This chapter is yet to be edited - please refer to chapter "C / I THEOROM" instead
Fools of Language
is a mirror-reflection of Reality
It is latent across EXISTENCE,
ready for Life - a task-performing phenomenon, to access
its WORDS and through them, try to describe the workings of its
Yet Life can become so distracted by that task as to ignore - at
its peril, the inner workings of the Language itself
Cognate but different CONCEPTS must be expressed
by cognate but different NOUNS
two and a half millennia ago, distrustful of the "Infinite"
Aristotle had proposed an alternative - the POTENTIAL Infinite.
Had the great man also grasped the extent of what he has stumbled
upon - one of most applicable Constants of Reality, maybe
our Knowledge would have followed a different path
wTake a Word - the QUANTUM of social
existence. A Universe is the totality of "Potentials for
Included here are the Potentials for Words of "quantum",
Indeed - the
Potential for Aristotle's assumption that "Potential Infinite"
is a "factual" LIMIT of Reality to be translated by
his co-relation of two Words; "Potential" and
wLike a unique "I EXIST - GIVE
ME A NAME!" pleading over the background murmurs of "existence",
Potential for a Word - any "entity", "phenomenon"
or "feature", EXISTS by "distinguishing" itself
from the "remainder of Word Potentials" - the "remainder
of the Universe".
As a result, once Life translates a sufficient variety of Potentials
into Words - an enchanting "consistency" will
emerge... The hitherto muted, mechanistic relationship between
"Word Potential" and the "remainder of the
Universe" becomes evocated by a direct correspondence between
its "Word" and the "remainder of Language".
(Those who find the following too hard to digest,
go to "Meaningfulness")
Using dynamic marker ">" - signifying "leads
" or "is Potentially
" and static marker "/" signifying a "discontinuity", this
" correspondence" can be displayed as -
consistency" = Word Potential / remainder of Word Potentials
LIFE'S TRANSLATION = Word Potentials > Words > Language
"semantic consistency" = Word / remainder of Language
"repetitive pattern" links the GENERIC manifestations
of "existence" - UNIVERSE, LIFE and LANGUAGE in a "consistent",
Now if every "factuality" in the Universe resides only
within the mechanistic Potential giving rise to its corresponding
Word - all aspects of that Universe should, in principle, be wholly
We need only to translate every Potential into a Word "consistently"
and all Mysteries within "totality of Word Potentials"
- the Universe, must ultimately be elucidated by the "consistency"
arising between those translating Words and their respective "remainders
of Language". It works - in principle.
wThe main obstacle here is biological randomness
of our "conceptual hardware" -
Word Potentials become translated into Words only through the
medium of CONCEPTS - the ethereal, ever-changing electro-chemical
"discontinuities" which the Environment etches on every
individual's MEMORY across Life's primal lens of PERCEPTION -
Word Potential > interface of Perception >
"individual's internal CONCEPT" > "external"
each of us is able to distinguish any Word from the "remainder
of Language" with complete "certainty" - their
MEANINGS are never more then "semantic approximations"
varying from one individual to another. Why?
The electro-chemical "discontinuities" embodying those
are likewise never more then "structural approximations"
of one another
Therefore, all shared quest for Knowledge will always be undermined
by the "conceptual uncertainty" amongst any two of its
uncertainty" = an Individual's "semantic approximations"
the Social Group's "remainder of semantic approximations"
"conceptual uncertainty" of COMMUNICATION can be summed-up
with following "repetitive pattern" -
"internal concept" > "internal semantic approximation"
2. "internal semantic approximation" > "external"
3. "external" Words > "internal semantic approximation"
4. "internal semantic approximation" > "internal
COMMUNICATION = "Rpt. 1, 2 // 3, 4, 1, 2 // 3, 4, 1, 2
"conceptual uncertainty" resides "internally"
- within the physiology of Life, the LIMIT it imposes on the "consistency"
of "biologically-actuated" communication cannot be circumvented.
We can only minimise its effect by INTENDING our communication
to be as concise as we find possible.
wNow in addition, there's an EXTERNAL
subversive quietly sabotaging the "consistency" of our
communication. But this time, it is something we can and
should act upon
The problem resides in our SOCIAL ATTITUDES to the functions of
Words - especially to Words conveying the most important distinction
in our Social Existence; the difference between a "factuality"
and a "hypothesis".
Let us examine just how
did those "social attitudes" establish themselves and
how they DISTORT - with tragic results, the "consistency" of our Language. There are two reasons
First, "consistency" has a bastard sibling; "meaningfulness".
Although all "consistent" statements are necessarily
"meaningful", not all "meaningful" statements
are necessarily "consistent"
Next, the "conceptual process" that allocating Words
to Potentials deemed to be "factual", is semantically open-ended
Empirical Words we have evolved to do NO MORE then translate the
self- evident "factualities" that any Environment abounds
with, can additionally be used to "define" a
Inevitably, those "definitions" emerge as the NOUNS
of "hypotheses" that address our Evolution-driven misconceptions
to the feeblest of standards; the enticing "meaningfulness" of the subject matter they describe.
"consistency", is the intuitive driver of Language...
As Language expands, "meaningfulness" can't tolerate
a vacuum... Bands of clever Words will diligently visit every
"conceptual" nook and cranny of individuals, groups
and Societies, requesting - sometimes forcefully, a nod of obedience
to the "meaningful hypothesis" they communicate.
And should a "meaningful hypothesis" then provide "repetitive
pattern" for the "socially consistent" RITUAL,
this dazzling form of "consistency" often becomes misunderstood
for the "factual" status of the "hypothesis" itself.
suggested, the remedy here resides in an ATTITUDE to communication,
especially to the use of Words most critical in expressing arguments
about the ultimate structure of Reality.
The Potential of "attitude" is always "diverging"
in EMOTIVE directions. On the one hand, we can tread the millennia-old
path of "meaningfulness"
Here, a given argument's "contextual consistency"
with the subject matter under consideration is comprehended as
"meaningful", then responded to with an equally "meaningful"
Not a very difficult path to follow - with the enticement of "meaningfulness"
goading both sides forward, each believes itself only one leap
of logic or of rhetorical flourish away from an inevitable triumph.
It rarely works
wOn the other, we ONLY accept the
argument's "contextual consistency" if the Words the
argument hinges on are also PERCEPTUALLY CONSISTENT with their
Evolutionary Function in our Language.
What if they are not? We refuse to participate in that argument
wAs attitudes go, that is hardly
conducive to a robust, free-flowing debate
But since there's
no shortage of subjects that humanity had been gnawing at for
millennia and which - like "meaningful" offal, only
result in bad cases of "conceptual indigestion", it
is time for a less accommodating attitude to Language.
return to the first proposition; "A Universe is the totality
of Potentials for Words". Which Words - from an evolutionary
standpoint, constitute the most important part of our Language?
Imagine Language as a tree with its trunk made of NOUNS, its branches
of Verbs, Adverbs and Adjectives - its twigs and leaves accounting
for all the remaining "units of linguistic function"
There's not one unit of Language which - if not a NOUN, doesn't
ultimately "connect" to some NOUN. Why so?
Life - the Potential of NOUN "Life", has evolved
amongst Potential NOUNS,
i.e. the "factual" THINGS which all individual embodiments
of "bodily Life" had to depend on for their survival
over the last billion years.
half a billion years ago, the capability of PERCEPTION - the greatest
gift Evolution could bestow on Life apart from Language, had facilitated
the translation of those Potential NOUNS into "concepts".
Be it the "predator", "prey", "mate",
"offspring", "tree", "water" or
any other Potential NOUNS the Environment is made of, only Life
able to instinctively "conceptualize" them as
self-evident "factualities" that must "consistently" be RESPONDED TO, had a chance to survive.
Consequently, once "proto-humans" evolved NOUNS - this
specific form of Word has retained the archetypal function of
Potential NOUNS - alerting Life to the "factuality" of THINGS critical to its survival.
wThis is the reason our instincts
still urge us to think that NOUNS invariably point towards
some "factuality" of our Social Environment and not
- as is so often the case in our everyday discourse - to a mere
might have been the FIRST of our "hypotheses"?
Around a million years ago, our Toolmaking ancestors began to
control the "factuality" of Fire. Apart from a chance
to translate that Potential NOUN as our contemporary equivalent,
what kind of additional "conceptual Potential" does
Above all, the Potential for an inkling of a "hypothesis"
- that "Unknown B" must be behind the "Known A"
of Fire. All that is needed to develop such a "hypothesis"
further is a handful of cognate, "survival-related"
It might have taken another half a million years of experiments
with an ever increasing body of Language for the Masters of Fire
to arrive at "something conceptual" - "belief"
that some powerful Being ( B ), is responsible for the Mystery
of Fire ( A )
wA few hundred thousand years later,
"A - B" would have "connected" with
a few dozen Words "defining" it as Life-like,
Higher Being capable not only of protecting its believers from
danger - but granting them BENEFITS...
And what is it that our cave-dwelling ancestors would most desperately
be yearning for? It's their SURVIVAL, but this time with a brilliant
BENEFIT no linguistic Life in any Universe will ever be able to
Imagine a scenario from around fifty thousand years ago... A savage
mind - it's invariably an individual, perhaps a mother
whimpering over her child's lifeless body, desperately wails into
Life's evolved biological yearning to keep "surviving
indefinitely" chances upon extraordinary Potential -
the "conceptual image" of a child remaining alive within
that Future. FOREVER
Who could resist that?
At first a mute portent, the "concept" of "surviving
forever" shall "connect" to the existing Words
and then - having discarded its DEFINITION, fly away
into the Environment as a Word destined to hypnotise and haunt
humanity for all time; the NOUN of "Afterlife".
wOver the millennia, the "hypothesis
of Afterlife" becomes embellished with
further "hypothetical NOUNS" - "souls", "gods"
or "spirits", culminating in a "hypothetical NOUN"
typical of the dominant Religions - "GOD". An entirely
"hypothetical entity" claimed by its promoters
not to merely facilitate one's entry into the "Afterlife"
- but be responsible the Laws of Nature governing the "factual"
workings of our Universe, etc
We need some sense
of the numbers involved. How many "factual NOUNS" translating
Potentials that can be "demonstrated" and "tested",
are there in Language today? Between the "aardvark"
for A and "zygote" for Z, most of dictionaries will
list them in many tens of thousands...
wHow many Religion-based "hypothetical
NOUNS"? Half a dozen
Thus, 99.99 % of the NOUNS Social Evolution has programmed our
to interpret as "factual" are currently compelled to
co-exist with a handful of bright arrivistas - which don't proclaim
their "hypothetical status" at the top of their
lungs. Quite the contrary
Consequently, these exciting "hypothetical NOUNS" are
treated just like all other NOUNS - Words whose only function
in Social Evolution has been to alert us to some "factuality"
important to our Social Survival.
Forget for a moment the “hypotheses” behind “God X, Y, Z ...” and hear its NOUN introducing itself into your “conceptual infrastructure” -
“Show me ANYTHING in the Universe which “exists” and Language could describe without a NOUN… You won't find it. Since you've “conceptualized” me, “God”, as a NOUN - then surely, I must “exist”…
As a result, whenever we use this NOUN - even when vehemently rejecting the “hypothesis” behind it, we're allowing it to impose its “pseudo-factual” influence over all OTHER Words of that argument…
Before long, the resulting Transfer of Factuality diffuses and corrupts their most frequent “empirical” functions in our Language.
NOUN Factuality Transfer is instinctive, taking place without our conscious awareness and producing Societies whose Elites can no longer distinguish a “factuality” that anyone may “look at”, “touch”, “hear”, “taste” or “smell” from a “hypothesis” about some “Divine Order of the Universe” which they - needless to say, are administering on Earth as their Sacred Duty…
And not surprisingly, those Elites next demand a Society's blind obedience to their Edicts as a matter of self-evident, “ factual ” obligation on its part…
How can the use of NOUN “God” be reconciled with intellectual demands of Modernity - that's the quandary.
Obviously, the lamentable experiment of “communism” didn't work. Rather then offer any intellectual solutions, it had simply adopted the millennia-old method of religious oppression to a modern JUSTIFICATION; “We're acting in the noblest interests of the Working Class”.
In the end, the industrialised extent of crimes which “communism” inflicted on its Societies proved to be the only relevant difference.
Besides, what can be more fundamental than the right of any human being to suggest ANY view of the world or the Universe - including that based on the NOUN of “God”?
On the face of it, that is precisely how it should be - people offering a few IDEAS to the intellectual marketplace, then arguing their merit the best way they can…
But our communication consist of “Word-sequences” travelling across the “individual interfaces” of PERCEPTION…
What in the “perceptual make-up” of NOUN “God” informs us it is merely a useful convention for aggregating all the arcane definitions and arguments ever advanced to support the “factuality” of whatever such a “hypothesis” is able to express? Nothing.
So naturally we'll “perceive” it as just another NOUN; a Word implying that the “factuality” of a “thing” or “person” has ALREADY been established.
If any intellectual “reasoning”, “inference” or “deduction” about the subject matter is now to be made in a “conceptually consistent” manner, this is not a “perceptually consistent” STARTING POINT for making it…
Admittedly, we can always demand clarifications and conduct interminable debates, but that's not how Language ever works at its competitive level.
“Conceptualising” all NOUNS “as perceived” - then providing an immediate and conclusive response, has long proved to be the most successful model for our civil transactions.
Whilst with hindsight we may regret not having done so, had we insisted on continually seeking clarification to each important NOUN we face daily - our lives would remain stranded in an open-ended mire of endless explanations, re-explanations and arguments.
wSo, we blunder on…
Faced with the need to provide an immediate and conclusive response to the NOUN of “God”, we'll fleetingly recall how answers of the Past affected our standing, “compare” this with Future aspiration, “re-compare” the net result with requirements of the Present, then provide an answer reflecting either “Yes” or “No”… It's happening throughout humanity a countless times each day…
Yet by mere answering, whether it's with APPROVAL or DISAPPROVAL, we commit a transgression against the “consistency” of our Language...
Indeed, whenever we use NOUN “God” in any Context - we allow it to deftly re-direct that Context's already established associations with “factuality” towards itself…
process of unwitting deception is not difficult - provided
are astute enough to demand that the NOUN of "God" be
communicated in a manner that differs PERCEIVABLY from the NOUNS
which communicate to us the remaining, demonstrable aspects of our Social
Once we link this NOUN to a "warning light" informing
all and sundry of its "hypothetical" status at the point
of PERCEPTION, its claims can at last be assigned their rightful
role - interesting "hypotheses", deserving of no less
or more freely-expressed debate then any other.
How should "warning
light" be constructed? Anything "perceivable" and
attached "consistently" to this NOUN can perform
that semantic function.
But then, why not go with the obvious - the very Adjective "hypothetical"
wAssume each time we INTEND to use NOUN "God" - "hypothetical
God" magically passes across our lips or writing. Doesn't
seem such a big deal. WRONG... Check this out for a "perceptually
and conceptually consistent" prayer -
we're gathered today to worship our "hypothetical God",
to be blessed in this life and delivered into "hypothetical
you imagine the howls of protest? However "consistent",
its message becomes "commercially uncompetitive" within
any society in which NOUN "God" continues to be merchandized
in the old-fashioned manner of NOUN Factuality Transfer
It wouldn't sell and its customers, despairing for the certitude
of "Afterlife", would have scurried off to the back-yard
zealots still marketing that NOUN without any linkage to it being
"hypothetical". Not a prayer compatible with the commercial
viability of Religions.
But Language is the essence of “humanness” and no society can owe any commercial favours to professional misusers of its NOUNS. Consequently, time has come for the final chapter of Secular Revolution - the LINGUISTIC REVOLUTION…
If you are privileged to live amidst Western Civilization, you'll know that its Secular Politics – although broadly accepting Death as a price we pay for having lived, habitually perpetuate the pre-Historic tradition of upholding promoters of Religion to be a source of Morality.
wEndure those promoters' ingratiating etiquette, tales of helping the poor, persistent hints on how only THEIR Faith leads to your so-called Salvation and what's more important - your purported “Afterlife”…
Nod politely at any explanation of Nature which only the optimists imbued with a child-like conceit of personally representing on Earth the Maker of all the Universe's Toys are able to contrive… Then, ask a poignant, History-laden question -
“Isn't it the fear of Secular Morality that currently prevents your kind from instigating the intimidation, imprisonment, torture and murder of innocent people for expressing a mere view of the world contradicting your own?”
wToo harsh? Look at a religious time capsule; humanity's stagnant residue of Medievalism. There, an ignorant thuggery which Secular Morality would have responded to with stiff prison sentences still goes on unpunished, as it was unpunished throughout Western Civilization until the beginning of its SECULAR REVOLUTION.
wAnd if by a fortune of geography you are the promoter of Religion in the West, don't save your flock - save yourself.
Bow your head before the Altar of Secular Morality and praise its Laws for ending your Religion's impunity over the past two centuries… Remember brother, that's the only reason your hands are clean today.
So, whenever theological entrepreneurs seek to impose their primitivism on a Secular Society, let's demand that the “consistent” NOUN - “hypothetical God”, first establish the validity of such agendas in the public domain…
Only then, when the "hypothetical" status of this NOUN
is disclosed at the point-of-sale, can the public arrive at an
informed opinion regarding social merit of that Linguistic Product.
wWhenever a politician is searching
for "God's guidance and grace", let's welcome it, then
request that the "consistent" NOUN - "hypothetical
God", be the ONLY method of relating to that "hypothesis" within Politics.
wWhenever the camp followers of Science
pick the fastest path to public's wallet by cagily dissembling
about the possibilities of "God's Mind", let us ask
that the "consistent" NOUN - "hypothetical God",
be used instead.
Not as profitable? Betraying Science is one thing, prostituting
Language is quite another
wMost importantly, when Education
had become an "indoctrination racket" for training Future
Adults to place Money on a collection plate in the name of "God"
a generation later, let us ensure that only the "consistent" NOUN - "hypothetical God", is allowed for merchandising
this Linguistic Product to the young, uncritical and unsuspecting
DISCLOSING the "hypothetical" status of a NOUN isn't
as onerous as it would at first appear. Consider its social congruence
with a long standing precedent of Law -
In any civilised country, the Law demands that while an "offence"
is being "tested", this NOUN be scrupulously referred to
as "hypothetical offence" - the contextual phrase
is "alleged offence", EVERY TIME it is being
used in court procedure...
But NOUNS penalise their misuse in ALL social contexts. When we
ignore their "hypothetical" status, they induce in our
minds the very "assumption of factuality" which
the Legal Process had so assiduously expunged from its own domain.
"Do you believe in God?"
A; "Well, er
it is only a "hypothesis", isn't
If that is your response - then you have not understood
the last few pages.
Never allow this unstable NOUN to bluff its way into your sentient
faculties unless it is securely handcuffed to its intellectual
overseer - "hypothetical".
Q; "Do you believe in God?"
A; "I know what you are intending to say - but ask
that you first re-phrase it
in its "perceptually consistent" format; "Do you
believe the "hypothesis of God" is valid?". Only
THEN will I further discuss this subject
It is worth noting that the process of NOUN Factuality Transfer
has a sickly assistant - the hereditary bacillus of CULTURAL Factuality
wAs we "humans" instinctively
pass Language onto our Young, they inherit our Social Values and
Beliefs, warts and all.
And not surprisingly - people who at the age of 20 wouldn't spit
at some of their Parents "hypotheses", HAD to believe
them to be "factual" at the age of five because that
is what their instinct of self-preservation dictated must be done
in order to survive... No INFORMED CHOICE in the matter.
By the time they'll reach twenty - the corrosive influence of
those "pseudo-factualities" implanted in their minds
not on intellectual merit - but because of our highly misguided notions of parental freedom and responsibility, can exert a toll
lasting a lifetime.
wIt is time we dispense with the
assumption that Parents and Educators are free to "intellectually
abuse" a child because a generation earlier they have themselves been "intellectually abused" AS CHILDREN.
wHow to prevent
the "intellectual abuse" of our children?
By demanding that the "conceptual difference"
between "hypothesis" and "factuality" be made
known to them at the point of PERCEPTION - through "perceptual
difference" between these 2 GENERIC forms of NOUNS.
A historical anecdote
Napoleon to Laplace; "Is there a role for God in your scheme
Laplace; "Sire, I see no need for that hypothesis".
One of seminal exchanges in our Intellectual History
although close - even great Laplace didn't quite manage to hit
the bulls-eye. What else could he have said?
"Sire, the NOUN "God" is distorting the rest of
your question - a handful of Words you have been using since childhood
to describe your indisputably "factual" experiences
bearing no relationship to the "concept" of "God",
or the NOUN of "God"
May I add that Language so
distorted could lead you - my Emperor, into Actions that later
prove to be costly mistakes?
Sire, I humbly beg that you re-phrase your profound question to;
"Is there a role for the "hypothesis of God"
in your scheme of thinking?"
“Man is by nature a political animal”, or so had Aristotle pronounced nearly two and a half millennia ago. For those times, that may have been deemed a brainy observation, indeed an intellectual breakthrough of sorts…
Pity the thoughtful Greek didn't occasionally run fingers through his ample mane and pondered a more mundane, yet revealing topic; “Why am I able to have Food on my table, a shelter over my head and clothes on my body? Could I have lawfully obtained those everyday essentials of life other then by “exchanging” them for the products of my intellect?”
wMan is by nature a COMMERCIAL animal - and the predominant function of Politics is to define and enforce the FAIRNESS of “exchanges” which all of Social Existence depends upon.
Organized Religion is ultimately a COMMERCIAL, "exchange-based" social entity, and rather then denigrate it or engage it in metaphysical debates, the challenge is to ensure that it obtains its Wealth on FAIR terms.
1. Since BENEFITS offered under the NOUN of “God” – the “Afterlife”, etc…
cannot be demonstrated as “factual” – they remain entirely “hypothetical”.
By contrast, the BENEFITS received - MONEY, etc… can be demonstrated as indisputably “factual”.
The respective BENEFITS are hence non-EQUIVALENT and until that non-EQUIVALENCE has been duly acknowledged, “exchanging” one BENEFIT for the other can be neither FAIR - nor “intellectually” sustainable.
2. MONEY and “hypothetical BENEFITS” offered under the NOUN of “God” can be “exchanged” FAIRLY, but only if that NOUN'S “hypothetical” status is DISCLOSED as “hypothetical God” at the point of its usage - i.e. before MONEY is to change hands.
3. A Social Agenda promoted under the NOUN of “God” can be valid, but only if that NOUN'S “hypothetical status” is DISCLOSED as “hypothetical God” at the point of its usage in a public domain.
4. EDUCATION informing of the “hypotheses” promoted under the NOUN of “God” can likewise be valid, but only if that NOUN'S “hypothetical” status is DISCLOSED to the malleable and unsuspecting minds as “hypothetical God” at the point of its usage.
5. Adopting the obligation of DISCLOSURE as a standard of Public Integrity is the only feasible weapon against Religion-driven fanaticism. But to use it credibly, Western Civilization ought to first bring its own Religions to order
not what you can knowingly do with Language - ask what Language
can do with you, without your knowledge".
Factuality Transfer doesn't distinguish one Social Context from another - all that sustains it is REPETITION of NOUNS. And here - the Sciences run a few lengths ahead of Religions with their “inconsistent” REPETITION of NOUNS like “infinity”, “space”, “time”, “continuum”, “dimension”, “truth”, etc…
We'll come to that in due course and the solutions won't be different from those dealing with Religion; a “conceptual difference” between NOUNS has to be “externalized” in their “perceptual difference”.
There will be Contexts in which ADJECTIVE Factuality Transfer is the main obstacle to “conceptual consistency” of our linguistic interaction…
Indeed, there'll be specific Contexts in which Adjectives are more critical to systematizing Reality then NOUNS - only the Adjectives, with their cousins the Adverbs, are suitable for describing the beautiful SYMMETRY of Reality.