Easter - Pagan or Christian

[Niels]

Niels, it is true one should clean after oneself, and it is now time for you to do so. You have made extraordinay claims about me. Back them up or retract them. Explain where and how I have attempted to discredit science, language, time!!!, money, and tools.

Some random quotes from you:

[Astrology] is a classic example of a language, composed of symbolic constructs that allow the user to inject any manipulative content they wish. [...] We ourselves use such language tools all the time to manipulate for many reasons.

Astrology students learn the language of astro*%43bull^%$ and go forth to succeed somewhat less well in the world. [...] Science&^3.14159. bu7llshi7t language not catching on yet.

Look at the financial systems lately? They use "math", not astrology.

With languages being the sorry tools they are, it will not be easy of course.

I am amazed you think the system of money is "honorable". It has enslaved us all.

But I do stand firm that you do not know any much better than me. Or RastaSista. Or most of us on the planet who are not PHD's in one of the pertinant fields.

That should do.

[Pendragon]

A bunch of quotes out of context does not explain how pure concepts can be smeared, or discredited.

And as these are not "entities" , it is unclear how any could smear them. To discredit them would make people unwilling to use them as unworthy, or outright harmful. I notice tools are off the list here. Why? Are not all of these things tools in some way?

Of these money can be discredited in a very real sense. Its value rises and falls, it can and has crashed, with often disastrous effects. Do you claim otherwise? One would think the tulip fiasco would burn in the Dutch memory. It is an untrustworthy tool at best.

Language in its pure form would be capable of transmitting every aspect of thought, emotion, and descriptive quality of the universe without flaws. One cannot say this for human languages. They do not convey perfectly, they carry meaningless terms, and do not translate well at all. When one criticizes languages humans use, one criticizes humans for their failure to create a pure language. Math is perhaps the best language humans have devised to transmit exact information, but is still not pure. Here is a useful resource to help you understand these concepts. http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/freg-lan.htm#SH2b

Well on to the quotes:
Neils quotes Pendragon:

Look at the financial systems lately? They use "math", not astrology.

Um, this discredits what? Please tell me what is discredited here, or smeared.

Niels quotes Pendragon:

With languages being the sorry tools they are, it will not be easy of course.

You are right here, it should have said current human language. One would think that would be implied however. Do you claim our current languages to be pure and free of obstructive, confusing qualities? Explain, please.

Neils quotes Pendragon again:

I am amazed you think the system of money is "honorable". It has enslaved us all.

I stand by that 100 percent. I have already criticized money itself as an untrustworthy tool. But this quote is criticizing the System, the Banks, and Credit institutions.

Come on, you must do better than this. As a very flawed person, there must be some real error I have made somewhere.

[sheling]

Do you claim our current languages to be pure and free of obstructive, confusing qualities? Explain, please.

My son, at the age of three, speaks English in a form far cleaner and more precise than I have ever heard it. He is utterly literal and concise. This is a quality frequently observed among high-functioning autistics. So much so, that various linguists and psychologists (Attwood, Wing come immediately to mind) have suggested that HFA is heralding a new generation of language. For these autistics, language is not an art form or a play-thing, but a scalpel to be used with utter precision. It wasn't until someone used a metaphor on my son last week ("If you eat much more, your tummy will burst") that I came to realise that, consequent to the requirement of being able to communicate freely with my son, I have also stripped all metaphor and vaguery from my every-day language.

So, yes, that manner of language does exist and is available to someone as young as three years old.

[Pendragon]

Do you claim our current languages to be pure and free of obstructive, confusing qualities? Explain, please.

My son, at the age of three, speaks English in a form far cleaner and more precise than I have ever heard it. He is utterly literal and concise. This is a quality frequently observed among high-functioning autistics. So much so, that various linguists and psychologists (Attwood, Wing come immediately to mind) have suggested that HFA is heralding a new generation of language. For these autistics, language is not an art form or a play-thing, but a scalpel to be used with utter precision. It wasn't until someone used a metaphor on my son last week ("If you eat much more, your tummy will burst") that I came to realise that, consequent to the requirement of being able to communicate freely with my son, I have also stripped all metaphor and vaguery from my every-day language.

So, yes, that manner of language does exist and is available to someone as young as three years old.

It is true that children seem to go through stages as they learn to speak, ( or maybe we could say they are awakening the inner capacity for speech) that seem to show us windows on purer forms of human communication. At these younger stages most children do no know yet know how to lie for instance. It is an important stage in development that happens around age 5-6. It freaks most parents out when it occurs, as they feel something dark in their child for the first time.

The issue is not with anything but the constructs within a language. If he is speaking any current human language, such as English, there will be all the same flaws. Even the greatest genius will fail to deliver thoughts free of obstructive, confusing qualities, if they must use such a form. (and we must)

So no, such a form of language is not available to us. You should read the link I gave if you wish a greater picture on the issues. It gives an excellent perspective on the problems we face.

A 'natural" human language may involve more than just sounds, and symbolic forms such as writing, and math. It likely involves such things as body language, touch, and scent. As you also have these things with your son, it could bring aspects of the purer form you feel. He may have aspects of the elusive genius so often bandied about also.

A very disturbing feature of our times is that half of the current languages are about to become extinct. Many of these are the aboriginal ones.

[sheling]

Thank you for elucidating me on the linguistic development of my child. Especially as his language acquisition is abnormal, which you completely managed to take into account after reading my last post.

My point was this: language is a perfectly functional tool. We are simply inept at wielding it.

[Pendragon]

Thank you for elucidating me on the linguistic development of my child. Especially as his language acquisition is abnormal, which you completely managed to take into account after reading my last post.

My point was this: language is a perfectly functional tool. We are simply inept at wielding it.

I doubt very much I could elucidate you in any way on the the linguistic development of your child in particular, as this is a matter for the true experts you have, and your own real life experience with him. My remarks can only be presented to childrens' development in an overall way. It does make me wonder if we can recognize how much genius a child may actually possess. What if your child is of a level of 300-400 on a scale where we consider borderline genius at around 140-150? How could we even begin to grasp such a being's abilities, or know how to bring out their best?

I think the Non-Cognivist position on our human language is that it is not a perfectly functional tool. Perhaps Zarathustra could enlighten us about whether this is really part of their position.
I certainly agree that at least I am inept at wielding language, and see evidence that many, if not most humans are inept in their own way.

Edited note: It struck me a good way to illustrate one great flaw in human language. Imagine your child speaking what you call a "pure language", but in English, while a similar child from China speaks his "pure language", but in Mandarin Chinese.

Both children are of such high intelligence, we are not sure what to make of them. But can they understand each other? Not using English, and Chinese at their first meeting! No matter how smart the child speaking Chinese is, you will not be able to understand what he says either.

Now we can see in very broad strokes how human language can obstruct our attempts to communicate. That is obvious, but it is more damaging to find our own language doing the same thing, by including within itself meaningless constructs.

Curiously, you would quickly learn how to "read" what the Chinese speaking child needs using all the other kinds of human language, face signals, hand signals, hand signals, scent, and touch. Talking 3 year old children here, and it works with adults too

It begs the question. What is the "pure" human language here?