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

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

Joseph -- I do not believe the prior exchange made it to xmca. I, at least,
did not see a cc.. So I am going to place the note you were responding to
here so that people can follow the points you are making.
mike
----------------

On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 9:46 PM, Joseph Gilbert <joeg4us@roadrunner.com>wrote:

> Mike;
>
> After discovering the function of spoken language, I looked through the
> library at a university for any similar findings and found only the two
> ancient ones that I mentioned, and they were only weakly related to what I
> was looking for. It seems that all the ones who were considering wether
> sounds and meaning are related were focusing on  a possible relationship
> between vocal sounds and the things which they name, and finding no such
> readily-discoverable juxtaposition, concluded that there is no relationship
> other than an arbitrary one. By calling it "arbitrary", it seems they were
> attempting to preside over the discussion by having something to say about
> it, ("It is arbitrary") without really adding any understanding. Do you know
> of any writers on the subject of spoken language who address the issue of
> wether vocal sounds relate to feelings/emotions? Margaret Magnus' web site,
> "Magical Letter Page", deals more directly with my findings. Why do you
> attribute to me a statement I did not make and do not concur with? Perhaps
> you do not understand what I have said. I understand Plato to have said that
> since everything rings according to its nature when struck, there is
> therefore a natural relationship between what is resonating and how it
> resonates. With spoken language, the one struck is the person. The person is
> struck/ affected by something and then resonates accordingly to that effect.
> It is the PERSON doing the resonating, not the thing that affected the
> person. It seems that St. Thomas was searching for the right words for
> things by saying that things and their names should agree. Perhaps he did
> not see that it is not things that are directly related to names but rather
> it is people who resonate in reaction to things. The things and the names
> are only indirectly related and only through the people who are affected by
> the things. Vocal sounds express goings-on of the body/emotions/feelings.
> There is not a perfect word that I know of to describe the internal
> goings-on expressed by our vocal sounds. Experiencing how one is affected by
> our sounds is recommended as an aid to understanding how we are affected by
> them. The originators of the original roots of current languages were
> expressing their vocal reactions to the things in their world with their
> sounds, sounds that then became words. Once these sounds became words, the
> sounds were deliberately used to refer to things rather than simply
> expressing internal goings-ons and those born into that society learned that
> way of referring to things and consequently, learned to associate the
> feelings of those sounds with the things that they named.
> This understanding is not inherently elusive, however it seems that
> clearing ones unquestioned/unvetted preconceptions facilitates ones ability
> to perceive clearly what one is considering.
>
> J.G.
>
>
> On Oct 30, 2010, at 3:57 PM, mike cole wrote:
>
> Joseph--
>
> I have yet to meet the person who, upon hearing what someone else says, or
> reads something that someone else has written, does not try to interpret
> what they are saying. This entails, I believe, perhaps mistakenly, that the
> process of interpretation includes, as important elements,
> "referencing/comparing/grouping my findings with those of others" in the
> sense that I interpret in terms of my own culturally organized experience.
> So, I dare say, do you.
>
> I plead guilty of not having read the *Magical Letter Page*. That idea as
> you described it would circumvent any need for cultural mediation of
> language/culture, wouldn't it? The sounds of all words everywhere are in
> tune with its nature, given by Plato And Aquinas. The wonder is, how did
> they cut through all those bad cultural mis-shapings of the natural
> resonances? Perhaps that's what genius requires.
>
> Common understandings are very hard to achieve about such matters, as I am
> sure you have discovered.
>
> mike
>
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Joseph Gilbert <joeg4us@roadrunner.com>wrote:
>
>> By referencing/comparing/grouping my findings with those of others, damage
>> is done to one's ability to comprehend my communication. What I am asserting
>> is NOT that similar to what has been said before by others. I have read
>> samples of what others have contributed to the study of how language,
>> meaning and perception relate and found nothing that conveys what I am
>> purporting. The closest is Margaret Magnus' thesis: on Magical Letter Page.
>> She shows that the sounds of words are interculturally related to the
>> charasteristics of the things to which those words refer. Also Plato said in
>> the Cratalus that everything rings according to its nature when struck and
>> Saint Thomas Aquinas said that the sounds of words should agree with their
>> meanings. Other than these "references", I have found nothing that deals
>> with the aspects of sopken language that I do. So, rather than droping my
>> assertions in a familar and inappropriate box and than being done with it,
>> consider it freshly, with an open mind, and see what comes up.
>>  Thanks.
>>
>> J.G.
>>
>> On Oct 13, 2010, at 7:56 AM, mike cole wrote:
>>
>> So, Joseph, consonants can be spoken as pure phonemes?
>> Related question: Are the name of the letters irrelevant to the 1st-2nd
>> graders in schools where you are?
>> They appear to be of considerable relevance in California.
>> mike
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Joseph Gilbert <joeg4us@roadrunner.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Mike Cole:
>>> The sound of the voiced "M" is mmmmmmmmmm, commonly uttered to express
>>> pleasure, as in the reaction to something good tasting. The name of the
>>> letter is a peripheral issue.
>>>
>>>                J.G.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 12, 2010, at 6:44 PM, mike cole wrote:
>>>
>>>  David and Joseph.
>>>>
>>>> A question. The alphabetic character, M, may represent a phoneme. But
>>>> can
>>>> one say the letter M without there being two phonemes there?
>>>> mike
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 4:26 PM, David Kellogg <
>>>> vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  I just want to pick up on ONE aspect of this (very long and almost
>>>>> completely unsourced) document, and try to source it, because it's a
>>>>> truism
>>>>> in our field that none of us can stand alone.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even if this were not true in an epistemological sense (there is only
>>>>> so
>>>>> much brilliance a lone genius is capable of) it would be absolutey true
>>>>> in a
>>>>> publishing sense (a long document is unpublishable without a long list
>>>>> of
>>>>> references, preferably including all of its potential reviewers).
>>>>>
>>>>> It's this:
>>>>>
>>>>> "The vocal sounds express/communicate states of the emotions first and
>>>>> foremost, and as an afterthought, so to speak, they are used to refer
>>>>> to
>>>>> things. They communicate emotion by moving the auditory apparatus of
>>>>> the
>>>>> hearer in a manner analogous to the movements of the vocal apparatus of
>>>>> the
>>>>> speaker, thereby creating in the hearer an emotion analogous to the
>>>>> emotion
>>>>> present in the speaker. Just as the touch of the hands conveys the
>>>>> intent of
>>>>> the toucher, so the vocal motion of the vocalizer creates in the hearer
>>>>> an
>>>>> emotional state analogous to that of the vocalizer."
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the "reception through production" theory of speech perception
>>>>> that
>>>>> was popular in the 1980s. It does have BIG advantages over passive
>>>>> theories
>>>>> of reception that preceded it(for one thing, it's much more
>>>>> parsimonious;
>>>>> the same system can be used for receiving speech and for transmitting
>>>>> it).
>>>>>
>>>>>  There are really TWO variations of this theory:
>>>>>
>>>>> a) The "motor" theory, associated with Alvin Liberman and the Haskins
>>>>> Laboratories. This theory relies on the idea of "articulatory
>>>>> gestures". By
>>>>> recognizing the kinds of "articulatory gestures" required by particular
>>>>> sounds, the hearer, through an act of empathy with the speaker, asks
>>>>> himself/herself "What would I be saying if I were making gestures like
>>>>> that
>>>>> in this situation?"
>>>>>
>>>>> b) The "analysis by synthesis" theory, associated with Chomsky and
>>>>> Halle at
>>>>> MIT. This theory relies on pure unempbodied ACOUSTIC knowledge rather
>>>>> than
>>>>> articulatory gestures. By recognizing the acoustic patterns (see the
>>>>> theory
>>>>> of "distinctive features" laid out in Chomsky and Halle, The Sound
>>>>> Patterns
>>>>> of English), the hearer through an act of empathy with the speaker,
>>>>> asks
>>>>> himself/herself "What would I be saying if I were making gestures like
>>>>> that
>>>>> in this situation?"
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that BOTH of these variants of the theory have in common a
>>>>> recognition that in perception we get a lot more than we hear; people
>>>>> do NOT
>>>>> rely on the stream of vowels and consonants as their sole source of
>>>>> information. Perception is a supreme act of what Bruner calls "going
>>>>> beyond
>>>>> the information given".
>>>>>
>>>>> Contrary to this, all theories of perception which are based on an
>>>>> analogy
>>>>> with the ALPHABET assume that the stream of vowels and consonants
>>>>> really
>>>>> does carry the information (or, as Joseph Gilbert puts it, emotion).
>>>>>
>>>>> In Vygotsky's time, this theory was advocated by the brilliant futurist
>>>>> poet Khlebnikov, who wrote quite extensively on the "emotional valence"
>>>>> of
>>>>> particular phonemes, and constructed whole poems on this association
>>>>> (e.g.
>>>>> "Zangezi", which was composed after a long series of experiments on the
>>>>> "semantics" of individual phonemes). As you can imagine, they don't
>>>>> translate very well!
>>>>>
>>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>> Seoul National University of Education
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --- On Mon, 10/11/10, Joseph Gilbert <joeg4us@roadrunner.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Joseph Gilbert <joeg4us@roadrunner.com>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] The Genetic Belly Button and the Functional Belly
>>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> Date: Monday, October 11, 2010, 11:03 PM
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>                                                                1
>>>>>
>>>>>                     Language Creates Culture
>>>>>
>>>>>    Language functions, in human society, as the generator of culture.
>>>>> By
>>>>> the effects on
>>>>> us of the sounds we utter, we inform ourselves of the effects on us of
>>>>> the
>>>>> things which
>>>>> make up our world. Since the only sense of the meaning of any thing is
>>>>> one
>>>>> and the same
>>>>> as the effect on us of the thing, and since we relate to our world
>>>>> through
>>>>> our words, language informs us of the meanings of things. This
>>>>> informing
>>>>> takes place when we use vocal sounds as words to refer to things.
>>>>>
>>>>>    We exist in a vacuous condition vis-à-vis any objective knowing the
>>>>> ultimate meaning of anything. We do not know the ultimate affect on us
>>>>> of
>>>>> anything. If we operated by instinct, our choices would not depend on
>>>>> knowing, as our choices do. In this culls context, we are informed by
>>>>> the
>>>>> affects on us of the sounds of our words of the affects on us of the
>>>>> things
>>>>> to which our words refer.
>>>>>
>>>>>    In the vacuum of outer space, a ship can be propelled by the
>>>>> constant,
>>>>> subtle force of an ion drive. In the outer space of our cluelessness as
>>>>> to
>>>>> the meaning of anything, we are informed of that meaning by the affect
>>>>> on us
>>>>> of the sounds of our words.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Spoken language is sound made by the body and used to refer to, to
>>>>> signify, things. We must thoroughly understand the basis of language in
>>>>> order to understand anything else about language. Why do we use certain
>>>>> words to signify certain things? Why are there similarities and
>>>>> differences
>>>>> among the various languages in how sound is used to refer to things? Is
>>>>> there a correlation between and among emotional states and vocal
>>>>> sounds?
>>>>> These and other questions must be answered if we are to know how
>>>>> language
>>>>> works.
>>>>>
>>>>>    We are born into a language-using group and learn the meanings of
>>>>> the
>>>>> things that
>>>>> make up our world simply by learning our group’s language.
>>>>>
>>>>>    We have a distinct and unique reaction to each vocal sound just as
>>>>> we
>>>>> do to
>>>>> each facial expression and postural position. All forms of body
>>>>> language,
>>>>> postural, facial
>>>>> and vocal, are expressions of states of our internal goings-on, are
>>>>> born of
>>>>> those feeling/emotional states. and recreate these states by resonant
>>>>> entrainment.
>>>>>
>>>>>        The languages we humans speak currently are the results of the
>>>>> experiential contributions of our ancestors. However they, (our distant
>>>>> relatives), felt about whatever they had words for, we now feel again
>>>>> in the
>>>>> present moment, when we utter the words they originally uttered.
>>>>> Therefore
>>>>> language functions somewhat as a seed: the experience of past peoples
>>>>> was
>>>>> represented in the words they spoke and now, when we voice those words,
>>>>> we
>>>>> re-experience what they did.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Language is institutionalized perception. How we, as a society,
>>>>> perceive our world, is
>>>>>                                                    2
>>>>>
>>>>> determined by the the affects on us of our vocal sounds, (a form of
>>>>> body
>>>>> language), we use to refer to the things that make it up.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Our actions are determined by our perceptions. If we want to change
>>>>> the
>>>>> way we act we must change the way we perceive our world. And we can
>>>>> change
>>>>> how we perceive our world by changing how we refer to the things that
>>>>> constitute our world.
>>>>>
>>>>>    The feelings/emotions of actors on stage and of all of us, are
>>>>> communicated by our actions. The way someone moves tells us much about
>>>>> how
>>>>> they feel. Our face conveys extensive and subtle information about our
>>>>> emotional state. The sounds of our voices carry emotional content. And,
>>>>> although we normally are not aware of it, the articulate vocal sounds,
>>>>> (the
>>>>> sounds of our vowels and consonants), are loaded with information about
>>>>> our
>>>>> emotional goings-on. The information that comes from the articulate
>>>>> sounds
>>>>> of our words rather than from the emotional overlay we place on them
>>>>> due to
>>>>> our transitory emotional states, is the same no matter what moods we
>>>>> may be
>>>>> experiencing while we speak. That aspect of information conveyance is
>>>>> institutionalized/standardized. The tone of voice, cadence, and volume
>>>>> dynamics can be unique to each situation without altering the
>>>>> fundamental
>>>>> referential communication.
>>>>>
>>>>>    One can experience the effect on ourselves of the various vocal
>>>>> sounds
>>>>> by, while in a sensitive, receptive mode, saying those sounds out loud
>>>>> and
>>>>> sensing their effects. I have done that and have, it seems, discovered
>>>>> their
>>>>> meanings. You can do that also. Doing so oneself will give one a more
>>>>> complete sense of the effects of vocal utterances than one could
>>>>> experience
>>>>> by reading what someone else has written about the effects of the vocal
>>>>> sounds on the emotions.
>>>>>
>>>>>    This covert function of language must be brought to light  in order
>>>>> for
>>>>> us to be able to understand the importance of recreating culture. We
>>>>> must
>>>>> understand that our behavior, as a society, is fundamentally linked to
>>>>> our
>>>>> culture, which is a result of our language.
>>>>>
>>>>>    We do not objectively know the ultimate meaning of anything and
>>>>> consequently experience our sense of the meanings of things from the
>>>>> effects
>>>>> on us of our words.
>>>>>
>>>>>    These familiar phrases suggest a perception, perhaps a mystical
>>>>> perception, of the importance of the spoken word.
>>>>>
>>>>>    The final word.
>>>>>
>>>>>    What’s the word?
>>>>>
>>>>>    In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word
>>>>> was God.
>>>>>
>>>>>    The tongue is the rudder of the soul. It is not what passes into our
>>>>> lips that defiles us but
>>>>>                                                    3
>>>>>
>>>>> every untoward utterance that proceeds out of our mouths.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Words, as sounds, affect us subliminally, supplying us with a
>>>>> feeling
>>>>> for whatever we name. It is that feeling that we experience from the
>>>>> sounds
>>>>> of our words that supplies us with a subliminal consensus for our
>>>>> world-view.
>>>>>
>>>>>    We cannot realistically expect humans to act in a way contradictory
>>>>> to
>>>>> their culture’s bias. Marx’s economic/social theory was used as a
>>>>> rallying
>>>>> standard to
>>>>> enable regime change. After those individuals who had experienced the
>>>>> tyranny of the czar had left the scene, the body-politic eventually
>>>>> rejected
>>>>> collectivism, (the transplanted economic organ). Russian culture is
>>>>> fundamentally the same as it was when the roots of its present language
>>>>> were
>>>>> established and Russian society naturally reverted to its cultural
>>>>> default
>>>>> mode after the revolution. After a short time, the czar was replaced by
>>>>> the
>>>>> head commissar. Marx held that the economic relationships within
>>>>> society
>>>>> create all other human relations. It seems that culture is the cause of
>>>>> the
>>>>> nature of human relationships within any society.
>>>>>
>>>>>                                                      The Culture Made
>>>>> Us
>>>>> Do It
>>>>>                                          “The unrecognized function of
>>>>> language”
>>>>>
>>>>>    As an iceberg exists mostly under the surface of the water which
>>>>> supports it, the fundamental consequence of language tends to be hidden
>>>>> under the surface of our awareness. Most crucial human activities go on
>>>>> without awareness, for example, all of the bodily functions. Many
>>>>> conscious
>>>>> activities proceed without much deliberate awareness. Once one knows
>>>>> well
>>>>> how to drive a car, much less awareness is needed to operate the
>>>>> vehicle.
>>>>> The subconscious mind supports the same kinds of activities as does the
>>>>> conscious mind, however with less effort. Anything that can be
>>>>> automated,
>>>>> is.  Automating essential activities frees the conscious mind to focus
>>>>> on
>>>>> issues about which we feel we need to learn in order to more
>>>>> effectively
>>>>> cope, (those issues that require conscious attention until new
>>>>> behavioral
>>>>> patterns are in place). There is no need to be aware of processes that
>>>>> take
>>>>> place well enough without attention. It is only when a problem arises
>>>>> that
>>>>> we
>>>>>  humans, in an attempt to solve it, focus our awareness on it. If we
>>>>> are
>>>>> coping well enough without awareness, why be aware? We don’t fix
>>>>> something
>>>>> if it doesn’t seem broken. We don’t reinvent our wheel as long as it’s
>>>>> rolling. However, upon examination, our human condition appears to have
>>>>> been
>>>>> painfully broken for as long as we can recall, and must be repaired.
>>>>> How may
>>>>> we fix it?
>>>>>
>>>>>    Could it be that our behavior is governed by something that we
>>>>> cannot
>>>>> see, something of which we are not cognizant? Is there anything in our
>>>>> nature that would preclude such a possibility, the possibility that our
>>>>> behavior may be directed by influences not within the purview of our
>>>>> everyday consciousness? What could such a force be?
>>>>>
>>>>>    The ability to produce simple vocal sounds made it’s appearance on
>>>>> the
>>>>> scene before our
>>>>>                                                    4
>>>>>
>>>>> progenitors made words of those sounds. The ability to vocalize
>>>>> articulately is a prerequisite to the ability to verbalize. Words
>>>>> appeared
>>>>> when our ancient ancestors became cognizant of the relatedness of
>>>>> stimuli to
>>>>> their own vocal reactions to them. When they began deliberately using
>>>>> vocalizations to bring to mind things, they made the transition between
>>>>> deriving their sense of the meaning of things by direct experience of
>>>>> the
>>>>> things to deriving a sense of the meaning of things by experiencing the
>>>>> affects of the sounds of the words for the things. This supersession of
>>>>> the
>>>>> primal world by the linguistic world was the start of culture.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Being able to talk about things was very advantageous to our distant
>>>>> relatives. They could confer and plan. More important, they experienced
>>>>> a
>>>>> common sense of the meaning of the things in their world by using
>>>>> common
>>>>> symbols with which to refer to them.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Culture was advantageous to our ancestors in the ancient,
>>>>> pre-industrial environment. Now our technology provides us with the
>>>>> power to
>>>>> create and reside in an artificial environment, however one made
>>>>> according
>>>>> to the values inherent in our primitive culture. Our culture provides
>>>>> us
>>>>> with marching orders and our technology enables us to march very
>>>>> forcefully.
>>>>> Are we marching toward the edge of a precipice?
>>>>>
>>>>>    All action is preceded by a decision to act, be that decision
>>>>> consciously or subconsciously made. All decisions are based on a
>>>>> consideration of the consequences of those decisions. These effects on
>>>>> us of
>>>>> the consequences of our actions are the same as and identical with the
>>>>> meanings of those actions. How do we know the meanings of things? How
>>>>> do we
>>>>> know the affects on us of any thing? Do we know the effects on us of
>>>>> things
>>>>> directly as a consequence of our direct experience with them or by
>>>>> indirect
>>>>> experience with them by using and experiencing the words for those
>>>>> things?
>>>>>
>>>>>    Language is the factory and culture is the product. Culture is an
>>>>> abstraction and language is the physical mechanism from which it
>>>>> springs.
>>>>> Language is emotionally evocative sounds used to represent things,
>>>>> thereby
>>>>> conveying to us a sense of the affects-on-us/the-meanings-of those
>>>>> things.
>>>>> Our sense of our own role in our culture provides us with our identity
>>>>> and
>>>>> therefore with guidance for our behavior. The cultural values, derived
>>>>> from
>>>>> our ancestors’ experiences long ago, as represented in our language,
>>>>> are
>>>>> instilled in us and direct our behavior today. A body continues in its
>>>>> state
>>>>> of motion unless it is acted upon by an outside force. Human culture
>>>>> will
>>>>> remain fundamentally unchanged unless it is deliberately changed; and
>>>>> that
>>>>> will not happen unless we feel the need to do so and know how to do it.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Culture resides in the subconscious mind. Many others have spoken
>>>>> about
>>>>> the need to change the way we, as a society, think: many have tried, by
>>>>> using means such as meditation, sleep deprivation, psychoactive
>>>>> substances,
>>>>> chanting, philosophical inquiry, etc. to accomplish this change and may
>>>>> have
>>>>> been successful to a degree. However, it seems they were not able to
>>>>> lastingly infuse into society at large their newfound vision, due to
>>>>> not
>>>>> addressing the status quo at the
>>>>>                                                    5
>>>>>
>>>>> root/source, which is the culture. Understanding how language functions
>>>>> makes it possible to change our culture.
>>>>>
>>>>>                       How did language arise?
>>>>>
>>>>>    How did language arise? Originally, our progenitors’ vocalizing only
>>>>> expressed internal-goings-on/emotion and did not refer to anything
>>>>> external
>>>>> to them. It was advantageous to members of the group to be informed of
>>>>> the
>>>>> emotional conditions of other members. Much later, when consciousness
>>>>> developed enough for them to see the connectedness of the sounds
>>>>> uttered to
>>>>> the things the sounds were uttered in reaction to, they realized that
>>>>> they
>>>>> could bring to mind the thought of the things by uttering their
>>>>> associated
>>>>> sounds, (names). The beginning of talking about things was the start of
>>>>> culture,and the talking about things refocused the talkers’ conscious
>>>>> attention away from the experience of the emotional reactions to the
>>>>> sounds
>>>>> of the words, and toward thoughts related to the things to which the
>>>>> words
>>>>> referred. While they were busy directing their attention to thoughts
>>>>> related
>>>>> to the things to which the words referred, they were being emotionally
>>>>>  affected by the vocal sounds they were making to form their words. So,
>>>>> the
>>>>> effects of the sounds they were making vocally were experienced
>>>>> subliminally, while
>>>>>
>>>>> consciously, they were dealing with the thoughts of the things referred
>>>>> to
>>>>> by their words. The affects-on-us/meanings-of things cannot be proven.
>>>>> All
>>>>> they had and all we have to go on are the effects on us of the things
>>>>> and
>>>>> the effects on us of the sounds of the words that represent the things.
>>>>> While the effects of the things are changeable through time and
>>>>> somewhat
>>>>> unique to each individual, the effects on us of the sounds of the words
>>>>> are
>>>>> relatively consistent and universal. Having nothing else to go on, we
>>>>> accept
>>>>> the effects on us of the vocal sounds of words as
>>>>> revealing/representing the
>>>>> effects on us of the things referred to by the words. In this way,
>>>>> culture
>>>>> is formed and passed to succeeding generations. Our world views
>>>>> typically
>>>>> come from the sense of the meaning of things as represented by the
>>>>> sounds of
>>>>> our words rather than from the sense of meaning we may gain from the
>>>>> direct
>>>>> experience of the things themselves.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Do vocal sounds, themselves, communicate? When someone utters a
>>>>> vocal
>>>>> sound, such as a sigh, a growl, a whimper, a scream, etc., do we get a
>>>>> sense
>>>>> of how they are feeling? If so, they are communicating their condition.
>>>>> How
>>>>> does that communication take place? Do we receive information
>>>>> communicated
>>>>> in such a manner consciously, subconsciously or by both ways? What is
>>>>> the
>>>>> means by which an emotion can be conveyed by sound? Can emotion, or
>>>>> anything
>>>>> else be communicated by the articulate sounds of our vowels and
>>>>> consonants,
>>>>> or do only non-articulate vocal sounds convey meaning? If we allow that
>>>>> vocal sounds, simply as sounds, communicate,  then is it possible or
>>>>> likely
>>>>> that the vocal sounds we use to make words also communicate as well
>>>>> when
>>>>> used as words? What would be the effect of using inherently emotionally
>>>>> meaningful sounds as symbols to represent external things? Would the
>>>>> inherent meaning of the sounds affect our perception of the things
>>>>>  represented by the sounds?
>>>>>
>>>>>                                                    6
>>>>>
>>>>>    These considerations may shed light on the issue of the root causes
>>>>> of
>>>>> human behavior. Naturally, those who contemplate our condition and
>>>>> would
>>>>> improve it if they could, would be attentive to these matters.
>>>>>
>>>>>    All of life’s processes exist as movements. Emotional conditions are
>>>>> patterns of motion. Similar structures, in keeping with the mechanics
>>>>> of
>>>>> resonation, impart, on each other, their movements. Our vocal
>>>>> apparatuses
>>>>> facilitate our ability to move with each other.
>>>>>
>>>>>    The vibrations made by the body convey the condition of the
>>>>> emotional
>>>>> body to other similar/human emotional bodies, and to some degree, to
>>>>> other
>>>>> animal emotional bodies. The more similar the other body, the more the
>>>>> condition is transposed. Humans receive each others’ vocal and other
>>>>> body-language communications more readily than other species receive
>>>>> human
>>>>> communication. Similar structures transmit their resonation/vibration
>>>>> to
>>>>> each other more readily than do dissimilar structures.
>>>>>
>>>>>    My quest for understanding of human behavior began long ago. When I
>>>>> was
>>>>> around the age of six, I became increasingly aware that the folkways
>>>>> and
>>>>> formal institutions of our society were lacking in humanity and common
>>>>> sense. I asked myself why this was so. As a child, I attributed the
>>>>> problem
>>>>> to people’s personal psychology and it was not until I was in my late
>>>>> teens
>>>>> that I realized that the cause of the problem is our culture. It was
>>>>> shortly
>>>>> after that that I understood how verbal/vocal communication works. The
>>>>> cause
>>>>> of The Problem seemed and seems to be the culture which is created by
>>>>> the
>>>>> relationship between vocal sounds and what they, as words, refer to.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Some of the reasoning that preceded this realization was first, that
>>>>> we
>>>>> are not created evil, but rather simply with survival instincts.
>>>>> Second,
>>>>> that if we were able to act sanely/rationally, we would be doing what
>>>>> produces the best results for everyone. Third, it must be something we
>>>>> learned, some misinformation, that causes us to behave in ways not in
>>>>> our
>>>>> own self-interest. Fourth, when I considered the question of from where
>>>>> this
>>>>> false information came, I identified as the source, the culture. Later,
>>>>> I
>>>>> realized that we do not, for sure, know the meaning of anything, and
>>>>> that,
>>>>> as far as we know, the only thing constant and predictable about any
>>>>> thing
>>>>> is its name, (the word-sound we produce in order to bring to
>>>>> consciousness
>>>>> whatever thing to which we choose to refer). After a time, I became
>>>>> aware of
>>>>> how the different vocal sounds we produce when we speak words, each
>>>>> create
>>>>> in us a unique effect and how those effects inform us subconsciously of
>>>>>  the affect on us, (the meaning), of the thing itself to which the word
>>>>> sounds refer.
>>>>>
>>>>>    At this time, I also learned that the sequence of sounds of the
>>>>> letters
>>>>> of our alphabet represents a sequential delineation of
>>>>> emotional/experiential events. From A to Z, the succession of the
>>>>> sounds of
>>>>> the letters of our alphabet is an example of
>>>>> pattern-projection/recognition,
>>>>> the pattern, in this case, being the seminal emotional events that
>>>>> humans
>>>>> experience during their lives, in chronological order.
>>>>>
>>>>>                                                    7
>>>>>
>>>>>    Emotions happen to us: They seem to come from the “great mystery”,
>>>>> God,
>>>>> or whatever image we may use to portray a place from which strong and
>>>>> compelling feelings emanate.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Given, all the vocal sounds that people can make, how would one
>>>>> arrange
>>>>> the sounds sequentially and from what archetype, (model), would the
>>>>> pattern
>>>>> of that sequence come? Even if the originators of the present alphabet
>>>>> deliberately imposed a pattern on their arrangement of the
>>>>> letter-sounds,
>>>>> whatever world view that existed in their minds caused them to feel
>>>>> most
>>>>> comfortable with the sequence of sounds they chose. The sequence they
>>>>> chose
>>>>> must have been agreeable with the story that was represented in their
>>>>> minds
>>>>> by those sounds in that sequence. If one admits that vocal sounds
>>>>> affect us,
>>>>> then how could a story, a sequence of affects,  not be told by the
>>>>> sequence
>>>>> in which the sounds exist? Whether or not the originators of any
>>>>> particular
>>>>> alphabet had a conscious reason for arranging the sounds of that
>>>>> alphabet in
>>>>> the sequence in which they appear, subconscious reasons were
>>>>> influencing
>>>>> their arrangement none the less. Does this story, told by our
>>>>>  alphabet make sense? Does it seem to be an accurate representation of
>>>>> the
>>>>> main events in a human’s life?
>>>>>
>>>>>    We tend to cling to our culture as if our lives depended on it, as a
>>>>> drowning person might cling to a life preserver. Culture offers an
>>>>> answer,
>>>>> -in this case subconsciously apprehended-, to the question,  “What are
>>>>> the
>>>>> meanings of things?” Without culture, there tends to be no consensus
>>>>> about
>>>>> what things mean. Language informs us of the meanings of named things
>>>>> by the
>>>>> affects on us of the sounds of our words. Those who use the same
>>>>> language
>>>>> experience the same sense of the meanings of the things that make up
>>>>> their
>>>>> worlds. That sense emanates from the deep levels of their subconscious
>>>>> and
>>>>> their final assessment of the meanings of things results from their
>>>>> processing that deep, culturally caused base sense of meaning through
>>>>> the
>>>>> lens of their perception of their own relationship to the society in
>>>>> which
>>>>> they live.
>>>>>
>>>>>    For the sake of clarity, let us consider, hypothetically,  what the
>>>>> result/s would be of using meaningful sounds to refer to things. Would
>>>>> the
>>>>> meanings of the sounds spill over into the perceived meanings of the
>>>>> things
>>>>> or would the meanings of the things influence the perceived meanings of
>>>>> the
>>>>> sounds? Or would neither influence the other or would they influence
>>>>>  each
>>>>> other? Which has a stronger meaning-pressure, the sounds we make with
>>>>> our
>>>>> voice or the things which, with the sounds, we name?
>>>>>
>>>>>    The vocal sounds express/communicate states of the emotions first
>>>>> and
>>>>> foremost, and as an afterthought, so to speak, they are used to refer
>>>>> to
>>>>> things. They communicate emotion by moving the auditory apparatus of
>>>>> the
>>>>> hearer in a manner analogous to the movements of the vocal apparatus of
>>>>> the
>>>>> speaker, thereby creating in the hearer an emotion analogous to the
>>>>> emotion
>>>>> present in the speaker. Just as the touch of the hands conveys the
>>>>> intent of
>>>>> the toucher, so the vocal motion of the vocalizer creates in the hearer
>>>>> an
>>>>> emotional state analogous to that of the vocalizer.
>>>>>    Just as our becoming-human progenitors were gaining consciousness,
>>>>> (the
>>>>> ability to
>>>>>                                                    8
>>>>>
>>>>> contemplate the consequences of their actions), they were, for the
>>>>> first
>>>>> time, using vocal expressions as words to refer to specific things, not
>>>>> only
>>>>> to express immediate emotional goings-on. Since they vocalized
>>>>> primarily
>>>>> under duress, their words were expressions born of fear rather than of
>>>>> conscious understanding. The mind concentrates on problems, on issues
>>>>> that
>>>>> could potentially be destructive to the perceiver. When this fear-based
>>>>> thinking bias becomes institutionalized in language, the language
>>>>> itself is
>>>>> a source of anxiety. The more we verbalize about any given problem, the
>>>>> more
>>>>> stressed-out we become. This reminds me of an Eskimo method of killing
>>>>> a
>>>>> wolf. They would smear congealed blood on a very sharp knife and set it
>>>>> out,
>>>>> with the blade pointing upward, where wolves frequented. When a wolf
>>>>> licked
>>>>> the blood, it would bleed and lick its own blood not knowing it was
>>>>> bleeding
>>>>> to death. We are wolfish for knowledge and we pursue it by using our
>>>>>  main thinking tool, our language.
>>>>>
>>>>>                       The Unrecognized Role of Language
>>>>>
>>>>>    Culture is the hidden law-of-the-land. We are creatures of culture,
>>>>> and
>>>>> its subjects. Our culture originally  enhanced our survivability and,
>>>>> in a
>>>>> technologically advanced world, may become the instrument of our
>>>>> destruction. Our culturally motivated ways of relating to one another
>>>>> may
>>>>> have once been viable, although perhaps immoral, and now, with our
>>>>> powerful
>>>>> ability to cause environmental change, are untenable.
>>>>>
>>>>>     ”The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of
>>>>> thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind.
>>>>> If
>>>>> only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker.” --- Albert
>>>>> Einstein
>>>>>
>>>>>    I wish to change what is in that “heart”.
>>>>>
>>>>>    The referential function of human language is merely the “tip of the
>>>>> iceberg” of the role of language. Its larger and more profound function
>>>>> is
>>>>> unacknowledged: It is spoken language’s informing us of the meanings of
>>>>> all
>>>>> to which we verbally refer. We are moved in a primal way by the sounds
>>>>> we
>>>>> produce with our voice and, in the absence of any “objective”, absolute
>>>>> information regarding (the affects on us)/(the meanings of) the things
>>>>> of
>>>>> our world, we accept the affects on us of the vocal sounds of our words
>>>>> as
>>>>> representing the affects on us of the things to which our words refer.
>>>>> In
>>>>> this way, we are informed subliminally, simply by learning our
>>>>> language, of
>>>>> the meaning of our world. How else could we, as very young children,
>>>>> have
>>>>> achieved a sense of how we were affected by the numerous things that
>>>>> made up
>>>>> our world?
>>>>>
>>>>>    This matter is of paramount importance because we act in accordance
>>>>> with how we perceive our world, (with what our world means to us), and
>>>>> our
>>>>> sense of that meaning is derived from  the affects upon us of our
>>>>> words.
>>>>> Much of human behavior that is commonly attributed to “human nature” is
>>>>> actually motivated by cultural nature, which is created by language.
>>>>>                                                    9
>>>>>
>>>>>    How and what would our society be if we had a culture which
>>>>> instilled
>>>>> in us the values that we would consciously choose to hold? Presently,
>>>>> we
>>>>> simply assimilate the culture in which we are born. Once we understand
>>>>> the
>>>>> mechanism of cultural transmission, we will be able to change our group
>>>>> program.
>>>>>
>>>>>    However, it seems that many of us may be too timid to venture forth
>>>>> from the false security of our unquestioned and familiar values. Some
>>>>> have
>>>>> expressed to me that language is a product of nature and that to change
>>>>> it
>>>>> deliberately would produce an unnatural result, a Frankenstein culture,
>>>>> the
>>>>> consequences of which would probably be destructive. To those I suggest
>>>>> that
>>>>> we are inherently unable to venture out of the natural realm, as we are
>>>>> inextricably woven into the web of nature. Furthermore it is entirely
>>>>> correct and wholesome for us, with the goal of improving our
>>>>> survivability,
>>>>> to choose to correct our culture at its source. Once we see how we may
>>>>> help
>>>>> ourselves, we would be within our progressive evolutionary tradition to
>>>>> use
>>>>> all our knowledge to do so.
>>>>> .
>>>>>    Vocal sounds either communicate as vocal sounds or they do not. If
>>>>> we
>>>>> assume that vocal sounds do not communicate, then language only blindly
>>>>> and
>>>>> unintelligently refers to things. If we assume that vocal sounds do
>>>>> communicate something, as vocal sounds, then language does more than
>>>>> merely
>>>>> refer to things: it also informs us about the things named. Which is
>>>>> true?
>>>>> Do any of us believe that our vocal sounds do not express/communicate
>>>>> anything? If we believe that vocal sounds communicate/express
>>>>> something,
>>>>> then what is it that they communicate/express? If vocal sounds do
>>>>> communicate as sounds, do they loose that communicative function when
>>>>> incorporated into words or do they continue to be expressive when used
>>>>> in
>>>>> words?
>>>>>
>>>>>    If vocal sounds that constitute words communicate something as
>>>>> sounds,
>>>>> then what effect does the sound of a word exert on our perception of
>>>>> the
>>>>> thing to which that word refers?
>>>>>
>>>>>    Many seem to have difficulty accepting the idea that the primary
>>>>> meanings of vocal sounds, including the sounds of words, are the
>>>>> effects
>>>>> they cause within each of us and not the things to which they refer
>>>>> when
>>>>> uttered as words. Another point that aided me in understanding the
>>>>> function
>>>>> of language is that we really do not know the meaning of anything but
>>>>> rather
>>>>> behave as though our taken-for-granted assumptions are valid only
>>>>> because
>>>>> they have not been held to the light of inquiry. It is only that which
>>>>> resides in our subconscious and of which we are not conscious and
>>>>> consequently do not question, that we act as if we “know” for sure.
>>>>> Remember
>>>>> the caterpillar in Alice in Wonderland? When asked how he managed to
>>>>> coordinate the movements of all those legs, he became aware of the
>>>>> previously unconscious process of walking and then could not walk. The
>>>>> only
>>>>> sense of the meanings of things that we dependably share with the
>>>>> others of
>>>>> our society is
>>>>>  instilled in each of us by the relationship between the sounds of our
>>>>> words and the things to which those words refer. Words are the link
>>>>> between
>>>>> our autonomic, cultural sense of meaning and the things that make up
>>>>> our
>>>>> world. We give things a familiarity by attaching to them sounds created
>>>>> by
>>>>> our body. Our words are related to things because the vocal sounds of
>>>>> our
>>>>> words are related to our reactions to those things. We may not
>>>>> ordinarily
>>>>> experience an emotional reaction to the things that
>>>>>                                                    10
>>>>>
>>>>> make up our world. It is during our seminal moments that we experience
>>>>> emotional reactions to things.
>>>>>
>>>>>    What meaning, if any, do things have if we are not affected by those
>>>>> things? All meaning is relative. If we were totally unaffected by
>>>>> something,
>>>>> would it be meaningful? How would whatever meaning it may have be
>>>>> perceived?
>>>>> Clearly, what we want to know about something, (anything), is how it
>>>>> affects
>>>>> us, (what it is?).
>>>>>
>>>>>     After many attempts to share these findings with those in academia,
>>>>> their lack of understanding, even more their lack of interest in
>>>>> understanding the ideas I was putting forth , dampened my impulse to
>>>>> reach
>>>>> out to those whom I previously had thought were most likely to
>>>>> understand
>>>>> these findings.
>>>>>
>>>>>    I figured that what I was saying was challenging on a deep level to
>>>>> most, who would otherwise gain a glimpse of it. My discovery, seems to
>>>>> threaten the sense of security of those who consciously or otherwise
>>>>> treat
>>>>> their culture as an idol. Some of us, especially those of highly
>>>>> exercised
>>>>> intellectual abilities, feel that security is to be had by being able
>>>>> to
>>>>> “explain” the meaning of things. By uttering words, (sounds), about
>>>>> things,
>>>>> what meaning is revealed? Doing so may create the illusion of
>>>>> understanding
>>>>> by seeming to make the named things familiar. But does it, only inform
>>>>> us
>>>>> with the effect/meaning of the sounds of words, or with the meaning of
>>>>> the
>>>>> things as well? What are the meanings of the things?
>>>>>
>>>>>    It appears that culture is the root of all normal human behavior. We
>>>>> all behave according to our values and assumptions and those derive
>>>>> from our
>>>>> culture. Do our academicians know what culture is, how it relates to
>>>>> the
>>>>> people who are instilled with it and how it may be changed?
>>>>>
>>>>>    We are informed subliminally of the meaning of our world by the
>>>>> language that we speak.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Why is it so difficult for people to understand how language
>>>>> generates
>>>>> culture? What is/are the missing piece/s of information that they need
>>>>> in
>>>>> order to grasp that concept?
>>>>>
>>>>>    A better way is possible. We need only the vision of this better
>>>>> world,
>>>>> as an everyday experience, in order for us to act in accord with it.
>>>>> The
>>>>> consciousness of how to act in order to create the world we wish must
>>>>> be the
>>>>> status quo, not the rarity that it now is. This changing of the status
>>>>> quo
>>>>> can be accomplished by changing the culture and changing culture is
>>>>> accomplished by changing language.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Are we conscious that we are affected by the sounds we make with our
>>>>> voice? We are commonly aware that the quality of singers voices affects
>>>>> us.
>>>>> We know that great orators and actors affect us with their delivery and
>>>>> vocal character. Everyone’s voice affects us. We are aware of the
>>>>> affect of
>>>>> tone of voice but not of the affect of articulated phonemes per se.
>>>>>                                                    11
>>>>>
>>>>>    We have no way of knowing the final meaning of anything. We might
>>>>> think
>>>>> we know what a thing will do to us in the immediate future but what
>>>>> about
>>>>> how it will affect us much later? When we become aware of something, we
>>>>> question its meaning and once something is questioned, we never gain a
>>>>> sense
>>>>> of its absolute meaning Only that which remains in the subconscious we
>>>>> do
>>>>> not question. The feelings that well up from our subconscious, in
>>>>> reaction
>>>>> to various things, seems to be true absolutely. Our feelings strongly
>>>>> affect
>>>>> our train of thought.
>>>>>
>>>>>    The certainty of the uninformed is typically replaced by the
>>>>> wonderment
>>>>> of the “enlightened”.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Our culture/language supplies us with a sense of knowing the meaning
>>>>> of
>>>>> all things for which we have a name. This sense of the meaning of
>>>>> things
>>>>> helps us to feel secure in the face of an uncertain, threatening world.
>>>>> We
>>>>> gain that sense of knowing the meaning of things simply be having words
>>>>> for
>>>>> things. Our subconscious accepts the affects of the sound of the words
>>>>> as
>>>>> being the affects of the things to which the words refer.  The words
>>>>> stand
>>>>> for the things we name with them and replace, subliminally, our
>>>>> perception
>>>>> of the things referred to with our perception  of the words themselves.
>>>>> The
>>>>> words are all we have to go on for the sensing of the meaning/effect of
>>>>> the
>>>>> things.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Having words inform us of the meanings/effects of things seems to
>>>>> have
>>>>> some advantages compared to being informed of the meanings/effects of
>>>>> things
>>>>> by direct perception of the things themselves.  All those who use a
>>>>> particular language have the same basic subliminal sense of the
>>>>> meanings of
>>>>> named things and consequently, are able to participate in the group
>>>>> dynamic
>>>>> of their society. The words for things stay constant through time while
>>>>> how
>>>>> we are affected directly by things changes. We can share experience,
>>>>> knowledge and wisdom with words. Without words, our own personal
>>>>> experience
>>>>> would be all we would have and we would not be able to share it. Words
>>>>> enable abstract thought and planning.
>>>>>
>>>>>    We think, influenced by the feelings of the sounds of words for
>>>>> things
>>>>> and feel as though we were thinking with the perception of the things
>>>>> themselves.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Are we conscious that we are affected by the sounds we make with our
>>>>> voice? We are commonly aware that the quality of singers voices affects
>>>>> us.
>>>>> We know that great orators and actors affect us with their delivery and
>>>>> vocal character. Everyone’s voice affects us. We are aware of the
>>>>> affect of
>>>>> tone of voice but not of the affect of articulated phonemes per se.
>>>>>
>>>>>    When we utter vocal sounds that are simply sounds and not words, we
>>>>> may, more easily,  experience consciously, the effects of the sounds,
>>>>> than
>>>>> when we speak words. When we speak words, we typically experience
>>>>> consciously the referential function of the words and not the affects
>>>>> on us
>>>>> of the sounds of the words, while we experience the effects of the
>>>>> vocal
>>>>> sounds of words subliminally. Because we experience the one thing, (the
>>>>> referential meanings of the words), consciously, and the other thing,
>>>>> (the
>>>>> affects on us of the sounds), subconsciously, we
>>>>>                                                    12
>>>>>
>>>>> subconsciously interpret the subliminal effects of the vocal sounds as
>>>>> being the effects of the things to which the words refer. The
>>>>> subconscious
>>>>> mind supplies us with the bottom line of the meaning of whatever it is
>>>>> we
>>>>> are considering because we cannot reason with the subconscious mind and
>>>>> we
>>>>> can with the conscious mind. Whatever we are conscious of, we can
>>>>> question
>>>>> and whatever we question becomes uncertain. However we have a
>>>>> language-based
>>>>> subconscious reaction to that which the (meaning-of)/(effect-on-us) is
>>>>> consciously unknown as long as we have a word for it, and that
>>>>> subconscious
>>>>> reaction creates an experience of and hence a sense of knowing the
>>>>> meaning
>>>>> of that which, prior to being named, did not seem to be known. The
>>>>> word,
>>>>> made of sounds of our body, stands in for the unknown thing, the thing
>>>>> separate from our body. In the absence of any objective sense of the
>>>>> meanings of things, we rely on our words to provide us with a sense of
>>>>> knowing,
>>>>>  because knowing relieves us of the stress of anxiety. We are driven
>>>>> into
>>>>> the perceived safety of our familiar culture, as represented in our
>>>>> language, by the stress of the fear generated by not knowing. One must
>>>>> be
>>>>> willing to accept the mystery of existence in order to experience, free
>>>>> from
>>>>> the bias of existing culture.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Considering words to be things in and of themselves, (sounds), and
>>>>> not
>>>>> only a means to refer to things, will enable us to examine them for
>>>>> their
>>>>> inherent meaning. The primary meaning of a word is not the thing which
>>>>> it
>>>>> represents. It is, rather, the affects on us of it’s sounds. We
>>>>> consciously
>>>>> consider the meaning of the word to be the thing to which the word
>>>>> refers
>>>>> and we subconsciously experience the meaning of the word as the effects
>>>>> on
>>>>> us of its sounds. Because we experience, profoundly and consistently,
>>>>> the
>>>>> effects on us of our human vocal sounds while we experience less
>>>>> intimately
>>>>> and less consistently the effects on us of the things to which we refer
>>>>> with
>>>>> words, the emotional effects of the words as sounds overrides the
>>>>> emotional
>>>>> effects of the things named, and informs us of the nature of named
>>>>> things.
>>>>>
>>>>>    In a similar way that explorers laid claim to land in the name of
>>>>> the
>>>>> monarch, we tend to lay claim to that which we name in order to render
>>>>> it
>>>>> seemingly familiar and known.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Everything that we perceive subconsciously creates an emotional
>>>>> reaction that may be experienced consciously and everything that we
>>>>> perceive
>>>>> consciously affects us subconsciously as well. We consciously perceive
>>>>> the
>>>>> sounds of spoken language and we are also affected subconsciously by
>>>>> those
>>>>> same sounds. In the course of verbal communication, we think of the
>>>>> things
>>>>> to which our words refer while subconsciously we are emotionally
>>>>> affected by
>>>>> the sounds of our words. This simultaneous occurrence of the thought of
>>>>> a
>>>>> thing and the subconscious experience of the emotion generated by the
>>>>> sound
>>>>> of the word we use to refer to that thing, subliminally informs us of
>>>>> the
>>>>> affect-on-us ,(the-meaning-of), the thing. In this way, we acquire a
>>>>> sense
>>>>> of the affects-on-us, (the-meanings-of), everything for which we have a
>>>>> word. This is important because our actions in relation to the things
>>>>> that
>>>>> make up our world are motivated by our perceptions of the meanings of
>>>>>  those things. Therefore, if we would change, for the better, our
>>>>> societies’ behavior, we ought to change our languages.
>>>>>    Since spoken language is crucial in determining the course of human
>>>>> events, it would be
>>>>>                                                    13
>>>>>
>>>>> better if we consciously agreed with the subliminal sense of the
>>>>> meanings
>>>>> of things which is instilled in us by our language.
>>>>>
>>>>>    We humans are not doing so well with our relationships with one
>>>>> another
>>>>> that we should be complacent regarding the improvement of our culture.
>>>>>
>>>>>    People have been attempting to address social and economic
>>>>> challenges
>>>>> ever since there were people. All the religions were attempts to
>>>>> provide a
>>>>> basis for our behavior. Marxism was/is an attempt to remedy social and
>>>>> economic inequality and exploitation. “Hippie” communes were typically
>>>>> instituted to provide healthy social environments. Organized politics
>>>>> and
>>>>> codified legal systems were/are created, supposedly, to improve our
>>>>> condition. Why is it unclear whether any of these deliberate social
>>>>> structures actually made/make our situation better or worse? Could it
>>>>> be
>>>>> that the cause of our malaise is something that is not being recognized
>>>>> by
>>>>> those who strive to improve our lot? For how many years, for how many
>>>>> centuries and millennium will we try to fix our broken world by
>>>>> creating
>>>>> laws, religions, political and economic institutions before we decide
>>>>> that
>>>>> doing so does not deal with the source of the problem? Marx’s mistake
>>>>> was
>>>>> believing that
>>>>>  economics is the foundation upon which all of society’s other
>>>>> institutions
>>>>> are based. It seemed reasonable to him that since life is based upon
>>>>> the
>>>>> biological economics of survival, that economics must be the
>>>>> determining
>>>>> force in society. He did not see that our culture provides us with a
>>>>> sense
>>>>> of the meaning of all recognized things thereby assuaging the
>>>>> fear/terror
>>>>> that naturally arises as a result of our consciousness of our physical
>>>>> vulnerability and that we tend to protect and defend that culture
>>>>> because of
>>>>> the perceived security which it provides. Once culture is established,
>>>>> it
>>>>> causes the economic and social relationships to be what they are, and
>>>>> they
>>>>> cannot be lastingly changed without changing the culture.
>>>>>
>>>>>    The culture, created by language forms our values which then
>>>>> strongly
>>>>> influence the decisions we make consciously and  subconsciously.
>>>>>
>>>>>                                                             What is
>>>>> culture?
>>>>>
>>>>>    I define culture as the common fundamental values held by the
>>>>> members
>>>>> of a society. These values derive from our perception of the meanings
>>>>> of,
>>>>> (the affects on us of), the things that make up our world. “Things” are
>>>>> whatever we identify as being distinguishable from other things, which
>>>>> include feelings, thoughts, values, people and ideals. The meanings of
>>>>> things are one with and the same as the affects on us of those things.
>>>>> How
>>>>> do we acquire our sense of, (the affects on us of)/(the meanings of),
>>>>> things? Is it from our own individual experiences with things? Is it
>>>>> from
>>>>> what we say to ourselves and to each other about things? If it were
>>>>> based on
>>>>> individual experience, how would we achieve consensus and if we could,
>>>>> why
>>>>> would all cultures not be pretty much the same?
>>>>>
>>>>>    Most would hold that even within a given society our individual
>>>>> values
>>>>> are not the same and
>>>>>                                                    14
>>>>>
>>>>> surely the popular view of what our values are, indicated by a cursory
>>>>> survey of our behavior, seems to support that conclusion. When
>>>>> attempting to
>>>>> assess the values that underlie behavior we should consider the
>>>>> influence of
>>>>> the role that each individual sees themselves as playing within their
>>>>> culture. Given the same subliminal, fundamental values, individuals
>>>>> within
>>>>> any society tend to behave not only relative to those basic values but
>>>>> also
>>>>> relative to how they perceive themselves, (who they perceive themselves
>>>>> to
>>>>> be), within their society.
>>>>>
>>>>>    It seems that the cause of the problem of why we do so many
>>>>> seemingly
>>>>> destructive and self-defeating things must be so basic, so fundamental
>>>>> as to
>>>>> escape our awareness. It must be housed in the subconscious mind since
>>>>> all
>>>>> our attempts to address it have been futile. It is that which we don’t
>>>>> consciously know that we subconsciously know that sometimes makes us
>>>>> wonder
>>>>> why we do what we do. Our emotional reactions are influenced by that
>>>>> which
>>>>> resides in the subconscious just as they are by that of which we are
>>>>> conscious, and often, we create rationales to explain our behavior,
>>>>> while
>>>>> the actual reasons for the feelings that motivate us may be other than
>>>>> what
>>>>> we choose to think.
>>>>>
>>>>>    What does every cultural group share within itself that affects its
>>>>> members profoundly and without their conscious knowledge? Where are the
>>>>> hidden rules, by which we live, to be found? Our culture is an
>>>>> artifact,
>>>>> inherited from distant ancestors, formed in an environment vastly
>>>>> different
>>>>> than today. Ways of interacting with one another that may have seemed
>>>>> to
>>>>> work then now appear to be dysfunctional. The primary example is war,
>>>>> which
>>>>> before weapons of mutual destruction, was rationalizable by the
>>>>> victors. But
>>>>> now, with nuclear weapons, would there be any victors? We still think
>>>>> as we
>>>>> did then but we cannot afford to act today as we may have believed we
>>>>> could
>>>>> then. Our technology has evolved tremendously but our culture has not.
>>>>> We
>>>>> are ill-equipped to cope with the situation our technology has enabled
>>>>> us to
>>>>> create. Furthermore, even if war seemed winnable, wouldn’t we prefer
>>>>> peace?
>>>>>
>>>>>    If we admit that vocal sounds inherently affect us, as do facial
>>>>> expressions and general body posture, then we may ask how our sense of
>>>>> the
>>>>> meaning of the things which make up our world is affected by using
>>>>> inherently meaningful symbols to refer to them. What is the relative
>>>>> strength of the emotional effects upon us of our symbols compared to
>>>>> the
>>>>> emotional effects of the things to which they refer? Considering that
>>>>> the
>>>>> emotional effects of the things themselves vary with context and is
>>>>> peculiar
>>>>> of each of us, and that the emotional effects of the vocal symbols is
>>>>> relatively consistent and universal, can we assume that the meanings of
>>>>> the
>>>>> symbols create the perceived meanings of the things? Is this
>>>>> relationship
>>>>> the same or different within the conscious and subconscious minds? Does
>>>>> our
>>>>> conscious or subconscious mind more strongly influence our behavior?
>>>>> Are our
>>>>> behaviors affected by our subconscious minds even when we are trying to
>>>>> do
>>>>> what we
>>>>>  consciously think we should do?
>>>>>
>>>>>    We either are or are not affected by our vocal utterances. I see
>>>>> that
>>>>> we are. If we were not affected by our vocal utterances, we would not
>>>>> vocalize. The whole purpose of vocalizing is
>>>>>                                                    15
>>>>>
>>>>> communication! And in order to communicate, we must be affected by that
>>>>> which we use to communicate.
>>>>>
>>>>>    What, we may ask, is communicated by vocalizing? What is
>>>>> communicated
>>>>> when other animals vocalize? It is clear that animals communicate their
>>>>> instantaneous emotional states by their vocalizations. How is this
>>>>> communication accomplished? The vibrating of the body of the vocalizer,
>>>>> (sender),  causes the body of the receiver to vibrate in sympathy. The
>>>>> receiver experiences the motions and consequently the emotions of the
>>>>> sender. This simple process is the foundation of our vocal activity,
>>>>> our
>>>>> verbal activity, (our language), and our culture. Many of us seem to
>>>>> balk at
>>>>> accepting the idea that our lofty retorical proclamations are founded
>>>>> upon
>>>>> such primal processes. If you are one of these, consider that our
>>>>> genetic
>>>>> blueprint is shared, in the majority, by all other vertebrates and
>>>>> largely
>>>>> by all other animals. To those who disparage animals, please be
>>>>> reminded
>>>>> that the Grand Creator authored ALL of everything, not only us and
>>>>> those of
>>>>> whom we
>>>>>  approve.
>>>>>
>>>>>    What are the ingredients that make up the mix of influences that
>>>>> determine human behavior? Given that we are intelligent enough to
>>>>> appreciate
>>>>> and cherish the truths that are our guiding principles, and given that
>>>>> we
>>>>> are not born self destructive, then for what reason/s did we act as we
>>>>> have?
>>>>> From where does the false information come that motivates much of our
>>>>> behavior? “Human nature” does not account for our inhuman actions. The
>>>>> cause
>>>>> of our destructiveness must exist among the things which we learn.
>>>>>
>>>>>     From what ultimate source do we acquire our information regarding
>>>>> the
>>>>> meaning of our world? Our culture is that source.
>>>>>
>>>>>    What have we got to go on in order to achieve a sense of the meaning
>>>>> of
>>>>> our world other than the words we speak?
>>>>>
>>>>>    Do we have a benchmark for establishing the meaning of things?  If
>>>>> everything is relative, what is it relative to? We need not look
>>>>> further
>>>>> than ourselves to find that. How could it be otherwise? We look out
>>>>> from our
>>>>> eyes and hear with our ears and think that we can objectively determine
>>>>> the
>>>>> nature of each and every thing that we examine. However, with our
>>>>> survival
>>>>> in the balance, as it inescapably is, how whatever it is that we
>>>>> examine
>>>>> relates to our survival determines what it must mean to us. How we are
>>>>> affected by the things that constitute our world establishes their
>>>>> meaning.
>>>>> The vocal sounds we make express and convey the different emotional
>>>>> effects
>>>>> we experience. Our words are made up of these body-sounds. Therefore,
>>>>> our
>>>>> words convey emotional meaning and inform us of the affects on us of
>>>>> things
>>>>> for which we have names.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Language exists in both the conscious and the subconscious. We are
>>>>> conscious of the words we speak and of the things to which they refer,
>>>>> while
>>>>> they inform us subconsciously of the effects on us, (the meanings of),
>>>>> those
>>>>> things to which they refer.
>>>>>    Does it matter what things mean? Does it matter what we think they
>>>>> mean? Do our actions
>>>>>                                                    16
>>>>>
>>>>> relative to them depend on what they mean to us?  Do we act in relation
>>>>> to
>>>>> things according to what they mean to us? How do we know the ultimate
>>>>> effect
>>>>> on us of any thing? Is the effect on us of any thing its meaning? How
>>>>> can
>>>>> any thing mean to us anything other than what its effect on us is? How
>>>>> do we
>>>>> obtain a sense of the meanings of things? Do we get that sense of the
>>>>> affects-on-us/ the-meanings-of things directly from our own experience
>>>>> with
>>>>> things or as mediated by language?
>>>>>
>>>>>    Of all forms of body language, (vocalization, facial expression and
>>>>> overall body posture), only one of them,vocalization, is commonly used
>>>>> to
>>>>> represent things other than conditions of the emotional body. Our
>>>>> general
>>>>> posture is very communicative of our physical-emotional state without
>>>>> our
>>>>> deliberate intent and is sometimes used deliberately to convey the
>>>>> same.
>>>>> Facial expression can be more finely communicative of our state of
>>>>> being/feeling than is general body posture. Vocalization, while being
>>>>> profoundly expressive/communicative, is, by civilized people,
>>>>> ordinarily
>>>>> exclusively reserved for uttering words. While we are not aware of the
>>>>> affect upon ourselves of the phones we utter, we are aware of the
>>>>> effect
>>>>> upon ourselves of the emotional embellishments we add to them. Often,
>>>>> we
>>>>> consciously add emotional content to our words in order to embellish
>>>>> their
>>>>> referential meaning. Since we are busy, often consciously, processing
>>>>> the
>>>>> referential meaning of
>>>>>  our words, we are unaware of the emotional impact of the sounds that
>>>>> make
>>>>> them up. Each distinct articulate vocal sound affects us in its own
>>>>> unique
>>>>> way. Understanding this is crucial to understanding the workings of the
>>>>> culture-creating function of language.
>>>>>
>>>>>    We not only refer to things with our words. More profoundly, we
>>>>> inform
>>>>> ourselves of the very meaning of those things simply by using a word,
>>>>> (a
>>>>> vocal sound), to refer to them.  This information as to the affects
>>>>> upon us,
>>>>> (the meanings of), the things which make up our world, constitutes our
>>>>> culture. Culture is information, (in-formation). Since we are not aware
>>>>> of
>>>>> the nature of this information, it exists in our subconscious minds. We
>>>>> act
>>>>> according to a subconscious program put in place by our language. If we
>>>>> understand how we receive information regarding the meaning or our
>>>>> world, we
>>>>> can change that information so that it agrees with what we believe to
>>>>> be the
>>>>> nature of our world. Our culture was passed down, from long ago; from
>>>>> before
>>>>> electronics, before motorized transport and the printing press. If we
>>>>> were
>>>>> to deliberately create our language today, would we create the one we
>>>>> currently use? If so or if not, why? Would we know how to create a
>>>>>  language that conveys the meanings of things that are their actual
>>>>> meanings? If we would know, how would we know? If not, why not?
>>>>>
>>>>>    That which affects us profoundly and constantly must be in close
>>>>> proximity. Things right in front of us are often overlooked when we
>>>>> search
>>>>> for that which affects us powerfully. We tend to assume that if the
>>>>> causes
>>>>> of major difficulties were so close to us, it would be obvious and we
>>>>> would
>>>>> have discovered them by now. Let us reexamine our major influences  to
>>>>> look
>>>>> for what causes us to behave as we do.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Our species, is plenty smart enough to understand why our saints and
>>>>> prophets are correct when they exhort us to be “good”.  We create
>>>>> secular
>>>>> laws that mirror our religious tenants and are
>>>>>                                                    17
>>>>>
>>>>> sensitive to any critique of our behavior. Our feelings of guilt seem
>>>>> to be
>>>>> well developed. Why then do we act as we do; making war against one
>>>>> another
>>>>> and engaging in all kinds of destructive activity?
>>>>>
>>>>>    I have heard many claim that it is simply “human nature” to act in
>>>>> destructive ways. Those who believe that, feel that there is nothing to
>>>>> be
>>>>> done to correct our human malaise other than punishment. Evil ones must
>>>>> be
>>>>> trimmed back, like a noxious and thorny vine. I do not subscribe to
>>>>> that
>>>>> depressing idea and know that the truth of the matter is that we humans
>>>>> are
>>>>> inherently survival oriented and will learn whatever seems as though it
>>>>> will
>>>>> further our survival. It is because of our native intelligence coupled
>>>>> with
>>>>> our survival desire that we voluntarily stretch our consciousness in
>>>>> order
>>>>> to glimpse a better way for ourselves to carry on.
>>>>>
>>>>>    What are the forces that influence our behavior? What we believe to
>>>>> be
>>>>> good and correct does not, it seems, by itself, determine our actions.
>>>>> Do we
>>>>> not fully believe that what seems to be right to us is truly right? Or
>>>>> is
>>>>> there some other influence that informs us of what the world and all
>>>>> the
>>>>> things and concepts and people in it mean to us, something else that
>>>>> influences our perception of how we must behave in order to survive?
>>>>>
>>>>>    Our behavior is related to how we are affected by the things that
>>>>> make
>>>>> up our world. We behave in relation to the various things that fill our
>>>>> awareness, according to how they affect our survivability, (how we
>>>>> PERCEIVE
>>>>> that they affect our survivability). We perceive the world directly
>>>>> through
>>>>> personal contact with it and indirectly through contact with that which
>>>>> represents the world to us, (our language). Language represents the
>>>>> world by
>>>>> labeling everything about which we speak, with sounds made by our
>>>>> bodies.
>>>>> Those vocal sounds are part and parcel of states of our emotions. Our
>>>>> preverbal progenitors and our children when young, make vocal sounds in
>>>>> reaction to various environmental stimuli. Those emotive sounds are
>>>>> intuitively made sense of by all who hear them. We sense the
>>>>> vocalizations
>>>>> and they make sense to us. The vocal sounds are made by a body in an
>>>>> emotional state and cause that state to be reproduced in the emotional
>>>>> body
>>>>> of the hearer
>>>>>  of those sounds. The sending body vibrates and the receiving body
>>>>> vibrates
>>>>> similarly. An emotionally linked vibrational pattern is spread from the
>>>>> originator of the vocal sound-vibration to whoever’s auditory apparatus
>>>>> is
>>>>> moved by it. The transmittance of the vibrational pattern is the
>>>>> transmission of the emotion. We are emotionally affected by the
>>>>> emotions of
>>>>> others.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Language is an institution, a standardized way we move our bodies,
>>>>> specifically our vocal apparatuses, our ears, central nervous system
>>>>> and
>>>>> emotions, in relation to the various things that make up our world. In
>>>>> relation to a book, we who speak English, utter the sound, “book”. In
>>>>> relation to a book, a Spanish-speaking person utters the sound, “
>>>>> libro”.
>>>>> These two different sounds move us in different ways, giving us a
>>>>> different
>>>>> experience of that which refers to and represents that object and
>>>>> consequently, of the thing referred to. The primal meaning of a word is
>>>>> the
>>>>> effect the sound of it creates within us. The secondary, more distant
>>>>> meaning of a word is that to which it refers. The secondary meaning is
>>>>> what
>>>>> we commonly accept as being the one and only meaning. We are
>>>>>                                                    18
>>>>>
>>>>> generally not aware of the primary meaning, because we are affected by
>>>>> the
>>>>> vocal sounds of our words subliminally and by the secondary,
>>>>> referential,
>>>>> meaning of words consciously.  Awareness of the primary meanings of
>>>>> vocal
>>>>> sounds was superseded by the awareness of the secondary, -referential-,
>>>>> meaning of vocal sounds used as words.
>>>>>
>>>>>    To understand the functionality, the “nuts and bolts”, of language,
>>>>> is
>>>>> to free ourselves of domination by culture, to be the masters of
>>>>> culture
>>>>> rather than its subjects. We have been inextricably attached to
>>>>> culture, for
>>>>> better or for worse, ever since our use of language began. Now we can
>>>>> intentionally create a language/culture that informs us as we would
>>>>> like to
>>>>> be informed, of the effects on us, (the meanings of), all the things we
>>>>> name.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Certainly we agree that we are affected by the sounds we utter. What
>>>>> then is the
>>>>> consequence of referring to all the things to which we refer, (all the
>>>>> things that make up our conscious world), with inherently meaningful
>>>>> sounds?
>>>>> If we were able to refer to things with “meaningless” symbols, then all
>>>>> we
>>>>> would be conveying is the thought of the thing. When we refer to things
>>>>> with
>>>>> inherently meaningful symbols, we are also informing ourselves of the
>>>>> meanings of the things to which we are referring. Is there such a thing
>>>>> as a
>>>>> meaningless symbol? Is anything meaningless? In order to perceive
>>>>> anything,
>>>>> including a symbol, that symbol must register upon our senses and in
>>>>> order
>>>>> to register upon our senses, the sensed thing must affect us. No effect
>>>>> on
>>>>> us, equals no perception by us. Whatever the affect on us is, is the
>>>>> fundamental meaning of the sensed thing. When we refer to things, we
>>>>> are
>>>>> primarily being affected by the symbol which we use to do the referring
>>>>> and
>>>>> secondarily by the memory, if there is a memory, of the thing to which
>>>>> we
>>>>>  are referring. When we refer to something with which we have no direct
>>>>> experience, we have only the symbol, (word), to affect us and thus to
>>>>> inform
>>>>> us.
>>>>>
>>>>>    If there is a discrete connection between a vocal sound and  a
>>>>> thing,
>>>>> and a connection likewise between a particular vocal sound and a
>>>>> specific
>>>>> effect on the emotions, then there is a connection between the effect
>>>>> on us
>>>>> of the sound and the thing to which that sound, (word), refers.
>>>>>
>>>>>    We are aware that sound has an effect and that the word is sound and
>>>>> that the word has an effect and that the word refers to a thing. Are we
>>>>> aware that, for all intents and purposes, the effect seems to be the
>>>>> thing.
>>>>> How we are affected by a thing, our perception of a thing, is accepted
>>>>> subliminally as being the meaning of the thing. Our actions relative to
>>>>> the
>>>>> things in our world, are related to the perceived meanings of those
>>>>> things.
>>>>>
>>>>>    We feel the feelings generated by the sounds of our words at the
>>>>> same
>>>>> time as we are deliberately focusing on the things to which the words
>>>>> refer.
>>>>> As a consequence, we associate particular vocal-sound-generated
>>>>> feelings
>>>>> with particular things. The thing does not define the feeling. Rather,
>>>>> the
>>>>> feeling defines the thing. The feeling of the word determines what is
>>>>> accepted subliminally as the meaning of the thing. The word enables us
>>>>> to
>>>>> experience feelings of the meanings of things not present, and unknown
>>>>> by
>>>>> direct experience. It establishes a sense of
>>>>>                                                    19
>>>>>
>>>>> consensus which wells up from the subconscious minds among the speakers
>>>>> of
>>>>> a given language.
>>>>>
>>>>>    All throughout human history, language has been playing this role of
>>>>> consensus creator based on the information we derive from the sounds of
>>>>> our
>>>>> words regarding the-affects-on-us/the-meanings-of, the things that make
>>>>> up
>>>>> our worlds. If we would rather live in a culture of our own creation
>>>>> than in
>>>>> just any one in which we happened to be born, we might consider
>>>>> experimenting with cultural change through language renewal.
>>>>>
>>>>>    I have been asked what I hope to achieve with this information. My
>>>>> desire is that we become aware of the forces that affect us so that we
>>>>> may
>>>>> be able to change the circumstances that exist to circumstances that we
>>>>> would prefer.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Because of the inherent shortcomings inherent in existing languages,
>>>>> although words can be used in a kindly manner to help get us back on
>>>>> track
>>>>> when we lose our way, they cannot, in and of themselves, guide anyone
>>>>> who is
>>>>> determined to see things in a certain way. Only the willing can be
>>>>> helped.
>>>>> How can we help people to be willing?
>>>>>
>>>>>    I observe that culture is the prosthetic subconscious of society,
>>>>> that
>>>>> which we who live in a particular society share with one another and
>>>>> have in
>>>>> common. It has to do with our world-view. Our world view is formed by
>>>>> what
>>>>> things mean to us. How do we obtain our sense of the meaning of our
>>>>> world?
>>>>> Do we share that sense with the others in our group or is it individual
>>>>> to
>>>>> each of us? Is it a conscious, subconscious or unconscious sense, or
>>>>> more
>>>>> than one of them?
>>>>>
>>>>>    When I discovered that the sounds of words convey a sense of
>>>>> meaning, I
>>>>> realized that I had found the answers to these questions. We are
>>>>> informed
>>>>> subliminally of the meaning of our world by the language that we speak.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Having words inform us of the meanings/effects of things seems to
>>>>> have
>>>>> some advantages compared to being informed of the meanings/effects of
>>>>> things
>>>>> by direct perception of the things themselves.  All those who use a
>>>>> particular language have the same basic subliminal sense of the
>>>>> meanings of
>>>>> named things and consequently, are able to participate in the group
>>>>> dynamic
>>>>> of their society. The words for things stay constant through time while
>>>>> how
>>>>> we are affected directly by things changes. We can share experience,
>>>>> knowledge and wisdom with words. Without words, our own personal
>>>>> experience
>>>>> would be all we would have and we would not be able to share it. Words
>>>>> enable abstract thought and planning.
>>>>>
>>>>>    We think, influenced by the feelings of the sounds of words for
>>>>> things
>>>>> and feel as though we were thinking with the perception of the things
>>>>> themselves.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Are we conscious that we are affected by the sounds we make with our
>>>>> voice? We are commonly aware that the quality of singers voices affects
>>>>> us.
>>>>> We know that great orators and actors
>>>>>                                                    20
>>>>>
>>>>> affect us with their delivery and vocal character. Everyone’s voice
>>>>> affects
>>>>> us. We are aware of the affect of tone of voice but not of the affect
>>>>> of
>>>>> articulated phonemes per se.
>>>>>
>>>>>    When we make word-free sounds with our voice, we more readily
>>>>> experience the effects of those sounds than when we utter words. We
>>>>> generally do not sense the effects of those sounds when we verbalize
>>>>> because
>>>>> our attention is redirected from the affects on us of the vocal sounds
>>>>> to
>>>>> comprehending what the words represent. The primary affects upon us of
>>>>> the
>>>>> sounds of our words remain, on a subliminal level, when we use our
>>>>> vocal
>>>>> sounds as words. Using the sounds as words directs our attention to the
>>>>> things to which the words refer. We are affected by sounds of our words
>>>>> whether we make them simply as vocal sounds or as words.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>                How We Are Affected By Our Culture
>>>>>                          And How We Can Change It?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>    The behavioral choices we make, be they deliberately or subliminally
>>>>> driven. are informed by our perception of ourselves in context to our
>>>>> perception of the world, -by the affects on us of the things that make
>>>>> up
>>>>> our world. We achieve a sense of how we are affected by the world more
>>>>> as a
>>>>> result of our language than as a result of our own nonlinguistic
>>>>> experience.
>>>>> Is that sense due to the actual firsthand effect of things on each of
>>>>> us
>>>>> individually? How do-we/can- we know what the ultimate effect of
>>>>> anything is
>>>>> upon us, either as an individual or as a society? Do we even know the
>>>>> meaning of life? How can we know the ultimate effect on us of anything
>>>>> if we
>>>>> do not know the purpose/goal of life? A particular way we are affected
>>>>> is
>>>>> either desirable or not, as that effect relates to that large purpose,
>>>>> and
>>>>> who among us knows that purpose and is able to show others, by proof,
>>>>> what
>>>>> it is? We seem to share, with other “reasonable” people, what we think
>>>>>  is a commonsense view of life, but there is so much room for different
>>>>> choices. On what basis do we make our choices?
>>>>>
>>>>>    In the vacuum created by the questioning mind, we have only our
>>>>> conventional wisdom, residing subliminally, as represented by our
>>>>> culture,
>>>>> to inform us. The more we question, the more we realize that we do not
>>>>> know.
>>>>> How can we act not knowing what things mean? We must have something to
>>>>> go
>>>>> on, a given, on which to base our choices. That given is our language.
>>>>> The
>>>>> sounds we use to refer to the various things we refer vocally to, seem
>>>>> to
>>>>> enable us to experience a feeling of the effect/meaning of the named
>>>>> things.
>>>>> We have nothing else to rely on, as individuals and more-so as a group,
>>>>> since our common language provides us with a common frame of reference.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Vocal sounds themselves, whether they are within words or simply as
>>>>> sounds, are richly meaningful in the sense that they affect our
>>>>> emotional
>>>>> state. Vocalizing communicates states of our organism. Each particular
>>>>> vocal
>>>>> sound communicates/conveys a particular state. When we use
>>>>>                                                    21
>>>>>
>>>>> these vocal sounds, each with its own effect/meaning, to refer to
>>>>> particular things, as we do when we speak with words, we bestow meaning
>>>>> upon
>>>>> the things to which we vocally refer, things that we would otherwise
>>>>> not
>>>>> perceive as we do if not for their names. The sounds of our language
>>>>> are by,
>>>>> for and of our body/emotions/feelings, while the things we name are
>>>>> relatively removed from our immediate experience. Naming things seems
>>>>> to
>>>>> render them understandable. This sense of knowing is created by
>>>>> associating
>>>>> our familiar body-made vocal sounds with them.
>>>>>
>>>>>    The perceived meaning-strength of our verbal utterances is greater
>>>>> than
>>>>> the perceived meaning-strength of the things named by them and thus,
>>>>> the
>>>>> affect on us of the sounds of our words pushes aside and replaces the
>>>>> affects on us of the things themselves. The symbol not only represents
>>>>> the
>>>>> symbolized in  our consciousness, more profoundly, the effect of the
>>>>> symbol,
>>>>> (in this case, the word),  on us subliminally, takes the place of the
>>>>> effect
>>>>> on us of the symbolized: the map replaces the territory. As we are
>>>>> beings
>>>>> who manipulate symbols to gain understanding, we live in a world of our
>>>>> own
>>>>> making, not because of deliberate design, but rather by the nature of
>>>>> language/culture.
>>>>>
>>>>>    In a world prior to the proliferation of technology, using language
>>>>> enhanced our survivability. However, in a world in which we are
>>>>> surrounded
>>>>> by the results of our own efforts, (our artifacts), as we are now, our
>>>>> language/culture may be a major cause of our difficulties. Culture is a
>>>>> living artifact, representing the mentality of our ancestors and
>>>>> instilling
>>>>> that mentality, (that world-view), in us.
>>>>>
>>>>>    I believe that once we understand the mechanism of culture, we will
>>>>> choose to create culture deliberately.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Some say that existing culture is natural and that to tinker with it
>>>>> would be risky and probably harmful. I say that we cannot afford to
>>>>> fear to
>>>>> experiment with new ways of seeing our world. After all, we are not in
>>>>> such
>>>>> a favorable position relative to our prognosis for survival as a
>>>>> species,
>>>>> -precisely because of the effect on us of our culture-, that we should
>>>>> adopt
>>>>> a passive attitude regarding our culture. “If we do not change our
>>>>> direction
>>>>> we will end up where we are headed.”
>>>>>
>>>>>    The meaning of any thing is the same as its affect on us and its
>>>>> affect
>>>>> on us is its meaning. It is the effect of a thing that we perceive and
>>>>> that
>>>>> perceiving informs us of the existence of the thing. It is only that
>>>>> which
>>>>> affects us that we perceive, and it is that effect on us that is its
>>>>> meaning. It defies logic and experience to hold that we are unaffected
>>>>> by
>>>>> our vocal sounds, either used as words or not. If we accept the premise
>>>>> that
>>>>> we are affected by our vocal sounds, that our vocal sounds communicate,
>>>>> we
>>>>> might ask ourselves what the affects upon us of those sounds are.
>>>>>
>>>>>     The sounds of words do not cease to be things themselves, when they
>>>>> are used in words to represent other things. On the scale of the
>>>>> evolution
>>>>> of the human species, the use of vocal sounds to represent things is a
>>>>> relatively recent development. Prior to that, our forbears’ vocalizing
>>>>> simply expressed immediate body-mind states.
>>>>>                                                    22
>>>>>
>>>>>    We are affected subconsciously by the sound/sounds of any given word
>>>>> in
>>>>> the same way as our forbears were affected by the things that now the
>>>>> word
>>>>> represents. They reacted to  things: the vocal part of that reaction
>>>>> later
>>>>> became  words and we who use/hear those words, react to the sounds of
>>>>> those
>>>>> words as they reacted to those things. Experiencing the word replaces
>>>>> experiencing the thing the word represents. Culture is instilled in us
>>>>> in
>>>>> that way. The word acts as a transmitter of experience. The experience
>>>>> that
>>>>> caused the sounds to be uttered is represented in those who hear those
>>>>> sounds/words subsequently. By this means, our forbears’ experience of
>>>>> things
>>>>> becomes our experience of those things.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Thus, we are at once, informed and defined by our language/culture.
>>>>> Our
>>>>> culture is the real status quo, the actual law of the land. It rules us
>>>>> from
>>>>> our subconscious minds, beyond the reach of our deliberative processes.
>>>>> Since we cannot, in the final analysis, prove anything at all, it is by
>>>>> default that the values, the unquestioned assumptions, which reside in
>>>>> the
>>>>> subconscious mind, form our foundation.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Furthermore, while our own experiences are unique to each of us, it
>>>>> is
>>>>> our culturally/ linguistically created experiences that we share as a
>>>>> group.
>>>>> To be a part of the group, one must adopt the group’s consensus
>>>>> experience
>>>>> as one’s own. To be conventionally understood, one must speak the
>>>>> mother
>>>>> tongue.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Similar to an iceberg. the preponderance of the import of language
>>>>> occurs beneath the surface of awareness. One must consider the role of
>>>>> the
>>>>> subconscious mind in order to grasp the true function of language.
>>>>> Language
>>>>> is based on sound, sound made with the human voice. The sounds we
>>>>> produce
>>>>> vocally communicate our emotional conditions.
>>>>>
>>>>> When we vibrate that part of our body, specifically evolved as a
>>>>> vibration-making apparatus, (their vocal apparatuses), we show others
>>>>> what
>>>>> is going on with us, we cause others specialized vibration-receiving
>>>>> body
>>>>> parts, (the auditory apparatus), to vibrate in kind. The motion of the
>>>>> auditory apparatus mimics the motion of the vocal apparatus. After
>>>>> being
>>>>> vibrated by an other’s voice, we are able to reproduce those vocal
>>>>> sounds.
>>>>>
>>>>>    When we hear someone speak, at the same time that we are trying to
>>>>> understand what is being said, (what is meant by any particular words),
>>>>> our
>>>>> emotions/feelings are being informed by the effects on us of the sounds
>>>>> of
>>>>> the words we hear. We do not need to consciously try to apprehend the
>>>>> meanings/ effects of the vocal sounds themselves to perceive them. The
>>>>> meanings are the affects on us of the sounds. We do need to consciously
>>>>> try
>>>>> to understand the meanings/referential functions, of the words. Because
>>>>> of
>>>>> that, the focus of our conscious attention is removed from the effect
>>>>> of our
>>>>> vocal sounds and placed upon the relationship between the words and the
>>>>> things they signify. That type of meaning is peculiar to each language
>>>>> and
>>>>> is not necessarily intuitive unless one has adopted the world-view of
>>>>> that
>>>>> language.
>>>>>
>>>>>                                                    23
>>>>>
>>>>>    As for the demand that the claim that vocal sounds are
>>>>> communicative,
>>>>> be proven; there is not a demand for proof that facial expression and
>>>>> body
>>>>> posture in general are communicative. Why does no one dispute the
>>>>> second
>>>>> claim while  establishment linguists deny that vocal sounds convey
>>>>> meaning?
>>>>> Is it because they are so caught up with considerations of the
>>>>> referential
>>>>> function of words that they cannot  experience the effects on
>>>>> themselves of
>>>>> the sounds that make up the words? Does it not stand to reason that
>>>>> vocal
>>>>> sounds must affect us? Is it not true that everything that we perceive
>>>>> affects us and that it is precisely that effect which we perceive? Can
>>>>> there
>>>>> be perception without being affected? And the meaning of anything must,
>>>>> in
>>>>> the final analysis, be simply its effect within us. Though one may
>>>>> agree
>>>>> that we are affected by vocal sounds,  one may not agree that we are
>>>>> affected emotionally by vocal sounds. We are accustomed to not reacting
>>>>>  emotionally overtly to our vocal sounds.
>>>>>
>>>>>    What is language doing to us, that we don’t know about? What do
>>>>> these
>>>>> sounds that come forth from our bodies mean? What does anything mean?
>>>>> Is
>>>>> finding what anything means the same as discovering how it affects us?
>>>>> Is
>>>>> the meaning the same as the emotional/body effect? Could it be anything
>>>>> other than that? How do we know how anything emotionally affects us? Do
>>>>> things affect us? Are we emotionally affected by the sounds we produce
>>>>> vocally? If so, how are we affected? Are we emotionally affected more
>>>>> strongly by the sounds we vocally produce or by the things in our
>>>>> environment? Where do emotional reactions come from; the conscious or
>>>>> the
>>>>> subconscious, or both?
>>>>>
>>>>>    Do we obtain a sense of the meaning of a thing from deliberative
>>>>> thinking about it or from our subconscious reaction to our mental
>>>>> process
>>>>> regarding it? Emotions well up from the depths of our occult minds.
>>>>> Once we
>>>>> become aware of our reactions to a thing, we can question the reason
>>>>> for the
>>>>> reaction and reinform ourselves about how the thing affects us. With
>>>>> new
>>>>> information, our emotional reaction changes. What do the very words we
>>>>> use
>>>>> to describe a thing to ourselves do to our sense of the meaning of the
>>>>> thing? When we compare the thing in question to other things not in
>>>>> question, we are not really discovering its meaning. We are rather,
>>>>> assuming
>>>>> that the meaning of the things we use to clarify the meaning of our
>>>>> subject,
>>>>> are themselves clearly meaningful. What if they are not? Is it possible
>>>>> for
>>>>> them to be not? The only thing in this scenario of which we do not
>>>>> question
>>>>> the meaning is the sounds of the words we use to refer to the things.
>>>>> And,
>>>>>  we normally, do not even consider our vocal sounds to be meaningful.
>>>>> Because their affect on us is through our subconscious, we are not
>>>>> aware of
>>>>> it and thus are affected more unalterably than if we were aware of the
>>>>> fact
>>>>> that we are being affected by the sounds of our words.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Although logically, it is impossible for us to not be affected by
>>>>> our
>>>>> vocal sounds, we do not dwell on that phenomenon and do not consider it
>>>>> an
>>>>> issue of moment. Supposing we are affected by vocal sounds: what would
>>>>> that
>>>>> mean? Would our perception of the things we refer to verbally be
>>>>> influenced?
>>>>> Would our sense of the meaning of named things be determined by the
>>>>> vocal
>>>>> sounds we use to refer to those things?
>>>>>
>>>>>                                                    24
>>>>>
>>>>>    We all talk of culture. What do we mean by “culture”? In the New
>>>>> World
>>>>> Dictionary of the American Language, the definition number 6 of
>>>>> culture, is:
>>>>> ”The ideas, customs, skills, arts, etc. of a given people in a given
>>>>> period;
>>>>> civilization.” I define culture as, “The values/assumptions that are
>>>>> shared
>>>>> by the users/practitioners  of any given language.”
>>>>>
>>>>>    The history of the human race is basically, the record of
>>>>> intracultural
>>>>> and intercultural “chemistry”. We have been, for the most part, passive
>>>>> recipients of whatever paradigm was dealt us by our cultures. Like
>>>>> passengers on a great ship, our fates were sealed by the course charted
>>>>> in
>>>>> advance by the directives mandated by our culture. Wouldn’t we rather
>>>>> be
>>>>> active participants in shaping our destiny? We can be if we understand
>>>>> how
>>>>> culture works. It is a simple and natural phenomena, and although we
>>>>> created
>>>>> it, we do not understand it. Until we do, we will be incidental and
>>>>> directed
>>>>> actors in a script not of our choosing. Just as understanding our
>>>>> biology
>>>>> liberates us from the chains of previously immutable law, so too,
>>>>> knowing
>>>>> what culture is and consequently, how to alter it, will free us from
>>>>> the
>>>>> destiny of carrying out the plan set in motion by the emergence of
>>>>> language/culture.
>>>>>
>>>>>    We will invest in becoming aware of our culture when we realize the
>>>>> necessity of
>>>>> doing so. When we know that we cannot go on indefinitely with our
>>>>> current
>>>>> flight plan, unaware, on autopilot, we will look for a new
>>>>> understanding of
>>>>> our human behavior.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Through the years, centuries and millennia, our culture has served
>>>>> us
>>>>> in whatever way it has, for better or for worse. It seems that we now
>>>>> need
>>>>> to acknowledge that we are, “up against it”, and that we need to change
>>>>> our
>>>>> ways. Before technology and industrialization, we did not feel the heat
>>>>> of
>>>>> our cultural impasse nearly as much as we now do. The power to alter
>>>>> our
>>>>> environment given to us by our technology has brought the issue of our
>>>>> inappropriate behavior to the forefront. The results of our cultural
>>>>> inadequacy is right in our faces. However, we have not yet, as a
>>>>> society,
>>>>> identified the source of our problem. We have not yet realized how we
>>>>> are
>>>>> possessed by our culture or even what culture is. We sometimes question
>>>>> why
>>>>> we act in ways so antithetical to our professed beliefs/values. We go
>>>>> to
>>>>> church on Sunday and are back in the lurch on Monday. Our saints and
>>>>> prophets tell us The Truth and we nod our heads in agreement. Yet we
>>>>> continue to
>>>>>  behave as we have, in ways characteristic of our culture, not in ways
>>>>> representative of our professed beliefs and values. This contradiction
>>>>> and
>>>>> dissonance between what we believe consciously and what seems to be
>>>>> truly
>>>>> motivating our behavior is the cause of much confusion and angst. We
>>>>> are
>>>>> passive recipients of the hands dealt us by our culture not the masters
>>>>> of
>>>>> our destiny. Let us become conscious of the nature of the relationship
>>>>> between ourselves and our culture.
>>>>>
>>>>>    How can any of us experience the effect on our emotions of the vocal
>>>>> sounds we utter/hear? I accomplished that by saying the sounds of our
>>>>> language, using the alphabet as a sequential guide, and sensitizing
>>>>> myself
>>>>> to the emotional effect of each sound in turn.
>>>>>
>>>>>                                                    25
>>>>>
>>>>>    Our progenitors used to live in whatever shelters, such as caves or
>>>>> rock overhangs, they
>>>>> found already existing. Then they learned to make shelters where and
>>>>> when
>>>>> they wished. We have, until now, lived within and according to whatever
>>>>> culture in which we happened to be born. We can now attempt to make our
>>>>> culture one that instills in us the values we consciously hold, rather
>>>>> than
>>>>> the values we inherited from our distant ancestors.
>>>>>
>>>>>    When I was in school, I was taught that culture is things like
>>>>> classical music, opera, the fine arts, classic literature and theater.
>>>>> I
>>>>> sensed that culture was far deeper than that, that culture existed in
>>>>> each
>>>>> of us, deeply ingrained in our minds. Not until I discovered the
>>>>> mechanics
>>>>> of language did I clearly realize what culture is, what it does to us
>>>>> and
>>>>> how it does it.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Before I discovered how language works, I did not understand what
>>>>> culture is. The two, language and culture, are identical twins, each
>>>>> with a
>>>>> different name and apparent mission but with the same dna. Culture is
>>>>> an
>>>>> abstraction and language is the physical mechanism from whence it
>>>>> springs.
>>>>> Language uses emotionally evocative sounds to represent things, thereby
>>>>> suggesting the meanings of those things. The sense of the meaning of
>>>>> things
>>>>> derived from words, accompanied by our sense of self identity, directs
>>>>> us as
>>>>> to how to behave in relation to those things. The values etched in our
>>>>> culture by language long ago are instilled in us and direct our
>>>>> behavior
>>>>> today.
>>>>>
>>>>>    A body continues in its state of motion unless it is acted on by an
>>>>> outside force. Human culture remains fundamentally unchanged unless it
>>>>> is
>>>>> changed by those who sense a need to change it.
>>>>>
>>>>>    The subconscious mind is where culture resides within us. Culture
>>>>> resides without us in language. Culture remains unexamined and
>>>>> unchanged
>>>>> within the subconscious mind until we see a need to change it. Many
>>>>> others
>>>>> have spoken about the need to change the way we, as a society, think:
>>>>> some
>>>>> have tried, by using means, such as meditation, sleep deprivation,
>>>>> psychoactive substances and chanting to accomplish this change and have
>>>>> been
>>>>> more or less able to do so for themselves. However, it seems they were
>>>>> not
>>>>> able to lastingly infuse society at large with their newly found
>>>>> vision, due
>>>>> to not addressing this issue from the root. One must understand a
>>>>> process
>>>>> before one can intentionally and deliberately alter it. Understanding
>>>>> the
>>>>> “nuts and bolts” of language makes it possible to change our culture.
>>>>>
>>>>>    The idea that we are strongly influenced by a force invisible to us
>>>>> is
>>>>> strange and tends to be unsettling. The glue that binds us together as
>>>>> a
>>>>> society is so much an ingrained part of our lives, that we do not
>>>>> perceive
>>>>> it as a force. It operates automatically and therefore requires no
>>>>> attention
>>>>> in order to function as the organizing premise of society. The question
>>>>> of
>>>>> whether we approve of its values almost never arises. Rather, we act as
>>>>> automatons, driven by the invisible program instilled in us with the
>>>>> learning of our language. Just as features of our physical bodies
>>>>> evolve by
>>>>> natural processes, so culture evolves by natural processes without our
>>>>> conscious collaboration. Culture has served us tolerably well through
>>>>> most
>>>>> of our species’ history. However, since the emergence of
>>>>>                                                    26
>>>>>
>>>>> mechanization, the contradictions between our professed values and our
>>>>> way
>>>>> of life have become
>>>>> increasingly obvious. This is due to the magnifying effect of
>>>>> technology on
>>>>> the impact of human actions. What we do today affects our shared
>>>>> environment
>>>>> far more than our actions did prior to industrial technology, while our
>>>>> culture is basically the same as it was then, before industrialization.
>>>>> This
>>>>> forces upon us the issue of the correctness of the values that underlie
>>>>> our
>>>>> assumptions about the nature of reality. We can no longer afford to
>>>>> forge
>>>>> ahead with no awareness of the reasons for our choices.
>>>>>
>>>>>    The tension caused by the contradiction between our professed
>>>>> beliefs
>>>>> and the beliefs implied/expressed by our actions is caused by the
>>>>> isolation
>>>>> from our conscious apprehension of the source of the values or even of
>>>>> the
>>>>> values that drive our actions. Our conscious beliefs derive from our
>>>>> intellectual workings while our actions are driven by our cultural
>>>>> conditioning, which resides in our subconscious minds. We all have
>>>>> different
>>>>> beliefs, depending on what mental roads we have traveled and we who
>>>>> share a
>>>>> given language, all have the same underlying, subliminal values. How we
>>>>> translate these common values into actions depends on our perception of
>>>>> what
>>>>> character we are, in the script of our society. In the script we are
>>>>> born
>>>>> into, we act the role we see ourselves as plausibly and convincingly
>>>>> being
>>>>> able to play. One’s assumed role in society must seem plausible to one
>>>>> given
>>>>> one’s assessment of oneself.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Our understanding of culture is vastly more incomplete than is our
>>>>> understanding of mathematics, physics, astronomy, biology or even
>>>>> psychology
>>>>> and sociology.  The radio-telescope, electron microscope and other
>>>>> information gathering tools continue to enable us to conceive of that
>>>>> which
>>>>> we previously could grasp only metaphysically. We can likewise increase
>>>>> our
>>>>> awareness of the machinations of human culture by focusing our
>>>>> attention on
>>>>> it and bringing to bear, in our quest for understanding, whatever
>>>>> relevant
>>>>> knowledge we may have. If we widely saw that culture impacts our
>>>>> everyday
>>>>> life to the extent to which it does, we would feel a powerful
>>>>> motivation to
>>>>> discover its inner workings. Language is the body whose physics we must
>>>>> comprehend in order to understand the workings of culture.
>>>>>
>>>>>    The vocal sounds our pre-linguistic progenitors made conveyed
>>>>> feeling
>>>>> and emotion. We still make sounds and they convey feeling and emotion
>>>>> now as
>>>>> they did then. Using them as words, to refer to things, does not cause
>>>>> them
>>>>> to cease conveying emotion. The stronger affect on us of the sounds of
>>>>> words
>>>>> than the effect on us of the things which words label, the consensus
>>>>> regarding the meaning of things that words provide members of a group
>>>>> who
>>>>> speak a common language and a constancy of  the sense of the meanings
>>>>> of
>>>>> things we name, all contribute to our subconscious acceptance of the
>>>>> affects
>>>>> on us of the sounds of words as representing the affects on us of  the
>>>>> things which words represent. When we use words, we feel we have a sort
>>>>> of
>>>>> firsthand experience with the things named. This experience with the
>>>>> verbal
>>>>> representation of things named provides us with a sense of their
>>>>> meaning.
>>>>> The sound, which is rich with emotional affect, by default, informs us
>>>>>  of the emotion associated with the thing. We associate the sound of a
>>>>> word
>>>>> for a thing with the thing; so we associate the effect of the sound as
>>>>> a
>>>>> thing, with the effect of the thing, for it is
>>>>>                                                    27
>>>>>
>>>>> the effect of a thing and only the effect of a thing that lets us know
>>>>> that
>>>>> the thing is there and what it means. We have nothing else common,
>>>>> constant,
>>>>> and which affects us more strongly when the named thing itself is not
>>>>> there
>>>>> in front of us, and even when it is, than the sounds of words, (the
>>>>> sounds
>>>>> of our voice). The affects on us of the sounds of our own voice takes
>>>>> the
>>>>> place of the affects on us of the things themselves. We make our world
>>>>> familiar and handleable by using our bodily sounds to represent the
>>>>> things
>>>>> we encounter. We intuitively understand the meanings/effects of our
>>>>> vocal
>>>>> sounds while we do not as readily understand the affects on us of the
>>>>> things
>>>>> in our world. Our vocal sounds are of by and for us while the
>>>>> world-out-there is much less familiar and more difficult to relate to
>>>>> intuitively.
>>>>>
>>>>>    The sounds that a musical instrument makes are a result of the
>>>>> materials and construction of the instrument. When something vibrates,
>>>>> it
>>>>> makes sounds according to its physical structure. Whatever is doing the
>>>>> vibrating is what sounds. Mothers sing sweet lullabies to babies, not
>>>>> pirate
>>>>> drinking songs. Why? Because the sounds the mother makes cause the baby
>>>>> to
>>>>> vibrate in a similar manner. Entrainment is a word that may be used to
>>>>> describe this phenomena. There is the driver and the driven. The mother
>>>>> is
>>>>> the driver and the baby is the driven. The mother establishes a pattern
>>>>> of
>>>>> motion and the baby assumes motion in that pattern. If one wishes to
>>>>> calm
>>>>> another, one speaks calmly. Elemental states are being
>>>>> transmitted/communicated by the mother to the baby. Are elemental
>>>>> states
>>>>> communicated by phonemes? Is there a relationship between the vocal
>>>>> sounds
>>>>> we make and our emotive/feeling states? Do our vocal sounds correlate
>>>>> to our
>>>>> feelings/emotions?
>>>>>  Are vocal sounds meaningful? Do they cause an effect in us? As a form
>>>>> of
>>>>> body language, are vocal sounds meaningful, as facial expressions are
>>>>> meaningful?
>>>>>
>>>>>    All animals that breathe make sounds when they breathe. The air
>>>>> passing
>>>>> into and out of the body makes sounds and those sounds are formed and
>>>>> shaped
>>>>> by whatever the condition of the body is. Think of The Star Wars
>>>>> character,
>>>>> Darth Vader, as he breathes. How communicative is the way he breathes!
>>>>> One
>>>>> may ask how does the sound of breathing communicate and what does it
>>>>> communicate? If simply breathing communicates, then does vocalizing
>>>>> communicate? Do the sounds that we produce, in order to form our words,
>>>>> communicate? If they do, then what is it that they communicate? There
>>>>> are
>>>>> some vocal sounds to which one may feel a reaction, such as the sound
>>>>> of the
>>>>> letter, “R”, or that of the “M”, or the “A”, or “E”, etc.. Are any
>>>>> vocal
>>>>> sounds meaningful to you?
>>>>>
>>>>>     Supposing that all the sounds we make communicate; would our
>>>>> feelings
>>>>> about a thing be affected by what the sounds we use to refer to it
>>>>> communicate to us? Many linguists and others maintain that the sounds
>>>>> we
>>>>> make when we speak, in and of themselves, have no meaning. By saying
>>>>> that
>>>>> they have no meaning one is holding that they do not communicate. But
>>>>> if
>>>>> Darth Vader’s breathing communicates, which it obviously does, then
>>>>> even
>>>>> breathing is meaningful, its meaning being the affect it causes in us.
>>>>> One
>>>>> may say that the affect on us of the sounds of breathing is an
>>>>> emotional
>>>>> affect and therefore has no meaning per se. At this point one would be
>>>>> separating the concept of emotional affect from the concept of meaning.
>>>>> If
>>>>> emotional affect is not meaningful, what
>>>>>                                                    28
>>>>>
>>>>> is? One may say that the meanings of words are the things to which they
>>>>> refer. If this were true, we
>>>>> would have no clue of the meaning of any thing. We would know what the
>>>>> sounds of the words mean in terms of the things but we would have no
>>>>> sense
>>>>> of what the things mean. We need to know what the things mean: we
>>>>> already
>>>>> subconsciously know what the sounds of the words mean. And, can a sound
>>>>> mean
>>>>> a thing? Or does a sound have meaning of its own? Does the thing have
>>>>> meaning of its own? It seems likely that vocal sounds have
>>>>> effects/meanings
>>>>> and it seems questionable that things have particular meanings. After
>>>>> all,
>>>>> it is how any thing affects us that is its meaning. The way a thing
>>>>> affects
>>>>> us changes through time and is different for different folks, whereas
>>>>> the
>>>>> affects on us of the sounds of our own voices is the same through time
>>>>> and
>>>>> for all of us. However, if on the other hand, we derive our sense of
>>>>> the
>>>>> meaning of a thing from the sounds of the word for it, we do have a
>>>>> definite
>>>>> sense of its meaning because we are naturally affected emotionally by
>>>>> those
>>>>>  sounds.
>>>>>
>>>>>     On one hand, we are affected deeply by the sounds made by our
>>>>> bodies
>>>>> and on the other hand, we are not consistently and uniformly affected
>>>>> by the
>>>>> things that make up our world. When the two things are associated with
>>>>> one
>>>>> another, the one with the strongest affect-pressure defines the one
>>>>> with the
>>>>> lesser affect-pressure.
>>>>>
>>>>>    No one that I have spoken with about the subject maintains that the
>>>>> sounds we make with our voices are non-communicative. Rather, people
>>>>> commonly report that they feel clearly affected in particular ways by
>>>>> different vocal sounds and a thread of commonality runs through their
>>>>> reports. So, if we know that we are affected by our voice sounds, why
>>>>> do we
>>>>> deny that  we may be affected by the sounds of our words and that how
>>>>> we
>>>>> are  affected by the sounds of our words may influence our perceptions
>>>>> of
>>>>> the things we name?´
>>>>>
>>>>>    There are conscious processes and subconscious processes And
>>>>> processes
>>>>> can migrate from one realm to the other. Driving a car or playing a
>>>>> piano
>>>>> are examples. When we talk, we are conscious of the things we are
>>>>> talking
>>>>> about. When we vocalize non-verbally, we are conscious of the sounds of
>>>>> our
>>>>> voice and, if we are on the lookout for it, we may be aware of the
>>>>> effects
>>>>> on us of those sounds.
>>>>>
>>>>>    What we suppose to be the reasons why we act as we do may not be the
>>>>> real or sole reasons. The quest for psychological self-discovery is
>>>>> about
>>>>> becoming aware of the real reasons for our behavior. Many of us use our
>>>>> rational minds to create plausible explanations for our behavior. Some
>>>>> of us
>>>>> who are more dedicated to the truth of the matter rather than to simply
>>>>> defending whatever we may do, use the rational mind to examine our
>>>>> behavior
>>>>> in the light of understanding. In the ultimate shakedown, do we really
>>>>> know
>>>>> why we do what we do? Can we prove it to anyone else: can we prove it
>>>>> to
>>>>> ourselves? Looking at what influences us seems to be useful in
>>>>> ascertaining
>>>>> exactly what motivates us. Since we are all about survival, whatever
>>>>> affects
>>>>> our survivability, obviously affects our behavior. Our relationship
>>>>> with our
>>>>> caregivers, if we are dependent on another, with our employer, if we
>>>>> are
>>>>> working for someone else, with the legal
>>>>>                                                    29
>>>>>
>>>>> structures, if we live in civilization, with our perception of the
>>>>> affect
>>>>> on us of our actions, whether that
>>>>> perception is conscious or subconscious, and with our sense of
>>>>> morality, if
>>>>> we are so disposed, are all important to us. Whatever bears on our
>>>>>  survival
>>>>> and metasurvival influences our behavior.
>>>>>
>>>>>    How do we ascertain the affects on us, (the meanings of), the myriad
>>>>> of
>>>>> things that make up our world? It is impossible to think our way
>>>>> through the
>>>>> question of how we will be affected by all the various choices we may
>>>>> make,
>>>>> as a chess player attempts to do. We would need to know the ultimate
>>>>> affect
>>>>> on us of all things and all actions relative to those things. This is
>>>>> not
>>>>> possible, at least for now. In the absence of any definitive proof of
>>>>> the
>>>>> meaning of anything, we feel the need to know what exactly things are,
>>>>> what
>>>>> each thing is. The final word on this issue is THE WORD itself. The
>>>>> word for
>>>>> a thing is what we have to go on for sensing what the thing means to
>>>>> us.
>>>>> Since the effect on us of a thing and the meaning for us of that thing
>>>>> are
>>>>> one and the same, and since the actual sound of the word affects us
>>>>> deeply,
>>>>> reliably and in the same way as it affects everyone else, we lean on
>>>>> this
>>>>> word-sound-affect thingy to inform us of what any particular
>>>>>  thing means for us. It is the collection of word sounds called
>>>>> language
>>>>> that creates human culture. We have a world full of things, of which we
>>>>> know
>>>>> naught; and we have sounds we make with our body, the affects of which
>>>>> we
>>>>> experience subconsciously.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Spoken language tends to be quite stable through time and hence,
>>>>> culture is likewise stable.
>>>>>
>>>>>    We can sense the meaning of things only in those ways that we can be
>>>>> affected by things. In order to sense, one must be affected. If one is
>>>>> not
>>>>> affected, one does not sense. In how many different ways can one be
>>>>> affected
>>>>> by things? How would we determine that?  In how many different ways can
>>>>> we
>>>>> be affected by the sounds we make with our voice? How would we
>>>>> determine
>>>>> that? The way we are affected by things is different with different
>>>>> people
>>>>> and at different times with each person. The ways we are affected by
>>>>> our
>>>>> voices is the same for all people and at all times with each person.
>>>>> The
>>>>> effects on us of our voices is the currency we use in order to
>>>>> determine the
>>>>> effects on os of all other things. As we are affected by the sounds of
>>>>> any
>>>>> given word for any given thing is how we assume we are affected by that
>>>>> thing. The word acts as a kind of magical window through which we peer
>>>>> in
>>>>> order to seemingly gain a glimpse of the true nature of whatever it is
>>>>>  we are considering. When we consider a thing, we have the thing itself
>>>>> in
>>>>> front of us. It is alien to us. It does not talk. It does not tell us
>>>>> what
>>>>> it is. It just exists mysteriously. However, we do have the word for
>>>>> the
>>>>> thing. The word speaks to us in our own language. It moves us literally
>>>>> with
>>>>> the motions of our bodies. And we are affected deeply by its presence.
>>>>> Which
>>>>> one informs us of the affect on us of any given thing, the thing itself
>>>>> or
>>>>> the word for the thing? The word is the handle we use to get a feeling
>>>>> of
>>>>> the meaning of the thing. We derive a sense of the meaning of any thing
>>>>> by
>>>>> hearing the word for that thing.
>>>>>
>>>>>    This sense of meaning we acquire from our language is not based on
>>>>> absolute knowledge of the ultimate affect on we humans of any thing. It
>>>>> is a
>>>>> product of our own particular language and different from the sense one
>>>>> acquires from using another language.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>   30
>>>>>
>>>>>    So, what does this matter? If our only sense of the meanings of
>>>>> things
>>>>> derives from our language, then what we subliminally assume to be the
>>>>> givens
>>>>> of our world are bestowed upon us, as a people, by our language. This
>>>>> sense
>>>>> of what our world means informs our decisions, be they consciously or
>>>>> subconsciously motivated, for underlying all conscious considerations
>>>>> is
>>>>> whatever resides in our subconscious. The contents of the subconscious
>>>>> sends
>>>>> compelling feelings and emotions which drive behavior, behavior which
>>>>> we
>>>>> rationalize by explaining why we do what we do.  If one disobeys the
>>>>> emotional promptings/demands of one’s subconscious, one experiences a
>>>>> sense
>>>>> of disassociation and consequently anxiety. Anxiety is disabling and we
>>>>> strongly tend to avoid it. Therefore, we are held hostage by the
>>>>> contents of
>>>>> our subconscious minds. Our culture, which is the product of our
>>>>> language,
>>>>> is the most influential factor among those that contribute to the
>>>>> values
>>>>>  we have stored beneath the surface of our awarenesses.
>>>>>    We humans live in a sea of mystery. Non-cognitive creatures are
>>>>> informed of the import of the varied situations they encounter by their
>>>>> instincts, whereas we are mainly informed by culture. This provides us
>>>>> with
>>>>> greater adaptability and also creates the risk of us “falling off the
>>>>> apple
>>>>> cart” of the sense of knowing provided by culture. Culture is somewhat
>>>>> like
>>>>> an overcoat which we can remove, and instincts are more like fur,
>>>>> (permanent). If we remove our cultural coat we are then without our
>>>>> familiar
>>>>> input of information as to the meanings of the things that make up our
>>>>> world. Without our common culture, (a product of our common language),
>>>>> we
>>>>> have only our individual experiences, and nothing to provide a basis
>>>>> for
>>>>> society. Nonverbal species have instincts to guide their social
>>>>> behavior.
>>>>> Humans have culture. Xenophobia is a result of identification with the
>>>>> familiar. In the hustle and bustle of everyday life, most humans have
>>>>> little
>>>>> time to
>>>>>  question and to seek answers. We are geared up for a competitive,
>>>>> rat-racy
>>>>> way of life, in which “wars and rumors of war” are commonplace. We
>>>>> simply
>>>>> absorb our culture and then act out our role in it.
>>>>>
>>>>>                               How Do We Know Anything?
>>>>>
>>>>>    We know when we need to pee. We know when we are hungry, tired or
>>>>> attracted to a potential mate. How do we know these fundamental things?
>>>>> We
>>>>> FEEL them. We don’t wonder if they are true or ponder how we know them.
>>>>> We
>>>>> just know. How could we prove that any of the things that we feel
>>>>> actually
>>>>> exist? We would not be able to prove their existence or the existence
>>>>> of any
>>>>> other given. We go by what is there. Our feelings inform us of how we
>>>>> are
>>>>> affected by whatever it is that is there that affects us. The
>>>>> subconscious
>>>>> rational mind accepts our feelings as givens and operates according to
>>>>> them
>>>>> as starting premises.
>>>>>
>>>>>    While our beliefs are in relation to our feelings, also our feelings
>>>>> are in relation to our beliefs. That is why we, as humans, are capable
>>>>> of
>>>>> heinous acts, acts that a non-idological person would recoil from.
>>>>> Whatever
>>>>> beliefs we adopt are part of the lens through which we gaze when we
>>>>> interpret more primary things. If we dare to abandon our beliefs and to
>>>>> simply allow ourselves to perceive our world as it is, without being
>>>>> interpreted according to beliefs, we then feel it as it is. If we
>>>>> realize
>>>>> that we really do not know what anything means separate from how we
>>>>> feel it
>>>>> is, that its ultimate meaning is a mystery, then we are able to
>>>>> perceive it
>>>>> without the intermediation of our
>>>>>                                                    31
>>>>>
>>>>> cultural conditioning.
>>>>>    Since we react emotionally to the emotive processes of others, to
>>>>> the
>>>>> sights and sounds of others’ emotional goings-on, the sounds of others’
>>>>> words, as well as the sounds of our own words, affect us emotionally.
>>>>>  We
>>>>> are affected by human vocal sounds as sounds separate from words and as
>>>>> components of words. When we use vocal sounds as words, the affects on
>>>>> us of
>>>>> the sounds stand as representing the affects on us of the things which
>>>>> we
>>>>> label with those words. The affect on us of the sounds of the word,
>>>>> “walrus”, is accepted by us as revealing the affect on us of the thing,
>>>>> “walrus”. The effect of the word replaces the effect of the thing; the
>>>>> material is superseded by the abstract; the map replaces the territory.
>>>>> In
>>>>> this way, we become creatures of our culture. Spoken language uses
>>>>> emotional
>>>>> feelings to represent the various things in our world.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Ever since language started, it has been informing us of h
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca