The Problem of "Deep Reality"

In my book Quantum Mechanics by Robert Wilson, he analyzes an arguement that physicists postualize, which is a deeper exploration of the "Is of Identity" issue. The first proposes that language cannot assume that we know what things metaphysically "are" or "are not", essentially the essensce of "staplerness" as we have discussed in class. Language can only describe what we phenomenologically experience, also know as the extensional experience. There is no "is" or "deep reality", and the scientific meathod can never experimentally locate or demonstrate this "deep reality". the explains all other actualities. 

The opposition states that physics can make statements about actuality, but Wilson qualifies to limit "actuality" to 'that which humans or their instruments are able to detect, decode, and transmit. Regardless of the stance, it is agreed that "deep reality" is intangible and lies in the realm of speculation and philosophy, something that we cannot directly experience but only "make noises about" i.e. we cannot make meaningful(testable) statements. That which lies outside the realm of extensional experience also lies outside the realm of human competence. 

They make arguments that no one can demonstrate that something has a temperature or does not, something looks red or smells purple, there is a God, there is no God. Again, we can only "make noises" and the limit of language is reached when there is an impossibility to present phenomenological or non-verbal data.

Thoughts?

(Steve Szumski)

The Perspective of Time

I must admit that when I saw a chapter entitled "The Language of Computers", I was not at all excited to read it (computers are not my forte, nor do they interest me). But, one rather important piece of information that I forgot was that this book, Language in America, edited by Neil Postman and two other semanticists, was published in 1969. The most interesting thing that I realized while reading this chapter was the perspective that I have, reading this book nearly forty years after it was written. It amazes me how (almost) naïve the author is in relation to what, then, was relatively new technology. Little did he know the extent of the impact that computers would make on our generation, and generations to come, for that matter. He marvelled at things that, today, would seem so simple (i.e., the ability of a computer to calculate the date for Easter for the next two thousand years). We are a generation so dependent on computers for information and entertainment, and we can get practically whatever we want whenever we want it. Here are a few quotes/questions from "The Language of Computers" chapter that I found particularly thought-provoking (I encourage you, as you read these quotes, to keep in mind that these were written forty years ago, and then try to apply them to today):

"Users of such equipment [computers] will probably begin to desire simultaneity in other areas of life and culture. Instantaneity. All-at-once-ness. The most-noticed quality of a computer is its blinding speed-- or, better, instancy." (Lias, 158)

"Will a critical point ever be reached when people will seek refuge from information rather than welcoming all media into their bedrooms?" (Lias, 171)

"Does the fact that people are against computers when they have never used them, neutral when near them, and transfixed when operating them indicate a widespread human hypnosis under which gadgetry can alter beliefs more certainly than books, churches, lectures, schools, and blood relatives?" (Lias, 172)

I think that, for most of us, the implications of these statements/questions are clear. The author of this chapter really prophesied what is occurring right now without even knowing the full extent of the power that a computer would ultimately end up having. I hope these are thought-provoking. I'm curious to hear what you all have to say in response.

Emily T.

(By the way, the fact that I am relaying this information and communicating with all of you on such a non-personal level serves to support some of Lias' points.)

(I will also add that, although I find the extent of our dependency on technology alarming, there is no possible way to ban computers. Technology is a part of our culture, and we must live with it; however, knowledge of its power is certainly helpful-- that is why study semantics, is it not?)

Thanks, Rushkoff.

As I progressed through the reading of Douglas Rushkoff's, Coercion, a specific excerpt struck me due to its great relevance to our current in-class discussion concerning "The Star-Spangled Banner".

"After dutifully singing the National Anthem (and forcing Peter to stand and put his hand on his heart), Joseph replaces the headphones over his ears and watches sadly out of the corner of one eye as his grandson reflexively responds to each marketing appeal made during the game" (Rushkoff 102).

The chapter from which this passage was extracted is titled "Spactacle," and rightfully so. The author narrates how the social cohesion of big sporting events, and any large-scale events for that matter, inspire a sense of unity within the crowd because of the coercive atmospheric and hand-in-hand propaganda techniques executed by the media.

Young 11-year-old Peter felt more in unison with the crowd when advertisers offered cash prizes to the spectators, rather than when his nation's anthem was sung. At these events, any moments of high excitement and emotional potential are attacked by corporations in need of more business. When the defense "sacks" the opposing team, audience members are asked to wave around signs with the "Outback Steakhouse" logo facing them directly, whetting their appetite for a lean, sirloin steak. Thus, great football team tactics become associated with a particular restaurant, and, yet again, the media has won.

Is this the reason, then, that some are apathetic towards the national anthem (just as Pete was)? Instead of singing our unifying anthem at times of victory, we are exposed to latent propaganda.

Just a thought; now, what are yours?

(Sam Maliha)
P.S. I know some of you dislike me for starting the "name-in-parantheses" trend, haha. I apologize! :)

Readiness to assimilate?

As I was reading a section of my independent semantics book that seemed closely related to out ongoing discussion of a national language, I had some questions that I thought I would just put out there.
In the history of American immigration some groups have been more inclined to quickly learn American customs and assimilate to American society. This has been most clearly seen with the readiness that these groups learn or attempt to learn English. For example, virtually all Dutch and Swedish immigrants that arrived in the United States during the 19C learned English within two generations. Often even those straight off the boat would try to learn English quickly after their arrival. During the rush of immigration from Germany during the same time period however, the percentage of those who learned English within the first three generations was considerably lower and many German immigrants resisted governmental attempts to accelerate the process. Many Germans seemed either unable or unwilling to assimilate to American culture. Additionally, Native Americans forced into boarding schools and assimilation programs during the 1870's in particular strongly resisted learning English. So my first question is this, why is it that some groups seem more willing to learn English and give up (as many of the 2nd/3rd generation immigrants did) the language of their ancestors? Are groups more willing to assimilate if they are not encouraged or, in the case of the Native Americans, forced to do so? Also, is assimilation the primary goal? When we say that we want to spread unity and patriotism, are we saying we want to do so by eliminating, or at least lessening the importance of the native cultures of these immigrants?
Sorry that this post was slightly jumbled. (Molly Dunbar)

The Virtues of Cheese

Should symbols represent an ideal or a reality?

For example, Joe Plumber would think of himself as:
I am Irish/Italian/German/Indonesian/Phillies Fan/whatever.
I am American.

Or, if we are even more optimistic:
I am [insert ethnicity/classification from above]-American.
I am American.


Most people identify themselves by their ethnicity/smaller group first and as Americans second. Some even say that they are too ashamed to consider themselves Americans. Technically speaking, if you were born in the US or naturalized, you are American. You learn to say the Pledge of Allegiance and sing the anthem (or at least take off your hat and be quiet while it is playing) and all that fun stuff. Is this a sign of respect, tradition/habit, or, as Hayakawa would say, a reaffirmation of social cohesion? I'm not sure that the latter is even occurring.(Full Disclosure: I do not always say the Pledge and I would butcher the anthem with my horrible singing skills if I were forced to do so. And no, I am not an anarchist, terrorist etc just because I do not always participate in said activities.)

The original question posed by Mr. Lazarow was "Is it wrong to translate a national anthem into another language?" We have (almost) all agreed that the anthem reaffirms (or at least attempts to reaffirm) social cohesion/national unity. Yet, we have been arguing about the content/the actual symbols. I realize that Hayakawa is not the be all end all of semantic knowledge, but he clearly states that social cohesion is achieved through "accustomed sets of noises which convey no information, but to which feelings (in this case, group feelings) are attached." (Hayakawa 61)
Are all those people arguing about the "Under God" in the Pledge, the violent themes of the anthem, and the language of the anthem confusing the symbol with the thing symbolized/abstract purpose? Could we sing about the virtues of the American cheese and still have it relate to national unity (disregarding the fact that we would immediately lose the little international respect we have left)? Or are we just arguing over content because it is more of a tradition and less of an exercise in supposed national unity?

E Pluribus Unum,
Grace Yuan

Back to the national anthem?

Considering the blog looks pretty dead right now, maybe it's a good idea to talk about the reading we had to do. So, what does everyone think? Is it a good idea to change the National Anthem? If so, to what? America the Beautiful? Also, as a secondary thought, what did everyone think of that test?

(Kevin Trainer)

Presidental Debate

I hope I'm not kicking a dead horse by bringing up some points about tonight's debate. Though we have analyzed the candidate's language usage extensively I can't help but point out a few things.

One thing that particularly bothered me was the way the word facts was thrown around by both candidates. Especially because, the things they were saying certainly could not be "Truths"(if they even exist) because they were contradicted minutes later by another so-called fact. Just as Hayakawa discussed, statistics typically contain no truth and the same statistics can often be applied to opposing arguments. McCain's accusation "You (Obama) are not giving the American people the truth," is a phrase that needs a qualifier and the definition of this so-called truth. It may seem less eloquent to change it in this way but without the alterations this utterance is in my view, incorrect.

I understand that these candidates cannot lock themselves down with too many qualifiers but recently I have become frustrated with the complete lack of substance. Why are we satisfied with 20 minutes of them going back and forth saying "Well, I just want to discuss the issues", instead of actually discussing them. I suppose my question is, will it ever change? Will their speeches ever contain more than rhetorical fluff and hate mongering? And is there anyway that we can help this process progress faster?

(Molly Dunbar)

The Shortcomings of Language

A lot of what we have discussed so far in this class is the immense power that words and language have on everything around us. From the influence of bias and connotations, to the control of authors over their characters, vernacular seems to hold a great deal of importance. But what about when language is inadequate?


It is impossible to quantize human emotion. Words try to get the job done, they they just fall short. For instance, when someone says "I love you", you cannot truly comprehend the extent of the reverence they have towards you. Many of our relationships, on all sorts of levels, fail due to the simple fact that words cannot explain perception. At least with "facts" we have tangible (to an extent) evidence of what one is saying.

Thoughts?

(Taylor)

Adding fuel to the English Language fire

Some of you might have heard something about this debate last year:

Wyclef Jean, hip-hop star Pitbull, and Carlos Ponce and Olga Tanon from Puerto Rico were among a group of performers who released a Spanish-language translation of "The Star-Spangled Banner."

You can imagine the wide range of public responses generated. Investigate the matter yourself, but here's a starting point, from NPR:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5369145

That article includes a literal translation from the Spanish BACK into English, which you might find interesting.

The essential question: Is it wrong to translate a national anthem into another language?

LAZ

A Practice Exercise in Semantic Analysis

Analyze the following statements, based upon your understanding of semantics. Use your knowledge of Hayakawa, E-Prime, common propaganda techniques, etc. You may post your analyses here--but be prepared to discuss them in class as well. This is a preparatory exercise for the Semantics Unit final test.

1. "Environmental crimes are not like organized crimes or drugs. There you have bad people doing bad things. With environmental crimes, you have decent people doing bad things."

2. “The streets of our country are in turmoil. The universities are filled with students rebelling and rioting. Communists are seeking to destroy our country. Russia is threatening us with her might, and the Republic is in danger. Yes—danger from within and without. We need law and order! Without it our nation cannot survive.” (Adolf Hitler)

3. MOSCOW—The former Soviet Union’s chief cartographer acknowledge Friday that for the last 50 year the Soviet Union had deliberately falsified virtually all public maps of the country, misplacing rivers and streets, distorting boundaries and omitting geographical features, on orders of the secret police. . .The apparent purpose is to thwart military and intelligence operations.

4. Cats are creatures that meow. Tabby, Cinders and Fluff are cats. Therefore, Tabby, Cinders and Fluff meow.

5. “I have a great new recipe for trail mix—two scoops of Reese’s Pieces to one scoop of Peanut M&Ms. The kids love it. You know it’s nutritional because it’s trail mix.” (comedian Roseanne Barr)

A National Language

Should English be the national language of the United States?  This is a complex and far-reaching issue that I am positive Congress will confront again in the near future.  I'm sure that we all realize that the US has traditionally been a diverse nation, comprising individuals of different, ethnic, religious, and cultural backgrounds.  It is the great cultural 'melting pot' as I am sure we have all heard.  As such, the US has always had a diverse array of languages being spoken.   

In recent years several attempts have been made within Congress to make English the official language of the United States federal government.  Many Congressmen have argued that it will promote 'unity in diversity,' it will help bring together Americans across linguistic lines.  It has also been said that it would prevent discrimination and repression against minority language speakers and also promote cooperation among individuals of different backgrounds across the country.  These are several ideals which I, and  I'm sure many of you, associate with Hayakawa's  work.  Despite that, it still came as a bit of a surprise to me to find that Hayakawa himself was the first to propose an "English Language Amendment" to the Constitution which would declare English our nation's official language.  The amendment was defeated when he attempted to implement it, and has been rejected time and time again since then.  Similar measures have had success on the state level with over half of the states having declared English as their official language.

I  agree with many of the arguments supporting this measure, as for example there are on a local level people who cannot speak English and they often encounter a great deal of difficulty in their day-to-day life.  Anyone who lives in this country and cannot speak English will have difficulty getting a job, getting an education, or even doing something as trivial as asking someone in the street for directions.  It is a clear detriment for them to be unable to communicate with such a large portion of our populace.  I think that the government should indeed support education programs which assist immigrants and other individuals learn to understand, speak, and read English.

On the other hand, at this time I feel that a piece of legislation declaring English our national language would be discriminatory in and of itself.  All proceedings involving the government would need to be carried out in English.  It would be a major  step against the principles of equality and universal acceptance around which our country is founded.  Speakers of minority languages would not be able to participate in our government, nor would they be able to participate in legal processes.  All of these proceedings would need to be in English.  Is it fair that a new resident of this country who cannot speak English yet should not be able to vote, not be able file an income tax return, or even be able to respond to charges brought against them?  What happens when an individual who cannot speak English is brought into a courtroom where it is the only language accepted, how could they defend themselves?  It seems ridiculous that our government would consider enacting legislation that is so potentially harmful to so many of it citizens.

Some may argue that making English our official language would give them a greater incentive to learn the language.  That if we accommodate other languages they would have no reason to learn English.  That simply seems ridiculous to me, of course they will try to learn English.  They are at such a disadvantage every day if they don't, why wouldn't they?  The only reason I can think of is that they do not have the time or the means by which to educate themselves.  That is why I believe the government should provide them with a means by which to learn English and possibly a different incentive.  However, making English the only language accepted by our government would be such a drastic move it would do more harm than good to America's minority groups.  Making English our national language needlessly limits the liberty of all those who cannot speak it.  Agree?  Disagree?

(Connor Tweardy)

Pathos vs. Logos

Throughout yesterday's televised debate, my initial goal was to pinpoint which candidate was utilizing a logos form of argumentation and which was using a pathos form of argumentation. Both began with gratious thanks offered to Bellmont University and immediately sprung into what seemed to be their pathos methods of debate (or "what appeared as pathos skills" in E-Prime, which proves to offer a better understanding in this presented context). McCain almost directly established a warrant with the audience stating, "That's a tough question" in response to the first volunteered question. By doing so, he portrayed himself as an average American man, struggling through the same complications as the rest of the population. Similarily, Obama's response to that same topic involved his expression of sympathy for the American responsible for two jobs. After all, he, having a family, would understand the importance of a parents spending time with their children. (On a very random note, maybe a lack of time shared between parents and child keeps the economy running due to the outlay of guilt money to the youth. Just a thought...)

Moving on...

I found it rather contradictory that both Obama and McCain made their best efforts to appeal to the middle class by acting as if they were, themselves, members of that social class. On the contrary, however, both candidates stated at least once that their plans (especially the tax reductions) were aimed at assisting people in the audience rather than the privileged politicians of Washington such as Obama and McCain.

In the last minutes of the debate, Obama recounted his abject past (his mother's battle with cancer and his poverty-stricken experience with food stamps). This impelled the audience to look behind his well-ironed suit and silk tie. McCain called upon memories of his military career, stating that his lifetime has always been dedicated to valuing the safety of his country above his own. This established the American people as his close comrades. Thus, both seem to have experimented with the pathos.

I must say, however, that McCain seemed to be speaking at higher levels of abstraction than was Obama. Would that not lead to Obama's debate as falling under the category of the logos? I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Was the Palin vs. Biden debate so defined by the differentiating pathos and logos because of Palin's gender? Were Obama and McCain able to incorporate both because of their imposed masculinity? Again, I'd appreciate your explanations for I am truly curious.

Thank you! :)

(Samantha Maliha)

Politicians Ignoring Questions

Today in class we began to discuss last night's presidential debate. I have one quick question regarding the debate that I actually came up with while watching.

As many of us noticed, at various times, the two presidential candidates in last night's debate did what most politicians seem to be good at: NOT answering the question asked by the moderator. One example of this was the following question: "What will be your highest priority; health care, entitlements, or energy?" Although Barack Obama stated that the number one priority is energy, John McCain simply stated that "we can do all three of these at once." As I watched this part of the debate, I thought to myself, did the question not ask what will be the HIGHEST priority? As more and more questions were not answered, I found myself becoming increasingly frustrated throughout the debate, as I'm sure many of you did as well.

My question to you is the following: how is it that politicians can "get away with" such blatant ignorance of the questions being asked of them?

I understand that, during such a debate, politicians have a few major points that they plan to get across. I also know that the higher they stay on the Abstraction Ladder, the more likely it is that the audience will agree with them (as we've discussed before). However, I do not understand what drives us as members of this governmental society to allow these politicians to leave us empty-handed in terms of straight facts and direct answers to our questions. Doesn't nearly everyone become frustrated watching a debate between two candidates that introduces no new information and simply repeats the same abstract things over and over?

Clarification and thoughts are greatly appreciated. :)

(Janet Lee)

I was watching The Colbert Report and happened to come in on a part where Steven Colbert was mocking the presidential debate. He basically pretended to be a presidential candidate and answer questions from the audience. This one lady asked a question concerning home mortgages and what he was going to do about it. Colbert said that he was going to answer her question directly, but then went off to talk about something completely different.

There was also this other guy who asked (I'm paraphrasing a bit), "Why is religion being made such a big deal? Who decides whose reverend is right?"

Colbert answered, "You said the word reverend, right?"

"Right, reverend,"

"Reverend, right?"

This conversation went on for a while, only to end in Colbert saying, "This topic is completely out of the question."

This is my question now: If there are people who are able to see the flaws in these candidates speeches, like Colbert, why do they continue to talk like that? Why do these candidates insist on avoiding questions if viewers can see that they do and look down on them for that?

(Mary Quien)

Absolute Truth?

I know that this might not be directly on topic, but the idea of E-Prime has really raised some questions for me. Primarily, I'm concerned with absolute truth. If something cannot be true one hundred percent of the time, then how do you explain something like unconditional love? For example, my parents love me. They love me now and I am fully convinced that they will love me forever. Even if I go off and destroy me life. Yes, they would be deeply concerned about me, probably angry and confused, as well, but that doesn't change the fact that they love me. Would it be wrong to say that the love my parents have for me is an absolute truth? This is just an example, but I am very curious to hear what my classmates have to say about this and absolute truth, in general.

(Emily T.)

Would E-Prime Change the way we think?

Hayakawa states in Language that taking away the word doesn't take away the thing. That is to say, that a 1984-like situation could never truly exists because the idea of freedom, and the idea of liberty would still exist even if it could not be voiced in the same way. If this is true, would E-Prime do anything at all? If taking away the word doesn't take away the thing how could removing "to be" eliminate the false notion that the symbol is the thing symbolized? Wouldn't people still innately feel that there was a connection between an extentional stapler and the word 'stapler' without saying it IS a stapler? I'm interested in comments - could a lingustic change eliminate that false thought process?
(Molly Dunbar)

E-Prime and Argumentation

I realize that E-Prime is completely impractical, but there is one thing that I'm wondering about regarding E-Prime that relates to what Janet said about qualifiers in a comment. My question: if every single thing we say has some sort of a qualifier in it (as E-Prime would require), doesn't that completely eliminate the possibility of getting someone to adopt your viewpoint? I mean, if everything you say admits that you could be wrong, doesn't that undermine the essence of argument (that you are completely convinced of what you are supporting)?

Any thoughts on these two questions would be greatly appreciated. I am very interested to hear what others have to say about this.

(Emily T.)

Language and trends

We discussed briefly in class today about how certain words or even some languages become forgotten for a period of time or even dead. (i.e. some slangs and dead languages found in history books)
As I was going over what we did in our class today, I encountered some questions.

What makes a word go out of style?
Why do people just stop using that word that they have been using so often?
What/who decides the 'in-thing' in the world of words?
Is there a trend setter or a merchant in terms of language? (Thought of Paris Hilton and her frequent usage "That's hot" came across my mind right here...)
Who determines the trend in the fashion of words?

I know I just put a series of questions here but they are all related and somewhat interchangeable.
So...does anyone have some thoughts on these questions?

(Jennifer Park)

E-Prime and Hayakawa

One of the first things to catchy my eye upon my reading of "Toward Understanding E-Prime" was Alfred Korzybski's involvement in the development of E-Prime. His 1933 book on semantics, Science and Sanity, depicted the downfalls involved with the usages of the verb "to be". In fact, Korzybski concluded these factors to be so problematic that he has encouraged student training in the field of semantics to avoid "logical error, emotional distortion, and demonological thinking" (Wilson).

The irony, however, is that Hayakawa also quoted Alfred Korzybski in Language in Thought and Action. "Man's achievements rest on the use of symbols. -Alfred Korzybski" (Hayakawa 13).

If Korzybski feels the use of symbols to be such an art, why is he willing to delete two of them?

The second section of the packet also brought to light something of interest. The army's new slogan, "Be an Army of One," appeals to both the tastes of the individual in favor of independence and the individual in favor of togetherness. This ties in quite nicely with the "you device" and "we device" discussed in class today.

Just some thoughts. What are yours? (..So much for the usage of E-Prime.)

(Sam Maliha)