THE LANGUAGE TRAP (written prior to, but compiled 02/25/2000)
===================
This article is an examination of what we call the "Language Trap" and
our need for many new and better definitive words. The reality of the
situation appears to be the need for an entirely new language, one in
which each word has only ONE meaning. We will explain…
We cannot communicate specific meanings effectively in a few words
using our ordinary conversational language (even though it may seem
to us to be ‘modern’). By trying to do so we are put on the defensive.
For instance, one may say either; " "I know", "I think" or "I believe"
this to be so, true or real" and are put to task to "prove" it when we
really mean to say that "this IS so" (because it has been proven, defined,
and/or demonstrated ALREADY by certain methods, means, and/or
by degrees or through deduction or various scientific processes.
Think about it, we have developed ‘computer language’ and other
"languages" to help us in our everyday lives; but when it comes to our
most used, most depended upon language (whether it be English,
French, German, or whatever), we are left with no real options. We
have no other choice than to use words that have more than one
meaning. The reason (as we will explain) that languages were developed
so that some words have more than one meaning is because this is HOW
‘rhetoric’ and other linguistic and ideological devices could be used and
manipulated. NOT for the purpose of pure, concise and effective
communication as it should have been.
We need "meaning specific" words. Granted, in many instances there
may be several words that define a meaning or ‘description’ of a thing,
idea, concept, theory, etc., but each of those words would make it clear
EXACTLY what the particular meaning is - so that there will be no
mistaking the meaning. Another thing that words with two meanings
allow is the ability to ‘lie’, while letting the deceptive person/s the
‘right’ to claim that what they said was ‘true’. This, along with other
things, is what divides us as a society. We are so used HAVING to tell
‘lies’ so often in our everyday lives just so that we can ‘get along’
and/or to avoid conflicts with others. This, is what we need to eliminate
and WHY what we are saying about language is so important.
Another example would be that we need a word, a definitive and most
specific word to replace "know", "think", and "believe" so that it is
immediately known by the person or persons that we are speaking to
that the appropriate data exists that confirms what we are saying and
that it is a proven fact that is KNOWN and accepted by the foremost
scholars in that field so that we are NOT perceived as speaking of that
particular issue or subject as anything less than an authority on that
subject.
By having to use a word that is anything less than specific and exact,
we open ourselves up to criticism and doubt. There may be times for
that, such as in a debate or in discussion where persons are trying to
reach conclusions, etc., but we HAVE to be able to communicate on
OTHER levels where we are already certain of things that have been
concluded and/or ascertained; and not held perpetually to the arena of
‘debate’ and argument every time we speak or try to communicate.
We have achieved a higher level of understanding than that and are
continually finding out more and more, and as we do, we find the need
for a more definitive language increases proportionately.
I do not want to be mistaken in what I am saying here, I am not saying
that we make the language that we currently use to become extinct; but
rather that we develop the new ‘meaning specific’ language as an
ongoing project that we use as we need it. That way we will still have
all that we have with the languages that we already know and use, but
still have the ability that the new language would give to us.
These words that we currently have to use in our current language/s
put us ALL on a lower level and at an extreme disadvantage that we
are scarcely even aware of. We are perpetually put on the spot and in
a position where we have a burden to "prove" - even if it ALREADY
has been proven. Facing the truth of the matter is to realize that we
were given the languages that we have and use by those who had
developed and invented them for their own specific purposes and
initially that was for the purpose of their own ability to ‘control’ the
population at large by being able to use rhetoric and ideologies. We
have progressed beyond that point and are no longer ruled over by
Kings or other such rulers. We need to be able to convey our exact
meanings to each other and to eliminate the ability of others to
manipulate us via devices of language.
Our needs change as we become more sophisticated and make new
discoveries and our needs for a ‘meaning specific’ language is long
past due. We are long past the need for a word that we can use that
says "we/I know this definitively and without question by anyone
who knows about this subject" (because it has been proven by those
who are experts in that area), without having to actually ‘say’ all of
that. And, we can then either give a reference where the person that
is being spoken to may refer to or find that ‘proof’ for themselves or
explain it ourselves to them - if we wish to do so. But NOT because
we are on the defensive and feel that we HAVE to. This is the same
kind of ‘duplication’ that we have been trying to rid ourselves of
and that we can see some measure of success with in the use of
personal computers. We have to extend this kind of thinking to the
things that we use most often as well if we ever expect to advance
in intelligence as a society. If we cannot or will not do this, we are
doomed and the future generations are doomed to ‘thinking’ in
base terms as individuals and just ‘masquerading’ on the exterior as
anything more than ‘barbarians’.
Our very thoughts and concepts are dependant upon our language.
We ‘think’ for the greater part in the particular ‘language/s’ that we
use. If we do not recognize this as a most basic ‘need’ and tend to
that need then we have no one to blame for what results other than
ourselves. Language can ‘confine’ us and hold us to a set of concepts
and ‘standards’ that we may well outgrow or that we have already
have outgrown. The basic idea of what language should be has to be
reassessed and we must rid ourselves of those things that we find to
be detrimental to us as a whole and as individuals. We are dependent
upon our language for our very thoughts and concepts, and in our
ability to convey those ideas to others. We must not be restrained
from making progress by being hindered by the very thing that we
require in order to make that progress. And this, is what we mean
when we say that the very language that we use can be a ‘trap’ for us
if we are not better aware of what it actually is.
Roman Page
Copyright 2000, The Roman Piso Forum
(All Rights Reserved)
