T Nation

Problems/Paradox of Language

Recently I’ve been thinking about language and its limits. Mainly because of my recent refusal to say “I love you” to anyone because of the baggages that these words can bring and their limitations and over-flowing sense of semantics.

I want to explore the paradox of language, and this will be a bit of a long rant, so I don’t care if it’s read or not…the fact that I write things down helps to clarify and organize my own thoughts and ideas. So I guess you could say that I’m writing this for my own amusement, and it would be great if I can get some feedbacks on it from the people who actually bothered to read it.

Language is the window into human nature and a tool we use to see the world; but despite language’s accessibility, I think experiences brought on by it can also be very limited. Think of language as a window in a confined and dark room. Because of this opening we are able to have knowledge of and have contact (although indirectly) with the world.

But the opening of the window is limited and tiny in comparison to the space of the entire room. This window can only highlight a small portion of the world, while the rest of it is still within the confines of the walls of the room and the darkness it brings. In other words, we can see into the world using language, but such a view is always limited and distorted. Since it is language’s nature to compartmentalize the world, it can never begin to describe the world in its full continuum.

I think language tends to divide our thinking into binary terms. We tend to think and conceptualize in a bio-centric matter because language is often either THIS or THAT. In other words, there is always a word for what IS, and its opposite, what IT IS NOT, but the words that used to describe the states and conditions in between are usually unknown or non-existent.

Think of the binary concept of LIFE and DEATH. Language pushes one of these terms all the way over THERE, while the other term all the way over HERE. But part of the problem with this notion of conception is that LIFE and DEATH are really two sides of the same coin that exist and embody each other in a dialectic fashion to create and give rise to an experiential phenomenon that is neither life nor death.

I was hesitant to call this phenomenon LIFE, but then after conceptualizing about it pre-linguistically, LIFE isn’t really LIFE at all without DEATH. LIFE can never exist in isolation without DEATH, so whenever we talk about LIFE, we tend to omit what DEATH does to this LIFE and how DEATH is already embodied in life because in a uncanny way, we are alive precisely because WE ARE ALSO ALREADY DEAD!

Another way to put this is to say that language divides what isnt separable. It’s only in language and in the imagination that there is this one thing called DEATH, and another called LIFE.

Think about it. Life really is the huge and massive on-going accumulation of death. Everything that had already happened is already dead. Imagine a cone with a sharp pointy edge. The tiny point at the end of this cone is what constitutes life, and EVERYTHING ELSE that makes up the cone, leading up to the sharp pointy edge are all death.

In other words, most of everything that is, is already dead, and that the living is this tiny little pinnacle on top of a mass pile of death. Everything that has existed on this planet, most of it is already dead. The earth and the universe have been around for billions of years. Itâ??s hard to conceive how much death is involved in what we called LIFE.

The 2 year old Frank is already dead, and so is the Frank that existed 5 seconds ago. The only part of me that is alive is the tiny point that I called my PRESENT. But it is precisely these dead moments that give birth to this LIFE thing that I am experiencing NOW, and THIS moment.

But this current moment will soon dissolve and be killed off, adding to the on-going accumulation of death that will ultimately give birth to my next moment of life, as death endlessly and perpetually generates life out of its very own fabric.

This on-going process of dying and birthing is usually described in the English language as merely, LIFE. But by confining to the limits of words and symbols, we are omitting a great deal of our experiences and conditions.

Another example is the binary conception of sexes. We tend to divide the human race into two distinct categories â?? male and female. But if we no longer see language as the representation of some underlying human form, but as creation and exploration of new styles of perception and becoming, then we can argue that there isnt really just MAN or a WOMAN.

That these sexes are represented as the end or goal of life, such that we act in order to fulfill our humanity, but that we are actually both neither 'man’and/or ‘woman’. The way I see it, human beings are made up of thousands of tiny little sexes. Each of these little sexes intense germinal influxes that pass through and across our bodies.

It is through the powerful organizing and interactions of becoming between these tiny little sexes that gives rise to an open and autonomous being.

But language and concepts limit the possibilities of such on-going opening of flows these little sexes originate and take away the potentiality that they could have manifested in the world. Therefore, we are left with the binary conception of MAN and WOMAN, and often times fail to acknowledge that there is a man in every woman, and a woman in every man, and that within each of our man-woman bodies are constitutions and formations of thousands of tiny little sexes that long to return to their original quiescent state, prior to the disruption of language and concepts.

Sexuality is no different. We tend to think of sexuality as a very â??black and whiteâ?? matter. You are either gay, or straight, or you are bisexual, but I don’t think our experiences and sexual orientation are so clear cut and divisible because our desires and needs are not to be quantified and categorized so clearly.

Sexuality is always in constant state of flux, and we are all born in the grey area within a huge continuum of contradictory, complimentary, expanding and contracting states, situated within a massive fabric of sexuality in its different forms, shapes, sizes and conditions. Simply put, sexuality isnt so clear-cut, rather that it is a continuum concept â?? that is, one that admits of degree.

I love you, Digitalairair.

I read a little, then saw the FUBAR code from the link, then saw Frank Yang.

No thanks.

Did you really let a bum stick it in your pooper?

WWVD

whats frank yang?

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
whats frank yang?[/quote]
http://grannybutter.xanga.com/

[quote]imhungry wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
whats frank yang?[/quote]
http://grannybutter.xanga.com/[/quote]

i havnent clicked that yet but i am exite

edit

well that sucked

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Am I supposed to read the whole original post, or is it “art” that I’m just supposed to kind of “get” by sort of looking at it?[/quote]

Art is about feeling, not reading. Duh.

The performance of this site sucks. It takes minutes to post. By the time I go back in to edit a post, minutes go by and it gets quoted, now it’s gone, because I wanted to delete it.

The words come across as a dig, and that’s not what I meant it to be.

For the record, I think Frank is a really talented guy. I’ve cracked up at some of his stuff, his sculptures are wonderful (IMO), but some stuff I don’t “get”-- and that’s OK. I didn’t really read all of OP-- wall of text hurts my eyes.

That was actually kind of depressing. We’re already dying once we’re born, conceived even, if you want to go that far. Somehow it went from the paradox of language to philosophy. I missed the part about sexuality because of all the ??s that I think were supposed to be ""s.

If you’re going to talk about language, talk about language and how it’s evolved or something. I mean we started with thee and thou and thy and whither and whence (which is an awesome word, I think), and now we’re at LOL and OMG and “r u jelly?”. The beauty of language is slowly being eradicated.

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
The performance of this site sucks. It takes minutes to post. By the time I go back in to edit a post, minutes go by and it gets quoted, now it’s gone, because I wanted to delete it.

The words come across as a dig, and that’s not what I meant it to be.

For the record, I think Frank is a really talented guy. I’ve cracked up at some of his stuff, his sculptures are wonderful (IMO), but some stuff I don’t “get”-- and that’s OK. I didn’t really read all of OP-- wall of text hurts my eyes.[/quote]

I don’t know why your post was deleted. I didn’t see it as a dig or insult or anything. It seems posts that remotely resemble a dig or insult or confrontation are being deleted. I understand about being moderated, but that might be taking it a bit far.

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
The performance of this site sucks. It takes minutes to post. By the time I go back in to edit a post, minutes go by and it gets quoted, now it’s gone, because I wanted to delete it.

The words come across as a dig, and that’s not what I meant it to be.

For the record, I think Frank is a really talented guy. I’ve cracked up at some of his stuff, his sculptures are wonderful (IMO), but some stuff I don’t “get”-- and that’s OK. I didn’t really read all of OP-- wall of text hurts my eyes.[/quote]

I don’t know why your post was deleted. I didn’t see it as a dig or insult or anything. It seems posts that remotely resemble a dig or insult or confrontation are being deleted. I understand about being moderated, but that might be taking it a bit far.
[/quote]

Oh, I edited it with “”. So it got deleted as requested by me (to the mods credit, thank you). The fact that it took over a minute to post, then post after edit allowed it to get quoted before the edit. That’s ridiculous performance for any forum.

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
I love you, Digitalairair.[/quote]

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
The performance of this site sucks. It takes minutes to post. By the time I go back in to edit a post, minutes go by and it gets quoted, now it’s gone, because I wanted to delete it.

The words come across as a dig, and that’s not what I meant it to be.

For the record, I think Frank is a really talented guy. I’ve cracked up at some of his stuff, his sculptures are wonderful (IMO), but some stuff I don’t “get”-- and that’s OK. I didn’t really read all of OP-- wall of text hurts my eyes.[/quote]

I don’t know why your post was deleted. I didn’t see it as a dig or insult or anything. It seems posts that remotely resemble a dig or insult or confrontation are being deleted. I understand about being moderated, but that might be taking it a bit far.
[/quote]

Oh, I edited it with “”. So it got deleted as requested by me (to the mods credit, thank you). The fact that it took over a minute to post, then post after edit allowed it to get quoted before the edit. That’s ridiculous performance for any forum.[/quote]

Gotcha. Then I take back what I said about being over-moderated.

I read it. Its well said but I think others have said it first.

Does anyone know anything about literary deconstruction such that they could recommend some reading for the OP?

If not…look into literary deconstruction.

[quote]digitalairair wrote:
I have been thinking about language and its limits. Mainly because of my refusal to say I love you. The baggage that I love you can bring, and their limitations and over-flowing sense of semantics.

I want to explore the paradox of language, and this will be a bit of a long rant, if you read it or not, I do not care. The fact that I write things down helps to clarify and organize my own thoughts and ideas. Therefore, I am writing this for my own amusement, and it would be great if I can get some feedback on it.

Language is the window into human nature and a tool we use to see the world; despite language’s accessibility, I think experiences brought on by it can also be limited. Think of language as a window in a confined and dark room, because this opening we are able to have knowledge of and have contact, although indirectly, with the world.

Nevertheless, the opening of the window is limited and tiny in comparison to the space of the entire room. This window can only highlight a small portion of the world, while the rest of it is still within the confines of the walls of the room and the darkness it brings. We can see into the world using language, but such a view is always limited and distorted. It is language’s nature to compartmentalize the world. Language can never begin to describe the world in its full continuum.

I think language tends to divide our thinking into binary terms. We tend to think and conceptualize in a bio-centric matter because language is either this or that. There is always a word for what island what it is not. The words that described the states and conditions in between are usually unknown or non-existent.

Think of the binary concept of life and death. Language pushes these terms all the way, over there, while the other term all the way over here. Part of the problem with this notion of conception is that life and death are really two sides of the same coin that exist and embody the other in a dialectic fashion to create and give rise to a phenomenon that is neither life nor death.

I was hesitant to call this phenomenon life, but then after conceptualizing about it pre-linguistically, life is not really life at all without death. Life can never exist in isolation without death, so whenever we talk about life, we tend to omit what death does to this life and how deaths already embodied in life because in an uncanny way, we are alive precisely because we are also already dead.

Another way to put this is to say that language divides what is not separable. It is only in language and in the imagination that there is this one thing called death, and another called life.

Think about it. Life really is the huge and massive on-going accumulation of death. Everything that had already happened is already dead. Imagine a cone with a point. The point is what constitutes life, and everything else that makes up the cone, leading up to the point are all death.

Most of everything that is, is already dead, and that the living is this tiny little pinnacle on top of a pile of death. Everything that has existed on this planet, most of it is dead. The earth and the universe have been around for billions of years. It is hard to conceive how much death is involved in what we call life.

The 2-year-old Frank is already dead, and so is the Frank that existed 5 seconds ago. The only part of me that is alive is the tiny point that I call my presence. These moments give to the life that I am experiencing.

This moment will soon dissolve and be killed off, adding to the death that will ultimately give birth to my next moment of life, as death perpetually generates life out of its own fabric.

English labels the process of dying and birthing as merely, life. However, by confining to the limits of words and symbols, we are omitting a great deal of our experiences and conditions.

Another example is the binary conception of sexes. We tend to divide the human race into two distinct categories, male and female. Nevertheless, if we no longer see language as the representation of some underlying human form, but as creation and exploration of new styles of perception and becoming, then we can argue there is not really just man or woman.

These sexes represent the goal of life, such that we act in order to fulfill our humanity. Nevertheless, we are neither man nor woman. The way I see it, thousands of tiny little sexes make up human beings. Each little sex intense germinal influxes that pass through and across our bodies.

It is through the powerful organizing and interactions of becoming, between these little sexes that gives rise to an open and autonomous being. (Editing note: Open and autonomous are contradictory. This person is a damn retard.)

Language and concepts have limited the possibilities of such open flow these little sexes originated and took away from what they could have manifested in the world. Something gave us the binary (Editing note: I am not sure if this tree fucking dimwit knows that binary means double fold meaning.) conception of man and woman, and often times fail to acknowledge that there is a man in every woman, and a woman in every man. Those within each of our man-woman bodies are constitutions and formations of thousands of tiny little sexes that long to return to their original quiescent state, prior to the disruption of language and concepts.

Sexuality is no different. We tend to think of sexuality as a false dichotomy. You are gay, straight, or bisexual. (Editing note: You cannot have a false dichotomy, or a black and white matter, with three choices, if I did not know better, I would think this person let hobos fuck him in his ass, oh wait…) I do not think our experiences and sexual orientation are so clear and divisible. No one can quantify and categorize our desires and needs so clearly.

Sexuality is always in constant state of flux, and we are born in the grey area within a huge continuum of contradictory, complimentary, expanding, and contracting states, situated within a massive fabric of sexuality in its different forms, shapes, sizes and conditions. Sexuality is not so clear; it is a continuum concept that is of degrees.

  • Frank Yang
    [/quote]

I figure since you are talking about language here, I would fix yours.

hey if you are really talented why don’t you try to do music

[quote]WormwoodTheory wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
I love you, Digitalairair.[/quote]
[/quote]

Totally missed my point, Wormy.

That makes YOU the gay one.

I read some of the thing again (thanks to Brother Chris fixing it) and it’s a lot of made up stuff.

Yang was using language to try and be clever, and is sounding like some goof in the university common room trying to act deep. C’mon “after conceptualizing about it pre-linguistically…” ?

He then doesn’t use words correctly (like death) to try and come to strange conclusions. Like taking death to just mean the ending of something, or the changing of something. So when you realize that because you are a little different today from yesterday, then you are ‘dead’.
Shut up and take some worthwhile courses in school!

There are no grey areas when it comes to sexuality.