three sat side by side
one was mistaken
one was unperturbed
two were unremarkable
two were constant
one was eroding
passing by I witnessed
and did not comment at the time
looking back I cannot see any more
but only remember
re-envision re-create and respond
three sat ... but did they?
did - what does that mean?
{tangent: in the study of language, one learns that tense seems to be a characteristic of all known languages, which is an interesting fact given that we can never experience the past, but only see it in our minds' eye - and thus every language seems to be concerned foremost with matters of the mind and not external reality - or perhaps better, the mind is the reality of language?}
I am an explorer
but I do not make a map
or carry a journal
but merely take notice of the
land marks
7 comments:
interesting tanget.
Yep.
Good poem too.
Although relative to your tangent, I sorta don't agree. I don't think there is anything remarkable about the fact that the brain, or we, are concerned with the past. One needs to assess the past to understand, to learn, to survive.
In that regard, we are just as concerned with the present and future in my estimation.
Yet I know nothing of the content of mental activity relative to what percentage of the brain is concerned with each tense per se, if that's even a relevant measure of this.
And is the mind the reality of language, I'm not sure, although my hunch is that mind comes prior to language, or maybe they're bound up so tight behaviourally that it really doesn't matter.
Hmm, interesting questions.
Man oh man, ALfA U, gotta love it!
:)
What I find interesting is that the past *does not exist*. Language can deal with concrete objects that are in my immediate vicinity - my computer, my cup of coffee, etc. But it spends a great deal of time dealing with things that are no longer in existence (as they were) or even completely imaginary. You find that unremarkable - I find it extremely remarkable! It may not be surprising that this skill has enabled us to survive and succeed exceedingly well, but that does not make it any less remarkable.
I mentioned Julian Jaynes in a previous comment - I'm reading his book on consciousness right now. His theory is that consciousness and the human mind developed OUT of language, and rather recently (in the past 3,000 years possibly). I can't say I buy the whole thing, but his discussions, as to what consciousness is and is not, are very intriguing.
The past surely exists, it exists in the actions of the now, and that is not a loosey goosey thing, I mean that.
I do not do now what I do, i.e., giving reality to the now, without bringing something in, an actual substance, called history. I think that's what is meant by historical materialism.
To unpack that would exhaust me too, so hopefully you'll take it for what it's worth, right or wrong.
And to think that the human mind developed OUT of language, to me is reasonable.
But to say that consciousness and mind developed out of language, I think is ludicrous.
This depends of course on how one defines mind, and how one defines language.
As consciousness and mind can be chemotaxis in my estimation, and even language can qualify as chemotaxis, assuming there is a signaler.
Oh no, I shouldn't of used that term, now I'm gonna get it!
And really, I come from the point of view that the fundamental thing is MIND, so I'm committed somewhat.
:)
I think I get what you're saying, mostly. Certainly definitions matter here. Jaynes is very specific as to what he means by consciousness, though in fact some of his language examples are not entirely convincing, seeing as he was not a linguist himself, which is why I say I don't entirely buy his theory.
As to "the past" - I certainly see what you are saying. Think about this for a moment: many human languages have a binary distinction between "past" and "non-past" (that is both the present and the future are categorized together). Given what you say about the past existing in the now, do you not find this interesting? Whether or not "the past" and "the present" can in any physical, material way be defined - nonetheless, languages DO define them, and are in general agreement as to where the dividing line is (more or less - there are some gray areas when dealing with areas of overlap such as "this morning", "last night", "just a moment ago" etc.) There must be some "sense" of what the past is, what the present is, and how the two are different, for the purposes of human cognition, whether or not this is a fact of reality.
Yes, it very much interests me. But I think what you are talking about is not cognition, it is more of what you may mean by 'sense.'
While language does describe these states of being, they are not located there, and more in 'the sense' of how we experience time.
We have chronology built into us, and thus the language we use, to recognise this 'sense,' is not uniquely situated in knowledge in an ontological way, as I think you may be implying.
Although if we say that the word is flesh, then maybe so.
Hmm.
Is language 'sense?'
Might be relative to cognition, and if so, then what does that make cognition?
Cogito est ontologia?
Ontologia est cogito?
I'm not saying that my particular belief is that language drives all of this, or it originates from there (that's Jaynes' theory, which I find interesting but not wholly convincing). However, language does point at aspects of the way we think/behave/cognicize/sense - whatever label (a word!) you want to put on it.
My point about the past is this: we can never experience the past AS the past - we did experience, but as soon as we do experience it, it's gone from the immediate moment. But we clearly do have a conception of The Past as a species (probably) and as a culture (definitely) that we almost take for granted, as it is such a core part of us. The division of past vs. not-past is really important to us (perhaps that is unremarkable), and yet is not reflective of anything immediately apparent in our environment.
Think of it this way:
What you say about the past being part of the present is certainly true. For example, scientists have been able to develop theories about how the universe began, reaching back billions of years in time, based on observing how things ARE as they can observe them NOW. That certainly speaks to your point of the connections between the past and the present. But think of the intellectual effort involved in those findings! The past is here in the present, but that does not make it accessible, detectable, or observable, at least not directly or easily.
Think of how we observe the world visually - we are limited and confined by the visual spectrum that our eyes are sensitive to. Infrared and ultraviolet are undetectable to us, even though visible light is only a small fragment of the electromagnetic spectrum. But, do any of us really feel that our vision is limited due to this? We don't sense that, because it is literally beyond our senses. We take for granted the way that we are able to observe the world visually, and don't question that it might actually appear different, at least not at first we don't (perhaps after studying something about animals with other ranges of vision we might wonder about it...)
In the same way, we don't question our manner of "sensing" time, since that is the only way we CAN sense it. We take it for granted that the way we sense it IS the way it is. Even upon realizing or thinking about that it may in fact be far different, do we have any other way to comprehend it? That is the question!
Post a Comment