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.

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”.

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?

a.

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.

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.