First Movement
Fact #1 ~ All language is dialectic.
Fact #2 ~ All dialectic is rhetoric.
Fact #3 ~ All rhetoric is willed.
Second Movement
Fact #4 ~ All will signifies an id-entity.
Fact #5 ~ All identities signify an ego.
Fact #6 ~ All egos signify a supra-ego.
Third & Final Movement
1. All lingual communication is relayed through six human senses: seeing, hearing, feeling, touching, tasting, smelling. (five known, one unknown) Male-derived language is predominantly-sight-based. Female-derived language is predominantly-sound-based. Therefore, Philosophy, a masculine domain, is primarily-written & read. 2. All statements, especially pertaining to Philosophy, are rhetorical devices utilized to impress one ego upon another. Without resistance, the weakened ego will succumb to the Higher Authority and yield to all pertaining arguments, accepting them, absorbing them, and compartmentalizing them into the psyche. 3. All lingual statements, written or verbal, concerning any possible form of communication, even the words I type now, express Will Power (i.e. Will). Will implies Authority, or in other words, my Authority as an intellect over your Authority as an intellect.
4. All lingual communications are derivatives of a reflexive entity, a boundless form able to change the flow towards entropy {chaos} or unchange resistance against the flow towards entropy {order}. 5. Resistance against the flow towards entropy demonstrates & represents a conscious Ego symbolized by Identity. The Ego has many states of being: conscious, unconscious, subconscious, supraconscious (social hypersensitivity), pre-conscious, post-conscious, etc. 6. Egos are reflective of ‘emotions’, ‘intelligence’, ‘thoughts’, ‘intuitions’, and ‘feelings’. Socially-signified, all possible indications of ‘thought’ beyond ‘instinct’ manifest in the form of Pure Reason. Reason displays itself under a hierarchical format coinciding with social-identity models (i.e. Socialities). All possible collective consciousness(es) fall under the categorization of differing Socialities. Each particular Sociality is a singular, independent, and individual Supraconscious Node, a Supraconscious Ego, a Singular God-entity.
interesting. what would be the dialectic nature of poetic language, or pure verse/music? it seems that while SOME language is dialectic, not all forms of communication are so.
agreed that will is expressed through every instance of communication. intentionally or not (most likely usually not). also, order and chaos as opposing forces surely have psychological manifestations and drives, conscious and unconscious, as we have evolved to express this struggle with utmost eloquence, subtlety and intricacy. we are willpower-magnifying machines, and in this sense language serves to regulate and adjust this mechanism as best as possible, not just within our thoughts but also between others-- we certainly use language as a great equilizer, struggling not only for power over others but to homogenize and balance ourselves with those around us.
i also agree that language and communication has masculine and feminine aspects; it is quite easy to see how the feminine aspects of language are taking over common communication in modern first-world cultures… i would wonder why this is; certainly the balance is cyclical, and certainly masculine, being the dominant form of expression until recent history would need ultimately to yield to feminine at some point, but what exactly is the mechanism or process through which this cyclical nature is manifested? social/cultural norms, instincts, emotional overtones, intellectual ability…? given that clearly it exists, what CAUSES oversocialization as a counter-force to masculine communication?
so given all this, what is the role of signification here? language is ultimately false, referring to nothing fundamentally real, at least not until one has overcome superficial levels of discourse and conditioned thinking… symbolic language is a constant deceptive and lying force-- what therefore is the role of deconstruction or pure-conceptual/abstraction-based thought in your model of language? would this process be merely a further exploration of the arbitrary or limited ways that we express willpower and struggle for balance/domination, or would it be more than that, a delving into the very layers of the psyche itself, diving to the level of actual reality, assuming sufficient energy, time and clarity of mind?
and what do you mean, “the movement is now finished”?
Poetic language represents perhaps the deepest roots & origins of language. Its dialectic nature is much more in-tune with Will through Self-expression. Hence throughout history the best poets have written poetry exemplifying the pure emotion felt by their souls. This “pure emotion” is their will power, their Will. The difference between a good poet and a bad poet, or even a good “dialectician” and a bad “dialectician”, is the ability to express such ‘emotion’ and ‘will’. A powerful message conveying emotions also displays the will and social hypersensitivity of the speaker/writer. Therefore the dialectic nature of poetic language utilizes words in their highest form to express highly-emotional or intelligible messages. Theoretically-speaking, everybody who comprehends basic literacy should be able to comprehend the magnitude of meaning behind the works of Shakespeare, Dante, or Homer.
Pure verse and music, however, are not languages nor are they lingual. There are exceptions to this rule in the forms of songs, sonnets, and modern poetry, but for a verse of any kind to be considered either ‘lingual’, or a part of a language, it must at least be ‘intelligible’ to some degree. For example, a bum mumbling on the street may utter a random string of sounds together, “murba ro uble murbla”, but that does not mean he is speaking a language. He might be, but at best it is an unknown language as opposed to a known language. Commonly-speaking, unknown languages, such as communication used between ants, birds, or dogs, are considered non-languages. People would declare that a dog’s bark is not a language. And is it? It may or may not be. But in terms of human language and perception, the dog’s bark does not appear advanced enough to be considered a ‘language’ at all.
This is false because ALL language is dialectic.
I agree.
My contention was not that “all forms of communication” are lingual, or part of a language, and thus dialectic.
Your points are well-made.
You wonder why the feminine-aspects of language are “taking over”? Why do you wonder?
Great intellects have already-solved this mystery for us. You should do some research on why & how entities become feminized.
I disagree.
I do not follow your reasoning here. Why are you certain that “the balance is cyclical”? I do not know what you are referring to. Do you mean to say that societies shift from patriarchy to matriarchy throughout history, and then back again? I certainly-would agree with that statement if you presume it. However, I do not see that it is ‘necessary’ for masculine-language to cede to feminine-language at all. The fact that one comes to be primarily-utilized and predominant within any Sociality exposes a change in lingual trends, not a reflection of the language-itself. Masculine or feminine trends, especially-pertaining to language, do not change at all from what I have seen. The only change appears in what is made practical and what is not. Pragmatism is feminine. That is what I would say in response to confirming your presumptions.
First you must confirm that the process is ‘cyclical’ before you can pinpoint any such mechanism behind language.
These are all necessary components in language, for certain.
I do not know what “over-socialization” is so I cannot accurately-respond to this question.
I will say that advanced socialization is necessary within Socialities due to population pressures. As the population of a specie increases and disregards limited resources, it is a logical necessity to presume the particular specie must 1) consume less and/or 2) produce more in order to maintain its own survival. This social phenomenon occurs in ALL social systems, otherwise there will be a massive die-off and population loss. So is it ironic that in the Western Media today commercials and programs display subliminal messages to “use less”? This social propaganda demonstrates my point here. The world population of the human specie is growing until it reaches its optimum level. Then feminization and socialization trends both become necessary for the purpose of population equilibrium.
Signification represents the ‘intelligible’ side of language, the reasoned side. Without this ‘masculine’ part of language, the only messages that could be communicated via ANY form of expression would be only emotional. But emotional expressions are unnecessary in terms of reason. If an airplane pilot is panicked during a flight emergency, emotionally-stricken, then his chances for survival are reduced compared to if he blocks out this emotional panick and continues to control his plane.
i see how the distinction between communicating overt information and communicating emotion is drawn with regard to language and music. but i would just add that expressing emotion is a vital component of communication, and even when we are speaking words, often all we are doing is expressing emotions, the words themselves not really intended to carry any literal information other than this expression of sentiment/feeling… i dont think this somehow makes this use of words not language. ideas are expressed through words, information either intellectual, concrete, abstract, sensory, or emotional. i think the distinciton between “language” and “not language” in communication is perhaps better drawn where symbols are used or not used, substitutions for expression, rather than trying to draw the distinction somewhere within the content of the communication itself.
i will try to look into the process of feminization, but would appreciate your elaboration here a little… the cyclical nature of masculine-feminine conflict explains why feminization is inevitable, but i dont think this would be your answer. and even if it is, im still interested in the various mechanisms or media through which this conflict plays out.
my comments on the cyclical nature of masculine/feminine elements was with regard to these forces in general-- all such forces are cyclical, if only because the continual growth of one force will lead to destabilizing effects that will create conditions so that the counter force will begin to grow. everything is cyclical, particularly with regard to psychological and social forces of behavior.
this just means that ‘necessity’ with regard to feminine taking over masculine is part of this cycle, just as it is also necessary that at some point, masculine would overtake feminine forces. the cyclical nature is seen as “necessary” only in the sense that 1) one of the forces cannot continue to grow or even exist forever, since it itself represents a lack of completeness, it is not complete without the other (its weaknesses are the other’s strengths, and vice versa), 2) the dynamics of the forces, their relative strength, is never static but is always changing, and 3) the extremes can never be met (complete masculinity or femininity are impossible, since in reality there will always be an aspect of the other force present).
these entail that the relative levels of influence of psychological and social forces such as masculine and feminine are always in flux and always changing in relation to one another-- and since the level of one influences the level of the other, it produces an up and down cycle over time. even if a particular manifestation of the force itself is relatively constant over a period of time, this just means the cycle is longer and more subtle-- it doesnt mean that there is no cycle.
oversocialization is just a word i chose to describe individuals whose ego is highly subordinated to the superego; individuals who have a very large part of their mental space, beliefs, ideas, feelings, goals, etc conditioned by society itself, rather than by their own genetics or choices/willpower. i was trying to relate oversocialization to the feminization of culture and language, or rather as a symptom of this, but i dont think i did a good job. in truth, i was/am operating under the assumption that oversocialization is a feminizing force, mainly because of its counter-effects against individuality and individual thoughts/expression/will, but this could perhaps be mistaken. i was just asking with regard to this, if you thought that society’s growing power and influence on individual beliefs/feelings/choices/ideas, and the subsequent reduction in individual will, was a factor or symptom of feminization, and if so, what causes this oversocialization, or why does it occur in the first place…but i agree with your assessment of the necessity of socializing factors for advanced and complex societies to continue to function-- society needs to further and further restrain individual action, to control and dictate it to a high degree, in order to remain efficient and functional.
mostly my comments on signification were related to deconstruction, or refering to the gap between our words/concepts/idea and reality itself, particularly with regard to the gap between our understanding of things as conceptual or universal when in reality everything is unique and individual. language presupposes common identity for every thing it speaks of, but common identity is an illusion. signifier and signified are not the same, there is a gap spanning these, and if we are not aware of this gap, then we take our words/ideas as representative of objective reality itself, which is wrong.
this isnt to say that language is meaningless or not powerful as a tool; certainly it is, and it generates tons of meaning. but if we are looking for this meaning to transcend subjectivity or limits to get a reality itself or fundamentals of nature and human nature, then we need to be careful, because in its essence, despite its power, language is the creation of meaning, not the discovery of it (this is usually, although not always, the case).
my question was directed at the dialectic aspect of language that you define, and just how this dialectic nature of language changes or impacts the signification gap (or our understanding thereof) between language/lingual symbols and reality itself (our knowledge of reality itself, rather than our knowledge of our symbolic representations of reality). is the dialectic nature of language an outgrowth or expression of this signification gap? is perhaps the internal (to langauge) struggle between signified information and signifier information, the necessity of a gap while the desire to overcome or transend this gap, the nature of the dialectics that you refer to? if not, then what really do you mean when you say that language is dialectic; is this just with regard to masculine/feminine, or why couldnt there be other struggling, conflicting forces or desires at work, such as those identified in deconstruction?
this is why language is a deceptive and lying force, out of necessity, because the use of symbols (words) to describe reality entails, necessarily, this signification gap. only by being aware of this gap are we able to span it.
basically i was just saying that, is the dialectic process (or understanding of deconstruction) allowing us to get to a more complete or better understanding of reality itself, or is it only giving us a clearer picture of language itself? ‘arbitrary’ here was just understood as regarding the specific symbols and ways of manipulating them that each culture creates.
this symbol manipulation and use is arbitrary in the sense that the grammatical choices used have meaning, but not absolute or universal meaning; they vary from group to group, culture to culture, age to age. does deconstruction (your understanding of the dialectics of language) only give us more information about this symbolic manipulation itself, or is it actually allowing us to surpass the signification gap of language to get at reality itself, to get at objective truth? that was my fundamental question; i can see it as being both ways actually.
when you say that language is not arbitrary, are you saying that there is some universal form of language that must exist out of necessity? if so, what is this form, and how does it transcend all the various differences we see between the different languages of each culture and time period?
The words-themselves do not intend anything at all. The speaker intends meaning or no meaning.
The distinction within communication as to what is and what is not must be drawn though. I mean to say either this or that, not both.
What particular thing would you like me to elaborate on?
When the population of a specie increases, its participants must become feminized in order to maintain & sustain an equilibrium with their environment. If the particular specie remains “masculine” then it will expectedly go to war in order to conquer/ascertain more control and resources. But is not Earth already conquered by context? Are not the resources already-monopolized on our planet? Since I assume they are, the First World nations must either risk nuclear warfare with one another for more resources, or, sustain equilibrium. The problem with nuclear warfare is that it risks much more harm than good compared to the acquisition of particular resources (specialization). Therefore the answer to globalization in the 21st Century has been naturally-decided to become socially-feminized. This is an affront to ideologies praising Individualism and Independence (the very ideology the US has been built upon).
Think about the affects ‘testosterone’ and ‘estrogen’ have on the human body. There should be little doubt that men, males, and ‘testosterone’ are the absolute causes for human warfare because all cultures & societies revolve around male-ideologies (until said Socialities are defeated by military force). A Sociality that is highly-masculine will attempt to assert itself upon its neighbors in order to dominate and invade their ideological systems. Even now the US confronts and invades other societies throughout the world both intentionally & unintentionally. Aggressiveness is correlated to ‘testosterone’ by science for good reason. Nature has a biological counter to this so that human societies can stabilize themselves.
When populations reach their maximum or optimum levels for coexistence, the common ‘testosterone’ levels amongst the masses begin to drop and (I guess) become concentrated into fewer individuals. Thus men appear to seem more girlish and womanly than before by comparison. But the reason why the observation becomes apparent is because the prior difference of contrast has become exponential. Much like monetary wealth, the ‘male’ archetype becomes invaluable. As competition increases for limited resources, more & more people drop out of the race for first place, so-to-speak. And when populations stabilize, competition for resources becomes monopolized by fewer & fewer people.
Well I do have a problem with envisioning ‘cyclical’ events like you seem to understand them.
The masculine-feminine conflict portrays itself everywhere: between spouses, between siblings, between strangers, between societies, etc.
First you must explain what ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’ forces are before you can explain their natures…
I disagree with your notion.
It seems to me like you are attempting to quantify these possible forces and I do not believe that is an appropriate way of describing them under the circumstances I have setup, and under their causes or affects. I mean let us assume that one man is “more masculine” than another man. In what way would this statement be true? How exactly is one man “more masculine” over the other? In order to quantify the measurement, you must first qualify it. Even applied to societies, it works the same way. How is one society “more masculine” or “more feminine” than another? Shall we measure sperm potency ~ or what? In terms of socialization, the concept of ‘feminization’ becomes synonymous with ‘socialization’. So when I say the US is becoming ‘feminized’, for example, I mean to say that 1) its citizens are becoming more socially-integrated and 2) men appear more girlish and womanly prior to before in history (where gender roles were more clearly-defined). Gender has become abstracted out of itself. You must keep this in mind. Men & women used to have more clearly-definable places within Western society. Feminization blurs this definition and abstracts it; ‘gender’ becomes a concept of the past as a result.
There is a definite correlation between ‘feminization’ and the loss of individuality, by necessity. As I have explained (hopefully well-enough?), when a particular Sociality must stabilize itself, the gender-role of “men” shifts from one steeped in testosterone into one replaced by another biological hormone-effect. Whereas violence used in-and-by men was once a positive & beneficial trait, that is not the case any longer. Because within society, social cohesion is disrupted by infighting and violence. Therefore, this trait predominance is being actively-bred out of existence. Yet women and females still find masculinity highly-attractive. Even if a male merely-appears to be a “bad boy” then he will be selected for regardless of whether he actually-is or not. And this case of sexual selection resembles what I think your point may be: individuality is disappearing. How can you be an individual when Nothing is Sacred? How can you rebel when rebelling is “made cool”, demeaned, and demoralized? Where can you go and what can you do when you can never “be a man” anymore?
Why do you conclude common identity is an illusion???
How do you know???
The span of lingual translation is always by degree, which can sharpen over time or become more obtuse. The more educated and knowledgeable a person becomes, the more narrow the gap becomes. Eventually a person should even be able to walk across the gap without effort. It is still there, but it is no longer a Grand Canyon. This gap represents a distinguishable signifier of what appears as ‘intelligent’ and what does not. No matter how much I converse with a rock, or a tree, or a bird, I doubt that my lingual intent will translate well with them. But if I pick up the rock and throw it, or if I sit under the tree for shade, then I believe our lingual purposes cross paths in a more metaphysical way. A relationship develops. That is what I would call “common language”. Or perhaps it is uncommon…
I see creation-as-discovery. Creation is self-discovery.
Dialect is an outgrowth of language systems, yes. Furthermore, dialectic is the key to understanding human language. I believe dialectic was created and produced in order to exemplify emotive expression first & foremost. Rhetoric then followed as a distinguisher to what communication is intuited and what communication is intelligible. For example, if an early human hunter yelled out in the forest of a danger, then his vocal expression will be naturally-intuited by his hunter party. They will probably rush to him to see the commotion. But what did he say? Did he say “help!” or “tiger!” or “boar!”? This is where dialect comes into intelligible existence. If he were to express one word differently from the others, then the hunter party would already-have the information of his call prior to observing the emergency themselves. This is where language becomes abstracted, through dialect, and then furthermore through rhetoric.
Yes, but it depends on the context you are referring to…
Deconstruction and negation are necessary to form rhetoric, but not dialect.
Dialect cannot be so easily-confused because, theoretically-speaking, the signifier has no intent to lie toward or deceive through the signified.
I disagree.
Language is not deceptive or lying until the intent to lie appears via the ego and ‘identity’ of the speaker.
A rock cannot lie to me, nor can a tree, or bird, or dog, or monkey, etc. In fact, these entities cannot help but tell the truth…
All language conforms to reality-itself, so no matter what you do, for better-or-worse, you will be helping to understand the nature of Reality by utilizing language. The very fact that you and I read & write English symbolizes our individual intellects and existences as individuals.
Why is there no “absolute or universal meaning”???
Rhetoric & Dialectic both narrow the gap of misunderstanding, but rhetoric is an evolution of dialect because of the introduction of truth-values. Before the introduction of these truth-values, theoretically-speaking, human animals could not “lie” to each other. How could they when there was no possible way to intentionally-misinterpret word content? I mean imagine a time when the first ‘word’ appeared in the human language: “apple”. Was there anyway to confuse the meaning with another word? When one human said “apple” did he mean to say “banana” when “banana” did not even exist yet in a known form?
Deconstruction, I believe, is the result of an advanced state of human dialectic. It developed as a way to backtrack language to rediscover the origins of language and even ‘self’. Truth-value systems must have already-been created by the time humanity developed Deconstructionism, so the ‘identity’ was already-formed at such a point-in-time.
No … necessity-itself is the “universal language”. Necessity goes unspoken and thus may or may not be communicated at all.
Necessary form is what symbolism both can and cannot be. It includes and rejects all possibilities for the sake of probability. If necessary form did not exist, then it would be literally-impossible for a human being from one culture & society to learn and/or translate the language from another culture & society. For example, I understand English very well, but do I understand the Finnish dialect? Generally-speaking, no I do not. Where I can learn Finnish is where Finnish and English share common roots. In this sense, all human language is branched out from a common source. This is the study of Linguistics. Let us say that “apple” and “pomme” mean the same thing. How is it possible for the translation to occur at all? It must be possible, in some conceivable way, otherwise there should be no translation to begin with ~ but there is.
Necessary form is a stringent part of Conceptual Knowledge, or, the way-in-which the human mind recognizes common and uncommon forms.
I am hypersensitive and experience a reality unlike other people that sets me distinctly-apart from them.
This reality indicates to me that my hypersensitivity is caused by an ulterior ability to detect, sense, and manipulate the world around me. I call this ‘unknown’ variable a ‘sense’ because it derives to me sensual-interpretations that is obviously-difficult for me to define to another person who does not sense it. I appropriately-labeled this ‘unknown’ variable a “feeling” because it is a feeling unlike the five common senses. My intuition is able to detect sensual life in such a way that causes me to explain what I experience beyond what is known through the five common senses. Therefore, I choose to use the common expression of a “sixth sense” to accurately-indicate my life experiences. Some people are said to have a “sixth sense”, but why and how? Am I seeing something that other people are not? It is possible, and thus, also unknown. The only method to know it is to investigate & inquire the concept.
If all dialectic were language, then humanity, you and I, could innately-understand the language of any other person or specie. I would be born into the world “just knowing everything”. That is not the case, because babies must be taught human language, and human dialectic, and human rhetoric. For example, can you understand every language in the world, or must you research & learn the particular dialectic first? Can you tweet to a bird with your own voice and control its behavior using its own language? And if you can, then can you also re-express that bird language into a feasible, comprehensible, translatable, human dialect?
And if all dialectic were in-fact language, then would you have to do any of that in the first place to make a point?
Furthermore, I am not claiming that all dialectic is not language. It may be true that: All dialectic is language. But if it is true, then how would I, or could I, possibly-know? How can you turn it into a necessary truth without reversing the cause of language-itself?
.jpg)