Reality and Language

[Salinas17 at aol.com]

In a message dated 3/21/06 4:21:52 PM, mark at polymathix.com writes:
<< Reality couldn't possibly make language intelligible. At best, a person's 
*understanding* of reality might be claimed to make language intelligible. I 
can't imagine what the universe would have to be like for reality to intervene 
directly in language processing. >>

(Please forgive the late response.)  

If you want to experience "what the universe would have to be like for 
reality to intervene directly in language processing," all you have to do is wake up 
in the morning.

I find yours a strange statement and I'm amazed that there was so little 
reaction on the list to it.

I presume that you are talking from some kind of non-scientific or mystic 
point of view.  Which I respect, but it has nothing to do with science or 
hopefully this forum.

>>From a naturalistic point of view, the real world is an independent objective 
reality.  It does not depend on subjective understandings for its existence.  
Human language is part of that reality.  It does not depend on subjective 
understanding for its existence.  If your "understanding of reality" is that 
there is no such thing as human language, you'd be wrong -- scientifically 
speaking.  The same goes for "language processing." 

We can use language any way we like.  We can adopt an "understanding of 
reality" that makes us walk around all day repeating nothing but four-letter words. 
 But our personal subjective understanding will not affect the real world 
consequences of walking around all day repeating nothing but four-letter words.  
The real world is an 18-wheeler and it will run you over no matter what your 
subjective "understanding of reality" is.

Over the long term, the real objective world has shaped our language.  I 
think that the categories of grammar -- noun, verb, etc. -- mirrors what humans 
have learned about the world -- that it contains objects and actions, an arrow 
of time reflected in tense and conditionality, etc.  There may be alternative 
"realities" but human language has done a very good job of storing a fair 
picture of the independently existing real world.  Our technological prowess 
demonstrates this, I believe.

Perhaps the real world becomes less apparent in the comfortable condition all 
our technology has produced for us.  If we had to dig and scratch to find 
food or shelter every minute of the day, we might be more inclined to take 
reality a bit more seriously in our theorizing.  And we might be more aware how 
reality shapes our language, our thinking and our actions, if it was a constant 
matter of survival rather than our favorite cognitive imagings.

Regards,
Steve Long