Mysteries :
The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board).
cladking Wrote [to Martin Stower]:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Ah, yes Grasshopper. You've come upon the second
> most important weakness of modern language. We
> must define every term in terms of every other
> term because this is how the language works.
> Since no definitions are fixed none can become
> fixed. Still it's helpful for both speakers to
> agree that the word "car" refers to an
> "automobile" rather than a "railroad gondola". If
> one says his "car is stuck in the ditch" then
> very different methods are required to extract it
> and "may I borrow your car for a trip to
> Cincinnati" is very different.
>
> The real problem is that every single word in
> every single sentence must be parsed in this way.
> Every single word has shades of meaning and every
> different individual carries around his own
> dictionary in his head to deconstruct utterances.
> We must do this deconstruction in our head on a
> real time basis as another is speaking or we're
> reading in order to keep up. We construct a
> meaning in our head based on this deconstruction.
> We always assume the other party shares not only
> definitions but even perspectives. I've many
> times seen two individuals having a conversation
> about two totally unrelated subjects yet neither
> noticed!! How much more can communication break
> down than for two people to be talking about
> different things to each other?
>
> One of the beauties of ancient language was you
> either understood it or you did not. Everybody
> took the exact same meaning and if they didn't
> than the utterance sounded like gobbledty gook.
> This was because not only were word meanings set
> in stone but because perspectives were defined and
> grammar mirrored the laws of nature. Extremely
> complex ideas might be misstated or misunderstood
> but it would always be obvious when communication
> failed.
As one recent example, we've been cited Utt 480 which includes so many words with symbolic implications, how does one begin to get a handle on what's really trying to be "communicated" here?:
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 22-Feb-17 16:27 by Origyptian.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Ah, yes Grasshopper. You've come upon the second
> most important weakness of modern language. We
> must define every term in terms of every other
> term because this is how the language works.
> Since no definitions are fixed none can become
> fixed. Still it's helpful for both speakers to
> agree that the word "car" refers to an
> "automobile" rather than a "railroad gondola". If
> one says his "car is stuck in the ditch" then
> very different methods are required to extract it
> and "may I borrow your car for a trip to
> Cincinnati" is very different.
>
> The real problem is that every single word in
> every single sentence must be parsed in this way.
> Every single word has shades of meaning and every
> different individual carries around his own
> dictionary in his head to deconstruct utterances.
> We must do this deconstruction in our head on a
> real time basis as another is speaking or we're
> reading in order to keep up. We construct a
> meaning in our head based on this deconstruction.
> We always assume the other party shares not only
> definitions but even perspectives. I've many
> times seen two individuals having a conversation
> about two totally unrelated subjects yet neither
> noticed!! How much more can communication break
> down than for two people to be talking about
> different things to each other?
>
> One of the beauties of ancient language was you
> either understood it or you did not. Everybody
> took the exact same meaning and if they didn't
> than the utterance sounded like gobbledty gook.
> This was because not only were word meanings set
> in stone but because perspectives were defined and
> grammar mirrored the laws of nature. Extremely
> complex ideas might be misstated or misunderstood
> but it would always be obvious when communication
> failed.
As one recent example, we've been cited Utt 480 which includes so many words with symbolic implications, how does one begin to get a handle on what's really trying to be "communicated" here?:
- ascends
climbs
come
enduring Bull
erect
grasps
hand (of the King)
head
imperishable
King's father Atum
King is established at your head
ladder
lift up
raise
said
spoken
thighs of Isis
thighs of Nepthys
Wild Bull
yonder gods
______________________________________________________________
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 22-Feb-17 16:27 by Origyptian.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.