Homepage

  • Print
Page 1 of 6

 
Sense, communication 

Why meaning is it different when we order variously words ?, wondered Blaise Pascal (1623 - 1662) without having answered ever.
What can we say of languages which enable beings to live, even, from assuming their destiny ?

       -------------------

Let's consider first, means of recognition used by the ants, means often evoked by the sociologists.
We know for example, that when several roads are leading to a source of food, very quickly, the ants privilege one of these ways,
the privileged way is then, the one that is marked by largest number of olfactive molecules secreted by these insects. According to current speeches of scientists this fact would result from powers devolved by genes, and these olfactive molecules would be necessary to the "information competitiveness". 

We must be rigorous.
If there is an "information competitiveness" this fact presupposes of sense's vectors, and therefore, implication of a creative entity to recognize and to judge  characteristics of this vectors.
Indeed, an olfactive molecule cannot be efficient (active) without characteristics's interpretation of the electromagnetic waves, vectors of the sense, associated to particles and to atoms that compose this molecule.
More precisely, the ants, due to their only biophysical state, are unable to recognize a road (and their "sisters") ; it's necessary that a same creative entity, master of the "sense", singularized in each of them, judges the frequencies and amplitudes of the electromagnetic waves associated to olfactive molecules,
and it, using a universal system of references (a universal system of values).
As for bees, they can mean and transmit "situation" of food zones with dances.
So, if the zones are near hive, dances are frantic, whereas angle between the dance's axis and the vertical, depends on orientations " hive - sun" and "zone of food - sun".
Consequently, to them only, these facts give evidence :
-  "realism"of a language that enables from transmitting the behaviors's interpretation,
-  "existence" of a beyond the reality : the abstraction domain of the insects, ipso facto, of all beings. 

Man, naturally, uses to express himself means according to his potentialities that can be "sharped" with education and taking lived experiences into consideration. Evolution of his language since childhood until adulthood, is significant in this respect : newborn child shows his presence by shouts and simple gestures, child employs words and small sentences, teenager, having "digested" all the complexities if his language, is using more elaborated sentencess,...,
scholar has subtle and esoteric speeches. 

Another essential precision, these divers languages necessitate the biophysical activities of some organs (hands,  throat ..., brain), however, this fact does not mean that an organ, particularly brain, is an operator who recognize, judge, ... and decide.
With man, we also know that these languages concern cerebral areas very specialized, areas which are in interaction (Broca's and Wernicke's areas, ..., areas that enable treatment of numbers, sounds, forms, movments, ...),
and are necessitating ceaseless reorganizations of synaptical connections in order to associate, mix, "mature", ..., the mental creations as the virtual images, concepts, ideas ... and anticipations which are in abstraction's domain.

Nevertheless, a theory about the cognition which is founded only on biological facts, never will answer to the inevitable problematic rarely, even, never evoked :
what is creative entity who means with words,  ..., information, ... ?

Another remarkable fact, although we are able to mean in a conscious way, process which enable the sense (of the letters, words,  sentences, ...) escapes us.
For example, physicists develops extremely esoteric theories without knowing anything about primordial means which enable them to establish correlations between reality and their virtual (abstract) representations of the phenomena.

There are therefore of internal comprehensions which do not emerge from consciousness state and the conscious  understanding of the sense does not result from only use of rules and practices.
Concerning these problems, John Searle  (a philosopher of the language) interrogated himself for a long time without bringing a credible answer; according to him (and for the majority of the current philosophers) :
"There are blind neuropsychological processes and consciousness, but nothing else.".

Thus, don't be surprised by the vague expressions, even hazy, that are "blooming", as :
"understanding, that's something as transparency of the rules ",
"... as fruit of an unconscious guiding ",
"we understand a physical theory when a compatible interpretation with its mathematical structure enables from considering this structure as a means ...".

Now, and we must repeat,
there is not transmission and memorization of the "sense" without interpretation of the characteristics of the electromagnetic waves there which are its primordial vectors,
an innate interpretation, or an innate and conscious interpretation made by using of universal value's references.
Who interprets ?
The consciousness ?
Sure, no.             

We know it henceforth, all beings, whatever is their complexity level, are object of ceaseless transmisssions, within their body, of processes organizations with biological effects and processes organizations with behavioral effects, even with deadly effects.
Let's quote the informations fluxes at elementary level of the individuals which are using of polyvalent molecules : inhibitor, ..., modulator, messenger, and which are present in several animal and vegetable species.

Also, let's think to recognition and to permanent interpretation of memorized processes organizations on DNA by means of about 60.000 genes,
processes organizations requiring only four bases : Cytosine (C), Adenine (A), Guanine (G) and Thymine (T).

Consequently, sense and its transmission, particularly by language, cannot be considered as only owed to social interactions as say nowadays, "upholders" of the human sciences.
Therefore, let's beware to speeches's simplicity as :
"... the language ... it is always of the social act that it has its power and for management of the social act that it is applied (Cf. Michel Deleau - The social origins of the mental development).

Certainly, language is an effective "tool" for structuring the psychism,
a tool that enables nourishment, stabilization, crystallization of thought activities around abstract poles (for example, the concepts),
certainly, language enables beings to live in their environment, notably their social environment,
nevertheless, that's essentially a transmission tool of transcendent activities that presuppose a creative entity, "master of the sense", who has powers on the energies and matter.

Due to this fact and as for primordial causes, we recognize no difference between the beings's languages, conscious or innate, and we consider even, that some of these languages enable from establishing the biomass's interactions. Too, we observe that conscious language is, and will always be, "extremely poor" compared to the number and to the complexity of the necessary processes organizations for body's dynamics, and for dynamics of the life's phenomenon.

Why is it so ?
why the primordial processes organizations do not emerge from consciousness state then that "creative entity" who recognizes herself in us, by the I (ego, subject, spirit), uses them, constantly, at every structural level of the body ?
Is not it because this entity cannot surmount  mysterious, inexorable and universal constraints ?
We are convinced of it.

On the other hand, knowing that all interactions with  environment, all speeches, ..., all transmissions of "sense", necessitate the body's cells ,
how not to interrogate us more ?,
until what internal level of our body and, ipso facto, until what structural level of the inert matter, is extended the sphere of influence of our conscious world's understanding ?,
are we not necessary to creative entity of divine character, who "manages" world, of all eternity ?


                                                                                                                 *

Having recognized three large successive stages of the language's development :

- first, commonplace pictography which enables reproducing, in an extremely simplified way, of the reality's perceptions ; pictography was used by our ancestors, it enabled them from transcribing on various supports, "virtual images of the reality " located in their abstraction domain, of images which were not different of ours (think to prehistoric drawings which decorate the caves, notably, Lascaux's cave),
- next, ideography, expression of a more subtle world's understanding that associates proto-concepts to pictograms,
- and the phonetic language where there are soundwaves,
besides, considering that primitive writing (cuneiform) appeared in Mesopotamia towards end of the millennium IV before J.C., a writing that was followed by Egyptian hieroglyph and Chinese ideogram,
nowadays, of numerous linguists recognize in the Sumerians, the first men really able to think.

Talking of this, let's remind word's ambiguity : "thought ", according to the circumstances, that is considered or as an operator or as the fruit of the brain's activities.
Let us be precise and rigorous, when we think, we develop the activities of transcendent order that lead to the concepts, ideas, anticipations ...
Therefore, the Sumerians were not first men who thought, but they has been the first ones who actualized (materialized to become realities) on clay supports, cerebral potentiality that enable from counting (eighty percent of cuneiforms Sumerian are numeric data concerning trade).

Consequently, it is erroneous from considering the language, in particular the writing, as producers of transcendency.
On the contrary, we can lead abstract activities and express some with the languageit because our I (ego, subject, spirit) is of transcendent order !