you’re in your highchair being spoon fed, you happen open a few sounds that please the feeder, your mum probably, she regresses her language and responds with smiles

you’ve got some of the first letters of the alphabet, which are somewhat descended of native grunts, same of many sounds

later by maybe age 5 year old you may have acquired the entire adult alphabet, can write it too. You may have also absorbed the notion that you can’t add sounds (and letters) to the alphabet, it’s complete. You’re in school by then, before you’ve had much opportunity to try and use it to imitate bird sounds, or certainly write them. A cat meeeow, a dog woooof, and cow mooo, they were easy. Some accomplishment in that. A few birds tweet some. The feathered dinosaurs are somewhat more diverse with vocalizations, even imitating humans

anyway, to get to the point..

what’s the outcome of believing the alphabet to be so complete, does a person then go to automatically being under the sway of the notion (perhaps unabstracted) that words magically, arranged can be used to a complete understanding, word-concepts too

Don’t you have some troughs to clean and fill?

you farted, rb, you could’ve done that in chat

transition said:

you’re in your highchair being spoon fed, you happen open a few sounds that please the feeder, your mum probably, she regresses her language and responds with smiles

anyway, to get to the point..

what’s the outcome of believing the alphabet to be so complete, does a person then go to automatically being under the sway of the notion (perhaps unabstracted) that words magically, arranged can be used to a complete understanding, word-concepts too

Association?

I think the first vowel would be a or A as in ah.
The first consonants are explosive sounds as in p or P for pah and f or F as in fuh.

roughbarked said:

I think the first vowel would be a or A as in ah.
The first consonants are explosive sounds as in p or P for pah and f or F as in fuh.

Recall Mrs rb being most miffed by the fact that our son said Pa before Ma. Reckoned she’d done all the work and deserved the recognition.

roughbarked said:

transition said:

you’re in your highchair being spoon fed, you happen open a few sounds that please the feeder, your mum probably, she regresses her language and responds with smiles

anyway, to get to the point..

what’s the outcome of believing the alphabet to be so complete, does a person then go to automatically being under the sway of the notion (perhaps unabstracted) that words magically, arranged can be used to a complete understanding, word-concepts too

Association?

yeah, a word-concept can be seen as associative, that hyphen thing points to it. A lot of learning involves an image with a word, for example. Ignoring for a moment a written word is an image, and what comes first of concept or word. Clearly a lot of thinking is not in words, and doesn’t start with words

anyway, the notion of alphabet completeness, i’m exploring the effect/s of this

transition said:

roughbarked said:

transition said:

you’re in your highchair being spoon fed, you happen open a few sounds that please the feeder, your mum probably, she regresses her language and responds with smiles

anyway, to get to the point..

what’s the outcome of believing the alphabet to be so complete, does a person then go to automatically being under the sway of the notion (perhaps unabstracted) that words magically, arranged can be used to a complete understanding, word-concepts too

Association?

yeah, a word-concept can be seen as associative, that hyphen thing points to it. A lot of learning involves an image with a word, for example. Ignoring for a moment a written word is an image, and what comes first of concept or word. Clearly a lot of thinking is not in words, and doesn’t start with words

anyway, the notion of alphabet completeness, i’m exploring the effect/s of this

I doubt there was ever a completeness.

roughbarked said:

transition said:

roughbarked said:

Association?

yeah, a word-concept can be seen as associative, that hyphen thing points to it. A lot of learning involves an image with a word, for example. Ignoring for a moment a written word is an image, and what comes first of concept or word. Clearly a lot of thinking is not in words, and doesn’t start with words

anyway, the notion of alphabet completeness, i’m exploring the effect/s of this

I doubt there was ever a completeness.

probably true, still there was a time you’d just learnt the entire alphabet, the whole alphabet, the complete alphabet, and accompanying that was the idea there were no more letters, no more sounds. You’ve never added a letter to the alphabet, and possibly never asked why nobody you know hasn’t. So there’s a powerful normative aspect to the alphabet.

all words are made of alphabet letters, so some of the constraining limits of the alphabet probably carry over, then to grammar, even expectations of linear word formulations

transition said:

roughbarked said:

transition said:

yeah, a word-concept can be seen as associative, that hyphen thing points to it. A lot of learning involves an image with a word, for example. Ignoring for a moment a written word is an image, and what comes first of concept or word. Clearly a lot of thinking is not in words, and doesn’t start with words

anyway, the notion of alphabet completeness, i’m exploring the effect/s of this

I doubt there was ever a completeness.

probably true, still there was a time you’d just learnt the entire alphabet, the whole alphabet, the complete alphabet, and accompanying that was the idea there were no more letters, no more sounds. You’ve never added a letter to the alphabet, and possibly never asked why nobody you know hasn’t. So there’s a powerful normative aspect to the alphabet.

all words are made of alphabet letters, so some of the constraining limits of the alphabet probably carry over, then to grammar, even expectations of linear word formulations

As to adding letters, call me barlish. What are vowels without consonants? I suppose one could esk thi fecking Kiwis.

roughbarked said:

transition said:

roughbarked said:

I doubt there was ever a completeness.

probably true, still there was a time you’d just learnt the entire alphabet, the whole alphabet, the complete alphabet, and accompanying that was the idea there were no more letters, no more sounds. You’ve never added a letter to the alphabet, and possibly never asked why nobody you know hasn’t. So there’s a powerful normative aspect to the alphabet.

all words are made of alphabet letters, so some of the constraining limits of the alphabet probably carry over, then to grammar, even expectations of linear word formulations

As to adding letters, call me barlish. What are vowels without consonants? I suppose one could esk thi fecking Kiwis.

or for that matter, the Yanks.

numbers are different, the number world, or the math world more to it, it really makes no claims to completeness, how fortunate I was born with ten fingers

transition said:

numbers are different, the number world, or the math world more to it, it really makes no claims to completeness, how fortunate I was born with ten fingers

Depends on whether it is math or maths?

roughbarked said:

transition said:

numbers are different, the number world, or the math world more to it, it really makes no claims to completeness, how fortunate I was born with ten fingers

Depends on whether it is math or maths?

I always math, fits my contracted math abilities

transition said:

you’re in your highchair being spoon fed, you happen open a few sounds that please the feeder, your mum probably, she regresses her language and responds with smiles

you’ve got some of the first letters of the alphabet, which are somewhat descended of native grunts, same of many sounds

later by maybe age 5 year old you may have acquired the entire adult alphabet, can write it too. You may have also absorbed the notion that you can’t add sounds (and letters) to the alphabet, it’s complete. You’re in school by then, before you’ve had much opportunity to try and use it to imitate bird sounds, or certainly write them. A cat meeeow, a dog woooof, and cow mooo, they were easy. Some accomplishment in that. A few birds tweet some. The feathered dinosaurs are somewhat more diverse with vocalizations, even imitating humans

anyway, to get to the point..

what’s the outcome of believing the alphabet to be so complete, does a person then go to automatically being under the sway of the notion (perhaps unabstracted) that words magically, arranged can be used to a complete understanding, word-concepts too

Don’t know.

If we think about it we recognise that there are plenty of sounds that don’t have a corresponding letter. I suppose we don’t think about it much though.

An alphabet is complete in the sense that it can spell all the words in the associated language.

I wonder how much languages changed after they had an alphabet associated with them.

Do aboriginal languages have lots of sounds that don’t correspond to any recognised grouping of letters?

so you’re in the highchair being spoon fed, baby food, association’s an ancient learning, a wide range of animal life responds so

you happen upon a lot of primitive grunts, recognizable by your primate mum. Humans can regress, part of the instincts of or nurturing emotional toolkit of humans. Probably a good example of territory the cognitive and emotional overlap

desire for food in response to hunger, and satiation, all useful to mum in helping turn grunts into adult words, perhaps with some more advanced ideas about trying not to spill food all over the floor, and later there will be encouragement to provide early warnings about shitting in your nappy

by 5yo, start of school years, you’re acquiring alphabet competency (the age varies greatly, really), couple years later you could be good at reading the clock time, not at all a bad introduction to the usefulness of numbers. You’ll need the skill for DLS, and observance

through age 5-12yo maybe, things change substantially. The more primitive associations (mechanisms) are subject to wider mediation, you’ll need want this to get that, internalize the shared instrumental desires, which in no small part involve approval of a group, or avoiding disapproval (same thing really)

you could at this age usefully develop instinct blindness and a desire deficit, the foundations of, it’d probably help with lifting you from animal ways, into culture

a first big step is alphabet competency, and reading the clock of course. You’ll know when to do things, and what words to string together in response to expectations, if any words are appropriate, which brings me to the proposition there are things outside that which are excluded. That language is not meant to be liberally inclusive, psychologically, of thought, it’s more about steering

which brings me to the idea that language, one of the important features is obliviation, that everyone employs it, and everyone is subject to it, and it’s possibly unavoidable given the imperfectness of any thinking, and using words from, or of, to

obliviation’s related displacement, as I see it, many thoughts are made less likely, perhaps even impossible by another thought, and then there’s the art of speaking and writing thoughts, which invariably involves some obliviation

so, i’m wondering if learning language comes with an accompanying tendency for obliviation

> what’s the outcome of believing the alphabet to be so complete, does a person then go to automatically being under the sway of the notion (perhaps unabstracted) that words magically, arranged can be used to a complete understanding, word-concepts too.

Yes. Until you learn the phonetic alphabet. And perhaps even more so then.

The exact same “being under the sway of the notion” occurs even more forcefully in pure mathematics. The notion that mathematical symbols, magically arranged, can be used to a complete understanding.

I wonder how science fiction deals with this topic. It certainly deals with untranslatable languages. It also deals with nonverbal languages. It deals with how language shapes morality. But i can’t remember an example where language constrains knowledge.

> which brings me to the idea that language, one of the important features is obliviation, that everyone employs it, and everyone is subject to it, and it’s possibly unavoidable given the imperfectness of any thinking, and using words from, or of, to

> obliviation’s related displacement, as I see it, many thoughts are made less likely, perhaps even impossible by another thought, and then there’s the art of speaking and writing thoughts, which invariably involves some obliviation

> So, i’m wondering if learning language comes with an accompanying tendency for obliviation

I am floundering around, trying to answer to question (do flounders flounder?).

I am thinking about body language and “tells” in the game of poker.

I am thinking about the language of smells – but is that or is that not a verbal language?

I am thinking about the language of model making. That is nonverbal but provides no help on the question of obliviation.

I am thinking of Plato’s analogy of the cave. A complete learning of the inside of the cave leaves us ignorant of what is outside. But that’s not what transition is asking. Transition is asking if learning about the inside of a cave leaves one ignorant of the inside.

I am thinking about analysis synthesis. Whenever something is analysed, something is lost. An old viewpoint is that in order to dissect an animal completely you have to kill it, so lose information about life processes, but that was before mri, now we can dissect animals without killing them.

I am thinking of structure-matrix complementarity. The best way to describe this is by considering crystallisation. Treat verbal thoughts as crystals that grow in Plato caves. As the crystal grows it rejects ideas that don’t fit into the crystal structure. So the concentration of rejected ideas increases in the cavities between the crystals. But then something marvellous happens, the rejected ideas themselves crystallise in a different crystal structure, and again.

The upshot of all this is that i can’t find any firm evidence for the existence of obliviation, except as a temporary phenomenon that is overcome as we learn and create more words.

>The upshot of all this is that i can’t find any firm evidence for the existence of obliviation, except as a temporary phenomenon that is overcome as we learn and create more words

it’s out there, it varies from bone-headed oblivious to masterful in scope, and the masterful need be clever enough not to spook the bone-headed

At a relatively young age you learn “ugh” when “struck amidships” while at the crease.