Communication and language as an evolutionary property

What philosophy is trying to express is ‘pure existence’, therefore it cannot be expressed. However, philosophy refuses to accept that it is impossible to summarize or describe or – and this is its most arrogant and immature attempt – explain existence. As the language advances there has to come a point for the individual and for the global human intellect or the civilization to realize that the only way forward is by transcending the human language (by ‘language’ I mean a construct made up of individual [spoken] languages plus all other forms [visual, audio, etc.]. It should be clear that the human language is just an evolutionary property of the human body. Language itself cannot explain or communicate the nature of humane existence (or anything approaching what is needed to accomplish its understanding) and, more importantly, it cannot communicate why it cannot do so. Our ability to explain and communicate the nature of our existence will begin to improve once we transcend the language. Once we become unified in a global, planet wide and perhaps one day universe wide, network of ‘feeling’. Unfortunately, it appears to me that this conclusion is nowhere to be found.

In other words, I propose, or I think it is necessary to begin to imagine, design and construct artificial and natural – by natural I mean within the human body rather than external hardware – a new method of communication. A method that goes beyond basic mouth noises.

I propose: communication and language, as we see them now, are just an evolutionary property. However, we are yet to become aware of this fact. It seems to me that we are so arrogant and so unintelligent that we think that we can use the human language in its present state to summarize, describe and explain the universe itself.

It seems to me that it is impossible for academics to recognize language and philosophy for what they are precisely because they are looking for a theory to promote, a book to publish, and a lecture to present – all of them linguistic constructs that limit empathy and imagination. Why? They are an expression of the ego. The basic human drives still motivate our behavior. Rather than pure intelligence, rather than honesty, rather than truth, integrity, or the ability to recognize what is taking place – that the language is the ultimate limit.

Feeling is the universal human construct. It is what we need to understand and communicate for it is the source of unity. But we need to understand and communicate it not via language but via feelings. We cannot begin to joke about defining life, the universe, beauty, truth and so on until we have achieved some kind of global human unity. It is very clear that no such unity can be achieved through a particular language or through the human language – meaning a construct made up of individual (spoken) languages plus all other forms (visual, audio, etc.).

The answer is, quite physically, within the indescribable. We know it for we feel it. However, we are unwilling to accept it – but only because we are so frustrated by our inability to communicate the indescribable through feelings. We are searching for the answer within the human language and we are trying to communicate it within the human language. However, the indescribable realm that we are exploring through the human language and the answer contained within it are beyond the human language.

We are children pointing at something they do not understand and cannot explain for their arms and hands and fingers are incapable of describing what they have learned and what they feel.

How do we begin to share ‘the state of feeling’ is the question before us.

Technology’s main task is still to communicate the shared human language. Its task is yet to move to a new level. I propose that the new level is to translate the existing human language into emotions, or, at least, into emotional states. A process that requires a radical new understanding of the relationship among words and language and the emotions they create, and the way resulting construct could be encoded (via bio-chem or natural neural network technologies).

The point at which our perception of reality begins to form as a communicable construct is beyond the language, however, that is not the main issue here. We have reached a point where what we know we experience – empathy and love – we cannot understand, share or communicate in ways that would enables us to rise beyond that which limits us.

Or, that which limits us (language) cannot be defined and expressed through that which limits us (language), precisely because its limit is what defines us. We need to imagine, design, and create a point of departure. A point that will separate us from this limiting construct.

To portray violence, in any form, is to fail to see and understand its destructiveness

If anything is to be learned from wars it is that nothing that is to be learned from them is to be communicated through stories about wars. Our mistake – us as a civilization – is that we have not learned this, yet. So anything we learn from wars we continue to convey through stories about wars.

Hemingway understood wars, however, not completely. Not completely for he could not convey his messages about wars without recreating wars. Perhaps because: either A) he could not separate what he had learned (by being in wars) from his personal trauma or B) he felt that he could not convey that which he had learned (by being in wars) without conveying its infinite destructive potential (not doing the justice without conveying it). The very construct that should not be recreated in individuals’ (readers’) minds.

I think Hemingway’s understanding of injustice and inequality – without the war element – had been incomparably better.

The Old Man and the Sea comments on wealth, poverty, justice and inequality without ever referring to any of them – directly or indirectly. The main character’s life is a self contained reality.

The entire novel depicts a brief moment in a life of a human being that is not attempting to do anything else except love that very moment for exactly what it is.

The full reality, which we – the readers – know exists, is not mentioned anywhere in the novel. However, it is what shapes the main character’s life. The absence of the forces that create the seemingly inescapable poverty and inequality dimensions of the novel is what forces us to create them in our own minds. Or, the absence of the forces that shape the main character’s life is what implies them.

A parallel can be drawn between the main character’s life and our own lives.

To realize that most of us lead our lives without ever considering the location or properties of the forces that create our lives is to begin to realize that we are separated from those force by an invisible barrier that we have to identify and destroy.

If we could examine the elements that create wars (fear, hate, greed, control), without getting distracted by acts of violence conveyed through war stories, perhaps we could begin to identify and connect with causes and consequences of wars. And if we could identify and connect with specific causes and consequences within ourselves, rather than acts of violence, perhaps we could begin to connect with them in other people – thus transcending hate and fear.

To portray violence, in any form, is to fail to understand its destructiveness.

Institutionless networked reality

So many individuals who call themselves leaders fail to see, or if they see it they fail to accept, that the concept known as institution is no longer valid. The speed with which information is distributed and used to create new physical constructs and knew knowledge thus new information continues to increase. It is obvious to anyone interested in the nature of our technological reality that information’s permanent acceleration is decreasing the distance that separates imagination, design and manufacturing processes. Consequently, institutions and their old-fashioned policies cannot keep up with let alone control or improve individual imaginations, design, and manufacturing processes.

More and more individuals are exploiting legal loopholes and minimizing their interactions with government departments. Such individuals are creating more and more ways to connect themselves with manufacturers-legally or illegally. As a result all sorts of strange and dangerous new products are being created. Computer hardware and software and weapons are the most obvious. Biochemical research, nanotechnology, cell research, plant research and so on are taking off too. Attempts to bypass government regulations will continue to increase in all sectors and in all directions.

Is it really that hard to see what is happening? It is if your purpose is to preserve your ancient model of existence and operation. Governments continue to exist as our civilization’s ultimate ancient construct because they refuse to accept that new fluid networks are the answer.

You cannot control new dynamic forever changing and forever expanding information networks via an ancient institution. Ancient institutions, like governments, are designed to control other ancient institutions – institutions that cannot change themselves.

The only way to control networks is with other networks. Preferably: simpler, faster, more adaptable.