Language, words, and stuff.

Warning: this is made under the influence of not-excessive amounts of alcohol, but I'm not, strictly speaking, sober.

I've been seeing a lot about language recently, and it's had me thinking. I've seen the old suggestion that language limits thought, or influences thought, and I've seen bits and pieces about the values, and dangers, in 'labels'.

One of the things I've thought might be a meaningful insight is that words are often used as limiters. By that, I mean that when you say something (or write something, etc.), it's like you're trying to cut down an entire universe full of information back until you've communicated what you want.

"I'd like another beer" (a statement that's untrue at the moment; I've got quite enough) isn't so much providing information as it is removing information. It's almost like saying "Remove all states you could be imagining about me in which beer would be repulsive."

Talking about an object means "not talking about something that's not the object type we're considering". e.g., talking about a bird means *NOT* talking about a non-bird.

Now, what's so important about that? Well, that touches on labels. If you label something as being X, or X-like, if you are wise, what you're *REALLY* doing is saying that it's not non-X.

You're not saying the map is the territory; you're saying the territory is not unlike the map in all ways.

See, when we think, we're automatically labelling things, in one way or another. If nothing else, we've attached "that thing I'm thinking about" label to that something. And, the most important thing about that might be that we're thinking of something other than "not-what-we're-thinking-about". It might be difficult, or impossible, to put a thought into words. Thoughts might well be analog; words are certainly digital (to some degree). We may never find a perfect matchup between the two, just as a digital recording can never be a perfect reproduction of an analog wave (but it might be so close that no human being is able to tell the difference).

I think that's the purpose of poetry and art... to communicate those things that are beyond mere words.

But anyway... more important than that, I think is the concept of "cutting away" with language... that language is more about "what isn't" than "what is".

I think I'll explore that a bit more when I'm fully sober. Words are slippery enough then, that I don't want to keep juggling them when I'm not at the top of my game.

Language, words, and stuff.

Warning: this is made under the influence of not-excessive amounts of alcohol, but I'm not, strictly speaking, sober.

I've been seeing a lot about language recently, and it's had me thinking. I've seen the old suggestion that language limits thought, or influences thought, and I've seen bits and pieces about the values, and dangers, in 'labels'.

One of the things I've thought might be a meaningful insight is that words are often used as limiters. By that, I mean that when you say something (or write something, etc.), it's like you're trying to cut down an entire universe full of information back until you've communicated what you want.

"I'd like another beer" (a statement that's untrue at the moment; I've got quite enough) isn't so much providing information as it is removing information. It's almost like saying "Remove all states you could be imagining about me in which beer would be repulsive."

Talking about an object means "not talking about something that's not the object type we're considering". e.g., talking about a bird means *NOT* talking about a non-bird.

Now, what's so important about that? Well, that touches on labels. If you label something as being X, or X-like, if you are wise, what you're *REALLY* doing is saying that it's not non-X.

You're not saying the map is the territory; you're saying the territory is not unlike the map in all ways.

See, when we think, we're automatically labelling things, in one way or another. If nothing else, we've attached "that thing I'm thinking about" label to that something. And, the most important thing about that might be that we're thinking of something other than "not-what-we're-thinking-about". It might be difficult, or impossible, to put a thought into words. Thoughts might well be analog; words are certainly digital (to some degree). We may never find a perfect matchup between the two, just as a digital recording can never be a perfect reproduction of an analog wave (but it might be so close that no human being is able to tell the difference).

I think that's the purpose of poetry and art... to communicate those things that are beyond mere words.

But anyway... more important than that, I think is the concept of "cutting away" with language... that language is more about "what isn't" than "what is".

I think I'll explore that a bit more when I'm fully sober. Words are slippery enough then, that I don't want to keep juggling them when I'm not at the top of my game.