I have been reading a very helpful book lately, one that has proven invaluable to my quest for the ideal language. It bears the title, “Language as Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language.” The M.I.T. Professor responsible for this literary outrage, is called “Steven.” And He has a surname too. He works at MIT and writes books, and other stuff. And he hates the word “disinterested” like I hate red beets. And his reasons for this are just as good as mine. Linguists are picky consumers, and they have every right to be when dealing with English, and even worse, “English-speakers,” and still worse, the American “TV commercial sound-byte” English-Imposter. Word up.
As we all know, I favor an entirely different, rebuild of the ancient Greek (and some English, and French), using the ideal value system as the paradigm-framework, around which to build it. It self-consciously omits much of the present-day English vocabulary, including all references to death, and death-language, empty-reference (deception) LGG (e.g. “negative one,” “angels,” “Messiah,” “fulfilled prophecy,” “infinite being,” etc), vice and transgression LGG (e.g. evil, sin, bastard, tramp, coward, etc). We can employ circumlocutory LGG aplenty (e.g. “Perhaps he’ll be more courageous tomorrow”), antithetical LGG, by which I mean the LGG of “against,” where it means the “social-relational” version of “against,” not the physics of handclapping — e.g. “he slapped one hand against the other.) and, of course, the ever-dreary “conflict and tragic-speak” vernacular. Religious LGG that tends to undermine the preconditions for the sciences and critical arts (miracle-speak, etc) is, also, as it were, to be tossed out the window like Eutychus (ref. to Acts 20), but without the bounce-back power. Scientists will not wish to follow our lady of the holy tortilla.
With what kind of LGG does this leave us? Exactly the unpacking of the IVS will show the way, where “truth and integrity” includes the vocabularies of the sciences and other critical disciplines that aim at veridical accuracy (“how things really are”), profitability, progress, excellence, “virtue-speak,” and the like. If we use functional (performance) definitions for the performance of virtuous deeds, we do not need contrasts (the via negative) to show us the way. What is charity? Well, er, it meets the needs of people, prevents hunger, etc. We could use illustrations, “Courage is what you see when you see a lion charging its opponent. It retreats before nothing” to describe them as well, indicating that sound communication does not always need definitions. Sometimes descriptions (even proverbs) will do well enough to convey the point.
What is the difference between the phrases, “old prophets,” and “prophets of old”? Sometimes word-order changes more than the denoted sense intended, and connotes new information.
This means that the ideal LGG will have to pay much attention to PHRASES, not just letters (phonemes) or syllables (morphemes), or official words (lexemes), or even sentences (a brief [else Puritan] collection of questionable and awkward syntagmemes, up with which at times we ought not put — brethren).
My tongue-in-cheek challenge demands of anyone who disbelieves in hell to read Puritan literature. Thou shalt repent. The Middle Ages were indeed dark. They actually left the Puritans to this planet as its most literate legacy. Be Afraid. 1500 years of religious development, and we were left with the Spanish inquisition and puritan, homiletical brutality (sermonizing ad infinitum). If these together cannot make one a nontheist, nothing can. Some theists are bulletproof.
A quick glance above will show that the ideal LGG would in fact remove most of the puritan-speak from the more universal tongue.
And now for a brief clarification. Do you, or do you not! believe in the gods, Dr. Craig? I believe in two, or perhaps at most four, Ideal persons, who PROcreated this universe into existence. I believe in no creation account, but a “romance and fusion” account of high-energy quantum collision, approximating twice the speed of C squared — the natural motion-speed of the Ideal Persons. I am a personalist, but not a theist. Why are you not a theist? The definitions and descriptions of every one of the so-called gods or goddesses of every religions displays persons that are anything but ideal — especially Yahweh, who, according to his own record killed every man, woman and child, past present and future, by imposing a worldwide curse. The countercharge that it was a JUST ACT puts YHWH in complete agreement with the devil of the same book, and gives him the same material adequacy. The only real difference between that evil bastard YHWH and the devil is that, where the devil would toss all humans into hell — which YHWH created, not the devil — his counterpart would only toss MOST of them into hell. Both would have created a hell, but Satan (in the literature) could not. This makes YHWH infinitely worse for material adequacy than the devil. Fortunately, the whole hog-wash account in phonier than a 2 and a half dollar bill.
And the Puritans would remind us that such lies are, of course, from the devil. But which ONE? Ask a theologian. The quantum fluctuations about which physicist often write and speak, pre- “BB” are entirely consistent with what I believe, prior to T = 0. Only a collision at twice C squared is a bit more than a fluctuation. It’s even more than a particle accelerator could manage. It means “E = MC squared x 2” = approximately T = .0001 — As we say, “Mas o Menos.”
Now, back to the topic at hand. Children learn and use LGG with surprising facility and acumen, with the trial-and-error stage flourishing around 2 years or so. They seem to think in binary ways (in word-pairs, or idea-pairs) , with their earliest speech sounding like “Hi calico” or “cat here,” “dry hands,” or “more cereal.”
They are (we are) brilliant little linguists-in-the-making, and they are capable at an early age of creative idea-management. When they learn LGG, they learn creatively and experimentally, as though rudimentary science comes instinctively to them, with skill sets that grow (around age 9) to begin to include the use of concrete logic, and then (by age 12 or so) they begin to add basic, abstract reasoning skills to the “instinctive” tool set.
Ordinary LGG does in fact “come with” a basic number theory (use of numerals and operations to manage quantities) — e.g. represented by words like “Multiplied by,” “four plus six,” “sum of,” etc. — logic and rules to follow in employing it — e.g. “therefore,” “because of,” “in light of the fact that…,” “This means that …” “This implies that …,” “Compared to,” “In contrast with,” etc.
The logic of grammar seems somehow built-in, and arises from our earliest years within the proper environment. And since LGG has both a math and a logic to unpack, these skills — concrete and abstract reasoning — arrive just on time to enable us to “unfold the language framework” learned earlier, as it touches upon questions of number-crunching and idea-munching. And again, even when given difficult mental tasks to manage, youngster often behave quite creatively, even surprising their teachers at times.
The brilliance and glory of mind-growing and cognitive prowess, not to mention the reading of books, seems to stall for most people around age 20. This is an entirely arbitrary phenomenon that is unnecessary. In fact, with shorthand strategies taht are highly effective learning helps — tips, tricks and tactics — we could easily accelerate the glory of this process, and then continue not only its growth, but its accelerated counterpart, by linking an individual’s study to that of a like-minded “learning group,” or think tank, for budding wonks.
Our DNA is easily built for this, and given that it is quite possible to arrange such a group so as to cause a kind of learning “synergy” — of which Yogi (Berra) may have said “It’s like a vicious cycle, without all the vice!” — the accelerated pace of learning, with correcting assistance along the way from one’s peers, could easily propel the average learner into the hyper-intelligent (roughly, though not exactly, the multiple Ph.D.) category.
I believe that humans were designed for hyper-intelligence, and that we will all become just this in time. Once we learn more about our instincts for hyper-learning, and how they best fit together, the aim of technology will probably shift toward aiding and abetting either the development of hyper-intelligent (and very wise) people, and then — onto the obvious — ultra-intelligence (and hyper-wise) people — or both.
It is what I have learned about people and our instincts, what science and technology could do to enhance these, and what the strategies and dynamics of people groups, and the learning strategies that can be employed by them to further enhance their Ideal learning status, which together have convinced me that we were and are designed for very great things. The Ideal LGG and Value System offer the keys to the entire process enabling and retaining wisdom and understanding throughout our — well (DNA) predestined, extraordinary future of excellence and progress, or value and honor.
To quote Hugo Weaving (Sounding a bit like Carl Sagan), “IT IS INEVITABLE.”
Just HOW intelligent and Wise do you think we could become? My answer to this question has changed over time with more extensive research into the capabilities of some of the greatest innovations ever. Think of the power of these elements combined: Free Markets, An Excellent Written Constitution (Upgrade), the Computer and related Tech, Modern Science and Technology, Empowered Research Groups — Add these together, then multiply. I believe now that there are actually no limits but time and entropy. And trans-generationally, this limit will disappear (We will live longer and longer). The above elements and time will also help us defeat entropy progressively as well.
“The sky is the limit” is now my view. It means we really have only imagined limitations (real, but ephemeral) that we can defeat over time. [Just say it.] Okay, “Up, up and away!”
This should be our new self-concept. Our self-concept is our future.