Let’s start with the premise that language is an expressive code for a perceptual code from a receptive code of some thing that exists external to our code-making apparatus, including that part of our code-making apparatus we aren’t using in making the code while we are in attention to it.
There are two implications from this:
- We cannot perceive everything that exists; and of what we perceive, we are not describing that perception with accuracy but only generally. Receptive and perceptual coding is predefined by the physical structure that it is, only codes for what it codes for, and therefore does not necessarily code for everything that exists. In physical terms, receptor codes are loops of neural circuits, complex but static pathways stimulated by limited energy gradients conducted by the receptor nerves at the periphery of our physical awareness. Humans have millions of these loops receptive to external energy sources. Expressive coding has two portions: millions of additional loops among receptor code loops creating relationships between codes – a perceptual integration of the external world; and an additional intricate network looping among perceptual integration apparatus and motor (movement) effector loops such as associated with the human larynx. The motor effector loops that drive the larynx, literally give voice to the codes of perceptual integration. So there are four basic layers of coding that provides us with language, or, in other words, four physical re-interpretations of the energies of the world.
- Language itself, once commenced, began looping itself through perceptual fields, and the integrations of this constant internal looping makes increasingly varied relationship connections with elements of the derived world. The variations of looping create a capacity to deconstruct the world into elementals so long as a vocal attribute can be associated with the elemental. Language develops as vocal loops become associated with elemental loops. This looping provides the ‘naming’ of the elemental. Once the neural loops could do the trick of coding a ‘name’ a ‘noise’ for an external elemental, that trick could continue to be used to name parts of an external object, and also larger groups or patterns of external objects as elementals. Eventually, the trick of deconstructing form into elementals that can be named and reconstructing those elementals into something new, could be used to create a type of new elemental, and abstract form that doesn’t exist in the environment. Language is one such abstract set of elementals. Here are the foundations of thinking or internal speech. Once an elemental has been defined by ‘naming’ it can then be appropriated by additional loops with connections to special looping functions such as emotions, motor effect, language and another neural area recognised for extraordinary planning functions. As these loops become more diverse and increasingly resonant, we develop the consciousness – a constant internal conversation that relates both to the internal and external world and a conversation about that conversation. As consciousness or internal language becomes increasingly more complex, mathematics, sciences, philosophy, and social relationships become increasingly complex, giving rise to religion, and government and all various forms of community.
Our own body is party to this process and so our enquiry into our own mind-brain. Given that our body is represented in the brain by a code of neural looping, even the body cannot be said to be represented as a whole truth. And then, even our brains cannot be said to be more than a partial representation of its reality.
So, can we say with any reason what we are? Abdu’l-Baha explained the world and ourselves as a shadow or reflection of the spiritual world. We could call the spiritual world, the real world. We could surmise, then, that reality is not limited to our meagre three or four dimensions, but not limited at all. Perhaps we are part of a 4 dimensional being, and that is a part of a 5th dimensional being and so on and so forth. Yet all this supposition is just an extrapolation of some basic loops of language that other loops have ‘named’ mathematics, and so quite limited in its access to any greater reality, altogether. The story of dimensions, therefore, might not be even close to guessing at the reality. Yet we might wonder could we access our greater reality. Could it be that the disciplines of the Great Educators are just what we need to evolve the requirements for that perception?
Consider that, even if we are working as a 4 dimensional being, then that being would have its own coding and would still only be representing as that code, a part of reality, a code or symbol of reality, perhaps some kind of averaging or grouping of elements of reality.
From this we can say that terminology is never reality. That is not to say it is not honest in itself but that, without understanding that terminology is, at best, only an impression of reality, then we will probably be failing to use terminology honestly. We could say that, as an evolutionary process, language and terminologies exist as a function ie a workability in which language is a tool for optimising human relationships and development.
As a tool, though, language is not limited to honest usage, and cultural uses of language can support the dishonest use of language. Philosophical terminologies are often derived from internal linguistic looping layering processes. These terminologies have a very low relationship to reality. The terminology of theism and atheism is a case in point. While philosophers have designed these terms, there is no actual thing (form with identifiable characteristics) that the term describes except through the internal circular logics of the terms design. To wit, there is no religion that claims it is a group of theists, rather that a philosopher might use the term as a description of what the philosopher believes they are seeing. The philosopher might recognise that their perceptual code is limited, and so use the term as a tool to access the truth of religious idea. However, the philosopher who believes that the term ‘theist’ is a true thing, might, then, also believe that there is something that is theist and something that is not a ‘theist’ (an atheist). They might even imagine that there is a person that is described that they are atheist or theist. Even a person may then describe themselves by these terms, claiming that they are this term. Yet, even presuming honesty, if the language that is now quite abstract, a completely fabricated story of who we are, is not workable as an optimiser of human functions, then we may be seeing, in the complex modern world, a movement of language into a realm of dysfunction.
The conclusion, here, is that language in all its facets for human relationship, science, mathematics, and community, is a fantastic vehicle for the re-creation of the world. Yet, it is a tool that has been built out of some limited physical conditions and therefore its access to reality is probably very limited. Our stories can support the fantastic recreation of the world or it might support a dysfunction. Presuming we prefer a highly function, workable, society, acknowledging that the stories of our life are all not reality, and that, in a physical form, we will always be limited, it can still mean that we can be as access to anything that might take us closer to reality. It could be that there are many pathways to that access including trying to get behind language even just to see how the world is, or using language to explore the extent we can take our own creativity and relationships; and perhaps there is a way that looks for something as knowable as it is unknowable, that we might call God, a pervasive essence in all reality and an emanator of reality.