![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Athena » August 8th, 2017, 11:06 am wrote:Serpent, I enjoy reading your perceptive. Isn't Latin the foundation of Euro languages?
I have heard in India the upper class learns and uses English but not the masses; leading to government that can't be representative of the people because the language of decision makers is not the language of the people.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
someguy1 » August 8th, 2017, 5:29 pm wrote:Also there should only be one type of music, one type of art, one type of novel, one type of food. Keep things simple, stop causing all this confusion with different cultures and stuff.
If you abolish language you abolish culture. So how far are you willing to go with this idea? To dumb down all human communication to "Me want food?"
I claim that between "You're welcome" and "It's nothing" is a world of cultural difference between English- and Spanish-speaking people. The language reflects the history of a people. The way they relate to the world. In essence, their mind. Their culture. Who they are.
My question to you would be: Is it your intent to wipe out or ignore or trample on cultural differences among native speakers of all the languages of the world?
Or do you see my point that smoothing over language differences would erase many things of value from the world? Like culture, history, worldview. Mind and heart.
Can you see that even choosing the words and ways of expression of your universal language would in itself be political?
Should our language be full of very precise words that express action and progress and getting things done? Or should it be vague and poetic and oriented towards process and feelings?
Is there a touch of what some might call cultural imperialism in all this?
The modern technocratic world demands a simplified stripped down language so that we can all get with the program. The program the elites have mapped out for the proles.
You can't take the politics out of your idea. How would you address these concerns?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
People assimilate when they're successful and accepted. you can cry all you want for the lost tribes of Israel, but they probably did a lot better than the diaspora.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Athena » August 9th, 2017, 12:46 pm wrote:... In the comparison between "you are welcome" and "it is nothing" I can see an important difference on a scale of humility.
[People assimilate when they're successful and accepted. you can cry all you want for the lost tribes of Israel, but they probably did a lot better than the diaspora.]
I see in that sentence lost culture and questionable identity.
What dies when the tribe is lost in time and forgotten?
Does that matter?
Is surrendering to AI desirable?
If we have any meaningful immortality it is our offspring and the hope they carry the purpose and meaning of our people.
Our language coming from Rome is very materialistic, and may even blind us to having a better understanding of reality, that is energy not matter.
I think we are missing some concepts such as those expressed by cultures that saw reality as animated and perhaps more fluid and multi-dimensional.
Can AI carry human purpose and meaning?
Here I am leaning towards Someguy's argument. Facts without meaning (something built on experience) don't equal a good life for humans but can be more like the mechanical society we defeated in two world wars.
Here is a troublesome thought expressed by Wittgenstein, "The aim of the book is to set a limit to thought, or rather- not to thought, but to the expression of thoughts...what lies on the other side of the limit will simply be nonsense".
That is a dangerous point of view and if a universe language carried such an attitude, it would be a disaster for humanity.
Our fascination with AI seems dangerously close to this disaster.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Serpent » August 9th, 2017, 4:34 pm wrote:Athena » August 9th, 2017, 12:46 pm wrote:... In the comparison between "you are welcome" and "it is nothing" I can see an important difference on a scale of humility.
And do you normally associate Spanish with humility? There may be other inferences to draw, but we don't actually know where the formula originated. Perhaps a rigid system of indebtedness; perhaps noblesse oblige or religious duty; privilege and paupery. 'Welcome' is probably a remnant of medieval hospitality, where you were required by custom to give a traveler food and shelter, whether you liked him or not. In Hungarian, you say "of the heart" - which means: willingly, not because I must.
Think about when the thanks-welcome exchange most frequently takes place. A waitress puts your food on the table - you are literally welcome in the restaurant. A clerk bags your purchase and gives back change - it is literally nothing, just doing his job. Someone holds a door open - they literally didn't have to.
All of these cultural norms existed in both societies (most societies, east and west); each language retained a different phrase from the same traditional expressions of necessary social grace. Which phrase was kept may us tell us something about the culture and world-view - but is that information valuable? I don't know what it's worth, or what it costs.[People assimilate when they're successful and accepted. you can cry all you want for the lost tribes of Israel, but they probably did a lot better than the diaspora.]
I see in that sentence lost culture and questionable identity.
The Israelites who were deported by the Assyrian empire, probably along with other conquered peoples, with whom they may have mixed and presumably joined up with one or more large populations. The remaining two tribes didn't lose their culture and their identity - they are the ones who revolted unsuccessfully against Roman rule 700(?) years later, and dispersed in their turn. The present Israel is a completely different entity.
Empires do this kind of thing all the time.
The most nearly analogous situation in America is the kidnapped Africans who did lose their cultural identity, had no place to return once they were freed, and eventually became American by default. Most natives didn't have that choice: they were more often slaughtered outright than relocated, and there was a good deal more resistance on the part of the dominant race against their assimilation than there would have been in ancient Mesopotamia, where everyone looked much alike. (Which btw is what I meant about them being better off than the ones who ended up in Russia and Germany.)
But the fate of Moabite, Igbo and Cherokee is not comparable to the autonomous decision if immigrant Poles and Italians to become American. For one thing, that decision is made individually, and the first part - leaving their native land, had been taken long before they encountered the new host culture.
What dies when the tribe is lost in time and forgotten?
We'll never know. We do know that some other tribe takes its place, and they couldn't both have occupied the same place at the same time, and could not all coexist indefinitely.Does that matter?
Yes, when it happens; no, a thousand years later.Is surrendering to AI desirable?
AI isn't attacking; has no design on your culture or your identity. It's a tool used by members of your own tribe. You've surrendered the power of decision to them. Don't blame Watson; he's just doing his job.If we have any meaningful immortality it is our offspring and the hope they carry the purpose and meaning of our people.
As we assign purpose and meaning to our peoples, we can change that meaning and find a new purpose; geography can change it, wrong choices and bad luck can change it, stronger enemies can change it, weather can change it, time can change it. Change is unavoidable.Our language coming from Rome is very materialistic, and may even blind us to having a better understanding of reality, that is energy not matter.
It doesn't just come from Rome. In English, you have remnants of French, German, Saxon, Norse and a dozen other languages.I think we are missing some concepts such as those expressed by cultures that saw reality as animated and perhaps more fluid and multi-dimensional.
And you can never, ever have any inkling of their view of reality unless you study their language, or their literature is translated, or you converse with someone from that culture, with whom you share a common language.
You can't have it both way - access or isolation; contamination or preservation.Can AI carry human purpose and meaning?
It can't carry any other kind - yet. Where to? For whom? Why?Here I am leaning towards Someguy's argument. Facts without meaning (something built on experience) don't equal a good life for humans but can be more like the mechanical society we defeated in two world wars.
That's not precisely what happened. Mechanisms are incapable of hate and ambition, humiliation and revenge, egotism and aggression.
Anyway, who advocated for facts without meaning? Or having a mechanical society?
What are you and Someguy protesting, exactly?
Nicolle didn't say that a big empire should take over the world and force everybody to speak COBOL and kill off all the existing languages and cultures. I didn't advocate for it, either - just pointed out that that is how empires have generally behaved, and that is how we arrived at the situation you are now defending.
Do you want all change to stop here, now? Build walls around every nation? (Warning: many of those will be hard to place as the people on each side disagree on the line of demarcation.) Shut down immigration, international commerce and travel? Cut the phone lines? Silver-seed the information cloud?Here is a troublesome thought expressed by Wittgenstein, "The aim of the book is to set a limit to thought, or rather- not to thought, but to the expression of thoughts...what lies on the other side of the limit will simply be nonsense".
Isn't that a description of cultural mores?That is a dangerous point of view and if a universe language carried such an attitude, it would be a disaster for humanity.
First, who says a universal language carries any "attitude"? Pidgin works in communication of simple needs and functions. It's not meant to replace the literature and mythology.
A real language does just the opposite: expansion and interaction, not retreat and contraction.
Our fascination with AI seems dangerously close to this disaster.
So, pull the plug!
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Athena » August 10th, 2017, 3:32 pm wrote:I said "Does that matter?" and you replied "Yes, when it happens; no, a thousand years later".
Can we throw some history here that applies to other comments you made, including questioning my position on change?
During the Dark Ages people didn't have the concept of history we have, and they pretty much thought time stood still and Europe was still part of Rome.
...but the folks in Italy knew better because they knew Rome had a better history than what they were living and this is where the renaissance began.
... They started the renaissance as an intentional effort to bring back the good days that died with the fall of Rome, and this began with education preparing people for self-government. That is liberal education.
The future is not always better than the past, and civilizations do rise and fall.
But are things from the past worth preserving? I think so.
And possibly all this is my romantic thinking, but enjoy feeling connect with our planet and all of humanity. I like throwing in some Eastern and Mayan ideas about consciousness.
Right now I am distressed that because we have not used the classics to transmit our culture, our civilization is no longer protected by past wisdom.
I think the language of AI without the classics could evolve into a manifested reality we do not like, because it is great for advancing technology, but not great for human beings.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
nicolle38 » August 11th, 2017, 6:24 pm wrote:But, so far, even the ruling elites aren't interested in discussing it. To my mind, it's odd behaviour
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Economics. Britannia ruled the waves and then the US took over. Your great grandchildren had better learn Mandarin if they want a place in the global economy.doogles » Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:45 am wrote:But the question I’ve asked myself is why English, and not one of the many other established languages, has gradually become the second global language, especially when it has so many non-sensical variations in the spelling of homophones and pronunciations of letter-combinations. I am not familiar with any language other than English; I’ve never yet had a need to learn one. But I find it hard to believe that other popular languages could be as inconsistent and confusing as English. Can anyone enlighten me?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Eclogite » August 12th, 2017, 8:55 am wrote:Economics. Britannia ruled the waves and then the US took over. Your great grandchildren had better learn Mandarin if they want a place in the global economy.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Eclogite » August 12th, 2017, 7:55 am wrote:Economics. Britannia ruled the waves and then the US took over. Your great grandchildren had better learn Mandarin if they want a place in the global economy.doogles » Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:45 am wrote:But the question I’ve asked myself is why English, and not one of the many other established languages, has gradually become the second global language, especially when it has so many non-sensical variations in the spelling of homophones and pronunciations of letter-combinations. I am not familiar with any language other than English; I’ve never yet had a need to learn one. But I find it hard to believe that other popular languages could be as inconsistent and confusing as English. Can anyone enlighten me?
East/West Logic
webpages.charter.net/lrsmith/eastwest.htm
Eastern versus Western Logic. In the West, our entire system of logic and science is built on a model which was inherited from Greek thought. It is dualistic; it is either/or, either something is true or it is not. It is sequential, with one thing happening after another, in order.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Yes seriously. I am always serious unless I am joking.Athena » Sat Aug 12, 2017 3:08 pm wrote:Seriously? Can a nation become number one without war? This is off topic, but maybe something interesting we could look into. Also, the difference between English and Mandarin is not just language but also logic.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Serpent » August 10th, 2017, 4:30 pm wrote:I said.. During the Dark Ages people didn't have the concept of history we have, and they pretty much thought time stood still and Europe was still part of Rome.
your reply.
Which people thought this? The serfs probably didn't care very much about the 'big picture', but they certainly all had folklore, legends and songs to remind them of their ancestors (and usually to exaggerate the exploits and prowess of those ancestors) and they hung onto a surprising amount of local tradition in spite of the church's disapproval. Scholars, archivists and and historians have been around much longer than this. Of course, they wrote whatever pleased their patrons - but they certainly could count time and keep track of wars and dynastic sequence.
That's one way of looking at it. Wealth didn't hurt. And the renaissance heavily depended on noble, as well as merchant patrons all over Europe supporting alchemists and artisans, astronomers and painters, masons and scribes - who all traveled, conferred and exchanged letters.
Certainly, the church was influential in all scholarship, as monasteries were pretty much the only way to get an education, unless you were raised at a court. Having a common language for scholarship and commerce helped greatly in the communication of ideas. Of course, once the printing press got going...
The common folk, who didn't speak or read Latin had precious little to do with it.
Someone should have told the Borgias, Albizia, and Medicis.
They rise; they fall; they stay down and do not rise again; another one takes their place.
The future is inevitable. We can hope it will be better than the past, because most of our history was horrible for most of the people, and we have very, very rarely brought a chestnut out of the ashes.
I said..."But are things from the past worth preserving? I think so." and you replied...
Some things. You can't bring back extinct species, defunct civilizations or massacred tribes. You can save the odd stone carving, mural or clay vessel (gold necklaces tend to get very good care); from more recently, people (monks, mostly) have saved documents.
It's not a question of whether something is worth preserving: at any given moment, somebody is dedicating his life, maybe risking his life, to preserve whatever they value. The fact is, nobody can save everything and nothing lasts forever. If Alba Longa had prevailed, there would have been no Roman kingdom, and if that continued, there would have been no Republic. Do you know how many small nations existed, world-wide, in 1017? How many of them do you actively miss? If the Cherokee and Huron hadn't been displaced, there would be no modern USA. Maybe that makes you sad for a minute when you think of it, but you're not campaigning to give it back.
That's mortality; something has to die for the next things to live.
So, why do you object to a global language? A language you can speak and read is your only access to other times, other civilizations, other kinds of thought, other kinds of people.
What use is a diverse world to you if most if it remains closed and secret?
No civilization was ever protected by past wisdom.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Eclogite » August 12th, 2017, 9:43 am wrote:Yes seriously. I am always serious unless I am joking.Athena » Sat Aug 12, 2017 3:08 pm wrote:Seriously? Can a nation become number one without war? This is off topic, but maybe something interesting we could look into. Also, the difference between English and Mandarin is not just language but also logic.
Point 1: Did I say the Chinese status as the most important country on the planet would be achieved without a war? I made no comment either way.
Point 2: Unlike the Soviet Union the Chinese are smart enough to realise that combining capitalism with a rigid dictatorship produces outstanding and sustainable results. Combine that with a population of over 1 billion and you have an assured world leadership position within the next three decades. The internal dissensions within Europe and current self destruction of the US will simply accelerate that.
The differences between the languages are irrelevant in terms of which language becomes the dominant one. Economic power is the determining factor.
Of course, effective real time translators will probably render my argument irrelevant within fifteen years.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Athena » August 12th, 2017, 12:25 pm wrote:The apparent disagreement here is you have taken our present Western logic for granted, but Europe did not have this sense of linear logic until after it was resurrected during the Renaissance.
the common people's memory of being a commune with equality, because of fleeing the fall of Rome and moving to islands to gain safety, and not being ruled by a governing power such as Rome once was.
[Someone should have told the Borgias, Albizia, and Medicis.]
Should have told them what?
This thread may not be best for discussing our future, but our life style can not be sustained, and we should give thought to that.
Our population is as ignorant of such matters as the ancient Romans were, and in our ignorance comes favoring one leader over another, thinking these godlike people give us good times or bad times, not having clue what population growth and resources have to do with our economies rising and falling.
I said..."But are things from the past worth preserving? I think so." and you replied...
Some things.
Now we are arguing attitude more than facts.
As long as humans can record and transmit information,
our shared consciousness will expand,
and this might be the most important thing about our existence.
So might it be stupid to assume progress is replacing others?
I have very negative feelings about thinking the barbarians who successfully invaded mean progress.
I object to one universal language for the same reason we should object to clear cutting, and replacing all the variety that is in a natural forest with pine trees. I think you have argued in favor of preserving native languages and adding a universal one.
I am in favor of that, but would also argue the importance of preserving all languages,
[No civilization was ever protected by past wisdom.]
That is so wrong,
and although your side of the argument seems popular today, I do not see the wisdom in it.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Eclogite » Sat Aug 12, 2017 9:55 am wrote:Economics. Britannia ruled the waves and then the US took over. Your great grandchildren had better learn Mandarin if they want a place in the global economy.doogles » Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:45 am wrote:But the question I’ve asked myself is why English, and not one of the many other established languages, has gradually become the second global language, especially when it has so many non-sensical variations in the spelling of homophones and pronunciations of letter-combinations. I am not familiar with any language other than English; I’ve never yet had a need to learn one. But I find it hard to believe that other popular languages could be as inconsistent and confusing as English. Can anyone enlighten me?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
doogles » August 13th, 2017, 4:47 am wrote:My last response was inappropriate Eclogite.... I was looking for was something in the nature of a quantitative answer from someone familiar with multiple languages. The only hint I gave to this was my statement that I found it hard to believe that any other language would have as many inconsistencies as English'.
I'm still hoping that someone out there can enlighten me.
![]() |
![]() |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests