Cognitive styles, Morphemes, and Political Hegemon

[Kesvirit]

posted on 1-30-2003 at 02:15 PM

Cognitive styles, Morphemes, and Political Hegemony

quoth Klythe on 8-12-2002 at 22:47
 I am intensely interested in the nature of language ever since Krenn (form "The Final Reflection" by John M. Ford) described the "-aase" suffix of Klingonaase as "a world manipulation tool". Obviously he believes in something akin to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Have you heard of this theory?

Yes, but I'm not sure how far I buy into it. I guess you could say I go for the "weak theory" and not the "strong" one. The latter is too psychoanalytic in nature to sit well with me. I keep seeing people who ought to know better trying to tie it in with Jung's "collective unconscious" and all sorts of Freudian cr@p that has long since been discredited, and I want to backhand them.

It is indeed in this sense that Klingonaase is a world manipulation tool. Well, I think of it as an idea-manipulating tool. Even when we do not speak we form out thoughts in the speach center of the brain.

Speech center? As I understand it, there is no one "speech center" of the brain. Rather it is a group effort of several distinct anatomical units. The thoughts form in the frontal lobes, the desire to express them comes from the limbic system (specifically the amygdala?), the translation from abstract idea to words takes place in the Wernicke's area, and the words-to-mouth process is directed by the Broca's area. I may be missing steps in the process, and am hoping someone will correct me if I'm wrong. If anyone knows what they are, speak up!

Just to tie this back into Star Trek, it's Sapir-WHorf, not Worf the Federation Star Fleet Officer. Yes, the pun has been done before, in fact this Loglandian comic (translation included) illustrates it quite risively.

Yes, I've heard the pun before. It was funny the first few times, but... :rolleyes: A few other versions I've come across:
mineralogists -- Sapphire-Whorf
boat-builders -- Sapling-Wharf
zoologists -- Tapir-Wharf
dog trainers -- Sapir-Woof
starship engineers -- Sapir-Warp
Kesviritologists -- Seriously-Warped

Great cartoon! I especially like the literal translation of Worf as being a "something". (I know I always thought of him as more of a something than a someone...) Troi the Elder got it right when she kept addressing him as "Mr. Woof", even if she was only doing so to tweak his ridges.

As for your post of 28Jan2003... I try to respond to reports and communiques as they come in, but keeping up with you is like trying to catch up with a child to take away its favorite new toy. You must impliment some sort of priority-response indication system.

- Kesvirit
 

[Klythe]

posted on 7-23-2003 at 07:25 AM

Everyone is "wired" slightly differently. You may well do an unusually large portion of your thinking with your Wernicke's.

As a matter of fact I have just been reading more on the matter... A book called The language Instinct by Steven Pinker. I so far have disagreed with him on every thing he has written, except... He has gotten me to reconsider my previous assertion that I think in the language I speak. Also, in a clumsy attempt to alienate me from Sapir-Whorf he pointed me at a more precise definition, that I can hold much tighter to. He quotes and assertion of Mr. Whorf's that natural language sets the boundaries for the classifications we use for our 'mentalese' internal-thinking-language. I'll get the exact quote later for you if you like.

I seem to do to much of mine with my visual cortex. You can see (ha!) how this can be a decided disadvantage in a culture/species where spoken communication is the default. :-/

According to Pinker, you are in great company. Many famous thinkers such as Einstien are visual thinkers (or rather were when they lived). In this you may have access to more creativity than my mind which I have pounded out the round corners in order to be able to think the way computers understand.

How does one "create" a new morpheme for an existing language? As morphemes are the smallest units of language on which communications are built, don't they have to be in place before a language is fully functional and ready for use?

Morphemes, if I'm using the right word, are the smallest unit of meaning. They are composed of Phonemes which by themselves do not have meaning.

The process of creating a new morpheme may not be easy, but it is simple: 1) Invent or discover something new, could be a physical object, or it could be an idea. 2) Refer to it using an unused pattern of phonemes. 3) Insist that everyone you talk to refers to that item using that pattern of phonemes. Once enough people recognize your unique pattern of phonemes as refering to your new item or idea, then it is a morpheme in the language, because it is a pattern of phonemes that has a meaning.

Kesv: You know, you ought to be collecting your longer posts/essays/explanations for inclusion on your own "Intro to Whatsis Page: Apprentice Thought Master Klythe's Electronic Reader on Everything You Never Knew You Wanted to Know". }}:-D
Klythe: It all comes from the same source.
Kesv: Which is?

My metal model of the universe. }};-D Documenting the whole might be tricky. I've spent my whole life building my model, and I'm adding to it all the time. Especially, as you see it takes a lot of effort to explain why my model works... Each person has a different section of prerequisite knowledge to follow what I am saying. I'd have to explain it all from beginning to end, and crosslink it if I were to write it so that everyone could understand...
 

[Kesvirit]

posted on 7-27-2003 at 10:30 PM

quoth Kesv Everyone is "wired" slightly differently. You may well do an unusually large portion of your thinking with your Wernicke's.

quoth Klythe Pinker...*** quotes and assertion of Mr. Whorf's that natural language sets the boundaries for the classifications we use for our 'mentalese' internal-thinking-language. I'll get the exact quote later for you if you like.

I thank you. I would be very interseted to read the quote. (If you can find it online and link to it, that would be fine too.)

Another book I would recommend to anyone interested in different cognative frames and literal vs. metaphorical meanings is Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things by George Lakoff. Warning: it is thick, both literally and metaphorically, and not for those with weak livers or lazy minds.

quoth Kesv I seem to do to much of mine with my visual cortex. You can see (ha!) how this can be a decided disadvantage in a culture/species where spoken communication is the default. :-/

quoth Klythe According to Pinker, you are in great company.

Yet you just wrote above: "I so far have disagreed with him on every thing he has written,..."  Between this and comparing me to Einstein, surely you do not intend an insult borne of sarcasm and epetai-zana mockery?

No, I think you do not. That is not your style; your insults have more flair to them. I suspect that you have merely been caught up in the excitement of ideas and are trying to express all of them at once.
It is refreshing to see a Klingon overcome by an emotion other than bloodlust. }}:-)  Would that more Klinfolk would follow your example.

Many famous thinkers such as Einstien are visual thinkers (or rather were when they lived). In this you may have access to more creativity than my mind which I have pounded out the round corners in order to be able to think the way computers understand.

Even if you are correct, having access to it does not mean being able to communicate it, to extract it and make use of it. I would much rather have a square, productive mind and the ability to manipulate machines to do my bidding than overly-abstract thoughts that cannot be distilled from the ether.

The process of creating a new morpheme may not be easy, but it is simple: *** 3) Insist that everyone you talk to refers to that item using that pattern of phonemes.

Not easy, indeed. But vital to the existance of the Empire. At the risk of bringing myself to the unwelcome attention of Imperial Intelligence, even our own great Imperial military forces have sometimes failed at it.

No regime, no matter how powerful, can sustain itself primarily through organised state power and armed force. In the long run it must have popular support and legitimacy in order to maintain stability; the permeation throughout society of an entire system of values, beliefs etc. has the effect of supporting the ruling interests in power relations. "3)" is essential in maintaining control over Empires subjects and holdings. Because there are not enough soldiers to control the actions of each individual, those phonemes must be enforced in the desired pattterns of the minds of those who must be persuaded that the authrity of the Empire is right, reasonable, and above all, desirable. Such political hegemony as is the goal of "3)" is diffused by the process of socialisation into every area of daily life. To the extent that this prevailing consciousness is internalised by the population, it becomes part of what is generally called 'common sense', so that the philosophy, culture and morality of the ruling parties come to be thought of as the natural order of things.

Which of course, in Imperial matters, it is.

quoth Kesv You know, you ought to be collecting your longer posts/essays/explanations for inclusion on your own "Intro to Whatsis Page: Apprentice Thought Master Klythe's Electronic Reader on Everything You Never Knew You Wanted to Know".

quoth Klythe It all comes from the same source.

quoth Kesv Which is?

My metal model of the universe. }};-D

Your metal model of the universe? Where did you find a forge big enough to cast it?

Documenting the whole might be tricky. I've spent my whole life building my model, and I'm adding to it all the time. Especially, as you see it takes a lot of effort to explain why my model works... Each person has a different section of prerequisite knowledge to follow what I am saying. I'd have to explain it all from beginning to end, and crosslink it if I were to write it so that everyone could understand...

And how can you keep your documentation accurate and up-to-date when the model is constantly being revised as new information and experiences are being added to it? The quintessential dialectic conundrum...
::slams both sides of head with shock wands:: "My brain hurts!" -- Gumby Python.  (}B^#|]

 - Kesvirit
 

[Klythe]

posted on 7-28-2003 at 01:50 AM

Would you believe it or not, the exact same quote was on a web page that I had already seen. Appearently I failed to read it well enough the first time. The quote reads:

Quote by Benjamin Whorf:

'We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native languages. The categories and types that we isolate from the world of phenomena we do not find there because they stare every observer in the face; on the contrary, the world is presented in a kaleidoscopic flux of impressions which has to be organised by our minds - and this means largely by the linguistic systems in our minds. We cut nature up, organise it into concepts, and ascribe significances as we do, largely because we are parties to an agreement that holds throughout our speech community and is codified in the patterns of our language. The agreement is, of course, an implicit and unstated one, but its terms are absolutely obligatory; we cannot talk at all except by subscribing to the organisation and classification of data which the agreement decrees.'

This speaks to me in terms of how we classify objects and ideas. From simple things such as what is a called twig and what is a stick to more complicated things such as what is a true statement and what is a lie, these are decisions about categorizing and classifying. Other types of thought processes, such as "How do I ...", "What happens if...", would not be as noticibly affected.

Clearly even in this area there is much uncharted 'grey areas'. This is expected as I believe only a few proponents would argue Sapir-Whorf is deterministic. Of course, languages classify the same thing in many ways.

Another book I would recommend to anyone interested in different cognative frames and literal vs. metaphorical meanings is Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things by George Lakoff. Warning: it is thick, both literally and metaphorically, and not for those weak of livers.

*Aspera adds the book to his list.* I will be seeking a different opinion once I finish this book, and disagreeable as I have found it.

quoth Klythe According to Pinker, you are in great company.

quoth Kesv Yet you just wrote above: "I so far have disagreed with him on every thing he has written,..." Between this and comparing me to Einstein, surely you do not intend an insult borne of sarcasm and epetai-zana mockery?

There is no insult or even praise from me there. Pinker may lavish you with such lofty praise, but my disagreements with his assertion means nothing other than I do not think that being a visual thinker necessarily makes you a better overall thinker than a non-visual thinker.

The process of creating a new morpheme may not be easy, but it is simple: *** 3) Insist that everyone you talk to refers to that item using that pattern of phonemes.

I was only thinking of the initial audience. Once the idea is shared, some dishonorable word warriors might claim the idea was thier own, and seek to introduce a different way to refer to it than the new morpheme that was created...

You are right, social insitutions be they Houses, clans, associations or governments are a rather inefficient method to applying a change in language. Generally however, it is not necessary. If the force of the idea is strong enough that it infiltrates communication on a regular basis, the vacuum created by not having a simple way to refer to that forceful idea, will breech the defenses that prevent an explosion of unneeded morphemes. The new morpheme, arriving first on the battlefield with the sponsorship of the idea's originator will have a decided advantage in the battle to become an accepted new part of the language.

Your metal model of the universe? Where did you find a forge big enough to cast it?

Scrap metal from a Breen warship, part of it's engine, I think... It's only a model. Turns out the universe scales down quite nicely. Of course, I build my metal model of the universe using my mental model, so maybe I should start there instead... }};-D

And how can you keep your documentation accurate and up-to-date when the model is constantly being revised as new information and experiences are being added to it?

Updates to the model are expensive both in upkeep and in terms of storage costs. In ordeer to keep the model compact enough, and to maximize usefulness, I have spent a fair amount of time analysing the most important and interesting data and have found many principles and patterns. By finding and incorporating these principles and patterns, I can forgo much memorization, only memorizing exceptions to the patterns which are important, but sufficiently important to require the principle be made more complicated to account for it. I perfer to extract facts from the model than from memory. Each attempt to access the model tends to offer the oportunity for more analysis time for that section of the model serving to improve the model, making it even more accurate and informative the next time it is accessed.

I do not image that I am at all unique in this strategy. In fact, my model predicts that everyone thinks this way to some degree or another. Perhaps being aware of it, allows me to dedicate more effort into making this method as successful as any other. It has worked for me so far.

But it has drawbacks... I haven't even memorized my multiplication tables. Sure it's more time consuming to re-multiply them each time they are needed, but that saves just a little more space which is very much needed for new principles and ideas that must be incorporated into my model to make it useful in predicting new ideas to experiement on.

This is one of the few places that promotes this process. And that is why I love it here.
 

[Kesvirit]

posted on 7-31-2003 at 09:04 AM

The physical basis of Sapir-Whorf?; the downside to visual thinking

quoth Klythe
 (regarding Benjamin Whorf quote from previous post) This speaks to me in terms of how we classify objects and ideas. From simple things such as what is a called twig and what is a stick to more complicated things such as what is a true statement and what is a lie, these are decisions about categorizing and classifying. Other types of thought processes, such as "How do I ...", "What happens if...", would not be as noticibly affected.

Clearly even in this area there is much uncharted 'grey areas'.

A key part of the Whorf quote is: "...the world is presented in a kaleidoscopic flux of impressions which has to be organised by our minds - and this means largely by the linguistic systems in our minds."

Linguistic system influences thought, but what is only beginning to be addressed amongst cognative science researchers is that the physical structure of the brain influences both.

This brings up one of those uncharted gray areas that needs to be addressed in the context of Klingon psycholinguistics: the difference between the brain, a discrete and chartable physical organ, and the mind, which is at best an amorphous extension/construct of the brain.

Granted (just this once) that the tlhIngan Hol is indeed an authentic alien language that evolved amongst a real alien species, Klingons would have a much more difficult time vocally communicating with other humanoids, and Humans would not be able to grasp many of the basics, let alone the intricacies, or their language. This is because of the signifigant differences in structure between the central nervous systems (CNS) of the two species. The Klingon CNS is more diffuse and integrated more through the entirity of the spinal column, which serves in Humans primmarily as a conduit of sensory input to and from the more centralized Human brain. Does this mean that Klingon language is not confined to the brain and vocal mechanisms in the head (hyoid, tongue, epiglottis, palate, etc) as in Humans, but involves participation from other parts of the body as well? If so, a CNS that runs closer to the body surface but with more actual neural material than the Humans addressed in the Sapir-Whorf material would need to be taken into account. (This does not even begin to address the extremely unlikely phenomenon of brak'lul, which I will rant about later in the Biology section. How fortunate you are...)

quoth Kesv Another book I would recommend to anyone interested in different cognative frames and literal vs. metaphorical meanings is "Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things" by George Lakoff.

quoth Klythe *Aspera adds the book to his list.* I will be seeking a different opinion once I finish this book, and disagreeable as I have found it.

Understanding Lakoff's work is a quite a challenge even to those who work within his field. There was much of it that I did not understand, and I had help at the time. But it is a challenge over which I am sure you will prevail.

quoth Klythe According to Pinker, you are in great company.

quoth Kesv Yet you just wrote above: "I so far have disagreed with him on every thing he has written,..." Between this and comparing me to Einstein, surely you do not intend an insult borne of sarcasm and epetai-zana mockery?

quoth Klythe There is no insult or even praise from me there.

I was teasing you about that. Upon re-reading the post I realize that my words were poorly thought out and poorly timed, and that you were in no such mood to hear them. I have shamed myself by making light of matters important to you and should have taken better care not to mock your anger, even in jest. I offer my gravest apologies, and hope that the one will see fit to forgive my crass behavior. Will the one grant me the privilege of an attempt to regain lost honor?

Pinker may lavish you with such lofty praise, but my disagreements with his assertion means nothing other than I do not think that being a visual thinker necessarily makes you a *better* thinker.

Since most communication among known sentients has historically been done via speech, "visual thinkers" are at a disavantage. It is very easy to get lost in the extra steps involved in translating visual thoughts from images to morphemes to phonemes and the spoken word. And with the exponentially increasing importance and predominance of electronic communications, being a visual thinker becomes even more of a liability as the written word becomes ever more the predominant means of communication.

quoth Kesv The process of creating a new morpheme may not be easy, but it is simple: *** 3) Insist that everyone you talk to refers to that item using that pattern of phonemes.

quoth Klythe I was only thinking of the initial audience. Once the idea is shared, some dishonorable word warriors might claim the idea was thier own, and seek to introduce a different way to refer to it than the new morpheme that was created...

Would this not make the stolen morpheme different enough from the original that was stolen, giving us two new meanings?

You are right, social insitutions be they Houses, clans, associations or governments are a rather inefficient method to applying a change in language. Generally however, it is not necessary. If the force of the idea is strong enough that it infiltrates communication on a regular basis, the vacuum created by not having a simple way to refer to that forceful idea, will breech the defenses that prevent an explosion of unneeded morphemes. The new morpheme, arriving first on the battlefield with the sponsorship of the idea's originator will have a decided advantage in the battle to become an accepted new part of the language.

Kai kassai the glorious metaphor! }}: D

quoth Kesv Your metal model of the universe? Where did you find a forge big enough to cast it?

It's only a model.

(-- Patsy)
(Arthur: Shhh!)

Turns out the universe scales down quite nicely. Of course, I build my metal model of the universe using m mental model, so maybe I should start there instead... }};-D

It appears that Whitefangs chase their minds around in circles in a manner similar to that in which Terran dogs chase their tails. Have you ever successfully captured your mind? }}; )

... I have spent a fair amount of time analysing the most important and interesting data and have found many principles and patterns. By finding and incorporating these principles and patterns, I can forgo much memorization, only memorizing exceptions to the patterns which are important, but sufficiently important to require the principle be made more complicated to account for it. I perfer to extract facts from the model than from memory...
I do not image that I am at all unique in this strategy. In fact, my model predicts that everyone thinks this way to some degree or another.

They would have to. Any organic brain/mind only has so much storage space.

Perhaps being aware of it, allows me to dedicate more effort into making this method as successful as any other. It has worked for me so far.

Being self-aware of the process you go through, could you break it down into enough detail to teach it to others? Or would doing so be an act of self-sabotage, the giving away a secret personal weapon necessary for survival and success in the komerex zha?

But it has drawbacks... I haven't even memorized my multiplication tables. Sure it's more time consuming to re-multiply them each time they are needed, but that saves just a little more space which is very much needed for new principles and ideas...

Why fill your mind to capacity with random rote when that space is better utilized housing the processes that let you compute or construct the specifics whenever and wherever needed? Otherwise, you come down with a paralyzing case of the 'Data, Data, Everywhere and Not a Thought to Think' Syndrome.

This is one of the few places that promotes this process. And that is why I love it here.

*Kesvirit smiles a pleased and knowing smile*

[Klythe]

posted on 8-1-2003 at 03:14 AM

The Klingon CNS is more diffuse and integrated more through the entirity of the spinal column

Is it? It does fit my model, but that does not make it true. And yet you assert it as boldly as it must be obvious. I am not prepared to refute the claim because it does fit my model. It does not matter, between us we can agree that it is true. But I wonder if you may have been careless to boldly state it as fact.

Understanding Lakoff's work is a quite a challenge even to those who work within his field. There was much of it that I did not understand, and I had help at the time. But it is a challenge over which I am sure you will prevail.

It may take me a while. There are many things I do not understand until I read them a second time. If I have not at least isolated the major principles by then... I will have to read another book...

Would this not make the stolen morpheme different enough from the original that was stolen, giving us two new meanings?

Stolen idea, the thief claims the idea his own by labeling it with his series of sounds, rather then the true ideaholder. The Morpheme is not stolen, only the potential meaning that is available for a set of sounds to join with to become a new morpheme.

It appears that Whitefangs chase their minds around in circles in a manner similar to that in which Terran dogs chase their tails. Have you ever successfully captured your mind?
 }}; )

No... It's just out of reach! *Run, run, pant pant!*

Being self-aware of the process you go through, could you break it down into enough detail to teach it to others? Or would doing so be an act of self-sabotage, the giving away a secret personal weapon necessary for survival and success in the komerex zha?

For me to be self-aware of the process, I would have to be the process in question, wouldn't I? I am just aware of what I think must be a common practice. More is required? I do not uderstand, everone does this wether they understand that they are doing it or not. I understand that I am doing it and because of this awareness, I seek more conceptually rich learning materials over more immediately practical learning materials...

Feh. Putting this in words makes it sound like I'm doig something special... I don't think I am... not like this... I sound like a gagny Vulcan who thinks himself superior...