The Deception of Language

I have been doing some extensive reading with regards to the Holographic Paradigm, and in doing so, I have grown to greatly admire the work of the late physicist David Bohm. Here is an exerpt from a summary of Bohm’s work that I found fascinating:

“Before delving into Bohm’s substantive contributions to science, I will touch briefly on his ideas about language and thought. In his penchant for precision, Bohm analyzed ways that our language deceives us about the true nature of reality. We generally consider ordinary language to be a neutral medium for communication that does not restrict our world view in any way. Yet Bohm showed that language imposes strong, subtle pressures to see the world as fragmented and static. He emphasized that thought tends to create fixed structures in the mind, which can make dynamic entities seem to be static. To illustrate with an example, we know upon reflection that all manifest objects are in a state of constant flux and change. So there is really no such thing as a thing; all objects are dynamic processes rather than static forms. To put it crudely, one could say that nouns do not really exist, only verbs exist. A noun is just a “slow” verb; that is, it refers to a process that is progressing so slowly so as to appear static. For example, the paper on which this text is printed appears to have a stable existence, but we know that it is, at all times including this very moment, changing and evolving towards dust. Hence paper would more accurately be called papering–to emphasize that it is always and inevitably a dynamic process undergoing perpetual change. Bohm experimented with restructuring language in this dynamic mode, which he called the rheomode, in an effort to more accurately reflect in language the true dynamic nature of reality.”

Any thoughts on the matter?

has interesting consequences for the universals/ideas… Does the analagy extend from nouns for physical objects to those, I wonder. Certainly our perceptions of them change frequently, but the things themselves?

Hmm, I’d instinctively disagree with Bohm, though i admit I know I’m nowhere near as read on the subject as he was.

My reasons? I think he’s missed the reason why we developed nouns in the first place, it’s not because of language that we define reality in such a way, it’s because of our perception that we do. We don’t see that glass is actually a liquid, that stones crumble into pebbles and then dust, that trees are growing every second. We don’t see it because we percieve these things at our own rate, at our own processing speed. Cats percieve things slightly faster than we do, a television looks differently to them because they can see the scan as the tube is working, which our perception can’t (though our brain probably does, but edits out that information).

In other words I think Bohm has unfairly accused language of something it didn’t do, we already viewed the world in that way and our language evolved to reflect those views that we already held. Reality wasn’t restricted by language, rather our own perception of reality was doing the restricting!

What do you guys think?

This is the first time I hear about Bohm’s contribution to the philosophy of language, but the idea that language makes the reality look “fragmented and static” is in fact quite common. Now, I think this is a very limited and inadequate perception of the influence, that language has on the way our minds work.

First of all, the very idea of “change” is an abstact idea, formed by language, in the same way, as the idea of “identity”, or “identical object”. These two ideas are interrelated, and in fact they do not exist independently of each other. You can speak of a “change” only if you have an identical object, an object which changes. You can use verbs meaningfully only if you have nouns, that point to the objects, to which you can attribute actions, of which the verbs speak. There is no “running” without a “runner”, a person or an animal which runs. There is no “flying” without a bird, or a plane, or whatever.

In fact, the influence of language on our perception of reality is so great, that I would prefer to speak not about a “deception of language”, but rather about the role of language in the construction of reality.

Matthew E. wrote:

This is awesome because I don’t really like the english language. It is the language of a con artist for how you could manipulate and alter situations, people and the truth. I think humans need a universal language that could most effectivly convey emotions and thoughts. I am a big Star Trek fan, and in some of the alien species of Star Trek they discuss their language differences. The Ferengi have over 100 different words in their fictional language for rain. Because there are so many degrees of what one could consider rain. The Betazoids have tons of words for the word love. Love for my sister isn’t the same as the love for a friend and love for my wife.

Excellent original post! This is exactly what i have been trying to say with this pitiful excuse for a language in other threads using the words of Heraclitus, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, and others.

In fact, the influence of language on our perception of reality is so great, that I would prefer to speak not about a “deception of language”, but rather about the role of language in the construction of reality.
[/quote]

That reminds me of something we studied in psychology about language. The question was raised as to whether or not language was essential for thought or if it was a product of thought. That is, if you have no language, can you have ideas? For instance, what if there was a slave who never learned the word freedom (or any synonyms of course). Would it be possible for him to concieve freedom? Maybe this is off topic, but think about it.[/list]

This is usually the point at which someone brings up children who have been raised in the wilderness. Language and thought are inseparable. I am, of necessity, unable to communicate any ideas that can’t be expressed in language. There are other threads on this very subject here that go into much more detail.

Matt,
I think I agree with you, not sure though.
Otherwise is Bhom implying that before our ancestors developed language that they did, in fact, percieve the world in a different way? That they were concious of alot more than we are concious of now? Which in turn implies that maybe animals in general have a higher awaerness of the way the universe works than we do.
In fact maybe this is the case and why animals have no desire to develop the way we have, and in fact, we as humans appear extremely stupid and unaware to them?

–

Smooth, I agree, I constantly find myself frustrated at the lack of words I have to convey, fully, an idea, concept or thought I may have.

–

Neft Sojhan

As far as being able to concieve of freedom, even when not being aware of the word freedom. Well if the brain works with pictures (as maybe is implied by cave paintings of our ancestors?) then I see language as an extention of these pictures. You can not of course say(or grunt) a picture to someone else, you need to develop a common understanding that one grunt means Kill the wild boar and that two grunts means, run like f*ck, a saber tooth lion is coming!

–

When I was about 13, A new student joined my math class.
He was Chinese and the whole time I knew him, I never heard him utter one word of English, although he seemed to understand it quite well.

We did infact communticate to each other during maths lessons using small pictures, drawn in the back of our maths books, to represent an idea or concept (ala the game pictionary). He was an amazing artist, and one of the nicest kids I met at school. His name was Chi, he taught me alot, yet never said one word to me (or to anyone else come to it, not that I heard anyway)

Thinking about it, most kids start of with picture books or comic strip stories before they can read, but still the author manages to convey the meaning of the story to the child.

Symbology again I suppose. Far more powerfull than words in my opinion.

–

Peace N Love N Stuff.

MentulZen.

The following passage was written by the comedian George Carlin. There are some striking similarities between Carlin’s observtions and Bohm’s, especially with regard to the role language plays in developing our reality. Carlin seems to put its effects in a practical limelight. Anyhow, I hope you enjoy the passage as much as I have.

"You can’t be afraid of words that speak the truth. I don’t like words that hide the truth. I don’t like words that conceal reality. I don’t like euphemisms or euphemistic language. And American english is loaded with euphemisms. Because Americans have a lot of trouble dealing with reality. Americans have trouble facing the truth, so they invent a kind of a soft language to protect themselves from it. And it gets worse with every generation. For some reason it just keeps getting worse.

I’ll give you an example of that. There’s a condition in combat. Most people know about it. It’s when a fighting person’s nervous system has been stressed to it’s absolute peak and maximum, can’t take any more input. The nervous system has either snapped or is about to snap. In the first world war that condition was called shell shock. Simple, honest, direct language. Two syllables. Shell shock. Almost sounds like the guns themselves. That was 70 years ago. Then a whole generation went by. And the second world war came along and the very same combat condition was called battle fatigue. Four syllables now. Takes a little longer to say. Doesn’t seem to be as hard to say. Fatigue is a nicer word than shock. Shell shock…battle fatigue.

Then we had the war in Korea in 1950. Madison Avenue was riding high by that time. And the very same combat condition was called Operational Exhaustion. Hey we’re up to 8 syllables now! And the humanity has been squeezed completely out of the phrase now. It’s totally sterile now. Operational Exhaustion: sounds like something that might happen to your car. Then of course came the war in Vietnam, which has only been over for about 16 or 17 years. And thanks to the lies and deceit surrounding that war, I guess it’s no surprise that the very same condition was called Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Still 8 syllables, but we’ve added a hyphen. And the pain is completely buried under jargon. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

I bet you, if we’d still been calling it shell shock, some of those Vietnam veterans might have gotten the attention they needed at the time. I bet you that.

But it didn’t happen. And one of the reasons is because we were using that soft language, that language that takes out the life out of life. And it is a function of time it does keep getting worse.
Give you another example. Sometime during my life toilet paper became bathroom tissue. I wasn’t notified of this. No one asked me if I agreed with it. It just happened. Toilet paper became bathroom tissue. Sneakers became running shoes. False teeth became dental appliances. Medicine became medication. Information became directory assistance. The dump became the land fill. Car crashes became automobile accidents. Partly cloudy became partly sunny. Motels became motor lodges. House trailers became mobile homes. Used cars became previously owned transportation. Room service became guest room dining. Constipation became occasional irregularity.

When I was a little kid if I got sick they wanted me to go to a hospital and see the doctor. Now they want me to go to a health maintenance organization. Or a wellness center to consult a health care delivery professional. Poor people used to live in slums. Now the economically disadvantaged occupy sub-standard housing in the inner cities. And they’re broke! They’re broke. They don’t have a negative cash flow position. They’re f***in broke! Because a lot of them were fired. You know, fired. Management wanted to curtail redundancies in the human resources area. So many people are no longer viable members of the work force.

Smug, greedy well-fed white people have invented a language to conceal their sins. It’s as simple as that. The CIA doesn’t kill people anymore, they neutralize people, or they depopulate the area. The government doesn’t lie, it engages in disinformation. The pentagon actually measures radiation in something they call sunshine units. Israeli murderers are called commandos. Arab commandos are called terrorists. Contra killers are called freedom fighters. Well if crime fighters fight crime and fire fighters fight fire what do freedom fighters fight? They never mention that part of it to us, do they?

And some of this stuff is just silly. We know that. Like when the airlines tell us to pre-board. What the hell is pre-board? What does that mean? To get on before you get on?

They say they’re going to pre-board those passengers in need of special assistance …cripples! Simple honest direct language. There’s no shame attached to the word cripple I can find in any dictionary. In fact it’s a word used in Bible translations. “Jesus healed the cripples.” Doesn’t take seven words to describe that condition. But we don’t have cripples in this country anymore. We have the physically challenged. Is that a grotesque enough evasion for you? How about differently-abled? I’ve heard them called that. Differently-abled! You can’t even call these people handicapped anymore. They say: “We’re not handicapped, we’re handy capable!” These poor people have been bullsh**ted by the system into believing that if you change the name of the condition somehow you’ll change the condition. Well hey cousin … doesn’t happen!

We have no more deaf people in this country. Hearing impaired. No more blind people. Partially sighted or visually impaired. No more stupid people, everyone has a learning disorder. Or he’s minimally exceptional. How would you like to told that about your child? ‘He’s minimally exceptional.’ Psychologists have actually started calling ugly people those with severe appearance deficits. It’s getting so bad that any day now I expect to hear a rape victim referred to as an unwilling sperm recipient!
And we have no more old people in this country. No more old people. We shipped them all away and we brought in these senior citizens. Isn’t that a typically American twentieth century phrase? Bloodless. Lifeless. No pulse in one of them. A senior citizen. But I’ve accepted that one. I’ve come to terms with it. I know it’s here to stay. We’ll never get rid of it. But the one I do resist, the one I keep resisting, is when they look at an old guy and say, “Look at him Dan, he’s ninety years young.” Imagine the fear of aging that reveals. To not even be able to use the word old to describe someone. To have to use an antonym.

And fear of aging is natural. It’s universal, isn’t it? We all have that. No one wants to get old. No one wants to die. But we do. So we con ourselves. I started conning myself when I got in my forties. I’d look in the mirror and say, “Well…I guess I’m getting …older.” Older sounds a little better than old, doesn’t it? Sounds like it might even last a little longer. I’m getting old. And it’s okay. Because thanks to our fear of death in this country I won’t have to die. I’ll pass away. Or I’ll expire, like a magazine subscription. If it happens in the hospital they’ll call it a terminal episode. The insurance company will refer to it as negative patient care outcome. And if it’s the result of malpractice they’ll say it was a therapeutic misadventure.

I’m telling ya, some of this language makes me want to vomit. Well, maybe not vomit …makes me want to engage in an involuntary personal protein spill."

Hear, hear is all I can say about that! And you know who I blame? The Americans, it’s their fault and it will continue to be as long as they let people get away with it.

Every time I watch a broadcast by an American military commander (irrelevant of rank) or anyone in any sort of power they have an utter inability to elucidate their views with any clarity, even when they want to! It’s as if there’s some shame in expressing your ideas in monosyballic words, that if you don’t use at least one word that most people won’t understand in one sentence you’re doing something wrong. Ignore the politicians, it’s their job not to say anything, it’s the American professionals that are the true grammatical criminals.

And they look like complete idiots to the English. We think the Americans are stupid because they sound stupid. Using a sentence to explain something that could be said with one or two words doesn’t make them look intelligent, it makes them look like they don’t understand what they’re talking about and are relying on a dictionary translation, talking without understanding.

And do you know what the worst part is? It’s starting to infect us!! Leaving aside the adoptations like PTSD which our military use to try and make it sound better, I’ve started seeing police chiefs on TV who speak like Americans do, the more words to explain a concept the better, the more you waffle, the more you justify your pay. Thankfully we’re less tolerant than the Americans of such things but I do fear that now it’s started it’ll just spread.

This trend is also facilitated by the feminist movement, with their attempts to erase female signifying words such as waitress, actress, etc. The feminists are attempting to replace them with unisex words (server for waiter and waitress), or simply use the male form as the only word, as is the case with actor. Perhaps this will curb the the derogatory thoughts of chauvinists or perhaps it will not, but either way, the english language will become more burdensome as a result.

If anything, there is a conscious effort being exerted to change language to the likings of private interests, and I’ll tell ya, it’s ugly.

Matt, I was unaware that such negative sentiments existed in the UK with respect to the idiocy of Americans (in the context of this topic of course ). It is refreshing, to say the least, that such behavior is frowned upon, however I fear that the seed has been planted, and you Brits will eventually catch up unfortunately.

Matt wrote earlier-

Our senses (as you have stated) are responsible for restricting our perception of reality. I don’t think Bohm would disagree with you there. However, he was commenting on language and thought. I think Bohm is trying to illustrate that our language hinders how we think about reality, because we think using language. Language is in a sense, a barrier to objective thought; it is forcing us to think in terms of our senses, which as we have already announced, limit our perception. If we change language, then we can begin to break the shackles our senses keep us in, by thinking outside of them. In it’s current form however, language does not facilitate thinking outside the senses (if that’s even possible).

I hear you on the George Carlin thing. The other George (Orwell) nom de plume (pen name) of Eric blair talked about the corruption of language too. One of my favorite examples: Israeli incursions (euphemism for Land Theft). We are witnessing the age of the last hollow men, where the World does not die with a bang, but with a whimper.

MentulZen
Love and peace to you too brother. The capitalists can keep the stuff. Ok. I now understand that humans can communicate to a rudimentary degree without using language (whether spoken or signed), but how do you express a complex concept like dehydration, or internal combustion?
I said language was essential to ideas, perhaps i should have said concepts. Using pictures and signals, facial gestures, pantomime, etc definitely has it’s place, it may even be closer to reality in the sense intended by the original poster. but complex language is necessarily error prone because knowledge and our thought processes are error prone. We assume stasis when the proper term should be flux, We say lightning flashed (positing the subject once as object and again as predicate (Nietzsche)) when the proper term would be more like ‘lightninged’ (sic! given the lie of the rule). Language lies because in order for man to survive he also must lie. He must see himself as a single organism, he must posit unity where the proper distinction is more like ‘organized chaos’. He must see laws where the truth is they may not reoccur (Hume). Language is an organization. It takes the wierd, the chaotic, the mundane and the spurious and lays it out straight so man can free his mind for better things.

Yep, sorry Matthew, we do tend to think you are all a little slow, but that’s also probably related to you lot being founded on the offcasts of our society (sorry about that, we have much to blame for, if only we’d sent some normal people over ). Of course it is one of these unfounded prejudices, but it isn’t helped by the image that your worldwide spokesmen portray.

I’m actually reminded of seeing an interview with a fireman talking about the recent fires in CA and I was amazed when he said something along the lines of “We facilitated the extinguishing through our water delivery system”, also known as “We put the fire out with a hose”. The way that he said it just came across that he was exceedingly stupid (though I have exagerrated what he said). In fact, the very fact he said it amazed me, I mean does he think that we don’t have hoses in the UK?

It also doesn’t help that we have some of your trashy programs over here, things like America’s dumbest criminals, Jerry Springer, Montel, Ricky Lake, Cop chases (majority of brits don’t have cable/sattelite and thus only have 5 Channels, so these things are watched by a lot of the UK). Obviously the majority of people who feature on these programs are exceedingly stupid, including the presenters most of the time (save Jerry )

Interestingly enough, yesterday someone said to me that a program had been “Americanised” (the theory of everything for you brits out there who saw it, I was lamenting that I had missed it and was told I had missed nothing). Now what she actually meant was that it had been aimed at the lowest common denominator, the dumb and uneducated, who couldn’t give a tupenny about Einstein et al… But I understood her perfectly and it was only because of what we have already talked about in this thread that I noticed it. That’s what Americanised means in English now, it means dumbed down.

But back on topic, it seems I have misjudged what Bohm said, indeed I would agree with him if he was saying that language restricts our ability to think of reality outside our perception of it (to think of rocks as future pebbles, to think of our partner as future worm food or less shockingly as a future ex). But again I still find issue, is there such a thing as a neutral language? Surely a fluidic language which Bohm seems to be suggesting will be as misleading about reality as our present more static one?

The first thought that springs to my mind about this is growth. A human (humanning?) in its first 23 or so years is growing, from that point on it starts decaying, however if we found a process to stop the “cutoff” of growth it would have the potential to continue growing forever (hypothetical symplification but you get the idea). So we would have two verbs for a human humangrowing and humandecaying. But there would also be a non-sensical and arbitary point at which we would have to change verbs.

I’m not particularly impressed by this line of argument, but I still feel uncomfortable with Bohm’s ‘papering’, to me it just sounds like an attempt to break reality down to a huge pattern of energy which is just as misleading as our view that many things are static, there is more to reality than merely the past, present and future patterning of energy of the universe. As there is only one point in time that we experience (and arguably only one point that exists?), i.e. now, is reality not by its very nature discrete rather than fluidic?

Matt wrote-

I don’t think it is possible to have an unbiased language, and I’m not sure what Bohm’s thoughts on this were either. But perhaps through a “triangulation” of more than one way of thinking, one could reach a close to unbiased observation about the universe.

I’m not too sure I am understanding what you are writing, but I think you are attempting to categorize the different parts of “humaning”, which is what (I think) Bohm is against. Whether a human is continually growing or decaying is irrelevant, as it is merely the process of being a human that is “humaning”.

Well Bohm did believe in a wholistic universe, one in which everything was intertwined. I can understand why you have a hard time accepting Bohm’s views, but who is to say they are misleading? I think it’s a matter of opinion at the moment.

Language is a use and manipulation of words for inter-communication.
Words separate everything into discrete entities, ‘somethings’.
Everything is an infinite, dynamicly forever changing combination of infinitely small ‘things’ - it has no divisions except in our conveniently twisted perception of it.
Therefore language is realistically invalid. It is a created convenience for communicating different interpretations of illusions, what isn’t there. Whether noun verb or whatever.
So language is a deception because it is created for communicating deceptions.

To cast a silhouette:

exactly!

You really can’t get mad at language. How else will we give honors and praises for those of us who can best predict which shadow will come first, which ones will talk and which ones will move slow?

About Carlin, I love the guy. Visit his website some time. I love his idea of eliminating all the golf clubs in America and putting up low income houses for the homeless.