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