Consider the external world. For all practical purposes it is a sea of something-ness that exists independent of us. We, however, deem it necessesary to ‘know’ about the world. So we take a set of characteristics that we recieve through our senses and say “ah yes, this is a cup.” “Yes, this is a monitor.” The monitor knows nothing about this, neither does the cup. In fact they only exist as seperate entities in our minds. The monitor, and the cup are really both just sort of part of the big lump of stuff out there. For one reason or another we’ve decided to seperate them. Language forces us to see the world in terms of cups, monitors, dog biscuits, atoms, quarks, nuetrinos, photons. Seeing the world as a pile of these ‘things’ with their properties, makes understanding it conceptually less of a headache than just a sea of something-ness. But is it a correct approach to take? Should we, instead, approach the Universe more wholistically? Is dividing up the world from a sea of everything into a set of things a legitimate methodology?
By what method would you like for us to respond to your OP?
I’ll respond via the medium of dance.
::jiggle, jiggle::
::hop::
::spin::
::jiggle, jiggle::
::cha cha cha::
Hope that clears it up for the OP.
Um, that’s a big negative on language determining how we experience the world, Sapir.
-fh
It may be legitimate, but it’s hardly practical:
- “What do you want for breakfast?”
- “Thing!”
- “Eggs or bacon?”
- “Thing!”
- “Easy over?”
- “The universe is as one, so how should I know?”
Marklar
Pardon?
marklar: A noun standing in place of any noun you have temporarily forgotten. Synonym of thingy, thingumbob, whatsit. Also may be used deliberately when the meaning is abundantly clear anyway. Derived from its use by space aliens in an episode of South Park
Example: On Marklar, everyone and every thing is referred to as marklar. We come in marklar. Take us to your marklar.
Sorry, I mean;
::jiggle, jiggle::
::whirl::
::tippytap, tippytap::
Definition from http://www.slangsite.com/slang/M.html btw.
Consider the external marklar. For all practical purposes it is a marklar of marklar-ness that exists independent of marklar. marklar, however, deem it necessesary to ‘know’ about the marklar. So marklar take a marklar of marklars that marklar recieve through marklar marklars and say “ah yes, this is a marklar.” “Yes, this is a marklar.” The marklar knows nothing about this, neither does the marklar. In fact they only exist as seperate marklars in our marklars. The marklar, and the marklar are really both just sort of marklar of the big marklar of marklar out there. For one marklar or another marklar have decided to seperate them. Marklar forces marklar to see the marklar in terms of marklars, marklars, marklars, marklars, marklars, marklars, marklars. Seeing the marklar as a marklar of these ‘marklar’ with their marklar, makes understanding it conceptually less of a marklar than just a marklar of marklar-ness. But is it a correct marklar to take? Should marklar, instead, approach the Marklar more wholistically? Is dividing up the marklar from a marklar of marklar into a marklar of marklar a legitimate marklar?
You know, twenty years ago the slang of choice would have been smurf. Or was that only for verbs, adjectives, and adverbs?
Good thing it changed. I hate the Smurfs.
I would like to address the OP, but haven taken a more “wholistical” view of the universe I now have difficulty separating it from everything else in the “sea of something-ness” out there.
I would therefore request you sort out your answer from some place in the middle of the following. This consists of all the interactions I was planning on giving the external world today. Pick whatever takes your fancy, it’s all, like, one to me.
Yes. No. WTF. Oh Baby! Get off my foot. No, I’d prefer a Pepsi. This is the third time I’ve had to ask you this. I donno. Jingle. Too big. No, after you! Heh Heh. Stupid, stupid, stupid! Snore. Hold it there until dead. Faster? I can’t while my finger is stuck. Is this going to work? Let’s get out of here. You can run, Mr Bush, but you can’t hide. No, just the regular. Are you in this queue? Ten past Two. Hmmm? Too late. But I thought that was what you wanted. Oh my god, it’s full of stars!
(Yeah, I was planning on a quiet day.)
W;;'ghsas fds34tsv fvd re y. :2q-0tims-0 we0=b 353k[ er3. Tasreast sff hdhe 3hsva sdg:
:mad: Gheterer2 sada rqrq2 34
? Rdf areqwrf erwer
Aasda afdas f qawra!!!
having taken :rolleyes:
sada rprq21 :rolleyes:
Dogs also do a decent job of separating the dog biscuits from the computer monitors of the world. Moreover, they don’t particularly care what you call the dog biscuits. So, if it’s not actually necessary to use language to divide up the world into dog biscuits and other essential objects, why bother? I vote for marklar.
In all seriousness, language refers to elements of the universe because the universe happens to have become organised into discrete packages and entities; language reflects this.
I’m trying really really hard, but I can’t see how a more holistic approach could be implemented, or if implemented, how it would be of any practical use at all.
The entity that refers to itself as ‘me’ cannot eat the whole universe, but it can eat the object that it refers to as ‘a banana’ - declaring the ‘me’ and the ‘banana’ as discrete objects/entities is actually rather useful and is therefore quite legitimate a methodology. There is no requirement for the part of the universe that the ‘me’ declares as a banana to ‘know’ that it is a banana.
Specifically what alternative did you have in mind, Pythagras?
But in a sense the banana does “know” that it is a banana. Why else would it be hanging out on a banana tree and wearing a banana peel? True, this kind of “knowing” is not the same as a human being knowing a banana as a “banana,” but nonetheless a banana wouldn’t be doing what it does if it didn’t “know” (at some level, and without language) what it was doing. I think this gets to the heart of the OP.
Whoops, on closer inspection I see that this doesn’t actually get to the heart of the OP. Sorry.
Kal: You should’ve written that in Dancewriting.