Artificial Language

Words shape our thoughts. It is difficult to imagine things that we have no words for; at the same time creating new words for the specific enables our thoughts.

In the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, an artificial language is used to dampen thoughts of dissent and rebellion, simply by removing the words corresponding to such thoughts. Of course, it is still possible to achieve the same thoughts through negations of the opposite concept, but the very convoluted nature of such thinking hampers dissent. After all, the human mind has a finite working memory, which ultimately places a ceiling on the complexity of thoughts attainable. Creating new words to condense complex concepts into a single, concise form is one way of side-stepping the problem.

Current languages are evolved more than constructed, born out of a series of conveniences rather than deliberate steps. I wonder if it is possible, in a fashion opposite to Nineteen Eighty-Four, to manipulate language in a benign manner. Would the removal of words related to race destroy discrimination? Would naming all implements of war with a single word reduce our taste for war? Would excising  words referencing the supernatural help us clear our minds?

I suspect it may.

Voices in an Empty Room

Do you have a voice that no one has ever heard, a voice that only sounds when you are alone, a voice that chatters to you when you're in an empty room, a voice that speaks and seems not of your own?

A person has a great number of voices, each for a certain audience, and each to never show to another crowd. And of these voices, perhaps one, or perhaps a few, perform for none other than the private self.

And it is not the prime voice that we use internally. It may be voiced as an ally, praising and propping the very views one holds; or it may serve as an antithesis, standing in opposition. And at other times it acts in both roles, in synthesis. But the key is, they sound different, foreign perhaps.

They do not reside in the crevices of one's mind; they must be spoken out loud, given form in pitch and timbre. Madness, maybe, appearances of a person speaking to himself. But perhaps there are some things, or a great many things, that cannot be granted any other audience or counsel.

And in such cases we can only invoke the voices in an empty room.

Hypocrisy

By some standards, I may be held to be a hypocrite, in that I sometimes propound views which I do not hold, or that I sometimes do not act according to the views that I hold. Dismissing the argument that I am merely human, I propose the following defence:

I argue that there are multiple levels of belief; it is not a mere binary between believing and disbelieving. For instance, I may very strongly believe that the Earth is round, whereas I may weakly believe (from the weather report) that it will not rain tomorrow.

The distinction between the levels of belief is important when deciding whether to act upon the beliefs. Reusing the example of the belief in the incidence of rain tomorrow, my belief in the report may be weak enough for me to justify carrying an umbrella despite this being contrary to my belief that it will not rain.

By the same token, a belief may be held, but not to a extent strong enough to motivate behavior consistent with the belief. In particular, a person who demands a higher level of evidence or faith in any issue would neccessarily have a higher threshold of belief before acting.

Interestingly, the word hypocrite has its roots in the Greek words "hypo" and 'krinein", meaning "under" and "to sift or decide" respectively. In other words, hypocrisy was an inability to decide, which concurs with my earlier analysis.

What's In a Name ?

Recently, some bloggers put up simple "Free Burma !" posts on their blogs. Then, yesterday, I saw someone on MSN with the nick, "Free Myanmar !".

Two words, refering ostensibly to the same object, and yet having absolutely different connotations.

Not too long ago, I was puzzled by the absolute refusal of certain global entities in using the name "Myanmar". After all, what's in a name, or so I thought. Then came the recent crisis in Myanmar/Burma, which highlighted the otherwise subtle differences in the words.

The fact that the choice of a noun actually indicates the person's political position is extremely interesting. However, in retrospect, this is not new - "Pro-choice", "Pro-life", are both terms which refer to the same thing, but signify different stances towards abortion. Many other examples exist.

Thus, I wonder - Is there a neutral word which can be used to refer to Myanmar/Burma ? With only two words to chose from and with each word implying the supporting of a particular faction, in naming that country, one would forcibly dragged into taking a side. Interesting, and troublesome, for any self-purported neutral observer.

Free Temasek, anyone ? Or, perhaps, free Malaya.

Language and Thought

First there was thought, and then there was language. Language facilitates the exteriorization of thought, which is interior in nature. However, language, in serving this exterior function, is limited by thought, because ultimately it is only a subset of thought. Everything that can be expressed by language must have an originating cause-thought, whereas thoughts can exist independently in themselves.

And yet, often thought is seemingly constrained by language, as it appears to be in Nineteen Eighty Four, where the language of Newspeak serves to limit the formation of deviant ideas. Does this mean that certain thoughts cannot exist without a sufficiently developed language from which to manifest ? If this hypothesis is indeed accepted, then this means certain thoughts cannot exist independently in themselves.

I doubt that thoughts can be non-independent. Admittedly, thoughts can be hard to properly concieve in the absence of language, and indeed the presence of the correctly developed vocabulary would do wonders in the manifestation of ideas, which are vague at best. But even in these cases, language only serves to solidify and make visible the nascent spark of inspiration. Without language, thought still remains, misshapened and misty perhaps, but still present nevertheless.

In conclusion, simply, thought preceeds expression.

---

Technorati Tags : Philosophy Of Language , Language And Thought