Is language and reality the very same and identical thing?
No. Never. There is a difference. Language is only a more or less appropriate shadow or image of reality. There is a difference between being as happening and being as description.
There is also a difference between spoken language and written, textual language. A spoken conversation is based on sensual contact, at least via phone, you need a sensual input in direct communication. Thus you are under the impression of life-interface of a living person.
Different is textual interface and performance. There is no direct sensual encounter of living entities, which itself by there pure being (or presence) perform a common conscious "field" of influence.
The reason for such long preparation is to point to that which follows:
textual forums - that is communication based on texts - must clearly invent the human belonging to the text, at least more than in living encounters.
I have a long time ago posted on the phenomenon of "unsecure" truth in text forums: actually it is not 100% possible to prove in a word forum, whether the writer of the text is really real. If there would be an advanced bot answering - you could never know. One attempt to clear such problem is the so called Turing Test (you may look for yourself, if you want).
The impact of such discovery is immense: even if someone in a forum calls you a paedophile or insults you heavily, he has only invented you, for he does not really know, who and what you are - he must always invent you.
In case you understand you can - in case you are not a bot, which nobody will ever know unless there is a direct, sensual communication - lean back and relax: the insult will never hit you, because it is not you in reality.
Yes, we are a community of always invented humans who to a high percentage use to write in this forum, not more and not less.
And really: I could be a bot, and you would never know from a forum alone...
Replies
i say lets become more real ..show more of ourselves like we can all go to google and make a hangout with our web cams on..let see whos real or not...lol ..any takers?
Language is not an invented reality.
Language is a perfect reflection of the intent of the person delivering the communication.
Language, by its very nature, alters time and space in ways that go far beyond the story of phrasing.
The true meaning of the communication is in the syntax. or how the story is structured.
Syntax, along with body language and tonality is the language of the unconscious. And the unconscious speaks a very different language to the conscious.
Language is nothing more than an expression of energy. In this case, thought and emotion. And in accordance with the law of conservation of energy, ie, energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed in form, only truth can be communicated. Even if the story is not true. Because you feel the not truth is not true. Which is the truth. (Don't you love double negatives..)
So if, in a test based message, a non truth is told, be intentional or otherwise, the syntax will reveal it. Because of the way the message is communicated to your unconscious.
Likewise, it is obvious when someone in a chat room fronts under different user names. Because whilst they can change the user name, the user can't change their syntax. Because they can't change how they think and feel.
Syntax, btw, is not that mysterious as it appears in your lines: it has a very clear structure (which must be learned).
I don´t know whether you are firm with the Turing test. It is about deciding whether someone can know from written communication alone if the writer is a living and intelligent one. Suppose I were dead in reality, but a computer has collected over years my style of writing, answering, syntax etc. And the computer is able to use my sentences in forums after my actual death - are you sure you could definitely know that I am still alive from the sentences only? I doubt it in case you have advanced running processors...
I made this point in order to ease the pain in case of insults in a forum - why do people get upset? Because they invent the human behind the lines, and they like it: this is an asshole, that one is good, the guy is gay etc.pp.But mostly they are not aware they are inventing: they take the written words as immediate interface to know the writer, which is even logically impossible.The truth is: the invention (or imagination) of that writer as a humen comes from my own imagination: I imagine and judge the other, which at first hand reveals himself as writer.
And a deeper approach happens also only in written form - without real senses, smells, looks etc. We can only assume that the other writer has a good mind taking that as basis of a good written communication. And later, maybe, we can meet and look and feel each other. But an exclusively written communication needs, in my opinion, awareness of the inventional character dealing with the other writer.
Thank you for clarifying your discussion.
I agree with you that syntax is neither mysterious, nor is it complicated to learn. Just seldom considered. And that is the light I was looking to portray it in.
I haven't heard of the Turing test. Sounds fascinating though.
whilst it would be difficult, I can imagine that a level of discernment can be gained where you could pick it. Speaking is about more than speech patterns. There is a consciousness that delivers the delivers the speech in a particular style. And it is dynamic And so, if a computer could speak as you do it would share your consciousness. And that opens up a rather large, quantum plate of verbs.
Which leads to why people get upset over words on the page. Because they aren't just words on a page. they are a reflection of thoughts and feelings. ie consciousness They are alive. And they have the ability to direct thought and emotion. Whether the person doing the talking is aware of the directing or not. The words still "push buttons". It doesn't matter who is doing the writing. The impact of the words is real. Be it a bot or otherwise. Baer in mind, the internet is a consciousness unto itself. it is made up of the sum total of the energy of all the users on it.It is in essence, alive.
It is true what you say about us inventing "the other person" online. It is also true in face to face contact as well. When you meet someone, you cannot know that person. And so you create an unconscious file of that person. Constructed from what you know about that person, which at face value is little. And you fill in the gaps with your own personality. And so in essence, you are having a relationship with you, And the file of the other person. which is in truth. also you. As you get to know the person, and yourself better you fill in more and more details. And so, overt time the relationship you have with the person starts to resemble something more akin to the truth. Ultimately though, you can't know anyone better than you know yourself. And so if you have a lot of "secrets", your relationships will suffer accordingly.
There is a linguistic process know as NRT - Neuro relationship Therapy which deals with this very concept. It is a powerful tool for organising the relationship filing system of the mind.And as a result it minimises the "inventional: nature of relationships.
..Nice One Wings....Love U...x...............
Everyone comes from a place of love. Do we choose to know them ?
There is no energy ever which can suck me out by written lines on my computer except: my imagination (which is my invention) is driving me crazy. There is no energy behind lines on a screen except: from my thoughts. It is my thoughts, always my thoughts. Exactly this I wanted to make clear.
I do not unconciously operate with the word "energy". I demand thinking in God´s name, thinking and deducing properly. I ask again: How will you know for sure that the answering operator is not a bot? "Energy behind them" is simply not enough to me.