Animism, Native Language, and Quantum Linguistics
Does the language we speak blind us to the way the world works?
Can we make better observations, and therefore better choices, by changing the way we speak?
One example of “changing the way we speak” involves removing the verb “to be” from one’s use of english, creating “e-prime”. I’ve written a little bit on this before, and currently write mostly in e-prime.
However, e-prime only addresses two problems with the english language; it removes the “is of identity” and the “is of predication” [Meaning, no one thing exactly equates with anything else (John may farm, but calling him a “farmer” oversimplifies all that John expresses as a human being)], and stresses the presence of an active observer (”I see a red cat” rather than “That cat is red”).
In the end, though, we still have a language fundamentally oriented around abstractions and visual concepts; we tend to “see” what the speaker describes. In the Native American language of Blackfoot (Alford 2002), if you speak about someone riding a horse, in that genderless and fundamentally relative language, the listener receives the feeling of riding, not the picture of riding; the movement, sway, and balance of riding the horse, not the image of a rider. Notice also that the listener identifies empathetically with the one doing the riding. You can see someone riding without much impact, but if you “feel” someone riding you’ve entered their world (and essentially begun tracking them; see any of the many articles I’ve written here on the nature of tracking).
Examples abound how indigenous (non-civilization) languages simply present a more scientifically accurate version of the world, linguisitically speaking. What self-respecting modern scientist wouldn’t drool uncontrollably over the opportunity to speak with an evidential case, allowing one to evaluate or share information/data while easily communicating the quality of the data, such as:
* Witness vs. Nonwitness
* Firsthand vs. Secondhand vs. Thirdhand
* Sensory
o Visual vs. Nonvisual (i.e. auditory, olfactory, etc.)
* Inferential
* Reportative
o Hearsay
o Quotative
* Assumed
(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidentiality)
Now, one can, through flogging English enough, communicate these things in a long-winded manner, but just imagine a language that makes it a fact of daily, common conversation, to speak in such a way. No recourse to scientific jargon, or steepling one’s fingers while leaning back in an easy chair while saying “evidence suggests that, if this data holds true…etc. etc.”. Everyday english speakers don’t speak that way.
To our great loss, we have no easy way of communicating the fluid and contextual nature of observation. Languages spoken by animal trackers and animists, however, effortlessly enable their speakers to do so.
Why? Because our science has only just begun to catch up with knowledge that we once had, and that indigenous animist cultures still have (where they still live): that the universe constantly changes, that we make observations about it using both our heads and our hearts, that we cannot separate the observer from the observed, and that we will always stay at least one step behind the track of the mystery that makes it all possible.
This all brings us to Quantum Linguistics. The late Dan Moonhawk Aldorf did some important work in this area, explicating why native languages seem to come pre-equipped to speak about quantum events, while english (and other indo-european languages) come so ill-equipped.
Does language indeed change the way we observe the world? If so, what next? Do we junk English for some indigenous language, wrestled from its original speakers? Do we try to fix English, as in e-prime, tinkering with it to bring it back some measure of usefulness?
Well, I can say one thing: we have a lot of experimenting to do, and no one person will solve this fiendish riddle.
October 3rd, 2006 at 5:18 pm
Does the language we speak blind us to the way the world works?
I’m going to say no, not neccessarily.
A language is a collection of symbols — symbols that merely represent what a person experiences. True, a language may effect our sensory input by acting as a reality-filter, however this is not always the case.
The English language has many words and I consider it quite flexible.
Can we make better observations, and therefore better choices, by changing the way we speak?
I think it’s more important to focus on the way in which the world is observed, and that will undoubtably alter the way we speak.
An example is the word “better”. What makes one observation better than another? What makes one creature better than another? What makes Subject A superior to Subject B? I, for one, find clarity more pleasing than confusion, but just because it pleases me more does not make it better, only something different — and something I’m inclined to explore.
Perhaps that’s the main pitfall in the verb =to be=. By saying one thing is as it is and that is that the thing is no longer something we have to look more deeply into, utilizing, as you put it, a “fluid and contextual nature of observation”.
I don’t see why English renders this mindset impossible or even difficult. That’s something like saying an illiterate person will not find it as easy to foster an inquisitive mind as would a literate one.
They’re just words. What was it Joseph Cambpell said? “don’t eat the menu”… something like that.
My question would be: Does the flawed language promote neurosis or dors neurosis promote a flawed language?
October 4th, 2006 at 1:44 am
Hmm! I almost didn’t expect anyone to answer “no”! But, fair enough.
I agree that the way we observe the world will alter the way we speak, but I also feel strongly that the way we must speak (and how others speak to us) has an inexorable effect on how we observe the world. Assumptions exist behind the grammar and vocabulary of every language. Most (if not all) indigenous languages have no word for “time”. Hopi can only refer to manifested/manifesting reality vs. not yet manifest. Can we even begin to imagine how thinking in such profoundly different terms would alter the way we interact with the world?
Yet I know, I make it my business to share ways of more deeply and satisfyingly interacting with the world, through actual practices, exercises, experiences, tools.
But I keep coming back to the power of language, and the power of “words”, and how much they affect my reality. “Just words”? Can we truly say such a thing? To spell a word, and to cast a spell; a coincidence in english idiom? I suspect not.
Your question: “does the flawed language promote neurosis or does neurosis promote a flawed language”, I cannot answer with confidence.
I feel I CAN say however, that: a flawed language support neurosis, and a neurosis supports a flawed language. It creates a cycle, and to cure neurosis, one can both heal in spirit, and heal one’s language.
Why choose one thing? Why either/or? I see myself enmeshed in a web of causes, effects, and I try to address as many of them as possible.
You also mentioned the word “better”, and what makes one observation better than another. I have a measuring stick: observations that get me the results I want, I like more than observations that don’t. I like the useful observations.
October 4th, 2006 at 12:34 pm
As far as observation and usefulness goes, yeah, I too would rather have a machete as opposed to, say, safety scissors. I’m just not going to say one is better than the other — each has it’s advantages depending on the task (:
Regarding this business of language - something that springs to mind: words must possess an organic quality in order to encourage growth in the indestructable seed of human potential. This creates a dichotmy in language: sterile language, which enforces the surrounding debris (neurosis) and keeps a person entrenched in the lower levels of conciousness — never evolving; and organic language, which helps a human to flourish and pushes them beyond any imposed limitations, keeping their feet in motion on the path leading to the fulfillment of their uniqueness.
So, I guess what I’m saying is after a bit of thought I do agree. Words have quite an impact, however, it’s my belief that language, no matter how flawed, no matter how effective, cannot destroy what makes us human and our capabilities as such. We cannot be fully blinded, only forced to see life through a murky lens.
October 4th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
Beautiful! Thus our ability to have this conversation about language at all. A murky lens, indeed, but never an opaque one, as long as we stay curious.
November 21st, 2006 at 2:10 am
[…] Nounyness: A problem e-prime does not currently address In a quantum universe, where things act without identity, the priority of verb-based perception over noun-based perception emerges, i.e. looking at the dance, but not the "dancers". Not asking, ‘"is" that a particle, or a wave?’, but rather ‘does that particle? does it wave? does it do both?’. Not the lack of obvious paradox in the second set of questions. Indigenous languages tend towards a verby structure; Western-Indo-European languages tend towards a nouny structure. Both closely follow their own cultural conceptions of logic and reasoning. Check out some that I’ve written on this subject: The College of Mythic Cartography » Blog Archive » Animism, Native Language, and Quantum Linguistics The College of Mythic Cartography » Blog Archive » The Mouth Speaks, The Mind Boggles […]
August 11th, 2008 at 7:12 am
[…] Animism, Native Language, and Quantum Linguistics […]
August 21st, 2008 at 3:32 pm
I’d say yes to language obscuring reality. Words split a whole into parts or objects and a whole is greater than that parts. We don’t need words to ezxperience, vide how does a baby acquire language or say ‘yuck’ with its face when eating a worm?
this is a red herring topic, intent to cause thought one suspects.
a.
August 21st, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Adrian-
I agree that in English and Indo-European languages, words split a whole into parts or objects. The point here concerns indigenous languages that avoid that exact problem.
To you or me, a language that defines objects and creates rigid categories for the ineffable and dynamic world may seem natural; in fact, speakers of our languages may wonder what else you could possible use a language for?
For indigenous languages, the prioritize behaviors and patterns, over objects and nouns. They assume nonlocality (things here can affect things there, without regard to distance in spacetime), flux (constant change), and vibration (everything moves somehow).
Modern languages resist exactly these sorts of things, and for this reason, I inquire: can we improve our language to better model the world we live in? Language obscures, yes, but can we lessen the extent to which it obscures, rather than seeing a binary, on/off situation?
August 24th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
actually, I take that back. “language” itself doesn’t obscure. modern languages obscure.
When language acts as no more than a pointing finger (”look over there!”), that doesn’t obscure perception, it directs attention to something worth noticing.
We have beaten the dead horse of “words never suffice for experience” for so long, that many fail to see the REAL red herring; who has decided to use words to “replace” experience? Not original speakers of these indigenous languages. A good language directs attention to an experience, it doesn’t replace the experience ourself.
In our culture “of the book”, we choose to believe that if someone wrote it down, it must “be true”. That belongs to our culture alone, the “modern world”.
August 28th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
There’s a fascinating additional piece to this conversation: Asian languages, especially Chinese. As I understand it, Chinese both as a WRITTEN language and as a spoken language is strongly quantum. Characters, sounds, and even words have multiple meanings and are heavily contextualized. You often don’t know the exact meaning of a given word in spoken Chinese until the end of a sentence or unless you’ve heard the rest of the conversation. The spoken language is even more of the same with the same character having a multiplicity of meanings, reflecting the quantum complexity of life (how observer actually changes the result).
What is perhaps most fascinating is that the further you go back in time with both written and spoken Chinese, the more complex and quantum (and to some degree uncertain) the language is. As it is becoming more modern, it is getting more solid, more precise and more “stuck”. An example of this is, the Daodejing or Tao Te Ching which is an extremely ancient text that has more translations than any other work of literature. In some sense, all of these translation are accurate due to the multiplicity of meaning layered in the work.
Now, think about how speaking Chinese and especially reading Ancient Chinese would necessitate learning to think in new ways.
August 28th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Yes, I believe most languages have made this journey, from flexible and dynamic origins to illusory staticness and categorization. Thanks for the contributions!