Form and Language- A Realization

[Zinkovich]

(Inspired from a dialogue I had on another message board)

Form does not = language, but rather the two flow into each other like two neighboring variables in some broader psychological equation. Think about it- there are many definers of our mannerisms, intuitive leanings, and "ego"/subcoincious. The only impactor here is not form, and how we impart our information to others is not the sole definer of who we are.

Rather, there is some seperate internalization on our part that we often find impossible to express to one another, deeper synthetic emotions that often take concious shapes in our dreams for our perusal. There is, in fact, things in our minds that we often do not understand adequately enough to express. There are also, in my opinion, things that impact our language beyond our viewing and explication of outside forms, for we often corrupt and twist our very own preconcieved forms to some preconcieved molds in the name of something deeper concerning our egos. Indeed, that is what it means often to thoroughly "change": to reset your forms in some new light and aspect, thus impacting our ego in entirely different ways.

However, that is not to say that language and form's interaction is unimportant. Indeed, the way we often mold form using language to our liking says a lot concerning these deeper psychological aspects of our egos, and thus the interactions of form and language warrants further study. The question is: how do we study such a thing objectively, when by using words in the first place we are already defining the forms in terms of our language?

To go further, "Objective" is meant in the sense of looking at the variables of the experiments in terms of what they really are, rather then through the lens of our own personal judgement. Indeed, every time we use language there is always some sort of strange personal, judging aspect involved. Even in statements of simple fact, we often tend to use them to marginalize other ideas and narrow the current focus of the reader's psychological form, somehow limiting their perspective to the point where the single fossil, or the single mass of cosmic radiation, has some sort of ascended signifigance at the moment beyond all else.

Even dividing our forms up and splitting them into sort of mirrors into or away from each other, psychologically speaking, creates a sort of strange reflective ego. Even the greatest mystics(to use those who most often try to shift and marginalize their forms) still have a sense of "I" around them- why is this? In my opinion this is because often, when you remove the forms, instead of outright elimination, a sort of reflective version of the remaining mental form fills up the emptiness or takes it's place.

So this question is, how do you not have form/ego, and yet use language at the same time? I posit that language in and of itself dooms us to the ego, and marries us to these undeterminable psychological factors.

Am i making any sense to you guys? Any comments? Keep in mind I am trying to use language to explore the psyche and ego behind language, so this may come off as downright stange and confusing.

[Jack]

I perceive language as nothing more than socially agreed-upon verbal symbols we use to represent concepts beyond, "Gork, look...elephant", a concept that can be expressed physically by grabbing Gork's shirt and pointing at the elephant. I suspect the human tendency to "talk with our hands" is a holdover from a time when our language was inadequate to express our thoughts.

every time we use language there is always some sort of strange personal, judging aspect involved.

Of course we do. I use language to express my thoughts. If I had no thoughts I'd have nothing to communicate. I also cannot know what another is thinking. So I can only express my thoughts, even if they weren't mine originally. Whatever input I take in becomes a part of me. Some of it I reject as incompatible with what else I know.

Even dividing our forms up and splitting them into sort of mirrors into or away from each other, psychologically speaking, creates a sort of strange reflective ego. Even the greatest mystics(to use those who most often try to shift and marginalize their forms) still have a sense of "I" around them- why is this? In my opinion this is because often, when you remove the forms, instead of outright elimination, a sort of reflective version of the remaining mental form fills up the emptiness or takes it's place

You lost me here.

how do you not have form/ego, and yet use language at the same time?

When would I not have both form and ego? I think I missed something.

[Zinkovich]

I perceive language as nothing more than socially agreed-upon verbal symbols we use to represent concepts beyond, "Gork, look...elephant", a concept that can be expressed physically by grabbing Gork's shirt and pointing at the elephant. I suspect the human tendency to "talk with our hands" is a holdover from a time when our language was inadequate to express our thoughts.

Except often, we bend and twist these aforementioned societal concepts, and link them together to form linguistic constructs beyond mere statements as "look at this elephant". We start to use projection and a sort of filtering system usually when using such language. That is what I was trying to point out. That, and what affect it has on our egos.

Of course we do. I use language to express my thoughts. If I had no thoughts I'd have nothing to communicate. I also cannot know what another is thinking. So I can only express my thoughts, even if they weren't mine originally. Whatever input I take in becomes a part of me. Some of it I reject as incompatible with what else I know.

Exactly. However, you are ignoring the impact this has on our ability to objectively view the constructs we represent through language when tempered by our ego.

You lost me here.

Sorry, I was responding partially directing tha tpart of my post towards a certain attitude held by mystics.

In some mystical mindsets, they believe in dividing their mind and conflicting different parts of their ego until it become more "singular", to the point where they are at "peace" with themselves, and later to the point where they are supposedly without a concept of "I". What they do not realize, and I think this is very important, is that when you eliminate these aspects of your own ego, the ego is still there and is still changing based on past experience. Therefore, old egoistic viewpoints you "eliminated" will often pop up once again in your mind sooner or later. You truly cannot get rid of "you".

It was directed at them, so it was natural that I lost you on that one.

When would I not have both form and ego? I think I missed something.

You can never be without it. That's part of the point I try to make to people(especially the numerous spiritualists I talk to, living near one of the spiritualist capitals of the world), through various ways.

In fact, if you read the sentence immediately following the question, you'd realize I already agree with you, in a sense.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Zinkovich (Inspired from a dialogue I had on another message board) Form does not = language, but rather the two flow into each other like two neighboring variables in some broader psychological equation. Think about it- there are many definers of our mannerisms, intuitive leanings, and "ego"/subcoincious. The only impactor here is not form, and how we impart our information to others is not the sole definer of who we are. Rather, there is some seperate internalization on our part that we often find impossible to express to one another, deeper synthetic emotions that often take concious shapes in our dreams for our perusal. There is, in fact, things in our minds that we often do not understand adequately enough to express. There are also, in my opinion, things that impact our language beyond our viewing and explication of outside forms, for we often corrupt and twist our very own preconcieved forms to some preconcieved molds in the name of something deeper concerning our egos. Indeed, that is what it means often to thoroughly "change": to reset your forms in some new light and aspect, thus impacting our ego in entirely different ways. . . . So this question is, how do you not have form/ego, and yet use language at the same time? I posit that language in and of itself dooms us to the ego, and marries us to these undeterminable psychological factors.

It seems more to me that you are describing how ego dooms us to language, and how the interaction of the two shapes our view of external forms. Language is the filter by which we understand external reality, but the screen that filtered image projects onto -- the ego -- is not flat and flawless, as evidenced by your observation of elements of the ego that defy understanding through language. That being the case, I don't see how the filter can determine our ability to change/destroy the screen; especially since the ego is the source of that language. Or am I misunderstanding, and you are saying that language is the source of the ego? If it is impossible to eliminate the ego because it is impossible to divorce ourselves from language, isn't it impossible to divorce ourselves from language because it is impossible to destroy the ego? It seems you either have a catch-22 or a redundancy, depending on whether or not it is possible to eliminate both language and ego at the same time.

[praxis]

Quote by: Zinkovich In some mystical mindsets, they believe in dividing their mind and conflicting different parts of their ego until it become more "singular", to the point where they are at "peace" with themselves, and later to the point where they are supposedly without a concept of "I". What they do not realize, and I think this is very important, is that when you eliminate these aspects of your own ego, the ego is still there and is still changing based on past experience.

I believe the mystical folk you may be referring to believe that everything changes. Form is emptiness, emptiness is form, and all that jazz.

You can never be without it.[form/ego] That's part of the point I try to make to people(especially the numerous spiritualists I talk to, living near one of the spiritualist capitals of the world), through various ways.

Thought and language are for doing things, so the answer is when you do nothing. Do you think it’s possible to do nothing?

[Suburbanite]

Quote by: Isherwood I perceive language as nothing more than socially agreed-upon verbal symbols we use to represent concepts beyond, "Gork, look...elephant", a concept that can be expressed physically by grabbing Gork's shirt and pointing at the elephant. I suspect the human tendency to "talk with our hands" is a holdover from a time when our language was inadequate to express our thoughts.

How can you have a thought that does not exist in the language you speak. Are there words or "concepts" that we can't "THINK" of now? Yes. But to say those particular thoughts are essencial to the human mind would be a mistake.

[Suburbanite]

Zinkovich i think the term "ego" might be a little dated. I didn't realize Freudians exist. The term "ego" is a word, as contingent as all others. It is not that Ego and Language come into contact or interact. Language is not a medium, nor a substance, nor a tool. Language doesn't "touch upon reality". Language is simply the terms (words and sentences) we use to explain everything. Thought is language, Ego is language, etc.