Jonathan Adamson

It seems to me that when considering language and it’s generally understood meaning, part of the process of human transformation must include shifts in our understanding of common words. Words carry baggage, yes…but that baggage is history. Their staying power suggests that they have remained significant to humans across time. Take a word like “God,” for instance— which can be triggering for many modern people. Our reaction is often to substitute a different word, “the universe” or “higher power” or “source,” but these lack the weight of a word embedded as deeply in human language, tradition, myth as the word “God.” The word seems always to be an imperfect symbol for that which we intend to communicate or understand, but the fact that a word like “God” continues to be relevant suggests that it has been kept alive all these centuries by continual renewal and exploration. If we simply try to coin a new term, we may succeed and it may even be necessary— but it has no power to bring new meaning to history which could otherwise redeem centuries of human suffering. I think the evolution of human beings depends, in part, on the renewal and transformation of language… to arrive at an ever more pure shared way of understanding that which is at some fundamental level, unspeakable.

REPLY

Footnotes2Plato

Lots of resonance with this, thank you.

REPLY

Timothy Jackson

I completely agree Jonathan, and it's very appropriate that you choose the word "God" as your example, as it's a word I've been grappling with (like so many of us) for a while - do I have a place for it in my "best guess positive thesis"? The answer, at the moment, is that is probably depends on who I'm talking to and what I'm talking about (which probably exposes what an incorrigible fence sitter I can be). A big word for me is "evolution" - prior to its usage in biology it was used in both mathematical and military contexts, as well as just meaning "unfolding" in Latin (Cicero simply spoke of the "evolutio" of a scroll). The early biological usage was specifically for preformationist concepts in embryology, and early transformationist conceptions (in which genuinely "new" things emerge in development) were distinguished from preformationist "evolution" by being referred to as "epigenesis" (literally "in addition to the origin"). So by the earlier view, a deterministic cosmology in which nothing new ever emerges might be called "evolutionary", and a model which included an open future and the possibility of genuine novelty would be called "epigenetic". Now, however, I think the idea of "evolutionary cosmology" strongly implies the open future and the emergence of genuine novelty. Meanings themselves absolutely do evolve, and we can continue to delve into them through ongoing examination of their etymology, history of usage, and contemporary usage....and then we can do our own little bit of intelligent design on them, too. But that latter part, especially, should always be subject to critical interrogation, like any other designed tool, or evolved trait, would be - the proposed meaning must be fit for purpose. And we always have to keep in mind that the meaning of words doesn't only change historically, in an "evolutionary" manner, but also changes contextually, in an "ecological" manner - where "evolution" is the study/phenomenon of diachronic relations in a lineage, and "ecology" is the study of synchronic relationships in an "ecosystem" (a relational context).

REPLY

Jonathan Adamson

 @Timothy Jackson  thanks for that response. I think that there is a key in what you say at the start, which is that your use of language is determined in part by who you imagine your are speaking with. This ties in nicely with your personal history where you learned and enjoyed speaking about animals at the zoo at different levels, applying language and concepts you judged to be appropriate for your audience. This, I think, is what language is for— effective communication between two distinct centers of experience (that may be at different stages of development.) Of course, modifying language for optimal understanding comes with some risk— as you suggest and as you both discuss here. Language, which is central to human understanding, has consequences. I wonder, though, to what extent we actually can anticipate and design language. I’m a bit skeptical that we can. Because if it is to be language, it cannot belong to any particular gatekeeper… it becomes powerful only so far as it inhabits the space between distinct centers of experience. While there may be some who are able to accurately predict the consequences of new or altered language (and therefore new understanding), it doesn’t mean they have power to alter its course. Take Nietzsche’s warning about the consequential “death of God,” for example. I think probably the most effective way to correct language that has proven to be detrimental is to find a more compelling application that expands meaning, adding more texture, more layers, touches something of deeper experiential significance. Eventually, that too will become stale and detrimental and will need renewal. I suppose what I am trying to say is that, in the end, language is for transmission of understanding and its success is determined by the power of its ability to communicate intended meaning which is something like resonance. If a word like “evolution” is used to try and communicate a new way of seeing something outside the traditional domain where we might expect to find that word, and it effectively and repeatedly brings that new domain to life in a novel and generative way— (or, in other words it transmits the insight and opens/expands the mind of the other into new territory where both individuals can now play together)… this, I think, is not only a success… but it is also now out of our control. If the use of a word in a new context strikes a deep resonance, it’s sort of off to the races. And we don’t exactly know what combination of words will do that, but we do our best in order to get the other to “see” more clearly the meaning behind our mouth noises and, as extension, the meaning of human history. Looking forward to your future conversations!

REPLY

Timothy Jackson

 @Jonathan Adamson  Thank you for another thoughtful response - I find myself in almost complete agreement with you. When I mentioned our capacity to "intelligently design" language, I largely meant in terms of the deepening and nuancing of meaning that you have beautifully described. But as you note, meaning is indeed coordinated collectively - as scholars or just thoughtful language users we can weigh in and give the evolution of meaning a little nudge, but we absolutely cannot impose top-down control on the process (apologies to the Academie Française!). Once a tool is out in the marketplace (or the space of reasons), it is continually transformed by users who each co-opt it within their unique conceptual framework. This is part of what makes natural language so generative and makes its evolution so open-ended, like that of the universe as a whole, in my view....after all, if language is part of the universe..... As a follower of Matt's channel you probably know that one of Whitehead's pithily coined fallacies is "the fallacy of the perfect dictionary". I take that to be a warning to pedants everywhere who would seek to hypostasise the meaning of words. It's a sentiment that Heraclitus - the great ancestor of the Western lineage of evolutionary thinking - would find sympathetic.