page 18
Progressive Thinkers as of 12/1/2022
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
In regards to a 1- 2- 3 developmental sequence whether we are looking at biology or some ideological construct as is characteristic for philosophy and other disciplines, one might encounter the view that prior to a "one" concept such as for example in the view of a single god, this "1" came after the presence of a "many" as described by a plurality of gods. I think it prudent to consider that what we are looking at is a holdover from an earlier history of counting where the arithmetical sequence of one- two- many is a generality useful in illustrating the developmental sequence that might otherwise be described as one- two- Infinity, one- two- Universe, one- two- multiplicity, one- two- plurality, etc... Like theorists today who are searching for a Theory of Everything which requires compartmentalizing the "many into one" and is described in the U.S. Presidential seal motto of "E Pluribus Unum" (out of many, one). Hence, we can sometimes come across ideas which do not seem to follow a proposed sequentiality along a single- double- triple... trek, but instead are preceded by earlier concepts of multiplicity... of plurality. However, such concepts may best be circumscribed as the final chapter in a former model of conceptualization that later thinkers may not have been aware of or only aware of in brevity, but somewhere along the developmental line of cognition there was an effort to compress the "many" into a singularity much like we attempt to compress more and more data into a smaller space for contemporary computer design. Hence, to speak of a plurality preceding a concept of oneness, universality, as if to throw a wrench into a 1- 2- 3... maturational development sequence is not to accept the idea of cognitive layering. Whereas we might accept the idea of layering with respect to:
- Tree rings: (A tree can have a single ring for 1 season, or missing a ring, or have a false ring.)
- Matter: solid- liquid- gas (or triple point)
- Metamorphosis: (such as the stages in an insect's development)
- Life stages (birth- life- death)
- (3 to 1 ratio) protein structure: (primary/ secondary- tertiary- quaternary)
- Brick/stone walls: (foundation, wall, capstones)
- Human skin: (dermis- epidermis- subcutaneous)
- Clothing: (underwear- middle wear- overcoat)
- Automotive tires: A tread compound might have no natural rubber at all but rather 65 parts styrene-butadiene rubber (for hardness and abrasion resistance), 35 parts butadiene rubber, and as much as 65 parts carbon black.
- Geological deposits: (stratification/successive sedimentations)
- Paint coats: primer- base coat- top, 2nd or final coat (in a 3-coat application)
- Some hair cut styles
- Vertebrate brain: hind-brain- midbrain- forebrain
- Brain coverings: pia mater- arachnoid process- dura mater
- Arteries and Veins: tunica intima, tunica media, tunica adventitia
- Earth layers: (core- mantle- crust)
- Portland cement: lime (calcium oxide, CaO), silica (silicon dioxide, SiO2), alumina (aluminum oxide, Al2O3)
- 2-3-4 chemistry (or 3 -to- 1 ratio): TRIcalcium silicate (3CaO · SiO2), DIcalcium silicate (2CaO · SiO2), TRIcalcium aluminate (3CaO · Al2O3), and a TETRA-calcium aluminoferrite (4CaO · Al2O3Fe2O3). (No "Tetri") ["cement." Encyclopædia Britannica.]
- Black powder: potassium nitrate (also called saltpetre), charcoal, and sulfur in approximate proportions of 75:15:10
- Cereal (U.S.): cereal, milk, sugar (sweetner)
- Pancakes/Waffles (U.S.): pancake, butter/margarine, syrup (maple, etc...)
- Solar phases ("moments"): dawn, noon, dusk
- Egg: yolk- egg white- shell
- Fruits: endocarp- mesocarp- exocarp
- Society: lower class- middle class- upper class
- Baseball: Pitcher → Batter → Catcher
- College degrees: Bachelor's- Master's- PhD
- Human Pregnancy: 1st trimester- 2nd trimester- 3rd trimester
- Public school: Grade school- Middle/Jr. High- High school (in the U.S.)
- Computer screen: (right upper corner... minimize- maximize- close)
- Numbers and Letters: (both can be viewed as successive layers displayed in a linear fashion also noted as an inventory)
- etc...
...it may not be usual for a person to think of layers in terms of a developmental cognition, but the fact that we do have multiple occasions of a "three" pattern in and out of biology is enough of a precedent to consider the accommodation of such a plausibility. Take for example:
- 3 layers of consciousness: sub-consciousness- consciousness- super consciousness/sobriety
- 3 human psyche divisions: Id- Ego- Superego
- 3 developmental partitions of the brain: Limbic system- Old mammal brain- New Mammal brain
- 3 stages of Matriarchialism: Virgin- Mother- Crone
- 3 endowment psyches: young soul- old soul- ancient soul
- 3 souls of Aristotle: Vegetative soul (plants), Sensitive soul (animals), Rational soul (humans)
- 3 Comte stages of Intellectual development: Theological, Metaphysical, Positivist
- 3 Germ layers: Endoderm- Mesoderm- Ectoderm
- 3 categories of human cells:
- The labile cells, which multiply throughout life.
- The stable cells, which do not multiply continuously but can do so when necessary.
- The permanent cells, incapable of multiplication in the adult—only the permanent cells are incapable of regeneration. These are the brain cells and the cells of the skeletal and heart muscles. ("human disease." Encyclopædia Britannica.)
I think that before any spoken language developed we had a "proto"- cognitive language that didn't merely reflect the initiation of brain activity from which vocal language emerged, but that it continued to develop because it took a while before verbal language became fully cemented... or let us (heaven forbid) say it took on some rather innately driven activity. One of or one part of the cognitive language vocabulary was making scribbles, marks and "gestures" what we of today might want to label as geometric or artistic forms. And I'm not talking about using cave walls to create animal or human handprint figures. I'm talking about the lines and doodles for which their may not have as yet even been a word attached as an identifyer that one could (verally or otherwise) communicate to another about. Take for example the marks on bones which some people (with otherwise good intentions) have described as a type of tally stick, stone, or shell (predating of course the knotted rope tallies of Central Americans). The observations of those who think they are looking at a tally stick in which some human was actually representing some count, might want to reconsider that what they are looking at are just repetitive marks like a parrot copying itself, or a rhythmic gesture like a baby rocking itself, or even a person who rechecks to see that a door is locked. In other words the marks may not have anything to do with counting, but do display a repetitive cognitive act. However, once a person asserts that the lines on a stick or bone or stone or shell are those of a thinking human engaged in counting and this idea is bought into by one another other researcher or museum whose researchers display such an artefact in a glass case and label it according to this view, no other view might be considered. However, since I have a 'natural' distrust of authority, I look for some other plausibility.
Whereas a person such as a Mathematician or Anthropologist looks at repetitive markings on a stone, stick or what have you and claims it to be an indication of some ancient human engage in taking account of some vast horde of... let us say wives... since the phenomena of hoarding Millionaires and Billionaires had to begin somewhere in history; there were surely those in the distant past who had so many things (rocks? pretty shells?) that they had to keep track of them, it was a very necessary and needed thing to keep a running (mobile) ledger of their vast wealth. Such an activity is much more reasonable and plausible to those who have been brought up in a greed-oriented society than to consider such marks as anything but... or the routine alternative is to think of art... which many wealthy thing that an association with some form of behavior called art is both an indication of being cultured and intelligent. Yep, if not marks on a bone being related to counting (like counting some wealth-oriented mindset from a capitalistic perspective); then they quite commonly suggest it is an art form where no formally assigned numbers or dots are perceived from which to outline a recognizable picture. I know this first hand because I've done it. If it's not math then it's art... to which both have been interchangeably described as being part of the other subject.. suggesting an historically real blood-relative kinship between the two.
Yet, if either the one or the other or both or neither are a correct assumption, then what? How about if we call it a language that has no known label? As if it were a dead language that is not dead but we have no historical listing for being described anywhere except in the very subjects that want to rush in and claim it for themselves as their parents... their's and only their's. Mathematics wants to label it counting, then Art wants to label it and then language wants to claim it, and then whomever comes along and can make a case for holding some ancient deed of this property are thus entitled to be the king or queen, much like Mathematic's may at times be labeled the Queen of the Sciences instead of any other position suggesting a Domestic. Oh no. Mathematicians can not see themselves as hired hands, surfs or even policing soldiers. Oh no. They either have to be part of the Aristocracy or THE prominent Aristocrat, which suggests such a mindset is of French origin because France stills reeks of aristocratic flair of egotism as noted by the Tour de France cycling event, and its dominance over the labels of riders (such as the word "Domestique") and jerseys worn (they have a jersey specifically for the youngest rider but the oldest rider is discriminated against by having no formal recognition of participation, as is the case in many societies) There needs to be an ideological revolution in professional cycling by (symbolically) introducing the guillotine once again.
Some cognitive activities are repetitively persistent, but take on the labeling of that suggesting a type of coincidence. On the other hand, the notion of being "repetitively persistent" will be used by those who want to suggest their ideological (or non-ideological but behavioral nonetheless) orientation is of especial importance, when it may have existed for quite some time but is not actually a language but an inflection or grammatical error such as due to stammering, echoic, or other behaviorally modified expressions. For example, we would not claim the sounds emitted when yawing to be a language per se, but we might be willing to describe such acts as part of a language's vocabulary. Whereas vocabularies can be practiced to give the impression of a language, they are not languages if we describe language in very strict terms. If we broaden the definition, then of course yawning can be described as a language, though it is doubtful if anyone is going to try to be a rock star of yawning or want to be a comedian who one-liners are yawns emitted in different ways. HA!
Another example of a non-language would be infant babbling (if not the gobbledygook of politicians). While one infant set next to another infant may well be discussing some deep philosophy amongst themselves, we ignorant adults do not know and nor do infants let us know... unless it is in the underlying numerousity of their speech patterns. For example, researchers of infant babbling stress "pairs" of Consonants and Vowels (but not suprasegmentals) that are further sighted as occurring in what are referred to as "reduplications", such as ba-ba, or da-da, etc... The usage of reduplications increases arithmetically as if the infant is learning to count by reciting the same "word" (utterance) over and over again, such as the repetitive linear markings on a bone suggested as being a count by some observers. (Note I said liner and not circular or triangular, nor... something else.) The primitive human may be doing nothing more than engaging in a cognitive language model of babbling. Infant babbling researchers may themselves be transfixed on a two-patterned frame of perception and are unable to see any expression outside their narrowed field of interest. For example, while they see a progression in babbling prior to a 1- 2- 3 word usage, they are not typically concerned with counting the sequential development of babbled utterances. Such an idea is foreign to them because they are not taking a larger picture of language development into account. The are not anthropologists nor very knowledgeable philosophers interested in the topics of mathematics, language, biology, computer science, electrical circuitry, mechanics, physics, cognition, architecture, psychology, etc...
When we study a subject as language, the approach often is a top→ down direction because we are typically confronted by information by those who are presenting us with their summation. However, one might want to look at how they dress themselves in the morning to get some idea of how they might be "addressing" a subject, in that the routine used in dressing themselves for years may well have established itself as a routinized pattern taken for granted as a "go to" model of reflexive thinking. However, there may be a striking difference as to how one undresses to take a shower or bath. Similarly, the point is that humans may well have established models or (singular model) that they routinely resort to but embellish with cultural dress codes of tradition and the idioms/vocabulary/jargon/slang of one's dominate language.
If we look at biology to discover what might be described as basic patterns and then find a similar pattern in human thoughts, is there a connection or do we dismiss it as a correlation without merit? However, do we then look to patterns in the environment and suggest these as the precursor influences of patterns identified in biology, such as Astrologers who claim that star positions have, do and will influence multiple types of events in ones life? And what if most or all the influential patterns are not readily available for observation or existed prior to the development of the present solar system? Too many missing pieces leaves way for much speculation and imaginative creation of alternative scenarios of the "what-if?" variety. And yet, those striving for some holy grail called "truth" may turn to their magic wand called Mathematics, without realizing its history in correspondence with the events of conceptualizations which have occurred in other cultures as part of or in contrast with or parallel to the development of Mathematics.
There are probably not too many people who would disagree with the statement that Mathematics can be viewed if not as a language of the mind, than as a very dominant vocabulary or some other unique quality of expression going hand in hand with verbal articulation, even if a person wants to describe their ability of Mathematics as having little or nothing to do with verbal language. Nonetheless, it is of value to attempt a time line of both mathematics and language development, though other correlations with other subjects are not to be dismissed if one wants to establish a parallel with them as well. However, my time-line will be sufficiently rife with an incomplete history since I am at present only concerned with providing an over-view sketch for other ideological orientations to be covered.
In getting a better grasp of why I think humans are dealing with an unrecognized language model, though its expression are widely known, it is of need to contrast the ideological landscape of the East (namely China) with that of the West (namely Indo-Europeans), with an emphasis not on highlighting individual contributors, but their ideas which can be enumerated. (Most languages are tonal or non-tonal in one group or another, but there are exceptions, so don't be so nit-picky for the present generalization of the following few examples):
| East (China) | West (Indo-Europeans) |
| Two chopsticks (ancient to modern) | Stick/hands? (ancient)... Utensils mimic number concept development Knife symbolizes "1" (Solid food) 'Fork' symbolizes "2", Spoon symbolizes "Many" (liquidy food) |
| Languages: Tonal (right hemisphere) | Languages: Non-tonal (left hemisphere) |
| Duality concept: Yin/Yang (before 3rd Century BCE) | Duality concept: Doctrine of Opposites (before 3rd Century BCE) |
| I-Ching: (Triads are actually embellished Byads) (cyclical single and double lines grouped in threes, but no actual triple line model) |
Greek philosophy: (Triads are actually embellished Byads) (Monad/Dyad; Monad/Plurality; Dyad/Plurality) |
| 3 ancient philosophers: Confucius- Laozi- Hanfeiz | 3 "1st" philosophers: Thales- Anaximander- Anaximenes 3 later "SPA" group: Socrates- PLato- Aristotle |
| 3 major philosophies/religions: Confusianism- Taosim- Buddhism | 3 monotheistic religions: Christianity- Islam- Judaism |
| Writing system: logographic, artistic invention/ calligraphy (fluidic) | Writing system: orthographic, mechanical/ non-artistic invention |
| Multiple warring factions (originating internally) | Multiple warring factions (originating externally) |
| Made exceptional advances in multiple areas before slowing down | Had few exceptional advances before speeding up (i.e. Industrial and Scientific Revolutions to include Mathematics) |
| Singular Nationalism | Multiple Nationalisms |
| Huge land mass and largest population | Significantly smaller land mass and population |
| Paleolithic -stone tool differences? | Paleolithic -stone tool differences? |
| 3 -to- 1 ratio of stone tool types: (1- Manufactured) bifacial-tool, or hand-ax, traditions; (2- Manufactured) flake-tool traditions; (3- Manufactured) blade-tool traditions... (Crude) pebble-tool traditions. ("Stone Age." Encyclopædia Britannica, 2013.) | |
| Bronze Age presence: 3000 BC | Bronze Age presence: (Greece) 3000 BC, (Britain: 1900 BC) |
| Iron Age presence: 600 BCE | Iron Age presence: 1200 BCE |
| All the world has adopted Western- styled Hotel Accommodations. | |
Hence, one must wonder what is the true language of the Universe, of time, of space, of consciousness, of reality, of truth. And one must wonder whether he forms of language encountered today are more like some cryptic rune created by accident that some future linguist, anthropologist, historian or curio collector chances upon and claims it to be a clue to something greater for which all should aspire to understand... as many of us do to the presumed (primary, proto-, Mother tongue) languages of the past; because we either have nothing better to do and the idea "sounds" good, or makes "visual" sense, or presents us with a "good feeling"... or leaves a "good taste" in our mouth... or provides us with a fresh smelling hint— a scent which allures us like a pheromone that is unmistakably indistinct enough to whet our curiosity, because... we assume... "there's something there". (Since I have expressed the colloquialism as a triad, let us look at this from different perspectives to reveal the three standard forms of representing a model of cognition as an example of what can be described as a "Cognitive language":
- (in the affirmative) "There's something There"; (use of an end punctuation called the 'period').
- (in the declarative) "There IS something there!"); (use of an end punctuation called the exclamation point).
- (in the interrogatory) "Is there something there?"> (use of an end punctuation called the question mark.)
Long before humanity may have verbally communicated beyond the presumed grunts, groans, spittings, screams, barks and such primitive peoples may have engage in, the brain was working out ways to make sense of the environment. At what level of emerged consciousness (and not mere awareness) took place before vocal speech (as we of today might frame in as a "proto-language"); the cognitive processes were already engaged with its own rudimentary form of articulating through non-verbal forms... or in conjunction with verbal forms of expression. No one actually knows, so we make guesses out of which we create theories which may or may not fit already existing models, or let us know there is a need for a new model of language to supersede those of the Noam Chomsky and Steven Pinker clans representing the innate versus .
In the present Language Narrative series I will be making multiple references to patterns involving simple numerical correlations. In other words I am enabling myself (and others) to make a count, or create a running 'account' of patterns involving ideas from as many subjects as one might want to dive into for securing examples. It is a variation of the effort by some who have established accounts of how frequent the different letters of the alphabet show up for a given selected text. However, how many selections of how many texts do we need to survey in order to establish some relative certainty or possibility that there will at some time be reached a statistical representation of accuracy? In other words, how many examples of 3-patterned ideas, activities and events must be recorded along with other patterns, before we reach a statistic we will believe in and not attempt to be dismissive or allocate such a reference to a point of interpretation or labeling which advances someone's inclination to disparage the findings by relegating it to some less-than scientific, or less-than sacred, or less-than Mathematical, or other less-than value?
How may examples of patterns-of-three, or two, or one, or four, or six, or seven, etc... from how many subjects is needed to establish a better interpretation of recurring number patterns than the repetitively idiotic references being generated time and again by so many professionals who have not contemplated the possible existence for a "cognitive language" or the reasons for doing so? Unfortunately, humanity as a collective is a slow learner.
However, this is not to imply that I am definitively certain that the correlation being made is true beyond the simple relationship between a quantity that is present and the quantity sighted in some other item which may be referenced from a subject and area of research not commonly combined together, much less spoken of. It is more on the order of speaking out loud about a mental doodle that another may almost instantaneously dismiss as irrelevant, if only because they have never come across it before in either "serious" or "alternative" references (most likely because they are not as well-read as they might want to think of themselves as being). Indeed, many original ideas may be generated everyday but those generating them are too quick to make a record of them because they view them as a weird, crazy or otherwise too non-conventional to speak of because they might be interpreted by others as engaging in ideas or notions caused by an other-than normal activity. Present humanity has far too many stupid ideas about normalcy and craziness... even though one can name numerous activities and ideas taken for granted today as common practices would be the stuff of craziness not too far in the distant past.
But let us start with a definition of language as it is sometimes seen through the eyes of others:
Many definitions of language have been proposed (here are two examples...)
- Henry Sweet, an English phonetician and language scholar, stated: "Language is the expression of ideas by means of speech—sounds combined into words. Words are combined into sentences, this combination answering to that of ideas into thoughts."
- The American linguists Bernard Bloch and George L. Trager formulated the following definition: "A language is a system of arbitrary vocal symbols by means of which a social group cooperates."
Any succinct definition of language makes a number of presuppositions and begs a number of questions. The first definition above, for example, puts excessive weight on "thought," and the second uses "arbitrary" in a specialized, though legitimate, way. ("language." Encyclopædia Britannica.)
It is rather a curious thing that if you ask just about anyone what they think Language is, they might provide such simple replies as "words", "talking", "speech"... or even while speaking to one another in person: "what we're doing right now". However, if you ask the question in a group, someone usually argues a point about another's definition to the point different types of ideas are offered as an example... but none of them may care to do anything more with respect to a study of language unless it is for a class project (where a grade or extra-credit are expected), or someone offers them some sort of reward outside of a classroom experience. My reward for the present adventure is because it's fun and educational.
The definition of language in the foregoing excerpt is far too narrow for my interests. Language need not be a verbal utterance. But if you want to subject your interest in language to a specific field of observation, then the use of such a rule-of-thumb as the foregoing is perfectly sane... at least to those who agree with it or persuade others to believe in it. It is like insisting on the use of a rule or axiom whereby the whole (very large) field of Language is cordoned off so that only those who share a certain similar view are permitted to play in the sandbox.
By narrowing the parameters of a research project, one may or may not find themselves needing less knowledge, though the older and more educated one gets, one may or may not be advantaged by the mere quantity of knowledge they can bring to bare (their teeth) on a given situation such as a task or observation. Indeed, too much knowledge of one or more topics may be a hindrance when confronted by a situation requiring a deduction or even an immediate response to a simple situation where a reflex is more "in-tune" with the necessity of the moment to make a quick response. Hence, in the present context we need to introduce the three characteristic responses psychology has determined people might use when confronted by a perceived threat, whether actual or simply imagined:
- Fight
- Flight
- Freeze
Another response is the use of vocal sounds which might well be cataloged in a three-part ideological format as:
- No Threat (vocalizations not stressing any threat status can be viewed as a normal status... much like being in the absence of an audible air raid siren)
- Potential threat
- Threat gone
The Alarm Signal in zoology, (is) a ritualized means of communicating a danger or threat among the members of an animal group. In many cases the signal is visual or vocal, but some animals—ants, bees, and certain fishes, for example—secrete chemical substances. Alarm communications frequently cross species boundaries. The hawking alarm calls of many small birds are similar and will cause most other birds to take cover. A visual alarm signal, common in mammals, is "flagging," the lifting of the tail to reveal its white undersurface. The white fur shows only in fright situations when the animal raises its tail as it bounds away. Biologists do not agree about the exact meaning of this common mammalian alarm response. While the alarm reaction usually takes the form of a freeze-or-flight response, it may, if the stimulus is within a critical distance, elicit an attack.("alarm signal." Encyclopædia Britannica.)
Date of (series) Origination: Saturday, 14th March 2020... 6:11 AM
Date of Initial Posting (this page): 9th January 2023... 11:28 AM AST (Arizona Standard Time); Marana, AZ.