three dimension logic in language.

[hydrogen]

If Adam and Eve live in a ONE dimension world, i.e. they can only move back and forth, an unmovable dot between them would prevent them meeting each other.

 

The solution is TWO dimension. If they know how to move in TWO dimesion (back/forth and left/right), they can move left or right to avoid the dot between them.

 

If a line put between them, they'd be in trouble again. They'd have no way to across the line in TWO dimension.

 

The solution is THREE dimension. They can fly above the line or go under the line with THREE dimension movement.

 

We human live in a THREE dimension world (back/forth, left/right and up/down). If you count time, we live in a FOUR dimension world. However our language is TWO dimensional: God/Evil, good/bad, blac/white, right/wrong...

 

The logic inside us is mostly TWO dimensional as result. Our TWO dimensional thinkings don't match the "reality".

 

How can we put THREE dimension into our language formally? I have no idea. Any suggestions?

 

Thanks.

 

[Stosh]

I think you need better analogy than the lines one to describe what three dimensional words could be like . I am thinking the two dimensional descriptives light versus dark describes a real spectrum. When many things are possible in mutual exclusion from one another we just describe the relevant grouping such as passerine birds. That has multiple areas of similarity and progressive difference between various ones. For simplicity we can drop back into dichotomies , but that doesn't indicate any linguistic deficiency IMO

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

1-D = 0-D/infinite-D

From 1-D / 0-D came all other dimensions.

All possibilities in all dimensions are defined at the source, but experienced in the branches.


Language is at least 5 dimensions. minimum.

We can describe all the dimensions of 1-D as being pointed.
We can describe all the dimensions of 2-D as being planar.
We can describe all the dimensions of 3-D as being polar.
We can even describe the dimensions of time as being "wibbly wobbly, timey wimey... stuff"
Or at least say 4-D is toroidal... though i could be wrong about that.


"Could be" is not binary. right/wrong is binary, but throw in "maybe" and "i dont know" and you've got 2-D speech.
All that's left is to sprinkle opinions into the mix and 3-D speech is well on its way.

Emotions can make communication four dimensional, and philosophy sets us up with five.

[三江源]

is the answer spectrum vocabulary

[Stosh]

I Dont see how that spectrum vocabulary program answers the question ,but it may,,

all I was getting at ,was that if one considers subjects and groupings as related vectors

there is no end to the number of dimensions that can be integrated,,

and that the dichotomies of speech in particular are related to spectrums of complementary pairings- groupings

the lingo isnt imposing that structure on the world , the world experience suggests it.