our
> culture. Culture is information, (in-formation). Since we are not aware of
> the nature of this information, it exists in our subconscious minds. We act
> according to a subconscious program put in place by our language. If we
> understand how we receive information regarding the meaning or our world, we
> can change that information so that it agrees with what we believe to be the
> nature of our world. Our culture was passed down, from long ago; from before
> electronics, before motorized transport and the printing press. If we were
> to deliberately create our language today, would we create the one we
> currently use? If so or if not, why? Would we know how to create a
>  language that conveys the meanings of things that are their actual
> meanings? If we would know, how would we know? If not, why not?
>
>     That which affects us profoundly and constantly must be in close
> proximity. Things right in front of us are often overlooked when we search
> for that which affects us powerfully. We tend to assume that if the causes
> of major difficulties were so close to us, it would be obvious and we would
> have discovered them by now. Let us reexamine our major influences  to look
> for what causes us to behave as we do.
>
>     Our species, is plenty smart enough to understand why our saints and
> prophets are correct when they exhort us to be “good”.  We create secular
> laws that mirror our religious tenants and are
>                                                     17
>
> sensitive to any critique of our behavior. Our feelings of guilt seem to be
> well developed. Why then do we act as we do; making war against one another
> and engaging in all kinds of destructive activity?
>
>     I have heard many claim that it is simply “human nature” to act in
> destructive ways. Those who believe that, feel that there is nothing to be
> done to correct our human malaise other than punishment. Evil ones must be
> trimmed back, like a noxious and thorny vine. I do not subscribe to that
> depressing idea and know that the truth of the matter is that we humans are
> inherently survival oriented and will learn whatever seems as though it will
> further our survival. It is because of our native intelligence coupled with
> our survival desire that we voluntarily stretch our consciousness in order
> to glimpse a better way for ourselves to carry on.
>
>     What are the forces that influence our behavior? What we believe to be
> good and correct does not, it seems, by itself, determine our actions. Do we
> not fully believe that what seems to be right to us is truly right? Or is
> there some other influence that informs us of what the world and all the
> things and concepts and people in it mean to us, something else that
> influences our perception of how we must behave in order to survive?
>
>     Our behavior is related to how we are affected by the things that make
> up our world. We behave in relation to the various things that fill our
> awareness, according to how they affect our survivability, (how we PERCEIVE
> that they affect our survivability). We perceive the world directly through
> personal contact with it and indirectly through contact with that which
> represents the world to us, (our language). Language represents the world by
> labeling everything about which we speak, with sounds made by our bodies.
> Those vocal sounds are part and parcel of states of our emotions. Our
> preverbal progenitors and our children when young, make vocal sounds in
> reaction to various environmental stimuli. Those emotive sounds are
> intuitively made sense of by all who hear them. We sense the vocalizations
> and they make sense to us. The vocal sounds are made by a body in an
> emotional state and cause that state to be reproduced in the emotional body
> of the hearer
>  of those sounds. The sending body vibrates and the receiving body vibrates
> similarly. An emotionally linked vibrational pattern is spread from the
> originator of the vocal sound-vibration to whoever’s auditory apparatus is
> moved by it. The transmittance of the vibrational pattern is the
> transmission of the emotion. We are emotionally affected by the emotions of
> others.
>
>     Language is an institution, a standardized way we move our bodies,
> specifically our vocal apparatuses, our ears, central nervous system and
> emotions, in relation to the various things that make up our world. In
> relation to a book, we who speak English, utter the sound, “book”. In
> relation to a book, a Spanish-speaking person utters the sound, “ libro”.
> These two different sounds move us in different ways, giving us a different
> experience of that which refers to and represents that object and
> consequently, of the thing referred to. The primal meaning of a word is the
> effect the sound of it creates within us. The secondary, more distant
> meaning of a word is that to which it refers. The secondary meaning is what
> we commonly accept as being the one and only meaning. We are
>                                                     18
>
> generally not aware of the primary meaning, because we are affected by the
> vocal sounds of our words subliminally and by the secondary, referential,
> meaning of words consciously.  Awareness of the primary meanings of vocal
> sounds was superseded by the awareness of the secondary, -referential-,
> meaning of vocal sounds used as words.
>
>     To understand the functionality, the “nuts and bolts”, of language, is
> to free ourselves of domination by culture, to be the masters of culture
> rather than its subjects. We have been inextricably attached to culture, for
> better or for worse, ever since our use of language began. Now we can
> intentionally create a language/culture that informs us as we would like to
> be informed, of the effects on us, (the meanings of), all the things we
> name.
>
>     Certainly we agree that we are affected by the sounds we utter. What
> then is the
> consequence of referring to all the things to which we refer, (all the
> things that make up our conscious world), with inherently meaningful sounds?
> If we were able to refer to things with “meaningless” symbols, then all we
> would be conveying is the thought of the thing. When we refer to things with
> inherently meaningful symbols, we are also informing ourselves of the
> meanings of the things to which we are referring. Is there such a thing as a
> meaningless symbol? Is anything meaningless? In order to perceive anything,
> including a symbol, that symbol must register upon our senses and in order
> to register upon our senses, the sensed thing must affect us. No effect on
> us, equals no perception by us. Whatever the affect on us is, is the
> fundamental meaning of the sensed thing. When we refer to things, we are
> primarily being affected by the symbol which we use to do the referring and
> secondarily by the memory, if there is a memory, of the thing to which we
>  are referring. When we refer to something with which we have no direct
> experience, we have only the symbol, (word), to affect us and thus to inform
> us.
>
>     If there is a discrete connection between a vocal sound and  a thing,
> and a connection likewise between a particular vocal sound and a specific
> effect on the emotions, then there is a connection between the effect on us
> of the sound and the thing to which that sound, (word), refers.
>
>     We are aware that sound has an effect and that the word is sound and
> that the word has an effect and that the word refers to a thing. Are we
> aware that, for all intents and purposes, the effect seems to be the thing.
> How we are affected by a thing, our perception of a thing, is accepted
> subliminally as being the meaning of the thing. Our actions relative to the
> things in our world, are related to the perceived meanings of those things.
>
>     We feel the feelings generated by the sounds of our words at the same
> time as we are deliberately focusing on the things to which the words refer.
> As a consequence, we associate particular vocal-sound-generated feelings
> with particular things. The thing does not define the feeling. Rather, the
> feeling defines the thing. The feeling of the word determines what is
> accepted subliminally as the meaning of the thing. The word enables us to
> experience feelings of the meanings of things not present, and unknown by
> direct experience. It establishes a sense of
>                                                     19
>
> consensus which wells up from the subconscious minds among the speakers of
> a given language.
>
>     All throughout human history, language has been playing this role of
> consensus creator based on the information we derive from the sounds of our
> words regarding the-affects-on-us/the-meanings-of, the things that make up
> our worlds. If we would rather live in a culture of our own creation than in
> just any one in which we happened to be born, we might consider
> experimenting with cultural change through language renewal.
>
>     I have been asked what I hope to achieve with this information. My
> desire is that we become aware of the forces that affect us so that we may
> be able to change the circumstances that exist to circumstances that we
> would prefer.
>
>     Because of the inherent shortcomings inherent in existing languages,
> although words can be used in a kindly manner to help get us back on track
> when we lose our way, they cannot, in and of themselves, guide anyone who is
> determined to see things in a certain way. Only the willing can be helped.
> How can we help people to be willing?
>
>     I observe that culture is the prosthetic subconscious of society, that
> which we who live in a particular society share with one another and have in
> common. It has to do with our world-view. Our world view is formed by what
> things mean to us. How do we obtain our sense of the meaning of our world?
> Do we share that sense with the others in our group or is it individual to
> each of us? Is it a conscious, subconscious or unconscious sense, or more
> than one of them?
>
>     When I discovered that the sounds of words convey a sense of meaning, I
> realized that I had found the answers to these questions. We are informed
> subliminally of the meaning of our world by the language that we speak.
>
>     Having words inform us of the meanings/effects of things seems to have
> some advantages compared to being informed of the meanings/effects of things
> by direct perception of the things themselves.  All those who use a
> particular language have the same basic subliminal sense of the meanings of
> named things and consequently, are able to participate in the group dynamic
> of their society. The words for things stay constant through time while how
> we are affected directly by things changes. We can share experience,
> knowledge and wisdom with words. Without words, our own personal experience
> would be all we would have and we would not be able to share it. Words
> enable abstract thought and planning.
>
>     We think, influenced by the feelings of the sounds of words for things
> and feel as though we were thinking with the perception of the things
> themselves.
>
>     Are we conscious that we are affected by the sounds we make with our
> voice? We are commonly aware that the quality of singers voices affects us.
> We know that great orators and actors
>                                                     20
>
> affect us with their delivery and vocal character. Everyone’s voice affects
> us. We are aware of the affect of tone of voice but not of the affect of
> articulated phonemes per se.
>
>     When we make word-free sounds with our voice, we more readily
> experience the effects of those sounds than when we utter words. We
> generally do not sense the effects of those sounds when we verbalize because
> our attention is redirected from the affects on us of the vocal sounds to
> comprehending what the words represent. The primary affects upon us of the
> sounds of our words remain, on a subliminal level, when we use our vocal
> sounds as words. Using the sounds as words directs our attention to the
> things to which the words refer. We are affected by sounds of our words
> whether we make them simply as vocal sounds or as words.
>
>
>                 How We Are Affected By Our Culture
>                           And How We Can Change It?
>
>
>
>     The behavioral choices we make, be they deliberately or subliminally
> driven. are informed by our perception of ourselves in context to our
> perception of the world, -by the affects on us of the things that make up
> our world. We achieve a sense of how we are affected by the world more as a
> result of our language than as a result of our own nonlinguistic experience.
> Is that sense due to the actual firsthand effect of things on each of us
> individually? How do-we/can- we know what the ultimate effect of anything is
> upon us, either as an individual or as a society? Do we even know the
> meaning of life? How can we know the ultimate effect on us of anything if we
> do not know the purpose/goal of life? A particular way we are affected is
> either desirable or not, as that effect relates to that large purpose, and
> who among us knows that purpose and is able to show others, by proof, what
> it is? We seem to share, with other “reasonable” people, what we think
>  is a commonsense view of life, but there is so much room for different
> choices. On what basis do we make our choices?
>
>     In the vacuum created by the questioning mind, we have only our
> conventional wisdom, residing subliminally, as represented by our culture,
> to inform us. The more we question, the more we realize that we do not know.
> How can we act not knowing what things mean? We must have something to go
> on, a given, on which to base our choices. That given is our language. The
> sounds we use to refer to the various things we refer vocally to, seem to
> enable us to experience a feeling of the effect/meaning of the named things.
> We have nothing else to rely on, as individuals and more-so as a group,
> since our common language provides us with a common frame of reference.
>
>     Vocal sounds themselves, whether they are within words or simply as
> sounds, are richly meaningful in the sense that they affect our emotional
> state. Vocalizing communicates states of our organism. Each particular vocal
> sound communicates/conveys a particular state. When we use
>                                                     21
>
> these vocal sounds, each with its own effect/meaning, to refer to
> particular things, as we do when we speak with words, we bestow meaning upon
> the things to which we vocally refer, things that we would otherwise not
> perceive as we do if not for their names. The sounds of our language are by,
> for and of our body/emotions/feelings, while the things we name are
> relatively removed from our immediate experience. Naming things seems to
> render them understandable. This sense of knowing is created by associating
> our familiar body-made vocal sounds with them.
>
>     The perceived meaning-strength of our verbal utterances is greater than
> the perceived meaning-strength of the things named by them and thus, the
> affect on us of the sounds of our words pushes aside and replaces the
> affects on us of the things themselves. The symbol not only represents the
> symbolized in  our consciousness, more profoundly, the effect of the symbol,
> (in this case, the word),  on us subliminally, takes the place of the effect
> on us of the symbolized: the map replaces the territory. As we are beings
> who manipulate symbols to gain understanding, we live in a world of our own
> making, not because of deliberate design, but rather by the nature of
> language/culture.
>
>     In a world prior to the proliferation of technology, using language
> enhanced our survivability. However, in a world in which we are surrounded
> by the results of our own efforts, (our artifacts), as we are now, our
> language/culture may be a major cause of our difficulties. Culture is a
> living artifact, representing the mentality of our ancestors and instilling
> that mentality, (that world-view), in us.
>
>     I believe that once we understand the mechanism of culture, we will
> choose to create culture deliberately.
>
>     Some say that existing culture is natural and that to tinker with it
> would be risky and probably harmful. I say that we cannot afford to fear to
> experiment with new ways of seeing our world. After all, we are not in such
> a favorable position relative to our prognosis for survival as a species,
> -precisely because of the effect on us of our culture-, that we should adopt
> a passive attitude regarding our culture. “If we do not change our direction
> we will end up where we are headed.”
>
>     The meaning of any thing is the same as its affect on us and its affect
> on us is its meaning. It is the effect of a thing that we perceive and that
> perceiving informs us of the existence of the thing. It is only that which
> affects us that we perceive, and it is that effect on us that is its
> meaning. It defies logic and experience to hold that we are unaffected by
> our vocal sounds, either used as words or not. If we accept the premise that
> we are affected by our vocal sounds, that our vocal sounds communicate, we
> might ask ourselves what the affects upon us of those sounds are.
>
>      The sounds of words do not cease to be things themselves, when they
> are used in words to represent other things. On the scale of the evolution
> of the human species, the use of vocal sounds to represent things is a
> relatively recent development. Prior to that, our forbears’ vocalizing
> simply expressed immediate body-mind states.
>                                                     22
>
>     We are affected subconsciously by the sound/sounds of any given word in
> the same way as our forbears were affected by the things that now the word
> represents. They reacted to  things: the vocal part of that reaction later
> became  words and we who use/hear those words, react to the sounds of those
> words as they reacted to those things. Experiencing the word replaces
> experiencing the thing the word represents. Culture is instilled in us in
> that way. The word acts as a transmitter of experience. The experience that
> caused the sounds to be uttered is represented in those who hear those
> sounds/words subsequently. By this means, our forbears’ experience of things
> becomes our experience of those things.
>
>     Thus, we are at once, informed and defined by our language/culture. Our
> culture is the real status quo, the actual law of the land. It rules us from
> our subconscious minds, beyond the reach of our deliberative processes.
> Since we cannot, in the final analysis, prove anything at all, it is by
> default that the values, the unquestioned assumptions, which reside in the
> subconscious mind, form our foundation.
>
>     Furthermore, while our own experiences are unique to each of us, it is
> our culturally/ linguistically created experiences that we share as a group.
> To be a part of the group, one must adopt the group’s consensus experience
> as one’s own. To be conventionally understood, one must speak the mother
> tongue.
>
>     Similar to an iceberg. the preponderance of the import of language
> occurs beneath the surface of awareness. One must consider the role of the
> subconscious mind in order to grasp the true function of language. Language
> is based on sound, sound made with the human voice. The sounds we produce
> vocally communicate our emotional conditions.
>
> When we vibrate that part of our body, specifically evolved as a
> vibration-making apparatus, (their vocal apparatuses), we show others what
> is going on with us, we cause others specialized vibration-receiving body
> parts, (the auditory apparatus), to vibrate in kind. The motion of the
> auditory apparatus mimics the motion of the vocal apparatus. After being
> vibrated by an other’s voice, we are able to reproduce those vocal sounds.
>
>     When we hear someone speak, at the same time that we are trying to
> understand what is being said, (what is meant by any particular words), our
> emotions/feelings are being informed by the effects on us of the sounds of
> the words we hear. We do not need to consciously try to apprehend the
> meanings/ effects of the vocal sounds themselves to perceive them. The
> meanings are the affects on us of the sounds. We do need to consciously try
> to understand the meanings/referential functions, of the words. Because of
> that, the focus of our conscious attention is removed from the effect of our
> vocal sounds and placed upon the relationship between the words and the
> things they signify. That type of meaning is peculiar to each language and
> is not necessarily intuitive unless one has adopted the world-view of that
> language.
>
>                                                     23
>
>     As for the demand that the claim that vocal sounds are communicative,
> be proven; there is not a demand for proof that facial expression and body
> posture in general are communicative. Why does no one dispute the second
> claim while  establishment linguists deny that vocal sounds convey meaning?
> Is it because they are so caught up with considerations of the referential
> function of words that they cannot  experience the effects on themselves of
> the sounds that make up the words? Does it not stand to reason that vocal
> sounds must affect us? Is it not true that everything that we perceive
> affects us and that it is precisely that effect which we perceive? Can there
> be perception without being affected? And the meaning of anything must, in
> the final analysis, be simply its effect within us. Though one may agree
> that we are affected by vocal sounds,  one may not agree that we are
> affected emotionally by vocal sounds. We are accustomed to not reacting
>  emotionally overtly to our vocal sounds.
>
>     What is language doing to us, that we don’t know about? What do these
> sounds that come forth from our bodies mean? What does anything mean? Is
> finding what anything means the same as discovering how it affects us? Is
> the meaning the same as the emotional/body effect? Could it be anything
> other than that? How do we know how anything emotionally affects us? Do
> things affect us? Are we emotionally affected by the sounds we produce
> vocally? If so, how are we affected? Are we emotionally affected more
> strongly by the sounds we vocally produce or by the things in our
> environment? Where do emotional reactions come from; the conscious or the
> subconscious, or both?
>
>     Do we obtain a sense of the meaning of a thing from deliberative
> thinking about it or from our subconscious reaction to our mental process
> regarding it? Emotions well up from the depths of our occult minds. Once we
> become aware of our reactions to a thing, we can question the reason for the
> reaction and reinform ourselves about how the thing affects us. With new
> information, our emotional reaction changes. What do the very words we use
> to describe a thing to ourselves do to our sense of the meaning of the
> thing? When we compare the thing in question to other things not in
> question, we are not really discovering its meaning. We are rather, assuming
> that the meaning of the things we use to clarify the meaning of our subject,
> are themselves clearly meaningful. What if they are not? Is it possible for
> them to be not? The only thing in this scenario of which we do not question
> the meaning is the sounds of the words we use to refer to the things. And,
>  we normally, do not even consider our vocal sounds to be meaningful.
> Because their affect on us is through our subconscious, we are not aware of
> it and thus are affected more unalterably than if we were aware of the fact
> that we are being affected by the sounds of our words.
>
>     Although logically, it is impossible for us to not be affected by our
> vocal sounds, we do not dwell on that phenomenon and do not consider it an
> issue of moment. Supposing we are affected by vocal sounds: what would that
> mean? Would our perception of the things we refer to verbally be influenced?
> Would our sense of the meaning of named things be determined by the vocal
> sounds we use to refer to those things?
>
>                                                     24
>
>     We all talk of culture. What do we mean by “culture”? In the New World
> Dictionary of the American Language, the definition number 6 of culture, is:
> ”The ideas, customs, skills, arts, etc. of a given people in a given period;
> civilization.” I define culture as, “The values/assumptions that are shared
> by the users/practitioners  of any given language.”
>
>     The history of the human race is basically, the record of intracultural
> and intercultural “chemistry”. We have been, for the most part, passive
> recipients of whatever paradigm was dealt us by our cultures. Like
> passengers on a great ship, our fates were sealed by the course charted in
> advance by the directives mandated by our culture. Wouldn’t we rather be
> active participants in shaping our destiny? We can be if we understand how
> culture works. It is a simple and natural phenomena, and although we created
> it, we do not understand it. Until we do, we will be incidental and directed
> actors in a script not of our choosing. Just as understanding our biology
> liberates us from the chains of previously immutable law, so too, knowing
> what culture is and consequently, how to alter it, will free us from the
> destiny of carrying out the plan set in motion by the emergence of
> language/culture.
>
>     We will invest in becoming aware of our culture when we realize the
> necessity of
> doing so. When we know that we cannot go on indefinitely with our current
> flight plan, unaware, on autopilot, we will look for a new understanding of
> our human behavior.
>
>     Through the years, centuries and millennia, our culture has served us
> in whatever way it has, for better or for worse. It seems that we now need
> to acknowledge that we are, “up against it”, and that we need to change our
> ways. Before technology and industrialization, we did not feel the heat of
> our cultural impasse nearly as much as we now do. The power to alter our
> environment given to us by our technology has brought the issue of our
> inappropriate behavior to the forefront. The results of our cultural
> inadequacy is right in our faces. However, we have not yet, as a society,
> identified the source of our problem. We have not yet realized how we are
> possessed by our culture or even what culture is. We sometimes question why
> we act in ways so antithetical to our professed beliefs/values. We go to
> church on Sunday and are back in the lurch on Monday. Our saints and
> prophets tell us The Truth and we nod our heads in agreement. Yet we
> continue to
>  behave as we have, in ways characteristic of our culture, not in ways
> representative of our professed beliefs and values. This contradiction and
> dissonance between what we believe consciously and what seems to be truly
> motivating our behavior is the cause of much confusion and angst. We are
> passive recipients of the hands dealt us by our culture not the masters of
> our destiny. Let us become conscious of the nature of the relationship
> between ourselves and our culture.
>
>     How can any of us experience the effect on our emotions of the vocal
> sounds we utter/hear? I accomplished that by saying the sounds of our
> language, using the alphabet as a sequential guide, and sensitizing myself
> to the emotional effect of each sound in turn.
>
>                                                     25
>
>     Our progenitors used to live in whatever shelters, such as caves or
> rock overhangs, they
> found already existing. Then they learned to make shelters where and when
> they wished. We have, until now, lived within and according to whatever
> culture in which we happened to be born. We can now attempt to make our
> culture one that instills in us the values we consciously hold, rather than
> the values we inherited from our distant ancestors.
>
>     When I was in school, I was taught that culture is things like
> classical music, opera, the fine arts, classic literature and theater. I
> sensed that culture was far deeper than that, that culture existed in each
> of us, deeply ingrained in our minds. Not until I discovered the mechanics
> of language did I clearly realize what culture is, what it does to us and
> how it does it.
>
>     Before I discovered how language works, I did not understand what
> culture is. The two, language and culture, are identical twins, each with a
> different name and apparent mission but with the same dna. Culture is an
> abstraction and language is the physical mechanism from whence it springs.
> Language uses emotionally evocative sounds to represent things, thereby
> suggesting the meanings of those things. The sense of the meaning of things
> derived from words, accompanied by our sense of self identity, directs us as
> to how to behave in relation to those things. The values etched in our
> culture by language long ago are instilled in us and direct our behavior
> today.
>
>     A body continues in its state of motion unless it is acted on by an
> outside force. Human culture remains fundamentally unchanged unless it is
> changed by those who sense a need to change it.
>
>     The subconscious mind is where culture resides within us. Culture
> resides without us in language. Culture remains unexamined and unchanged
> within the subconscious mind until we see a need to change it. Many others
> have spoken about the need to change the way we, as a society, think: some
> have tried, by using means, such as meditation, sleep deprivation,
> psychoactive substances and chanting to accomplish this change and have been
> more or less able to do so for themselves. However, it seems they were not
> able to lastingly infuse society at large with their newly found vision, due
> to not addressing this issue from the root. One must understand a process
> before one can intentionally and deliberately alter it. Understanding the
> “nuts and bolts” of language makes it possible to change our culture.
>
>     The idea that we are strongly influenced by a force invisible to us is
> strange and tends to be unsettling. The glue that binds us together as a
> society is so much an ingrained part of our lives, that we do not perceive
> it as a force. It operates automatically and therefore requires no attention
> in order to function as the organizing premise of society. The question of
> whether we approve of its values almost never arises. Rather, we act as
> automatons, driven by the invisible program instilled in us with the
> learning of our language. Just as features of our physical bodies evolve by
> natural processes, so culture evolves by natural processes without our
> conscious collaboration. Culture has served us tolerably well through most
> of our species’ history. However, since the emergence of
>                                                     26
>
> mechanization, the contradictions between our professed values and our way
> of life have become
> increasingly obvious. This is due to the magnifying effect of technology on
> the impact of human actions. What we do today affects our shared environment
> far more than our actions did prior to industrial technology, while our
> culture is basically the same as it was then, before industrialization. This
> forces upon us the issue of the correctness of the values that underlie our
> assumptions about the nature of reality. We can no longer afford to forge
> ahead with no awareness of the reasons for our choices.
>
>     The tension caused by the contradiction between our professed beliefs
> and the beliefs implied/expressed by our actions is caused by the isolation
> from our conscious apprehension of the source of the values or even of the
> values that drive our actions. Our conscious beliefs derive from our
> intellectual workings while our actions are driven by our cultural
> conditioning, which resides in our subconscious minds. We all have different
> beliefs, depending on what mental roads we have traveled and we who share a
> given language, all have the same underlying, subliminal values. How we
> translate these common values into actions depends on our perception of what
> character we are, in the script of our society. In the script we are born
> into, we act the role we see ourselves as plausibly and convincingly being
> able to play. One’s assumed role in society must seem plausible to one given
> one’s assessment of oneself.
>
>     Our understanding of culture is vastly more incomplete than is our
> understanding of mathematics, physics, astronomy, biology or even psychology
> and sociology.  The radio-telescope, electron microscope and other
> information gathering tools continue to enable us to conceive of that which
> we previously could grasp only metaphysically. We can likewise increase our
> awareness of the machinations of human culture by focusing our attention on
> it and bringing to bear, in our quest for understanding, whatever relevant
> knowledge we may have. If we widely saw that culture impacts our everyday
> life to the extent to which it does, we would feel a powerful motivation to
> discover its inner workings. Language is the body whose physics we must
> comprehend in order to understand the workings of culture.
>
>     The vocal sounds our pre-linguistic progenitors made conveyed feeling
> and emotion. We still make sounds and they convey feeling and emotion now as
> they did then. Using them as words, to refer to things, does not cause them
> to cease conveying emotion. The stronger affect on us of the sounds of words
> than the effect on us of the things which words label, the consensus
> regarding the meaning of things that words provide members of a group who
> speak a common language and a constancy of  the sense of the meanings of
> things we name, all contribute to our subconscious acceptance of the affects
> on us of the sounds of words as representing the affects on us of  the
> things which words represent. When we use words, we feel we have a sort of
> firsthand experience with the things named. This experience with the verbal
> representation of things named provides us with a sense of their meaning.
> The sound, which is rich with emotional affect, by default, informs us
>  of the emotion associated with the thing. We associate the sound of a word
> for a thing with the thing; so we associate the effect of the sound as a
> thing, with the effect of the thing, for it is
>                                                     27
>
> the effect of a thing and only the effect of a thing that lets us know that
> the thing is there and what it means. We have nothing else common, constant,
> and which affects us more strongly when the named thing itself is not there
> in front of us, and even when it is, than the sounds of words, (the sounds
> of our voice). The affects on us of the sounds of our own voice takes the
> place of the affects on us of the things themselves. We make our world
> familiar and handleable by using our bodily sounds to represent the things
> we encounter. We intuitively understand the meanings/effects of our vocal
> sounds while we do not as readily understand the affects on us of the things
> in our world. Our vocal sounds are of by and for us while the
> world-out-there is much less familiar and more difficult to relate to
> intuitively.
>
>     The sounds that a musical instrument makes are a result of the
> materials and construction of the instrument. When something vibrates, it
> makes sounds according to its physical structure. Whatever is doing the
> vibrating is what sounds. Mothers sing sweet lullabies to babies, not pirate
> drinking songs. Why? Because the sounds the mother makes cause the baby to
> vibrate in a similar manner. Entrainment is a word that may be used to
> describe this phenomena. There is the driver and the driven. The mother is
> the driver and the baby is the driven. The mother establishes a pattern of
> motion and the baby assumes motion in that pattern. If one wishes to calm
> another, one speaks calmly. Elemental states are being
> transmitted/communicated by the mother to the baby. Are elemental states
> communicated by phonemes? Is there a relationship between the vocal sounds
> we make and our emotive/feeling states? Do our vocal sounds correlate to our
> feelings/emotions?
>  Are vocal sounds meaningful? Do they cause an effect in us? As a form of
> body language, are vocal sounds meaningful, as facial expressions are
> meaningful?
>
>     All animals that breathe make sounds when they breathe. The air passing
> into and out of the body makes sounds and those sounds are formed and shaped
> by whatever the condition of the body is. Think of The Star Wars character,
> Darth Vader, as he breathes. How communicative is the way he breathes! One
> may ask how does the sound of breathing communicate and what does it
> communicate? If simply breathing communicates, then does vocalizing
> communicate? Do the sounds that we produce, in order to form our words,
> communicate? If they do, then what is it that they communicate? There are
> some vocal sounds to which one may feel a reaction, such as the sound of the
> letter, “R”, or that of the “M”, or the “A”, or “E”, etc.. Are any vocal
> sounds meaningful to you?
>
>      Supposing that all the sounds we make communicate; would our feelings
> about a thing be affected by what the sounds we use to refer to it
> communicate to us? Many linguists and others maintain that the sounds we
> make when we speak, in and of themselves, have no meaning. By saying that
> they have no meaning one is holding that they do not communicate. But if
> Darth Vader’s breathing communicates, which it obviously does, then even
> breathing is meaningful, its meaning being the affect it causes in us. One
> may say that the affect on us of the sounds of breathing is an emotional
> affect and therefore has no meaning per se. At this point one would be
> separating the concept of emotional affect from the concept of meaning. If
> emotional affect is not meaningful, what
>                                                     28
>
> is? One may say that the meanings of words are the things to which they
> refer. If this were true, we
> would have no clue of the meaning of any thing. We would know what the
> sounds of the words mean in terms of the things but we would have no sense
> of what the things mean. We need to know what the things mean: we already
> subconsciously know what the sounds of the words mean. And, can a sound mean
> a thing? Or does a sound have meaning of its own? Does the thing have
> meaning of its own? It seems likely that vocal sounds have effects/meanings
> and it seems questionable that things have particular meanings. After all,
> it is how any thing affects us that is its meaning. The way a thing affects
> us changes through time and is different for different folks, whereas the
> affects on us of the sounds of our own voices is the same through time and
> for all of us. However, if on the other hand, we derive our sense of the
> meaning of a thing from the sounds of the word for it, we do have a definite
> sense of its meaning because we are naturally affected emotionally by those
>  sounds.
>
>      On one hand, we are affected deeply by the sounds made by our bodies
> and on the other hand, we are not consistently and uniformly affected by the
> things that make up our world. When the two things are associated with one
> another, the one with the strongest affect-pressure defines the one with the
> lesser affect-pressure.
>
>     No one that I have spoken with about the subject maintains that the
> sounds we make with our voices are non-communicative. Rather, people
> commonly report that they feel clearly affected in particular ways by
> different vocal sounds and a thread of commonality runs through their
> reports. So, if we know that we are affected by our voice sounds, why do we
> deny that  we may be affected by the sounds of our words and that how we
> are  affected by the sounds of our words may influence our perceptions of
> the things we name?´
>
>     There are conscious processes and subconscious processes And processes
> can migrate from one realm to the other. Driving a car or playing a piano
> are examples. When we talk, we are conscious of the things we are talking
> about. When we vocalize non-verbally, we are conscious of the sounds of our
> voice and, if we are on the lookout for it, we may be aware of the effects
> on us of those sounds.
>
>     What we suppose to be the reasons why we act as we do may not be the
> real or sole reasons. The quest for psychological self-discovery is about
> becoming aware of the real reasons for our behavior. Many of us use our
> rational minds to create plausible explanations for our behavior. Some of us
> who are more dedicated to the truth of the matter rather than to simply
> defending whatever we may do, use the rational mind to examine our behavior
> in the light of understanding. In the ultimate shakedown, do we really know
> why we do what we do? Can we prove it to anyone else: can we prove it to
> ourselves? Looking at what influences us seems to be useful in ascertaining
> exactly what motivates us. Since we are all about survival, whatever affects
> our survivability, obviously affects our behavior. Our relationship with our
> caregivers, if we are dependent on another, with our employer, if we are
> working for someone else, with the legal
>                                                     29
>
> structures, if we live in civilization, with our perception of the affect
> on us of our actions, whether that
> perception is conscious or subconscious, and with our sense of morality, if
> we are so disposed, are all important to us. Whatever bears on our  survival
> and metasurvival influences our behavior.
>
>     How do we ascertain the affects on us, (the meanings of), the myriad of
> things that make up our world? It is impossible to think our way through the
> question of how we will be affected by all the various choices we may make,
> as a chess player attempts to do. We would need to know the ultimate affect
> on us of all things and all actions relative to those things. This is not
> possible, at least for now. In the absence of any definitive proof of the
> meaning of anything, we feel the need to know what exactly things are, what
> each thing is. The final word on this issue is THE WORD itself. The word for
> a thing is what we have to go on for sensing what the thing means to us.
> Since the effect on us of a thing and the meaning for us of that thing are
> one and the same, and since the actual sound of the word affects us deeply,
> reliably and in the same way as it affects everyone else, we lean on this
> word-sound-affect thingy to inform us of what any particular
>  thing means for us. It is the collection of word sounds called language
> that creates human culture. We have a world full of things, of which we know
> naught; and we have sounds we make with our body, the affects of which we
> experience subconsciously.
>
>     Spoken language tends to be quite stable through time and hence,
> culture is likewise stable.
>
>     We can sense the meaning of things only in those ways that we can be
> affected by things. In order to sense, one must be affected. If one is not
> affected, one does not sense. In how many different ways can one be affected
> by things? How would we determine that?  In how many different ways can we
> be affected by the sounds we make with our voice? How would we determine
> that? The way we are affected by things is different with different people
> and at different times with each person. The ways we are affected by our
> voices is the same for all people and at all times with each person. The
> effects on us of our voices is the currency we use in order to determine the
> effects on os of all other things. As we are affected by the sounds of any
> given word for any given thing is how we assume we are affected by that
> thing. The word acts as a kind of magical window through which we peer in
> order to seemingly gain a glimpse of the true nature of whatever it is
>  we are considering. When we consider a thing, we have the thing itself in
> front of us. It is alien to us. It does not talk. It does not tell us what
> it is. It just exists mysteriously. However, we do have the word for the
> thing. The word speaks to us in our own language. It moves us literally with
> the motions of our bodies. And we are affected deeply by its presence. Which
> one informs us of the affect on us of any given thing, the thing itself or
> the word for the thing? The word is the handle we use to get a feeling of
> the meaning of the thing. We derive a sense of the meaning of any thing by
> hearing the word for that thing.
>
>     This sense of meaning we acquire from our language is not based on
> absolute knowledge of the ultimate affect on we humans of any thing. It is a
> product of our own particular language and different from the sense one
> acquires from using another language.
>
>
>    30
>
>     So, what does this matter? If our only sense of the meanings of things
> derives from our language, then what we subliminally assume to be the givens
> of our world are bestowed upon us, as a people, by our language. This sense
> of what our world means informs our decisions, be they consciously or
> subconsciously motivated, for underlying all conscious considerations is
> whatever resides in our subconscious. The contents of the subconscious sends
> compelling feelings and emotions which drive behavior, behavior which we
> rationalize by explaining why we do what we do.  If one disobeys the
> emotional promptings/demands of one’s subconscious, one experiences a sense
> of disassociation and consequently anxiety. Anxiety is disabling and we
> strongly tend to avoid it. Therefore, we are held hostage by the contents of
> our subconscious minds. Our culture, which is the product of our language,
> is the most influential factor among those that contribute to the values
>  we have stored beneath the surface of our awarenesses.
>     We humans live in a sea of mystery. Non-cognitive creatures are
> informed of the import of the varied situations they encounter by their
> instincts, whereas we are mainly informed by culture. This provides us with
> greater adaptability and also creates the risk of us “falling off the apple
> cart” of the sense of knowing provided by culture. Culture is somewhat like
> an overcoat which we can remove, and instincts are more like fur,
> (permanent). If we remove our cultural coat we are then without our familiar
> input of information as to the meanings of the things that make up our
> world. Without our common culture, (a product of our common language), we
> have only our individual experiences, and nothing to provide a basis for
> society. Nonverbal species have instincts to guide their social behavior.
> Humans have culture. Xenophobia is a result of identification with the
> familiar. In the hustle and bustle of everyday life, most humans have little
> time to
>  question and to seek answers. We are geared up for a competitive, rat-racy
> way of life, in which “wars and rumors of war” are commonplace. We simply
> absorb our culture and then act out our role in it.
>
>                                How Do We Know Anything?
>
>     We know when we need to pee. We know when we are hungry, tired or
> attracted to a potential mate. How do we know these fundamental things? We
> FEEL them. We don’t wonder if they are true or ponder how we know them. We
> just know. How could we prove that any of the things that we feel actually
> exist? We would not be able to prove their existence or the existence of any
> other given. We go by what is there. Our feelings inform us of how we are
> affected by whatever it is that is there that affects us. The subconscious
> rational mind accepts our feelings as givens and operates according to them
> as starting premises.
>
>     While our beliefs are in relation to our feelings, also our feelings
> are in relation to our beliefs. That is why we, as humans, are capable of
> heinous acts, acts that a non-idological person would recoil from. Whatever
> beliefs we adopt are part of the lens through which we gaze when we
> interpret more primary things. If we dare to abandon our beliefs and to
> simply allow ourselves to perceive our world as it is, without being
> interpreted according to beliefs, we then feel it as it is. If we realize
> that we really do not know what anything means separate from how we feel it
> is, that its ultimate meaning is a mystery, then we are able to perceive it
> without the intermediation of our
>                                                     31
>
> cultural conditioning.
>     Since we react emotionally to the emotive processes of others, to the
> sights and sounds of others’ emotional goings-on, the sounds of others’
> words, as well as the sounds of our own words, affect us emotionally.  We
> are affected by human vocal sounds as sounds separate from words and as
> components of words. When we use vocal sounds as words, the affects on us of
> the sounds stand as representing the affects on us of the things which we
> label with those words. The affect on us of the sounds of the word,
> “walrus”, is accepted by us as revealing the affect on us of the thing,
> “walrus”. The effect of the word replaces the effect of the thing; the
> material is superseded by the abstract; the map replaces the territory. In
> this way, we become creatures of our culture. Spoken language uses emotional
> feelings to represent the various things in our world.
>
>     Ever since language started, it has been informing us of h
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca