Language we trick ourselves with

[Geof Nanto]

. Edited August 21, 2015 by Yueya

[Basher]

Have to admit, I'd never even heard of Cilla Black until that post...

 

In the early 60's, she was a Cloakroom Attendant in the Cavern Club, Liverpool, where the Beatles were discovered.

They became friends and she was asked up on stage to sing on more than one occasion.

Once signed up, she rose in popularity in the UK.

Later becoming a presenter on various TV shows.

 

Though I wouldn't really call her a "Star", she certainly had a lot more talent than most of the current crop!

[dust]

Human, inhuman, subhuman, animal

 

 

In this topic, I saw lots of talk of humans vs animals.

"he can be regarded as nothing more than an animal and not a human being,"

"ISIS are subhuman, they are animals."

"dark potential exists ... when I call start labeling others as animals"

"The wildest of animals don't even do what they do."

 

...blah blah.

On both sides of the discussion, there seems to be universal acceptance of the notion that humans are not animals, that to be inhuman or subhuman is to be both an animal and extremely cruel, that for us to be 'animals' is a terribly scary idea; there seems to be general implied agreement that we are better than animals, whatever that means.

 

Look here: Humans are animals. The distinction is absolutely fallacious. And yet this seemingly harmless trope is so common it has become a basis for dangerous thought and discussion.

This isn't just coming from a vegetarian. Yes, I would like people to take note that the other species are fundamentally no different from us (they eat, shit, sleep, move, bleed, suffer), and that there is no logical reason to treat them any worse than we do humans. If I am to kill and butcher and eat a pig, why not a human? If I am to say that a human's life is 'precious', that it is 'wrong' to kill humans, how does my logic not extend to other sentient creatures? Because I alone among the animals am able to use reason? Reason should allow me to see that using reason does not make my suffering any more tolerable, my fear of death any more potent, or my future of any more 'importance'. In fact, a rational human is likely more capable of accepting a violent death with tranquility and understanding than a dog or a chinchilla ever could. In that case, our reason only strengthens the case that we should be kinder to the others, in thought and deed.

But I don't want to focus on that (the value of human life vs other). Please, if you respond to this post, let it be to the next part:

When we talk of being "less human" or "more like animals", what do we mean? There's an assumption that being "more human" or "less human" is possible (we are biologically human -- that can't be changed), but there's also the notion that this non-biological, abstract, ethical mode of being 'human' equates with compassion and benevolence; that to be 'inhuman' is to lack compassion or kindness, to be cruel and barbaric, "like an animal".

What we're usually doing is confusing the biological and the abstract terms. To be 'biologically human' on the one hand and 'ethically human' on the other. And so when we say "he's not human!" we're talking of the ethical version (he is biologically human), but we confuse it with the biological version and end up believing that we are not, ourselves, biological animals. Then we carry on in the same vein: "he's not human! he's an animal!"

The thing is, humans are among the only creatures capable of cruelty. That is, if we are intellectually superior to the other species, and we alone recognize fear and pain in another, and we alone are capable of modifying our behaviour to minimize it, we are then the only ones capable of intentionally causing suffering, whether for pleasure or simply because we don't care.

 

So in saying that cruelty makes one 'inhuman' and that this is the same as being "no better than an animal" we're saying at once that one is 'alone among the animals in behaviour' (i.e. capable of cruelty) and "treat them like we treat the other animals" (i.e. give no thought for their suffering because they're not human).

In other words, we're claiming to be benevolent and compassionate whilst at the same time admitting that we treat the other species with no compassion or benevolence.

 

Stop it, please. Even if you give no shit for the other animals, stop this nonsensical use of language...

Edited April 24, 2016 by dustybeijing

[Marblehead]

BTW  Humans are animals.  We darned sure aren't plants although I have known some who qualify as vegetables.

Edited April 25, 2016 by Marblehead

[Old River]

For years I have held a fascination with a subset of English called "E-Prime" in which the speaker avoids using linking verbs such as "am," "is," "was," "were," "be," being," and "been."  For the most part, we can avoid these words which too often create needless metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical confusion (especially in terms of identity and predication).  

 

I've experimented with writing in E-Prime in the past, which took some practice.  A couple years ago I even tried -- only for a couple months -- to speak in E-Prime as well, which I had a very difficult time doing!  I kept running up against "grammatical walls" so to speak, and had to retrace my steps often.  I rarely write in E-Prime these days, though I'd like to do so again.  So far, I have kept my version of the Dao De Jing in the parameters of E-Prime -- so far!

 

E-Prime eliminates the grammatical fiction of identity and predication which often causes more harm than good.  We cannot say or think certain things in E-Prime, and in this respect I think it can bring a great deal of clarity to daily and philosophical discourse.

 

You can check out this link to read more about E-Prime and its fascinating implications: 

 

http://www.nobeliefs.com/eprime.htm

 

(incidentally, I have written this entire post in E-Prime...)

[dust]

Thanks for that. Very interesting.

 

I think many problems with Laozi translations arise because of assumptions about and inclusions of words/structures not found in ancient Chinese. Many crave verbosity, and often idiomaticity, making the text seem more conclusive than it appears to read in the Chinese.

[Old River]

I don't want to play up too much a kind of eastern vs. western thinking, but I do think it is interesting that classical Chinese has a very fluid grammar, whereas Greek and Latin are very thoroughly declined languages (modern English is not quite as complicated grammatically, but some inflections still carry over). 

 

The problem lies not in language itself, but rather our common lack of awareness that language only approximates our experience of reality -- we confuse the map for the territory itself.  I think chapter 1 of the Dao De Jing attempts to shed some light on this distinction:

 

"The nameless is the beginning of heaven and Earth.
The named is the mother of the ten thousand things.
Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one sees the manifestations."

(Feng/English translation)

 

One of the greatest problems with language lies in the grammar, how we carve up a whole reality (the "uncarved block") into various aspects -- nouns and verbs (space and time), the implied essentialism of "is" verb forms (and its accompanying "God's eye" view), spatial and temporal qualities (adjectives and adverbs), etc.  The grammatical structures have a far greater impact on our implicit and explicit metaphysical views that we realize.  Words may label things, but grammar indicates the inter-relationships between those labels.  And this seeps into all of our daily perceptions and interactions. 

 

The experiment in writing and speaking in E-Prime I did was interesting because all the grammatical structures I took for granted all of a sudden was something I became very conscious of and how it had quite an impact on my perceptions and judgments of situations, and E-Prime created an eventual shift in perspective. 

[Geof Nanto]

During a break from their massacre of Native Americans in the United States–Mexico borderlands from 1849 to 1850 for bounty, pleasure, and eventually out of sheer compulsion, Glanton gang members Judge Holden and Toadvine were discussing Old River’s post on E-Prime. For Judge Holden doubt and uncertainty are our enemies….

 

Whatever exists, he [the judge] said. Whatever in creation exists without my knowledge exists without my consent.

 

He looked about at the dark forest in which they were bivouacked. He nodded toward the specimens he’d collected. These anonymous creatures, he said, may seem little or nothing in the world. Yet the smallest crumb can devour us. Any smallest thing beneath yon rock out of men’s knowing. Only nature can enslave man and only when the existence of each last entity is routed out and made to stand naked before him will he be properly suzerain of the earth.

 

What’s suzerain?

A keeper.  A keeper or overlord.

Why not just say keeper then?

Because he is a special kind of keeper. A suzerain rules even where there are other rulers. His authority countermands local judgements.

Toadvine spat.

 

The judge placed his hands on the ground. He looked at his inquisitor. This is my claim, he said. And yet everywhere upon it are pockets of autonomous life. Autonomous. In order for it to be mine nothing must be permitted to occur upon it save by my dispensation.

 

Toadvine sat with his boots crossed before the fire. No man can acquaint himself with everything on this earth, he said.

 

The judge tilted his great head. The man who believes that the secrets of the world are forever hidden lives in mystery and fear. Superstition will drag him down. The rain will erode the deeds of his life. But that man who sets himself the task of singling out the thread of order from the tapestry will by the decision alone have taken charge of the world and it is only by such taking charge that he will effect a way to dictate the terms of his own fate.

 

(from Cormac McCarthy’s, Blood Meridian.)

 

Needless to say I find Judge Holden’s perspective repulsive. Yet this is merely an extreme example of the power a person can obtain from banishing all doubt and uncertainty. I'd call it the yang aspect of consciousness, with continually questioning the yin aspect. And too much questioning leads to helplessness and confusion. Hence I agree with Old River that we need both - one the antidote for the excesses of the other. 

 

(BTW I acknowledge my peaceful reality here on land I try to protect as a wildlife refuge was once part of the homeland of Aborigines. My ancestors waged a successful war of terror against these tribes.)   

Edited April 25, 2016 by Yueya

[roger]

Absolutes.

 

"I'm doing well." HOW well?

 

"She's pretty." I know many pretty girls, but none of them hold a candle to Josie Maran.

 

"I'm having a good day." That bad, huh?

 

"I don't like sushi." It's horrible isn't it?

 

"I think Jesus was a great man." You're probably right.

 

"She's very intelligent." Kinda like Einstein?

 

You get the point.

Edited April 26, 2016 by roger

[RigdzinTrinley]

Absolutes.

 

"I'm doing well." HOW well?

 

"She's pretty." I know many pretty girls, but none of them hold a candle to Josie Maran.

 

"I'm having a good day." That bad, huh?

 

"I don't like sushi." It's horrible isn't it?

 

"I think Jesus was a great man." You're probably right.

 

"She's very intelligent." Kinda like Einstein?

 

You get the point.

YES and damn you beat me on that one roger

 

thats what causes the most painful conversations in intimate relationships as well right?

 

you always... (fill in painful blanks)

 

you never.... (fill in the painful blanks)

 

that is a sure way to a messy entangled state of affairs.

 

yes all thes absolute statements - without putting at least AT LEAST!!! a nice little "I think" or "I guess" in front - they don't sit so well with modern folk - unless the one uttering them is an approved authority and the people listening stopped thinking for themselves

 

Such a nice threat a most wittgensteinian as well

 

Oh and also

 

I feel this and that....

 

that is something no one could ever never ever disprove, so if you say I feel like shit when you do this and or say this - well then the other person is completely frozen and you yourself as well in this "thought/feeling"

 

no one can know/validate or invalidate anothers feelings

 

so to shoot around with I feel this and that is also part of the "absolutes" category

 

now put an always in front of the feel and well no one can take that conceptual construct away from you (because thought and feeling are more or less one in buddhist terms - and also we usually do not use many differetn words for our feelings so it becomes an absolute and very blurry indefinite mess)

 

for example "I always feel bad on mondays"

 

oi weh - good luck with this one

Edited May 1, 2016 by RigdzinTrinley

[Marblehead]

Well, I'm absolutely sure I have found peace & contentment.  And even better than that, no one else on this planet is qualified to question my understanding.

Edited May 2, 2016 by Marblehead

[dust]

Indeed, I always feel that one should never use absolutes.

 

Sorry.

[RigdzinTrinley]

why you always do that?

Edited May 2, 2016 by RigdzinTrinley

[doc benway]

Well, I'm absolutely sure I have found peace & contentment.  And even better than that, no one else on this planet is qualified to question my understanding.

I know a few people who are, just ask them!

[doc benway]

For years I have held a fascination with a subset of English called "E-Prime" in which the speaker avoids using linking verbs such as "am," "is," "was," "were," "be," being," and "been."  For the most part, we can avoid these words which too often create needless metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical confusion (especially in terms of identity and predication).  

 

I've experimented with writing in E-Prime in the past, which took some practice.  A couple years ago I even tried -- only for a couple months -- to speak in E-Prime as well, which I had a very difficult time doing!  I kept running up against "grammatical walls" so to speak, and had to retrace my steps often.  I rarely write in E-Prime these days, though I'd like to do so again.  So far, I have kept my version of the Dao De Jing in the parameters of E-Prime -- so far!

 

E-Prime eliminates the grammatical fiction of identity and predication which often causes more harm than good.  We cannot say or think certain things in E-Prime, and in this respect I think it can bring a great deal of clarity to daily and philosophical discourse.

 

You can check out this link to read more about E-Prime and its fascinating implications: 

 

http://www.nobeliefs.com/eprime.htm

 

(incidentally, I have written this entire post in E-Prime...)

 

I'd like to emphasize the value of this concept in terms of how we relate to the psychological states and emotions we experience. There is a tendency to identify the very nature of our being with our transient states of mind and feeling.

 

Phrases such as:

I am angry -   No, you are not angry. Angry is the label for a transient emotional state. Who you are is something altogether different. Anger is present currently in your experience. At some point it will no longer be there. 

I am depressed, I am happy, I am hungry ...

 

You are wrong -  No, perhaps you are ill-informed or incorrect regarding a particular topic but the "you" cannot be reduced to the simple descriptor "wrong" with any credibility. There are so many other areas in which you are "right" and those must be equally qualified.

 

It may seem mundane or trivial but I assure you that it can be liberating to free oneself of such over-identification. We create our reality through the stories our internal narrators are endlessly reciting. While misuse of language in this way is done out of convenience and efficiency, it can be damaging through reinforcing an unhealthy over-identification with a transient mood or experience. 

 

PS - Yueya, Blood Meridian is one of my favorite novels and, IMO, McCarthy's best. 

Edited May 2, 2016 by steve

[Geof Nanto]

PS - Yueya, Blood Meridian is one of my favorite novels and, IMO, McCarthy's best. 

 

That Judge Holden quotation reminds me of aspects of Karl’s single-minded philosophy and the energy he seems to derive from such one-side certainty. When I read such narrow agenda orientated posts I’m reminded of how psychologist Iain McGilchrist describes what he calls the left-brain trap. I’ve been trapped there myself and consequently I’m under no illusions about its power. I fully believed I had real answers applicable to everybody, and had strong, rational arguments to support my perspective.  The more intelligent a person is, the tighter the potential this trap has to bind.

 

For me, the values that lead us out of the left-brain trap are precisely those of embodied self-cultivation like the old Daoist masters upheld. To my observation, right-brain enhancement in various forms is common ground at the core of all the great religious traditions.  A big limitation for any discussion forum on such topics though is that these values are ‘silent’ and must be personally experienced to become real. 

 

From McGilchrist…….

 

“What differentiates the [left and right brain] hemispheres is not which aspect of reality they engage with, since each engages with everything, but the way in which they engage with each aspect of reality. All the evidence I see suggests that in the modern world we are getting trapped in what I call the hall of mirrors: the left hemisphere’s construction of reality, in which everything refers to something else within the hall of mirrors, but never breaks out to reality. Life becomes more and more abstract and virtual: The values that would have led us out of this vision of the world, and are grounded in a view of the world as embodied, neither wholly material nor wholly spiritual, become neglected.   

 

“I also call the left hemisphere the ‘Berlusconi of the brain’ because it controls the media. It is very vocal on its own behalf. The right hemisphere doesn’t have a voice, and it can’t construct these same arguments. And I also think, rather more importantly, there is a sort of hall of mirrors effect: the more we get trapped into this, the more we undercut and ironize things that might have kept us out of it, and we just get reflected back into more of what we know about what we know about what we know…

 

“And I just want to make it clear, I am not against whatever the left hemisphere has to offer; nobody could be more passionate in an age in which we neglect reason and we neglect careful use of language – nobody could be more passionate than myself about language and about reason. It’s just I’m even more passionate about the right hemisphere and the need to return what that knows about a broader context.”

 

(The above is an extract from Iain McGilchrist’s lecture on  – The Divided Brain & The Making of the Western World –  at   http://www.east-west-dichotomy.com/iain-mcgilchrist-the-divided-brain-the-making-of-the-western-world-full-lecture-text/ )

Edited May 3, 2016 by Yueya

[doc benway]

A big limitation for any discussion forum on such topics though is that these values are ‘silent’ and must be personally experienced to become real.

 

Your entire post was very valuable but this deserves emphasis.

Thank you

[RigdzinTrinley]

Note to self: one day I will read carl rogers and hopefully slowly learn the art of listening free of bias

 

[Marblehead]

Note to self: one day I will read carl rogers and hopefully slowly learn the art of listening free of bias

Or just listen to some Roy Rogers cowboy songs and forget about the rest.

[ralis]

For years I have held a fascination with a subset of English called "E-Prime" in which the speaker avoids using linking verbs such as "am," "is," "was," "were," "be," being," and "been."  For the most part, we can avoid these words which too often create needless metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical confusion (especially in terms of identity and predication).  

 

I've experimented with writing in E-Prime in the past, which took some practice.  A couple years ago I even tried -- only for a couple months -- to speak in E-Prime as well, which I had a very difficult time doing!  I kept running up against "grammatical walls" so to speak, and had to retrace my steps often.  I rarely write in E-Prime these days, though I'd like to do so again.  So far, I have kept my version of the Dao De Jing in the parameters of E-Prime -- so far!

 

E-Prime eliminates the grammatical fiction of identity and predication which often causes more harm than good.  We cannot say or think certain things in E-Prime, and in this respect I think it can bring a great deal of clarity to daily and philosophical discourse.

 

You can check out this link to read more about E-Prime and its fascinating implications: 

 

http://www.nobeliefs.com/eprime.htm

 

(incidentally, I have written this entire post in E-Prime...)

 

Korzybski as well as Robert Anton Wilson have been major influences in my thinking. In general, I have eliminated most of the absolutes in my thinking and writing. I rarely use 'isness' of identity in any form.

 

Robert Anton Wilson wrote an entire book without using 'is'. I believe it was 'Quantum Psychology'

 

http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Psychology-Brain-Software-Programs/dp/1561840718/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1462384880&sr=1-1&keywords=robert+anton+wilson+quantum+psychology

 

 

Edited May 4, 2016 by ralis

[silent thunder]

Great book.  Incredible man.  Only wish I'd encountered him a couple decades earlier in life...

[mindtooloud]

the word "lol" is often used and if most f the time false. i only use it to ease the mood when im talking with someone becuase peple are you uptight and get hurt by a needle prick up their back side

[Marblehead]

the word "lol" is often used and if most f the time false. i only use it to ease the mood when im talking with someone becuase peple are you uptight and get hurt by a needle prick up their back side

Yeah, I use "Hehehe" because on the internet no one can hear me laugh.

 

And I agree, some people get offended very easily.