Dissidents Philosophy Forum

Internet Philosophical Community
HomeSearchRegisterLog in


 The Foundation of Language

Go down 
Potential Contributor
Potential Contributor

Number of posts : 11
Age : 69
Registration date : 2014-07-04

The Foundation of Language Empty
PostSubject: The Foundation of Language   The Foundation of Language I_icon_minitimeMon Jul 07, 2014 9:33 am

The Foundation of Language
Definition: A thing is any material what so ever in any form, shape or boundary.
Language is derived from a biological necessity. To better understand this statement, I will attempt to define an environmental acquisition system of a living organism:—
Environmental Acquisition Systems
Every living organism survives by crafting things it needs for survival from its environment. Even the act of feeding is, in of itself, a crafting act.
Definition: An environmental acquisition system of a living organism is that system of an organism which must acquire from the environment an element from some thing and craft with that element which it has acquired a product which maintains and promotes the life of that organism.
A simple enough concept, living organisms survive by crafting what it needs in order to live. Even digestion, is in of itself, a biological crafting system. This definition allows us to inventory such systems for ourselves.
Those Systems that Acquire the Element of Material
1) The Digestive-System.
2) The Manipulative-System.
3) The Respiratory-System.
Those Systems that Acquire the Element of Form
4) The Ocular-System.
5) The Vestibular-System.
6) The Procreative-System.
7) The Judgmental-System.

Even the concept of law to regulate social structures testifies to the fact that the human mind is responsible for the product of human behavior.
Notice that our systems are divided between those systems that acquire material and add new form to that material in order to make some thing. And we have systems which acquire form and must supply new material for those forms in order to make some thing. This provides us with two, and only two, primitive branches of reasoning. I call one Logic and the other Analogic.
Logics, such as common grammar, have form for a given and one must supply material to those forms in order to make a thing called a word.
Analogics, such as geometry, have material for a given and one must apply form to that material in order to make a thing called a figure.
This means that in the realm of language, a word and a figure are synonyms. It is from this fact that one can derive the idea that, in the simple, language is the art of saying what we see. This fact was emphasized by the prophet known today as Jesus Christ—he spoke, through what men call miracles, he spoke analogically. And, it is also stated that a prophet would come and give to man a new language, it too is an analogic. Analogic stresses the expression of human behavior—human expressed craft. This is how we learn logics as children, we are taught to say what we see and do as we are told. So, unless one becomes as a child again, one cannot say what Christ was doing—nor even understand what the Law and Prophets, including the last, were and are about.
As one branch of language is based on form and the other is based on material difference, together they, by definition, must make one and only one thing. In a formal system one pairs a logic with an analogic doing just that, saying one and the same thing using both branches of language.
The most well known grammar book is, in fact, Euclid’s Elements. If one is endowed with a simple mind, one cannot see that the drawn figures can stand for any material differences what-so-ever, and any form. When these concepts become engrained in the mind, then one starts to understand even Plato who asserted the same thing, Logic envelopes the material difference of emotion, which is an analogic, for one product of human will. Each is a branch of reasoning, not only the common grammar one thinks in, but the emotional content paired with the words. Thus one can expand the notion of emotion to cover all memories retained from our experiences. A person of true understanding laughs at such caricatures as the Star Treks’ Mr. Spoke—the character is a violation of reason, an oxymoron. Without emotion, language is not possible—reason is not possible. Every language pairs an element of form with an element of material—and emotion is just another material difference. It is a glaring contradiction to claim to display wisdom by doing the stupidest thing possible.
In order to comprehend the foundation of reasoning, one can contemplate any thing, and eventually come to realize that a thing can be divided into two parts. One part is that things form, and the other part is the material in that form. And one can then conclude that neither can exist without the other. Things exist, but a things form, which is part of a thing, is not a thing and cannot be said to exist. The same is true of material. The material of a thing is not the thing of which it is the material. This manner of dividing things, as Plato and his student Aristotle pointed out, do not produce things. These are the first principles or the elements of things.
This fact gives logics three, and only three, primitive categories of names. We can name a thing from which form and material may be abstracted, and we can name material of that thing and we can name the forms of that thing.
This gives us two distinct primitive naming conventions. We can name any thing directly, or we can name a thing by concatenating the name of that things form with the name of that things material.
Let us call the first way of naming things, Subjects, and the second way of naming things Predicates. We now see that a sentence does not have to have either a subject or a predicate. It must have at least one to be sure, but it is not necessary to have both. Subject and Predicates designate two distinct naming conventions, and have nothing what-so-ever to do with their position in a sentence.
Subject = Subject. Tom is running.
Subject = Predicate. Tom is a man.
Predicate = Predicate. A man is an animal.
Further more, we can see that a subject can be itself divided into categories. We can standardize the material difference in one and leave the form open for insertion, or we can standardize the form and leave the material difference open. I.e., we have variables.
Also, we can express denial without the use of “not.” For example, Tom is on the table.
We also have operands, directives which point us to thing from which abstractions are to be made. That is Tom. Etc.
In fact, we see that Common Grammar and Algebra are not only both logics, but adhere to the same linguistic principles.
Thus one should eventually come to realize that what is written or spoken, be they Subjects or Predicates may appear to be words but are not words in fact, because what is written or spoken is only the form of the words without the material. The material of which must be supplied to those forms, in order to make those forms into things, are the abstraction which are gathered through experience. We do not experience the material when we see the marks on paper or hear the sounds; the material must be stored in our own memory.
Analogics, on the other hand, have material as a given and the form must be applied to that material in order to make some thing. Analogics simply slice and dice. The form is not a difference at all, it is simply a boundary. One can see the same naming convention in Analogic. We have marks for difference and marks for boundaries, and together make things.
The logic associated with the grammar of the figure is not geometric language. Logic is not analogic. And if one carries their thinking further, we can deduce the principles of predication. We can then understand Plato’s character Socrates, and realize that a predicate cannot predicate of a predicate. This means as both he and his student Aristotle stated, only things can be defined; neither the names of forms nor the names of material difference can be defined. The only way they are known is by direct experience and as abstractions from things. We can also see that one of the greatest prized concepts of so call logicians, even the Einstein’s of history is blatantly false. A logic cannot predicate of an Analogic, nor an Analogic of a Logic. I.e. we cannot say, without displaying the most primitive stupidity, such things as space bends or time slows down.
It can be seen that there are then two major languages that one should learn, one a Logic and one an Analogic and that specialized languages are subsets of these.
If one grasps the concepts outlined here, then one may come to understand two very important facts about language. Both of these are put very concisely, and with overpowering implications.
One is that since language is the only power a mind can know, then:—
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God, and the Word was with God.”
As it was in the beginning, so too shall it be in the end. The anthropomorphic God, disappears. And when it does, one can then see that truth is independent of both gods and men, or in short, one shall not be a respecter of persons—great or small. Notice the “is” and “was with” and one will see the two branches, the two stone tablets, the two pillars before the Promised Land. The promise was in the beginning of the book, when we are functionally sane, we shall cultivate the earth from which we sprung in order to maintain and promote life, we will then be doing our own work.
And also:
“You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.”
The meaning of which should now be self-evident, but many are slow. Language is for the purpose of doing our own work. Freedom is the ability to function, to work in accordance with our own definition, in accordance with the truth of things. We are yet a long way from freedom, and far removed from being like God.
Back to top Go down
The Foundation of Language
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Dissidents Philosophy Forum :: Linguistics-
Jump to: