TED Conversations

Vera Nova

Director Research Analysis, NOVA Town Futuristic Development


This conversation is closed.

Is our human language the most intelligent tool to communicate? Do you trust your intuition more than the words?

I MEAN OUR LANGUAGE-OF-WORDS. Perhaps we spend immensely more time on talking than any animal.

Even while using multiple devices for communicating practically in any distance on earth for exchanging our feelings or information, we still do not understand one another any better than millennia ago.

As we see on TED most of the time we discuss or argue over our man-made TERMS, which we commonly use, but understand/interpret in different ways. We spend a lot of time arguing over the words themselves, over their meaning.

How much confusion we create by using language and its conventional terms?

Is our human language the most intelligent tool to communicate after all?


Closing Statement from Vera Nova

“Our view of man will remain superficial so long as we fail to go back to that origin [of silence], so long as we fail to find, beneath the chatter of words, the primordial silence, and as long as we do not describe the action which breaks this silence. the spoken word is a gesture, and its meaning, a world.”

― Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Phenomenology of Perception

I'd like to thank you every member who has participated in this challenging conversation.

  • thumb
    Mar 25 2014: In face to face interactions, people and for that matter animals find meaning in both language and other cues, including those gathered by other senses as well as our histories with the person/animal at hand. An example might be the communication between mother and baby of any species without language or between man and dog. There are a variety of ways not involving language for dog to know what to expect from me or for me to know what to expect in the dog.

    How communication works best depends on the sorts of ideas we are trying to communicate and the context. Love is better conveyed without words, I think. How to knit is conveyed best by demonstration. Communication in person has great advantages, typically, over online communication.

    I don't think "intelligent" is quite the right word for comparing one avenue of communication to another. I would associate intelligence more with gathering the available cues taken together and interpreting them meaningfully.
  • thumb
    Apr 13 2014: Yes I trust my intuitive view of the world more than I trust the literal one.

    In interaction, sometimes I perceive that what is unsaid is more eloquent than the spoken or written word.

    The subtle nuances of body language, voice inflection and facial expression are the languages of the subconscious, and is probably as near as it is possible to get to the personal and collective 'truths' we all possess - and to experience the 'truths' of others we encounter.

    Words may be saying one thing but the body language and facial expressions may be saying something entirely different.

    On the few occasions I have spoken in public, I do very badly indeed if I rehearse my lines over and over; I stumble over my words, look at my notes all the time, get confused, dart from one subject to another... Not good for people listening, and stressful for me. I sense no connection whatsoever with who I am speaking to. I also feel as though I am not being sincere.

    Why is it that when I don't rehearse, I fare a lot better? I think it might be because I then use the intuitive language of the moment instead of the language I rehearsed beforehand ad nauseam. It means that I can connect with people without having to deal with lists and semantics. It is as near as I can get to accessing my own intuition on the subject I'm speaking about, while at the same time sensing the body language and expressions - and therefore the truthful reactions - of those listening. I seem to get genuinely interested in what others think, instead of disconnectedly getting through my rehearsed speech as quickly as possible.

    What I'm trying to illustrate here, through self-observation, is the importance of the 'unsaid', the space between the lines, the profound silence - cannot be replicated in synthesis. It is uniquely human and underlines the importance of genuine human interaction. Therein lies intelligence of a far higher order, in my opinion.
    • thumb
      Apr 14 2014: Well said Allan....as usual:>)
      You ask..."why is it that when I don't rehearse, I fare a lot better"? It appears that you answered your question....if we're not engaged with the notes, we can genuinely connect with people....sensing body language, expressions, and genuine reactions of the people we are speaking to.

      I never rehearsed when sharing my stories with classes or groups of people as a guest speaker, and although the content was usually much the same, the delivery usually changed, depending on what I felt from the audience. I too am very interested in what others think and feel about a topic, so when speaking to a class, I often invited them to ask questions and share their ideas about the topic whenever they felt like it.....most of the classes turned into discussions, which I love:>)
      • thumb
        Apr 18 2014: Colleen, I just copied and published your quote on the top of this thread. Is this OK?

        "I believe we can communicate with all kinds of creatures, and one of the first steps is to really listen with all our senses... "
        • thumb
          Apr 18 2014: Yes, of course it's ok Vera....I am honored that you think a statement of mine is worth repeating.....thanks:>)

          Sometimes, people mis-quote me, use a statement out of context, twist the statement to try to support their own agenda, etc., That is NOT ok with me, and it is not a very good reflection of the person doing that either. It tells us a LOT about them.....just thought I'd throw that in since we are talking about communication. That is NOT at all about you Vera, it is for some others in the audience:>)
      • thumb
        Apr 18 2014: Well, you just triggered another very important communication/language problem.

        Throughout my life I've learned (while in schools, doing my work, writing) that if I wish to quote someone I am totally responsible for the exact wording. Improvising, twisting or "correcting" someone's words may easily twist the original meaning.

        How often do we witness when peope are doing just that word-twisting? some, because they are sloppy and irrisponsible, and others have no respect to the original meaning and their true intention - these are crookes, manipulating someone's words the way they wish. Media, authors, legal and banking documents, courts, business and religious arguments, political "debates".. this list is endless.

        This practicing is only demonstrating someone's pitifil poverty of education, and as the result - serious violation of elementary ethics.

        Thank you for your comment, Colleen!
        • thumb
          Apr 18 2014: I agree with you Vera....if I quote someone, it is my responsibility to quote accurately. If I do not agree with the quote, it is my responsibility to clarify my interpretation, as my own interpretation. It is NOT helpful to miss-interpret, as if it is the meaning to everyone. I agree..."twisting or "correcting" someone's words may easily twist the original meaning".....which is a misrepresentation of the original statement.

          The list of people using this tactic may be endless Vera, and I believe anyone who adopts that behavior wants to justify and reinforce their own personal beliefs.
      • thumb
        Apr 18 2014: Colleen, as you manage to comment precisely from that level onwards which comes without 'Reply' function , I have to hop in here now, totally out of context, and as if that was any new to me ...;o)

        Yes, I know this folk you mentioned all to good and TO ME they serve as good example that language as a tool of intelligent communication has its limitations by emotions, me included.

        Nevertheless I don't know of any better form to communicate and if there is one, I haven't found it, or if I have, I haven't identified it yet.
        • thumb
          Apr 18 2014: I do not perceive your comment as out of context Lejan.....the topic IS communication!

          A "tool" of any kind, is only as effective as the one who wields the tool.....yes?
      • thumb
        Apr 19 2014: It certainly helps to train oneself in the usage of language as a tool for communication to increase the chance to transfer information as lossless as possible. Nevertheless, the quality of the result of this transfer, the efficiency of the tool language in this process, withdraws itself completely from any form of measurement on which the concept of 'effectiveness' itself is entirely based on.

        Effectiveness is the ratio of desired to reached outcome. On languages, 100% would then be an identical carbon copy of a message given by one and received by another individual and this on all levels of interpretations, rationally as well as emotionally.

        Unfortunately we have no way to determine to what degree a message remains as originally intended, as language has no neutral reference point to which all individuals could 'calibrate' themselves to, by which 'meaning' and also 'intentions' of words and sentences would align exactly in all of us.

        There is a beautiful term I recently came across which is called 'fractal wrongness' and defined as follows:

        'Fractal wrongness is the state of being wrong at every conceivable scale of resolution. That is, from a distance, a fractally wrong person's worldview is incorrect; and furthermore, if you zoom in on any small part of that person's worldview, that part is just as wrong as the whole worldview.'
        (Rational Wiki)

        Besides its quite amusing potential in 'rhetoric battles', the fractal component serves quite well on languages when we would substitute 'wrongness' by 'blurriness'.

        By this, languages remain blurry at every conceivable scale of resolution by the fact, that each individual has its very own interpretations and associations to any possible word there is, and also different interpretations and associations in their combinations.

        The simple word 'peanut' not only describes the seed of a certain tree, it also sparks a multitude of personal experiences within each of us on conscious and unconscious levels, ...
        • thumb
          Apr 19 2014: I agree Lejan, that it is beneficial to learn language skills and different language styles in an effort to communicate more effectively.

          I also agree that there is no sure way of determining to what degree a message remains as intended.

          Regarding the idea of "fractal wrongness".........
          I perceive that we can easily say the same about fractal rightness....zooming in on one part and perceiving it as right, and that part is just as right as the whole worldview.

          I prefer not to label communications "right" or "wrong". In my perception, there are more beneficial ways to communicate, and when we can stop labeling communications "right" or "wrong", we may experience a balance.
      • thumb
        Apr 19 2014: ... which creates a multitude of individual echo-chambers attached to this word in which the 'neutral' naming of this seed will be interpreted differently, individually. A 'simple' allergy totally changes the value of this word for a person who has it.

        As we are not aware of another persons 'echo-chambers' attached to each word and context, and never can be, we always have this blurriness within a conversation by which we can never be certain to which level the exchange of information resonates in what was said. And regardless of how close we would 'zoom in' on individual words, the blurriness would remain as that of the whole conversation.

        And on top of this, those personal 'echo chambers' are not static and change over time with experiences.

        As a funny and simple example may serve the last-name of a horrible teacher some of us probably had or still have during our years at school. Although the name itself is 'neutral' in its very nature, we have a whole emotional world attached to it. And as more uncommon this name is, as longer it usually takes to 'overwrite' our attachments to this name, which usually happens when we meet other people having the same last-name yet allows us to have more pleasurable experiences with them and therefore their names, which in themselves are only words... :o)
      • thumb
        Apr 19 2014: Hello Dear Colleen. Just want to let you know that Carl Dalton posted a comment for you, it's placed way below.. Here is the link to Carl's recent post


        I understand that it is hard to reply to your posts because almost all of them are just your Replies to other's comments - our replies have no direct "reply" links. ( Ted system does not let us reply to someone's reply directly..only our comments to the Topic have "reply" links )
        Happy Holidays :)
        • thumb
          Apr 19 2014: I saw it and responded Vera....thanks.

          If a comment has no direct "reply" option, you can scroll up to the next "reply" option.
      • thumb
        Apr 19 2014: 'I prefer not to label communications "right" or "wrong". In my perception, there are more beneficial ways to communicate, and when we can stop labeling communications "right" or "wrong", we may experience a balance.'

        Tolerance, by what I think you are referring to by the 'balance' has quite distinct limitations to me, in conversations as well as in whole world views.

        Otherwise I had to tolerate racism, slavery, murder, genocide, etc., which I don't and therefore do label all of those fundamentally 'wrong' according to alternative and humane values I happen to have acquired over my years.
        • thumb
          Apr 19 2014: I thought we were talking about communications Lejan....
          "Is our human language the most intelligent tool to communicate? Do you trust your intuition more than the words?"

          I do not agree that seeking balance has limitations. For me, seeking balance with communications, means to genuinely pay attention and communicate with respect.

          I didn't say anything about tolerating racism, slavery, murder, genocide, etc.

          "the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with."

          Balance: .
          "a condition in which different elements are equal or in the correct proportions."
      • thumb
        Apr 19 2014: Isn't the purpose of communication to exchange information? And is there a way to us to receive and process this information without translating it into our own 'resonance frequencies'?

        As I was trying to point out before, I don't see any way for us to NOT to label the elements of a language in itself, in its context and by the informational content it carries and what me 'make' out of it.

        Its labeled all way through, by our nature, which is what makes for the blurriness.

        I don't see how communication could be freed off its content as well as of the way it gets perceived and processed.

        The purpose of language is to bridge the 'air gap' in between entirely independent nervous-systems, yet neither the given information, nor the received information can be protected against labeling and re-labeling, which was the point I was trying to make.

        So when a raciest exchanges minds with another one, it is likely that both have more 'rights' in common about that particular conversation than if one of them was not a raciest.

        I don't share your view, that seeking balance within communications has no limitations, as this could lead to highly absurd situations.

        I do agree that any conversation should start with respect and impartiality, yet I disagree that respect is an unchangeable constant within it. How could I possibly give my respect to someone who just shared his/her most disturbing and solemnly sick murder fantasies with me?

        Respect is a highly labeled attitude we grant towards others in advance and in benefit of the doubt. From there it is either taken away by us or constantly earned for us to be able to maintain it.

        And no, you didn't say 'anything about tolerating racism, slavery, murder, genocide, etc.', yet how much respect would you be able to lend to a dialogue partner who would insist on those ideas to be desirable and if this was the informational essence of that communication?
        • thumb
          Apr 19 2014: Lejan,
          I am not in any way suggesting that communication "be freed off its content as well as of the way it gets perceived and processed."

          The point I am trying to make, is that if we let go of the labels ("right" and "wrong" in relation to communications), the mind and heart may be more open to give and receive information.

          I am suggesting "respect" for the process of communication. That does not mean we "respect" the behavior that is being communicated.....does that make any sense?

          For example:
          When I was mediating with convicted felons, I did not show respect, tolerance or acceptance for some of their behaviors as expressed. I DID however, respect the process of the conversation/communication.

          Within a conversation/communication, respect for the process of communication CAN be a constant. Respecting the PROCESS and the exchange of information does NOT mean we always AGREE.

          It doesn't matter to me if you agree with my ideas or not...I am not attached to your thoughts, feelings, ideas, perceptions, perspectives, opinions or beliefs.....whatever they may be. I still respect the process of the communication:>)

          The topic question....
          "Is our human language the most intelligent tool to communicate?"

          In my humble perception and experience, it depends on how we use the tool:>)
      • thumb
        Apr 19 2014: 'I am suggesting "respect" for the process of communication. That does not mean we "respect" the behavior that is being communicated.....does that make any sense?'

        I am trying to find sense in it and what would be left as motivation to engage such a process of communication, in which the respect about its content would fail to sustain or to be maintained or to re-grow.

        At those extremes we are talking about here, I think each side could only continue the communication in hope to finally change something within the other side, regardless how small such an impact would be, as long as it does impact. In one day, one week, one Year?

        If this my assumption was true, and hope for change the only motivation, than again the purpose of the process of communication was to transfer and to install ones own 'value system' into the 'value system' of another.

        If I was free of any intention within such a communication and given enough more pleasurable alternatives to communicate, why should I continue a conversation with a person who for whatever reason has lost all of my respect towards them? Without this 'hope' I mentioned before, there was no point for me to do so at all.

        I can't imagine the process of communication to exist without intention and purpose, because to remain silent comes always optional with it.

        Have you never come across a person to which nothing has been left in motivation to exchange minds about?
        • thumb
          Apr 20 2014: Lejan,
          You write...."...what would be left as motivation to engage such a process of communication, in which the respect about its content would fail to sustain or to be maintained or to re-grow."

          For me personally, the important part of communication is to understand and connect with people, and that is my underlying intent. It is possible to agree to disagree, and still have good communication.

          Unfortunately (in my perception), communications are often about trying to convince another person that one is "right" and one is "wrong"...which happens a lot here on TED. People sometimes are so attached to their own personal thoughts, feelings and beliefs, they sometimes fail to genuinely connect with others. If one identifies him/herself with beliefs that s/he thinks are "right", it is very difficult to let go of those beliefs for even a second, to ponder the idea that there may be different perceptions/perspectives.

          An example again of the guys I interacted with who were incarcerated...
          I could label them bad... criminals who did things that were "wrong", and I could assume there was nothing to connect with.

          However, they are people....they were little children at one time...they have families...mothers...fathers...brothers...sisters...wives...children...just like me in that respect. They have feelings...life challenges....just like me, so that is where I try to connect. That is what is left when there is disagreement with the topic. I did not agree with their behavior, and I connected with the similarities that we share.

          The only thing I can change, is myself and my intent with communications. My intent is to connect, and one generally cannot connect when "stuck" with his/her belief as the one and only "right" belief. The more one tries to change the beliefs of others, the further and further the communication gets from the possibility to connect. That is not my preference.
        • Apr 25 2014: IMO

          Lejan, I agree with you.

          Respect is a side issue relating to ones personal feelings, in regard to an ongoing conversation, and the only thing that matters in regard to those feelings, is that they are not allowed to influence the context or content of the conversation (And I am at times as guilty of this as any other).

          The question is; am I gaining something that is worthwhile from this conversation, and if that is the case, then its worth continuing the conversation.

          E.g. I a recent conversation the person was abusive etc, and would not let up and kept on attacking; to the point that I finally lashed back: However I could have left the conversation earlier, and simply rolled over and left it where it was; but every time he came back with another new point, so this gave me the opportunity to answer a point, that someone else following the conversation, might also have made, if they were involved in the conversation.

          Therefore although he might have thought he was doing both the conversation and myself a great disservice, and although he was annoying the hell out of me; he was in fact aiding and abetting me, in getting points across that otherwise I would not have made.
      • thumb
        Apr 19 2014: And I am not suggesting that discipline in conversations is not worth trying, yet for its own sake?
        • thumb
          Apr 20 2014: In my perception Lejan, one CAN practice communication skills for its own sake....sure!

          One thing that helps me, is to let go of any expectation regarding an outcome.

          In your previous comment, you ask...
          "why should I continue a conversation with a person who for whatever reason has lost all of my respect towards them? Without this 'hope' I mentioned before, there was no point for me to do so at all."

          We can do whatever we choose....continue, or quit the conversation. You have been accused of "spoiling" a person's conversation, and yet he keeps coming back for more.....wonder why? Perhaps there is a possibility for you guys to connect somehow? I am speculating of course, and with reading all of your interactions, my intuition tells me there is a reason for the communications.....just a thought that may be the intent and purpose?

          Yes, I have come across people who simply want to argue and be "right". If a person is consistently disrespectful, I generally leave the conversation....there are choices in any communication.....like you insightfully say...."to remain silent comes always optional with it."

          We always have choices regarding why, when, how and with whom we communicate:>)
      • thumb
        Apr 20 2014: 'In my perception Lejan, one CAN practice communication skills for its own sake....sure!'

        Maybe this is why I horrible and repeatedly fail in small-talk situations in which many words are spend and nothing said? Maybe this is why I spoil any diplomacy game, in which lots is suggested yet never openly named?

        'One thing that helps me, is to let go of any expectation regarding an outcome.'

        Absolutely, yet I was referring to conversations in which the outcome already was to have lost any respect in the 'world view' of another individual, and what would be left as motivation from there to continue to communicate.

        Why the reduction on 'similarities' would be a strong enough motivator from this point onwards to continue and not to just politely fade out of the conversation remains unclear to me.

        If it was 'just' similarities, why would you seek for this in 'fringe groups' of society, as there are plenty of alternatives all around you. So I assume, that your main motivation in getting in touch with criminals was curiosity? Or compassion? Did you not expect them to be ordinary people as well before you met?
        What sparked you interest to choose for significantly more effort for those communications over the plenitude of more easy alternatives? To talk about 'similarities'? Hmmm, this certainly wouldn't be a strong enough motivator to do the same as you did and therefore it is difficult to me to not suspect for other motivations within you to walk that 'extra mile' for 'just' that.

        Maybe this my difficulty in understanding your motivations is rooted in our differences in what both of us consider 'to care' for another individual, about which some time ago we remained in disagreement about it.

        'Unfortunately (in my perception), communications are often about trying to convince another person that one is "right" and one is "wrong"...which happens a lot here on TED.'

        And also it sometimes feels 'unfortunate' to me at times what you describe, I think its part of our nature.
        • thumb
          Apr 20 2014: Lejan,
          My motivation for volunteering with the dept. of corrections for 6 years, is because of my underlying life philosophy that if I am not part of the solution, I am part of the problem.

          After living with a violent, abusive father for part of my life, I learned a little about abuse and violence, domination and control. As an adult, I volunteered in a women/children's shelter where I learned more, and hopefully contributed a little to the learning of the victims of violence and abuse.

          One thing I learned at the shelter, is that we can educate women and children to a certain extent, and the men who dominate and control with violence and abuse continue. So after a couple years volunteering in the shelter, I volunteered with the dept. of corrections facilitating "cognitive self change" sessions and various other programs. The dept. of corrections provided education in mediation, where I learned more ways to communicate the messages we were attempting to convey to the offenders....thereby learning different ways to communicate in various life experiences.
        • thumb
          Apr 20 2014: Lejan,
          Regarding your insightful observation of "situations in which many words are spend and nothing said"....

          I learned many years ago in writing classes to speak and write clearly and simply, while staying focused on the topic. The mediation instruction I participated in reinforced this idea.

          I totally agree with you that there are times when lots of words are used, and not very much is said.....or.....people get off on tangents that have nothing to do with the topic.

          Sometimes, when I write comments for TED, I write my thoughts and feelings, and if I reach the character limit, I go back and remove all the words that are not really necessary, which is what we were asked to do in the writing classes. We end up with the same message, often more clear, understandable, and focused.

          I'm not saying this is right/wrong/good/bad/better/worse/etc.

          I'm simply saying this is my practice, that is how I learned it, and in my perception, it helps me use the language "tool" in a more productive way:>)
      • thumb
        Apr 20 2014: Yet aren't '... ways to communicate the messages we were attempting to convey to the offenders' just another form of 'convincing'?

        Don't get me wrong, I agree with those programs, and I am not questioning them nor their intentions, yet from an analytical standpoint of conversations, 'cognitive self change' is high art in convincing, isn't it?

        I was lucky that I have never experienced abuse when I was a child, yet I learned that many who have can form a lifelong 'tendency' towards it, in destructive ways, by keep ending up in abusive relationships as adults, or in constructive ways by direct confrontation with the offending side, either as professional specialists, or as supporting volunteers in rehabilitation programs you describe.

        Could it be, that the motivation of the latter is a way to find answers, understanding and maybe also forgiving on conscious and also unconscious levels, for them to individually deal with their past?
        • thumb
          Apr 20 2014: Conveying a message, in my perception Lejan, is sharing information....not trying to convince anyone of anything.

          Cognitive self change is exactly that....."self change".....people have choices.

          Yes...absolutely....supporting and facilitating programs is another opportunity to learn and understand on many different levels. To help support and encourage others in what might be a similar journey, contributes to healing for all parties.....good point:>)
      • thumb
        Apr 20 2014: re: 'many words spend, nothing said'


        End of message.

        • thumb
          Apr 20 2014: Lejan,
          You don't have to shorten your messages THAT much!!! LOL:>)

          One more thought......
          As a wee little lass, when my father was ranting and raging, I used to think.....why doesn't he just sit down and talk? Apparently, there was already a communication seed planted!!!
      • thumb
        Apr 20 2014: But ...

        Maybe it is because I am me, or because I am a man about which the rumor goes, there is a superior gender regarding communication skills, yet I only get into details about another persons life when this person interests me. Without this condition, I simply don't. :o)
      • thumb
        Apr 20 2014: 'Conveying a message, in my perception Lejan, is sharing information....not trying to convince anyone of anything.'

        On this I disagree in the given context.

        And although the therapeutic goal is named 'self change', its intention is 'to change', so whatever information is shared in this framework serves this very purpose and therefore partakes in an convincing process.

        Any society defines which form of violence it does not tolerate and which one it nurtures and only towards this definition individual actions are either rewarded or punished.

        'Cognitive self change is exactly that....."self change".....people have choices.'

        And so has the dog in an Pavlov's experiment. That statistically those choices tend towards a preferred reaction may also indicate that there are not many other alternatives?

        So if we arrange a situation in which only messages of similar content are conveyed, how much 'self' can we actually expect in behavioral 'change' if it finally occurs.

        If we take a look on the other side of the scale were societies domesticate violence for their services, this very 'self' is also targeted in an highly single sided environment, just with opposite 'polarization'.

        Again, don't get me wrong, as I am not calling for anarchy here, yet I don't see any way to convey any message without intention in any form of behavioral programming.

        And weather we convince by 'self reflective processes in single sided information environments, or by 'boot camp' methods is only matter of style, not of intention.
        • thumb
          Apr 21 2014: Lejan,
          You write..."And so has the dog in an Pavlov's experiment. That statistically those choices tend towards a preferred reaction may also indicate that there are not many other alternatives?"

          Yes, there may be a "preferred reaction", and that action/reaction is a choice that one can make for him/herself.....or not. The "cognitive self change" sessions were a choice for incarcerated people. To choose to attend, they already made a choice that they wanted to do something different than a life of crime. We offered some ideas regarding how they could make different choices. I had no expectations at all Lejan. We (co-facilitators) offered some ideas, and those who wanted to embrace the ideas did so.....those who chose not to accept and use the ideas did what they chose. I was not/am not attached to the outcome.

          Nor am I attached to the outcome of this conversation. You have your ideas, understanding, and intent, I have my ideas, understanding and intent. I can keep explaining the principles of "cognitive self change", and you can continue arguing with your own perception....so be it. The concept is simply another "tool" in the toolbox of life, which can be effectively communicated and used......or not:>)
      • thumb
        Apr 21 2014: So be it in our disagreement.
    • Apr 18 2014: yes well said
  • thumb
    Apr 6 2014: Our human language - languages, plural, actually - are just one tool we use for communication. Whether or not languages are utilized intelligently is an open question.

    We use words to try to express ourselves, to express something about our experience of life, to in some way try to share our life experiences with others. As such, the words are not our experiences, they are simply pointers towards what we have experienced.

    On the receiving side, listeners/readers focus on the words, phrases, sentences, and they try to dissect them to discern what they might mean. But this is done from the perspective of the life experiences of the listener/reader, which may or may not have much overlap with the life experiences of the speaker/writer. Words have denotative meaning - and often multiple meanings - that we can look up in a dictionary. They also have connotative meanings that we, as individuals or groups, might connect with them but that aren't widely shared.

    But the real meanings of the words and phrases we use are beyond even those denotative and connotative meanings. The real meanings are inside us, as acquired from and associated with our personal life experiences.

    That means that your understanding of what I write/say depends upon how much if any overlap there is between our life experiences, and upon how much and what kind of awareness you have of your life experiences that relate to my life experiences. So, to understand me, you need to look not at my words, but beyond them and deep within yourself to try to discern what we might share in common. This doesn't mean we need identical life experiences, because that's not possible, but we need sufficiently similar experiences so we can find some shared understanding and meaning. Otherwise, our word-based communication will be fraught with difficulty.

    Parsing words and phrases and arguing about their meanings is meaningless if we want to achieve real communication. Real communication happens beyond our words.
    • thumb
      Apr 6 2014: Thank you for your very observing comment, Carl. I agree with you practically on everything you've said,
      "translating" your words into my own understanding.

      Our human languages, unlike animal or plants direct and highly informative communications, offer only dry symbols. We then have to emotionally revive, and imaginatively animate them before we truly feel what they might mean for us.

      Even if we speak the same language each word might be interpreted variously, unless we explain our specific situation when and how our word shall be understood within our specific meaning. This makes us very talkative.

      If I just say "run" - people will run in all directions and some of the directions may turn to be deadly. ( It happens to us, humans, since we have invented our symbolic languages, provoking endless arguments and anger. )

      I think that all our human languages need serious improvements..
      • thumb
        Apr 6 2014: Thanks for your interesting paraphrasing of my comment, Vera. But you seem to be very focused on "human languages" and words, and you seem to have not quite grasped my main point - although your comment about imaginatively animating our dry symbols to feel what they might mean comes close. Unfortunately, I think fanciful imagination usually tends to take over, which results in the creative overlaying of imposed meaning rather than the revelation of intended meaning.

        I think we need to learn how to communicate more intelligently, which includes looking beyond the words, beyond whatever "language" we use, and into ourselves in order to discern what the speaker/writer intended to communicate, rather than parsing the words and phrases and laying our own interpretation on top of them. Looking into ourselves, into our own experience, to find where we might have overlap with the other person provides us with the only possibility we have of "getting inside" the other person so we can better understand them. And not just inside their head, but inside their experience of life. And this might involve some contemplation time and probing questions rather than the rapid responses exemplified by quick, witty "gottcha" comebacks so typical of many exchanges these days.

        Improvements in languages might provide better "pointers" but even the "pointers" we currently have aren't used with intelligence and wisdom, so further improvements, whatever they might be, wouldn't really provide any great benefit. If we simply feel what the words of another mean for us, personally, regardless the language, that won't necessarily reveal to us what the other person was feeling when choosing and using those words. So, I'm talking about a whole different, deeper level of listening/reading.
      • thumb
        Apr 9 2014: I'm finally getting back to this conversation to comment on intuition.

        Yes, our intuition is a very powerful way to know and understand, but it is not a way to communicate something TO another person. I can tell you what I am thinking, and I can tell you about my feelings and actions, by using words. I can't tell you anything by using my intuition, especially through typed words that appear on our screens, but even when I'm face-to-face with someone.

        On the other hand, you can use your intuition to try to discern what I'm trying to communicate, and this constitutes a looking-beyond-the-words in order to try to avoid becoming caught up in parsing the words and missing the intended meaning. And I, of course, can try to do the same thing while reading your words or listening to someone speak.

        And there is, of course, much more to in-person verbal communication than there is to written communication. Written words are missing characteristics such as rhythm, intonation, speed, volume, intensity, weight, vibration, all of which are present in spoken words. There is also the whole aspect of body language and Presence. Presence includes body language and more that people are not necessarily consciously aware of but which still influence communication, such as magnetism and other energetic phenomena.

        So, I trust in my intuition to help make meaning more clear as I communicate with someone, and I hope that the other person is also able to intuitively understand me, yet we typically need to use words for at least part of our communication. And, if we use our language-based communication intelligently, we should be able to look beyond the limitations of language to see and hear and respond intelligently, wisely and compassionately.
    • thumb
      Apr 10 2014: I believe that in order to understand what others try to say I must play every word as a character, image, event - in my mind.

      I mean, when we use language, talking, writing or reading, there is No direct instant communication with others, compared to when we exchange our sensations intuitively as any animals do.

      Therefore, our language requires time for this mental word-processing, based on our personal mental abilities to interpret received signals or pronounced words, also develop visible images, watch behaviors and other segments of the scenario which we try to understand and describe.

      Our language is the most slow process of any types of communication.
      • thumb
        Apr 10 2014: How do we "exchange our sensations intuitively?"

        Specifically, how do we SEND a sensation to another intuitively? I ask because SENDING is just as important an aspect of communication as is receiving.

        As I understand intuition it is, as I've mentioned, a capacity we have for receiving and processing, so for input rather than output.

        Yes, word language communication does take time, often a lot of time. That's because it is a method of the intellectual/thinking center (mental abilities) which, as I've mentioned elsewhere, our slowest center or way of operating.
  • thumb
    Apr 14 2014: “There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.”
    ― Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Collected Works
  • Apr 25 2014: If not, and if the Internet despite its drawbacks, is not the means of internationally causing humanity to realize, that despite color, race, religions, politics etc. we humanity are all one; of all the kindred kinds of our common biosphere; and we all have to cooperate to save it.

    Then the world will not end, but rather continue its evolutionary role, returning the Earth back to its former natural balance; and in the process the mythical flood of Noah; will be as nothing, compared to what has long been compounding, and accelerating in progress; and the insatiable greed of the capitalists and dictators, will have brought down upon all of us.
    • Apr 25 2014: As the global human population grows the average human being becomes older and wiser. We have the internet to acquire knowledge from now and more and more of that knowledge will originate from the old and wise.
  • Apr 20 2014: Yes if you consider a living tree which is so callously chopped down; that tree is a home to the birds and flying and crawling insects and creatures such as bats and squirrels etc; but it is as a whole universe to all the infinitesimal bugs and mites and bacteria and viruses etc: And equally our bodies are the homes, and the whole universe relative of mega trillions of bacteria that infest our skin, hair, and gastrointestinal tract etc etc.

    And what people do not realize is that just as we say the eyes are the windows of the soul, so at any time when we think we are alone; all of the senses of those trillions of infinitesimal creatures, are as observation windows of/to the universal intelligence.
  • thumb
    Apr 18 2014: What do you think regarding our sense of morality that gets so lost in the wording/interpretations?

    As scholars understand, Charles Darwin defends a naturalist approach to morality. It is my great interest in this Conversation/discussion. In The Descent of Man, he argues that moral behavior has outgrown from animal tendency for empathy through evolution of morality.

    By comparing human and animal behavior through a naturalist approach, he concludes that moral sense is based on the species' sociability, notably altruism.

    I think that if we ever try to learn from the best of the animal world, from its hidden from us interconnections and endless meanings of these interactions, our tool, as human language, would still be our main tool to communicate among ourselves. In any case it needs to be examined and re-examined over and over again, including its basic flaws..

    Learning basic ethics will help us get rid of lots of pretentiousness, tricks, stupidity and abuses of all sorts, so we would be able to spend more of our energy on sound creativity and true discoveries about ourselves and nature which our only ultimate school that we never graduate.
    • Apr 25 2014: Hi Vera

      Qt: As scholars understand, Charles Darwin defends a naturalist approach to morality. It is my great interest in this Conversation/discussion. In The Descent of Man, he argues that moral behavior has outgrown from animal tendency for empathy through evolution of morality.

      By comparing human and animal behavior through a naturalist approach, he concludes that moral sense is based on the species' sociability, notably altruism.

      I would agree with Darwin that moral behaviour did evolve through the animal kingdom, but also from the first living cell, up to the level of the animal kingdom. However the Descent of Man began, with the insatiable greed of ancient power hungry leaders/invaders/conquerors/dictators/monarchs; and more so with the later advent of Roman fascistic capitalism, which has evolved over time via the means of very many channels/paths/deceits - politics/networks/ “corporations” = multiple “cooperation’s”.

      To become an almost universal philosophy, of self-vested interests, and insatiable materialistic greed, that continues on the same basis of said self-vested interests, stirring up wars as a means of excusing their invasion’s.

      And in so doing, they continue their philosophy of privateering/pirating/taxing/coercing/under-rewarding, the energies/work/production of the common people; and thus with the power of the riches of their ill-gotten gains, gained by the power of their money and share markets, and the despicable lies of their quisling politicians, who while claiming to be, and paid by the public to serve and be right honourable public servants; instead serve their corporate masters in controlling, and selling off all of the common peoples funded assets/utilities, and all the common peoples common wealth, in the form of oil/minerals/forestry/agriculture.

      And in the vast darkness of this descent of man, I wonder if the Light of Universal Democracy/Cooperation stands a chance?
      • thumb
        Apr 25 2014: Not even a slightest doubt - there is no creature on earth that can torment and murder any livng being for just some psychotic IDEA, and moreover, enjoy every minute of the "process".

        First of all, if we want to survive as somewhat intelligent/intuitive creatures we must learn how to experience nature's reality - not our fantasies which are often sickly. Secondary-- I have no hope that this is going to happen - not in my life. I just admire rare individuals who are learning and care..Bless you.
  • Apr 17 2014: I know, but the rounds we have to make in our thought processes, and multi dimensional mind imaging etc, are far far more arduous, and torturous; and putting them into simple words of explanation is almost, if not at other times impossible.
  • MR T

    • +1
    Apr 16 2014: The annoyingly long shots where the actors attempt to convey meaning via intense gazes in the twilight movies series provide four strong cases against the value of non-verbal communication over verbal communication in all given situations and especially in relationships.
    • Apr 18 2014: Thats acting = interpretation not reality.
      • MR T

        • 0
        Apr 18 2014: Damn I thought it was real
        • thumb
          Apr 18 2014: MR T,
          I believe it IS real, and the one communicating has intent and interpretation, just as the one who listens and watches has intent and interpretation.

          No one knows for sure what is going on in the mind and heart of another person.....whether s/he is acting....or not. That is why it helps to pay attention to ALL parts of a communication....including words, intonation, facial expressions, eye contact and all other body language, and in the case of an on-line conversation.....how something is written and expressed. I believe there is value in non-verbal communication, and it is part of the whole experience of communication.

          Sometimes, if a person tries to tell us what is real and what is not real for us, s/he is projecting his/her personal interpretation, which may not be the same as our personal interpretation.
        • thumb
          Apr 18 2014: P.S.
          I was a professional actor for part of my life experience MR T, and I can tell you that when I was expressing something as a character on stage, it was very real for me in that moment, because I connected with the emotions in my self, which connected with the character to be able to genuinely feel what the character might be experiencing. That is how actors connect with the character to produce a good performance:>)

          We can also say that we "walk in another person's shoes"....feel compassion and empathy.
        • Apr 18 2014: Hi Mr T

          Did cover the subject/history of body language recognition in my reply to Carl Karasti in my post of 9th of April, if your interested.
  • thumb
    Apr 14 2014: “No matter how big the lie; repeat it often enough and the masses will regard it as the truth.”
    ― John F. Kennedy
  • Apr 14 2014: Cant say full power, but powerful enough to transmit joy; thing is about intuition it is very broad and varied and puzzling, and I am sure/certain that the amount of what is being received, from our subconscious, is far greater, than our conscious mind is able to recognize; and yet is influenced by it.
    • thumb
      Apr 14 2014: I'd say that we actually cannot communicate with any other living forms, not even one another, without this subconscious exchage of sensations and emotions. This is, I think the most basic way of commuunication among living beings. Our man-made language is then a second-hand, over processed type of exchange.
      • Apr 14 2014: Absolutely agree

        What people do not realize is that in order for any decision to be made, there has to be a debating/deciding phase before any action can be taken; and this applies equally in regard to ourselves, which is why "intuitively" we often say we are of two minds about something.

        Interesting also it used to be said the first sign of madness was talking to yourself, and the second was looking for hairs growing on the palms of your hands. However it has since been discovered that talking to yourself adds the element of auditory input which reinforces memory.

        I think it might have been George Bernard Shaw who said ( Yes I do talk to myself because I like to hear an intelligent person speak, and when an intelligent person speaks, I listen.
        • thumb
          Apr 14 2014: Super. The subject is amazing and very amusing..
  • Apr 13 2014: You received my "Interpretation/Translation" of what I am sensing every time I hear the dawn chorus, and if it is not an ode to joy, as well as all the birds checking out where all the others, are and, checking it out against the map in their head of where all the others of their flock and neighbour's should be; why does it always transmit a sense of joy, and so stir my soul.

    Thats a rhetorical question
    • thumb
      Apr 14 2014: Intuitive communication in full power?
  • Apr 13 2014: It seems to me that human language, in whatever form it takes, is the most developed language and has the highest potential for communicating ideas. This doesn't mean that everyone that uses it, uses it intelligently. Though there is no arguing there is a lot of time and effort spent here at Ted arguing semantics, I would have to disagree that we do not understand each other any better than a millennia ago. Maybe its just in my head (or my dreams), butitseems like the lines of division between us are dissolving. Nationalism is being seen by more and more people as a tool of manipulation and oppression, racism is being acknowledged as the ignorance it truly is, it seems that we are recognizing our commonalities more every day.
    • thumb
      Apr 13 2014: Jacob: Maybe you did not mean to do this but you just challanged me to somehow explain why so many of us think that we understand one another better than we did ages ago. But some of us do discover how differently we understand the same established standard words and concepts.

      Since prehistoric time we have come up with so many conventions thinking that we can perfectly imprint them "unchanged" against the law of nature: universal change is instantly transformoing our bodies, minds and memories.

      We're able to see how differently we use those conventional terms and ideas ONLY when discover how very differently we react on them.

      A million-men marching demostration may manifest a single slogan, but if we could see how it works in every single mind of that crowd we would be shocked. All movements and systems are doomed to fall apart, sooner or later, when members discover how differently they treat the "same" idea.

      Some of the powerful Hitler's ideological followers were devastated when eventually reconed that the dictator did not really meant what they, themselves, meant interpreting the same beautiful ideas about freedom and inspiration (lots of ideas were borrowed from great Friedrich Nietzsche, including "The essence of all beautiful art, all great art, is gratitude".)

      Another example is about how Justin Drew Bieber, a Canadian pop performer, confused the word "detrimental" with some other word, but used it over and over again without any clue what it basically means. Millions of young followers have "learned" from him.

      First we build something, and establish our concepts believing that they can serve a group or even "the whole world". When we then get into arguments and fights (war) we try to examin those ideas -- but only Backwards!

      Instead of revealing the nature's law -uniqueness of our perceptions of realities- we are blaming one another for interpreting concepts and terms wrongly - for millennia.

      Ted is a great example.
      • Apr 13 2014: But despite the shortcomings of language, specifically the different interpretations and understandings that gives rise to semantics(1.the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, includingformal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning.), surely we can see through these barriers inherent in language, or intuit the truth behind language, that we are more similar than different. Looking only at the last 4 or 5 generations, we can see that humankind as a whole is perceiving the falseness of ideas like other races being less human, or the generalisations that come with nationalism. An individual's limited understanding of the depth of meaning and uses of any word, relative to its context, doesn't negate the power of language to communicate thoughts, emotions, ideas, and intuitions. I forget where I heard/read it, but I always liked the idea that words are simply used to construct a "cup" that holds the meaning or idea that is being communicated. Intuition may be more useful internally, but without language of some form, how do we express ourselves to others or allow them to express themselves to us, allowing us to grow? By the way, didn't mean to challenge you personally, nothing I said was meant as an attack.
        • thumb
          Apr 13 2014: Good questions. I do not mean that we shall stop using our language beacuse it is ultimately confusing in many cases. I dream that we may improve it by admiting that it is not at all uniformed for all. We may learn again from wilderness how important to practice all sorts of exchage beyond those symbolic words.

          Not the words themselves are so important, but the way we use them, missuse them or confuse them.
    • Apr 18 2014: Yes indeed Jacob I believe you are right

      And as I believe/know there is a reason for/behind everything, I think the internet though digital and robotic in its current form, is a natural part of our and our planets evolutionary process of increasing interactive and better communication, between us all, on an inter-netting /international scale.

      And although I am not going to strike off on this tangent; it is interesting when you look at the evolutionary process and ask a question such as why did the Dinosaurs exist for 600 million years, then suddenly they were wiped out.

      Well if you consider that in order to produce the riches of minerals and arable soils and lands of today, what was needed was not just weather and oceanic erosion, but also ruddy great bulldozers to pulverize the trees, and grind the rocks in their bellies etc, and produce masses of nutrient/mineral rich fecal matter, and finally their huge bodies to compost and feed the ground; imo there is always a reason behind everything despite the fact we just cant see it .
  • thumb
    Apr 12 2014: It seems that some birds, especially in the morning hours when many of us are still a bit more on the quiet site, are as talkative and communicative as we are... well, after our first coffee, of course ...

    I often wonder what happened to them over night, which makes it that urgent to share it the very moment they get up ... I have no idea ... :o)

    For us I don't know and can't even imagine of any other, any better and more precise way to share information than by our language and this despite its imperfections and risks of misunderstandings.

    Confusion in the process is immanent and inevitable as we have no universally valid reference point to which all of us could calibrate against to synchronize meaning, intention, understanding and interpretation. Yet we have the choice to compensate for this to certain degrees, depending on how much time, patience, reflections and goodwill we are willing to spend into the communication with another being.

    Imagine we would have a technology to totally tap into the neural network of another individual with ours for direct communication to mutually partake in each others intellectual and emotional 'echo-chambers' to reduce the 'noise' and disturbances of the old fashioned externalization of spoken words.

    Would you use it?

    I think I wouldn't although I have to admit, that it would be tempting in certain situations.

    So lets continue our ongoing journey of communicative chaos and let us spent our times on words which seems to matter to us in whatever context, way and situation. Not any misunderstanding is necessary to be eradicated ... at times, on the contrary.

    Anything left unclear? Let me know!

    • thumb
      Apr 13 2014: You have some very challenging questions, Lejan, and I like them!

      I trust that our language is not at all our inborn ability.
      If a human baby is growing up among caring wolfs he will mimic their behavior and even sounds. Moreover, he will identify himself as a wolf. Unlike us, humans, No other creature would confuse its own kind with other kind, it "knows" who it is, what to eat and how to fly or run.

      I think, however, only humans can mimic other kinds so well, acting, sensing and feeling as those kinds. This fantastic inborn ability we, humans, possess is revealing our outstanding but primordial acting/artistic character. When we grow up we are trained to mimic made-up human language and, years later, feel that there is no other way for us to express ourselves.

      As I have mentioned in some of my posts, we still have this superb intuition while we are still very young babies, unaware, we replace intuition by conventions, including language without which we would not be accepted in our artificial human society.

      We learn backwards - first do our best to get rid of what is granted to us by nature and then are trying to put things under microscopes to dissect the nature's gift and "examine" what appears on the surface..

      It is only a dream but I can easily imagine that some of us would stop separating ourselves from mighty nature, as if we were some superior to it creatures, and begin to practice co-existence with a natural world by learning its ways "first hand". Well, we know that some rare individuals already keep practicing within nature's school as we speak..

      Good to hear from you my friend.
      • thumb
        Apr 13 2014: It is easy to rise 'challenging questions', Vera, and as long you do not expect me to know the answers, I can at least appear to have thought about many things ... :o)

        If language was not our inborn ability, as you trust, where then does it come from when we are using it in very early years? And why can we loose it when certain regions in our brains get damaged?

        It appears to me, that 'instinct' is limited to certain rudimentary behavioral patterns and abilities, which in themselves are highly complex indeed, such as 'walking', 'swimming' or 'suckling', yet inherently based on non-abstract levels within brains.

        It also seems, that as more abstract a brain will be capable of working once it has 'fully' developed, as less independent and more vulnerable it is at its beginning, yet not less capable, on the contrary.

        Other than we do later in school, no parent is teaching their newborn their language by introducing boring grammatical rules at the cradle. They introduce words, repeatedly, yet the abstract concept of them forms and grows only in capable brains, thus I expect us to have an inborn ability for language.

        So no matter how early and intensely we talk to newborn kittens, they will never form, even try to mimic anything alike in 'melody' we expose them to, leave alone to finally grasp its abstract meaning.

        On other primates, experiments have been conducted to test their language abilities by teaching them 'sign language', to bypass their vocal restrictions, and the results seem to support the assumption, that it takes a certain setup within animal brains for more abstract levels of communication to take place.

        Yet capacity or ability of a given brain does not unfold itself without stimulation. So when a human was to grow up among wolves, it would be no surprise that he/she copies what he/she was exposed to.

        Yet it would be interesting to know, if humans were able to fully understand any other animal language, such that of wolves ...
      • thumb
        Apr 13 2014: ... although I don't see any reason, why we couldn't.

        'Unlike us, humans, No other creature would confuse its own kind with other kind, it "knows" who it is, what to eat and how to fly or run.'

        Since Konrad Lorenz we know that this does not seem correct for all animals. On the contrary, because if you happen to be around when ducklings of geese or ducks hatch, and you are the first thing in their sight, you will be accepted as their leading figure, their parent instantly. This phenomenon is called 'Imprinting' in behavioral psychology and described as 'irreversible form of learning'.

        So even if mommy duck or goose arrives at the scene shortly after, they lost the chance to be accepted by their chicks to be what they actually are - their legal parent.

        When I was a child, I loved to seek for nests of wild ducks which lived not far away of my home near by a small creek, yet I was told by my mother to be aware of the 'imprinting', to not return home with a bunch of chicks following me wherever I go ... :o) And although I barely noticed parental advice, this one somehow got to me, as it didn't seem right to 'steal' the rightful motherhood of a female duck...

        I agree with you, that we loose many of our given, inbuilt and primordial abilities when we grow up, yet it also tells us, that those 'abilities' by itself have no distinct form and/or characteristic on their own, because if they had, it was likely for them to make themselves to be heard within and followed by us.

        So my question is, is this 'superb intuition' truly existent as some form of 'higher knowledge', preferably, 'better knowledge' than the ones we seem to follow later on, or do we 'just' interpret and romanticize that what we are missing in our current cultural state into an 'all true and innocent' knowledge we lost on our rite of passage as individuals and as societies...
        • thumb
          Apr 14 2014: Oh NO, Lejan. The ducks do NOT imitate or mimic humans - they have no doubts about who they really are, what to eat and how to swim. When very young, they just need something moving ahead navigating them in one direction. Siblings learn to stick together etc.

          Please do not mix these two drastically different sorts of behavior, mimicking your own kind or other kinds. Parrots do not imitate human voice for to speak, but mimic sounds they like, not for exchanging words at all.

          You maybe watch this documentary about very young Canadian gees/chicks who lost their parents and the farmer "replaced" them teaching them to fly - he had a small self-made plane that the young gees eventually followed. The Ducklings did Not mimic a human - but a Human imitated a Duck!

          My point is firm :(

          About us, fantastic humans. I think we are gifted with one inriguing talent - to mimic and imitate but we prefer this way to know ourselves.. by imitating others, constantly in our minds while thinking and imagining (the same thing) - we are able to act as if we are very many characters and things.. Often some characters are "fighting" inside us to be a dominating one.
      • thumb
        Apr 13 2014: Just by simple reason we could easily come to the conclusion, that our given arrangement on this planet is far from being sustainable, which makes the continuation of our behavior totally illogical.

        Yet as I do not see any sufficient change of it, of us, even if there was a ''superb intuition', we keep on rendering it irrelevant day by day.

        By the way, one of the reason of the cultural pessimism I learned over my years ... :o)
        • thumb
          Apr 14 2014: A new intriguing topic brewing from your thinking:

          We are alive unique beings because of unavoidable nature's laws of instability, unbalance, imperfection and impossiblity of any sort of exactness, perfect copies or units or repetitions etc Heraclitus explained this as Flux.

          Shall we learn about this in our elementary school?
      • thumb
        Apr 14 2014: I accept your explanation, Vera, although I do not share any aspect in it. :o)

        And I have only one rejection, which is, that I don't perceive our species as 'only humans' but as 'humans', one of many animal species, and as such part of nature and of it all.

        If we compensate with our rational, spiritual or emotional abilities for 'ever unknown to us realities' may well be, yet we wouldn't even know, leave alone notice, if John or Jane Doe was having it right ... :o)

        So far I am happy to recall at least some of my own and major motives I had in my life so far to reconstruct some of my decisions in the past to understand at least fractional what got me here today, which is what makes me very careful concerning my neighbors, birds and others ...:o)

        I know so little for certain, and that little what is, is uncertain in itself. So what if not this would keep us as curious as we, humans, tend to be, at least in positive, meaningful intentions? :o)
      • thumb
        Apr 14 2014: 'Shall we learn about this in our elementary school?'

        Is there a natural law of instability? Entropy maybe and its strive to increase disorder at the expense of of order? I am not certain, if it is, as I rather think that it matters only what one thinks about what 'order' is in order to determine weather it in- or decreases.

        My understanding of order for instance is highly connected with stability, as to me it determines the robustness of something against changes. So when the universe disperses itself towards increasing levels of entropy, which would lead to the definite destruction of all life as we know it, it actually transforms into a way more stable form than it was before.

        Actually, life as we know it seems only possible at the edges at which order disperses into chaos, so I wouldn't be surprised if we would find reflections of this within our very existence.

        Another question would be, how to deal with our imperfections? Do we accept them as part of us and misuse it as excuse not to change our behavior, or do we strive to improve. Yet then who comes to defines what improvement was and why?

        I am not familiar with Heraclitus Flux, yet I doubt that humans are incapable of certain levels of exactness, the question to me rather is, is this exactness compatible with our emotional abilities. This to me is where most of our errors stem from, as well as from our ability to 'blind out' on certain topics when they begin to conflict with our 'comfort zones'.

        So how do we teach our children in order to enable them to evolve society rather than to perpetuate the status quo?

        The most promising school concept I know of so far is the 'green school' concept, yet when one takes a closer look at it, it is highly incompatible with the current, yet dominant and ruling economic system, against which is has to go up against at some point in time:


        It remains to be seen to which level of exactness our species is capable of, or if we just rely on adaptation
        • thumb
          Apr 14 2014: Green School in Bali, Indonesia is giving its students a natural, holistic and student-centered education in one of the most amazing environments on the planet. It is a truly Beautiful example.

          I was trying to develop some 25 acre land surrounded by rugged mountains of Nevada desert. It was my attempt to build a school within a futuristic community, sustainable and ethical society. Small classses of very diverse characters, talents and minds learning of how to co-exist with nature and each other..
          some very costly attempt.. www.novatownsite.org
        • thumb
          Apr 14 2014: Lejan, may I ask you to clarify this, if you can find a few minutes :)

          You said "I am not familiar with Heraclitus Flux, yet I doubt that humans are incapable of certain levels of exactness, the question to me rather is, is this exactness compatible with our emotional abilities."

          Heraclitus, along with a few Greek sages over 2500 years old, was my first great teacher, I was 11 at that time. As a matter of fact their writing, whatever is left of them, have saved my sanity..(I was conviced by looking at people around me that humans were akmost all psychotic creatures)
        • Apr 16 2014: Interesting

          Take a sunny day, and sun light shining through a slatted window, and then gently blow a stream of thick smoke into it, and watch; the dispersed smoke then begins to coalesce and form into interacting curvatures of patterns; why because patterns are the geometric precursors, of the greater geometric formations of the universe; that all originate from a state of chaos; because the geometric rules that exist within the order of the universe; also exist within a state of chaos.

          Which is why energy may be converted, but it cannot be destroyed; and all energy though it may appear physically divided, energy as a holism is never disconnected, because it is an infinite and eternal holism.

          (or rather holism is the only word/nearism that is available to use to speak of the universe as whole, despite it being boundless and limitless IMO/conviction)
      • thumb
        Apr 14 2014: 'Oh NO, Lejan. The ducks do NOT imitate or mimic humans - they have no doubts about who they really are, what to eat and how to swim.'

        Absolutely! And I have been to blurry to get the point across I was going to make.

        Different from your perspective, I do not perceive ducklings being superior in knowing 'who they are' compared to us, as their neural limitations, which are mainly instinct driven, do not allow them to adjust to cognitive more challenging levels.

        They are restricted that much tn their 'if - then' instinct directives, that thy don't even try to mimic what they consider their parent. So in terms of learning, there is not much for them to need supervision for, which seems to be advantageous enough for this species to avoid distinction.

        Yet is this to be considered superior to 'know' about oneself?

        I have my doubts to see it that way, neither do I consider our cognitive abilities as 'the crown' of evolution, as it comes with a whole palette of different issues by which we confront not only our own species yet others as well.

        The price of our mental abilities seems to be manifold and reason for us to have lost the sense for being part of a bigger 'whole', although I question that a duck or goose has it as we may think they have.

        I also think that we are many 'characters' and 'things' in each individual, as you say, yet isn't this more enriching than restricting? :o)
        • thumb
          Apr 14 2014: Your question based on what I've said "I also think that we are many 'characters' and 'things' in each individual" ---and yours: "yet isn't this more enriching than restricting?"

          I'd like to think that it is our very special primordually theatrical imagination that we have been developing into what we call thinking (developing this for many millennia).

          I cannot say that it is our superiority. When I imagine myself as if I'm my cat, or a bird outside in my garden, I feel overwhelmed with endlessly complicated signals they might receive and interpret for themselvs in every instant ... We are, as humans, way more limited - when we try to understand our situation we perfer to observe only a framed simplified scenario. We are lost when we try to think on so many levels...
      • thumb
        Apr 14 2014: I may be wrong, yet it somehow feels, that you see any species but ours in harmony within itself and its surrounding. And as if it was our fault to be what we are.

        A motive which reminds me strongly on the teachings of the Christian church, by which we got kicked out of paradise, because we dared to eat from the tree of wisdom.

        Yet besides being my cat and probably yours as well, I wouldn't change place with any other species I know of if I had the change to do so. Would you?

        If I look at the birds in my garden, or elsewhere, I often feel thankful not be in their situation of being constantly alarmed by almost anything. It must feel terrible to be at the lower end of many others food-chains, which we could easily get a refreshing taste of if we would dare to leave our modern comfort zones to expose ourself to another reality nature constantly keeps stored for us.

        I also assume, that we would quickly re-learn to listen differently into nature and to sharpen other senses as well, if our very existence relied on it.

        I haven't done it yet, but I imagine I would behave quite differently walking in the woods of Canada than I do walk in the woods of Germany... because here we have no bears anymore.

        Thats why I do not measure my 'alienation' towards nature by abilities, but by training and necessity, because I believe we still have what it takes to survive in 'the wild', yet because it isn't pleasant, we have no reason to choose for it as long as we still have more comfortable alternatives.

        Besides a one way ticket to remote areas, it doesn't cost us a thing but our comfort to return to our origin and if we would make it for one year or two, I am pretty convinced, that we would listen differently to endlessly complicated signals yet knew which once to be aware of ...
      • thumb
        Apr 14 2014: Legan, Lehan ... today seems to be the day of creative permutation of names ... :o)

        Anyway, I am more than willing to 'find a few minutes' , Wera :o), to clarify your question about me not knowing about Heraclitus Flux, yet although I read your lines several times, I cant find a question I could actually answer.

        I am sorry to hear that you were surrounded by so many psychotic creatures at one time, and I am happy that some old Greeks could save your sanity in that period, yet what would you like me to answer here?

        That I missed over 2500 years the chance to finally read them? Is that part of a clarification I am not getting? :o)
        • thumb
          Apr 14 2014: So sloppy of me, Lejan, Yes, Lejan. I make typos but this one is unforgiving, I did not mean to do this those keys on a keyboard, "J" and "H", are right next to one another.) Wera
      • thumb
        Apr 14 2014: 'It was my attempt to build a school within a futuristic community ... some very costly attempt'

        By reading your words, it appears, that you attempt to realize this school didn't work out well for you?

        Sorry to hear, Vera, because much of what you are stating in the 'Philosophy' of NOVA TOWN is what makes the most sense to me to reorganize our societies for a better. Yet at the moment the ruling trend is the absolute opposite.
        • thumb
          Apr 14 2014: Well, we did preliminary preparation for the construction, also digging a very deep well, supplying us with the most pure water you can get on earth. But when we were about to sign the construction loan documents - and it was approved! that very local bank financially "collapsed"...it was very sudden and just crazy - our local economy has been ruined based on superb mass hysteria, screaming "real estate prices must-hit-the-bottom!" and properties were re-appraised by another moronic bunch - appraisers :) Means those properties were having new price-tags !! which could not even show the real value of the materials from which properties were built! Should never happen in Nevada - very independent from the rest of the country, local economy! Billions here are made by those casinos on millions of losers who're just multiplying in greater numbers - when they lose their jobs. Another psychological task to watch.

          P.S. I had to witness,first hand, how these moronic "experts"/ economists, are leading blind but highly emotional population to disasters. These moves were not just stupid but were undoubly demonstrating mass-psychotic behavior. How can you help these people? They would not know that famous British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli has been saying: NEVER TRUST EXPERTS.
      • thumb
        Apr 14 2014: 'Yes, Lejan. I make typos but this one is unforgiving ...'

        You mean there is nothing we could do about it and your soul has to carry this burden from now on till the end of times and eternity? That is quite something when one thinks about it ...

        Aren't typos considered as artistic expression in written form? No? Well, then from now on they are!

        Puh! That was close! Just to bad I didn't have this idea when I still was in elementary school ...


        I didn't sleep last night and have to make up for it now to be able to sing the early bird off its tree tomorrow and before dawn, as my first and official experiment to find out about this species intuition towards perfidious forms of unexpected and sweet human revenge ... :o)

        Less unexpected, experimental and bare of any revenge, WERA!, I'll reply to your second comment tomorrow too. ;o)

        Until then, good night sleep tight and don't let the bedbugs bite!

        • thumb
          Apr 14 2014: Sweet dreams and new discoveries while your mind is free of daily fussy mode of life.
      • thumb
        Apr 15 2014: Thank you, yet the night stayed dreamless to my consciousness.

        I always though, that the purest water I could get on this planet was that of a molten and distilled drill-core of a polar deep ice drill, less from the Nevada desert. Yet as both are a bit off my daily paths for direct comparison, I'll trust you on that.

        It is sad to hear, that your interesting project got destroyed by the absurdity of our sacred economic system, but as long as we keep it, we're not going to evolve in any meaningful and sustainable era.

        The casino business actually is the best place to study the basic principles into what the current economy has transformed into over the years, and as long as we allow this to happen, as long the casino owners will have their way...

        I once visited Atlantic City in a field study, and found one of the most saddest, artificial and faked places I have ever been to.
        • thumb
          Apr 15 2014: "The casino business actually is the best place to study the basic principles into what the current economy has transformed into over the years, and as long as we allow this to happen, as long the casino owners will have their way..."

          How much truth is in your point, Lejan! Brilliant! I have been watching that psychology of our brainless economy for 10 years..

          As I see casino business it is the most open book showing how our postmodern economy operates. Unlike casinos though, other industries we supposedly depend on, masquerade their tricky ways to get paid.. offering useless productions. (sorry for my typos!)

          I love casino open mentality - "come here and lose your money - we will take it and give you nothing. Clearly this is what you ask for."
        • thumb
          Apr 15 2014: I cannot give up on my Living Futuristic town..even though I just lost a fortune for no good reason (that project could create a fantastic boost to local economy even while getting built)

          I am truly no good to bother people and select a group of very energetic, devoted to this projects individuals for contacting donors or investors.

          I still have dependable architects who are ready to get back to me to work on new developing. Have scholars supporting me (in everything I do so far), have construction company who are excited to start building something "internationally astounding", and know innovative small industries.. but I have to pay them, at least something. I also lost the land.

          Am looking for some different way to start it all over again.

          Bless, for your thoughful words.
      • thumb
        Apr 16 2014: Did you ever think about the possibility, that it may hinder other individuals to contribute to a town, a life project which already carries the name of its initiator?

        It would certainly stop me, as even if I could completely identify with the conceptional idea behind it, it would 'feel' as if I my participation,all my energy was finally put into and for the purpose of another persons 'dream'.

        And unless this person wouldn't belong to my closest, inner circle, my skepticism over any 'personal cult' would exceed my wish to partake in a local makeover of society.

        What I found so far is, that nobody will ask for any money for their work, if they believe in what they are doing is right for them. Certainly, starting over from within a ruling system is calling for compromises on all sides, yet if doubts in the new idea stay to high, it is likely that it will fail.

        But I truly hope, that you'll find like-minded individuals, each with their own talents, ideas and passion to spark for a better society, a better world as one of countless local movements, which combine and unite without giving up their very unique, enriching diversity.

        So far I can't think of any better way to stop the wildfire of a brutal and inhumane trend of economic globalization ...

        After all, it is all about and on us!
        • thumb
          Apr 16 2014: Excellent point. I did not invent the name - those were my friends who did, for the "fun" and convinience..I guess.

          It is a PUBLIC project - for the PUBLIC.

          It is to make a very first step towards mutual and Active collaboration in building an actual thing. (not just for talks/ discussion or ideas). I deeply understand that its name shall be reflecting that collaboration. I'm far from being that egotistic idiot..and see that I cannot do all those things on my own. Well, I've invested endless work and a ton of money in it already, but have no sense of bitterness even though admit the progress was not that great yet, mostly my loses.

          One thing works great for sure - people get so Excited ! all sorts of people - but they want to come and live in that place when it is built!! some offered down payments we could not accept yet. Any stratigic idea how to start all over again?

          P.S. I'm the worst person to bag for donations/ investment, still must find someone who is experienced.
      • thumb
        Apr 16 2014: What about Kickstarter for fund raising?


        It may also serve as a platform to get you in touch with people who act on their excitement and not just cheer on it?

        But I am possibly the last person on this planet to give you good advice on funding. ;o)

        And yes, I did understand that your project is PUBLIC, and no, I do not experience you as an egoistic nor any other form of idiot. On the contrary. And I agree, that NOVA Town sounds better than Leningrad... ;o)

        I was just giving you my unfiltered impression as feedback. Thats all. And this from the worst possible source you didn't ask for: An almost impossible to show open excitement German AND mechanical engineer...

        So it can only go up from there ... LOL

        • thumb
          Apr 16 2014: I so appreaciate your vivid curiosity! Thanks for the website - I need to figure out what i can do with it..sounds familiar though.

          I enjoy all your comments very much as they are German, and perfectly Mechanically engineered :) they cannot get any more constructive!!

          I need to be cheered up a little, and especially by a far-away-fellow, someone like lively and intelligent yourself, because I'm closely surrounded by a bunch of dry-minded people.

          Best Regards from Leningrad, until I change the name.
      • thumb
        Apr 16 2014: I am afraid you are a bit late o change the name of Leningrad, 23 years to be precise, yet as the new/old one also pays homage to a personal cult, you may succeed to convince its residents to rename it again ... Good luck! :o)

        Then i was thinking of ways to intentionally cheer you up a bit, yet failed, but your situation must be very serious, if you consider me as an alternative to dry-minded people ... lol

        Yet concerning your funding needs, did you ever consider or think about to start a workers-cooperation, in short, coop, as a nucleus to slowly grow a like-minded community and shared financial means to transform it from there and over time into an alternative local society?

        So far, coops seem to me the most promising, most democratic way to change the given economy back towards the needs of and not against its people. Unlike Germany, the USA seems to have several successful coop's already from which one could probably learn.
        • thumb
          Apr 16 2014: Coop? Must learn about that. Good to hear from you :)

          (I'm half Austrian-German and half French, genetically, experiencing a little non-stop war in me. Well, a German Gene wants to be a learned philosopher suggesting colossal ideas, it demands reasons and logic, but also composes heavy poetical music. The other, French Gene, trusts it's a super chef, at the same time works on starting a revolution..)
      • thumb
        Apr 16 2014: Maybe 'Leningrad' wasn't that far fetched then ..., because thats what happened when the Russians merged the French Revolution with German philosophy ... ;o)

        And being that close to a symbol of capitalism as you are, some highly influential people would get pretty nervous if they knew about your 'explosive' genetic potential ... lol

        But if you also inherited a bit of the 'Austrian-cosiness' and the French 'Laissez-faire' and/or 'Joie de vivre', then no one but 'that few' would have any reason to fear your revolutionary thoughts!

        On coop's you may find some useful informations here:


        And closest initiative to your place here:


        Which also displays, similar to 'kickstarter', how this new form of crowd funding can be used to finance alternative ideas.

        And you are also a super chef? Good, very good, because only revolutions on an empty stomach make radical and unreflected moves! lol ;o)
    • Apr 13 2014: Lejan

      Quote: I often wonder what happened to them over night, which makes it that urgent to share it the very moment they get up ... I have no idea ... :o)

      The dawn chorus; an ode to joy to be alive, thats what its about: A Brand New Day.
      • thumb
        Apr 13 2014: So you understand what they are singing, Carl? You speak all their languages? And if so, would you consider to share your knowledge with ornithologists? Because as much as I know they haven't decoded most of it so far.

        Or are you sharing a romanticized interpretation about your observations on birds?

        We have a given tendency to humanize behavioral pattern of other animal species, which is quite a risky habit, yet seems to be part of our way to lend meaning and purpose to what surrounds us.

        By staying in your picture, I wonder, why only birds praise a brand new day, every day and does this makes wolves to be terribly out of sync when they howl the moon? Why don't humans sing in the morning on similar scale? Or can we take those who do under the morning shower take as remnants of a long forgotten habit of ours? And if so, why only under the shower? Did we sing when our branch of evolution still grew in the oceans? Are we descendants of sirens?

        If you have the pleasure to live in the countryside, you may come to notice, that the 'dawn chorus' does not stop after dawn, as they keep on singing. Every now and then you can have birds singing in the middle of the night, started by one individual and joined in by a view neighboring others. Impatient ones or anticipation?

        Again, I have no idea and your explanation does not give me any either. But thanks for sharing!
        • Apr 13 2014: Wolves are nocturnal. The moon illuminates the prey. Howling wolves and singing birds sound energetic, celebratory, celebrating the success of being energetic, to be able to fight another day/night, to me. I'm not like Carl, I daren't use the word "joy" in the context of an animal! "The dawn chorus; an ode to joy to be alive, thats what its about: A Brand New Day."
        • thumb
          Apr 13 2014: Lejan, would you accept my explanation?

          In order to truly understand a bird I have to become this bird. In order to understand my neighbor I have to become my neighbor. In order to understand a genius I must become this very genius.

          In order to somehow understand Nature and its ways, we have to become everything in it.

          But we're only humans, who can create and live in our own fantasies (horrific and beautiful, boring and stupid), compensating ourselves for the ever unknown to us realities.
        • thumb
          Apr 14 2014: Carl, Lejan, Rodrigo and Vera,
          I LOVE Carl's explanation of the morning bird chorus....makes me smile!...
          "The dawn chorus; an ode to joy to be alive, thats what its about: A Brand New Day."

          There is a beautiful red cardinal who visits me early every morning and while perched in the tree outside the bedroom window, begins his lovely chatter. I talk back to him from my bed, as I am waking up, although it is sometimes difficult to get my whistle mechanism working early in the morning!!! LOL

          He, and lots of other birds are around the gardens all day, and I continue to learn their language as we share the gardens:>) I believe I have learned the cardinal language pretty well because often, while biking with friends, if I hear a cardinal, I speak to him/her, and the bird follows me for awhile. My friends think this is pretty funny (she's talking to the birds again!)......I LOVE it!

          I believe we can communicate with all kinds of creatures, and one of the first steps is to really listen with all our senses....being aware of body language, expressions, and the possible meanings.

          A friend's dog always greets me at the door with teeth bared, snarling and ferocious sounding. If one pays attention only to the face, it might be frightening. However, we also see the dog's tail wagging enthusiastically....she is sending the message that she can be a VERY good watch dog, so don't mess with her.....AND......she recognizes me and I am welcome:>) After a minute of the snarling routine, she smiles and comes to me to be patted. It's kind of like some people snarling, when that is not really the message they choose to send:>)

          I could go on and on about connections with animals, including those I met in the wild, and the dogs, cats and horses who were my friends for years. Lots of people throughout history have communicated with animals, and that is not surprising.....we need to learn their language to be able to do so:>)
      • thumb
        Apr 13 2014: Yes, its 'sounds' energetic, yet this doesn't explain to me why our species, which obviously is highly capable to be celebratory, does not have anything alike, nor does it explain to me how you 'know' what reason other species have for their behavior.

        How do you know? And I mean knowing, not guessing!
        • Apr 13 2014: We do "have anything alike".
        • Apr 13 2014: I will be replying to you main question later, as I have other things I have to do first

          However for now, Empathy, intuition, relativity of personal experiences, and life, some knowledge, e.g. an article of perhaps a decade or more ago in New Scientist in regard to parrots called "Flying Primates",a documentary a while ago, A lady in USA showing that parrots can learn language and are capable of abstract thinking.

          Humour: While waiting for a tram under a palm tree, a small piece of wood fell down beside me, automatically looked up, could not see anything; a minute or two later a slightly larger piece hit me on the head. So looking up at the top of the palm I started to and continued backing away to get a more lateral view of the top of the palm. And then there they were two Galah's and as the one saw me, it immediately started bobbing its head and body up and down with its partner then joining.

          Now I am sure you can come up with some other cold clinical reasoning, or quote something from a scientific article etc; I could not care less, I loved it and it made my day.

          And yes as a child I used to cycle 25 miles out of the city to the nearest hills to listen to the dawn chorus; and spent nearly five months in isolation in the bush waking and listening to it every single day; and I only have to step out my door now, to listen to it if I want every day
        • Apr 16 2014: We do in childhood. and then we are educated away from it
      • thumb
        Apr 13 2014: @ Rodrigo Capucho Paulo :

        'We do "have anything alike".'

        I don't understand what you mean by that. Could you please explain more in detail an less in parables what you mean by that and what your understanding is?
      • thumb
        Apr 13 2014: Good to know you near to nature, but then, how and when do you draw the line for the 'dawn chorus' to be an expression of cheer joy of live to the ongoing concert of birds plain communicative business?

        It is interesting to me to know how you do that, because I cant.

        As I am aware that my empathy, my intuition can be dead wrong, because it has been in the past, how do you determine weather your impressions are right or less so and may originate from other sources of your imagination?

        And no, I do not perceive other animal species as plain and only instinct driven automata, on the contrary, and neither did I say nor do I think that only humans are capable of abstract or intelligent thinking, yet I do wonder how you can be that certain about the true meaning of an early birds song.

        So if my questions, my obvious doubts about your answer makes my line of thoughts, my lack of knowledge a 'cold clinical reasoning', I wonder how you may perceive science in general.

        What is 'cold' in my question to you how do you know what you claim? Because I don't 'buy' it immediately? Because I am lacking YOUR intuition? Or because it is difficult to you to explain your intuition to me?

        The latter was right on the subject, because there is no form to share 'intuition' in any way, neither a way to ever know how close we ever get even when we try.

        It is perfectly fine for me if you perceive the bird singing in the morning as you do, yet do allow me for not adopting it without asking for more detail about it.

        And if your only explanation was YOUR intuition, or YOUR empathy, than that was fine to me too, yet no reason for me to have any more idea about it than I had before, because as an argument I could work with and think about seriously, this wouldn't be enough at all, as of those I can imagine a multitude of possible explanations and reasons myself.

        So let me ask you again, how do you know that the birds singing in the morning is an 'ode to joy to be alive' and not something els
        • Apr 14 2014: Legan

          I will get back to you but life is pretty busy at the moment, have a ton of work to do revising and transferring work,

          For now, think of yourself being a father perched on a branch out there in the "wilderness", and near by is your mate in her nest with your offspring, and darkness of the night is coming down, whereby your vision will become limited, but your hearing will increase, as a means of increasing the sounds of of the night, as a means of detecting danger (snakes owls etc)

          Then you see the sun rising, you and your family have survived another night, and you have back your vision and the light of day, whereby you stand a better chance of evading and avoiding predators. And you can have the joy of feeding your kids and watching their antics etc and socializing with your flock etc etc. Would you not be overjoyed to see the Sun rising?

          Intuition can stem from empathy, empathy can stem from intuition and both are relative to reasoning, experiences, memories, emotions, knowledge in no particular order, as they apply eclectically to all different types of scenarios and ongoing life experiences:

          Each one of us represents a personal sphere of activity, relative to every other living creatures sphere of activity; and it is indeed interesting that whereas, in the past our personal spheres of activity would say in a small town, communicate and interact directly with the other peoples personal spheres of interaction, communication, and actions; our spheres of interactivity now are interacting on the larger scale of being international via the www.

          On second thoughts won't get back to you think this covers it.
      • thumb
        Apr 14 2014: @ Rodrigo Capucho Paulo:

        Yes, we have music, and what is your point in in this context in bringing this up?
        • Apr 14 2014: Lejan

          Our music is like birds' singing and wolves' howling. We have orgasm. The evolutionary purpose of orgasm is to make sure we procreate. Orgasm isn't a mutation exclusive to humans only. So, animals feel. I don't know what the evolutionary purpose of joy is in humans. Do you?
      • thumb
        Apr 14 2014: Thank you for sharing your imaginations, Karl.
      • thumb
        Apr 14 2014: @ Rodrigo Capucho Paulo:

        I assume joy to be an evolutionary feedback system, a stimulus within our nervous system to get into certain situations which have a high potential to have an positive effect on our physical and mental health.

        Pain would be its opposite, as it usually provokes avoidance in our behavior, where it is possible.

        Yet neither pain, nor joy are 'self conscious', thats why we can damage, even destroy ourselves by the misuse of drugs (which triggers joy) or by chronic pain, which can be inescapable.

        I am highly in doubt that our form of musical expression is anything alike when birds sing in melodic ways, because as much as I am aware of, this is their verbal way to communicate.

        That some of their dialects are pleasing to our ears is out of question to me, yet just because it aligns to our harmonic and melodic abilities, doesn't mean that it is intentionally applied to the same meaning as we would have it.

        I am certain that also birds will have something similar in stimulus what we call 'joy' as they experience pain as well, in my opinion. And I also think that they will have some vocabulary to express this. But I am highly in doubt, that this species is joyful all the time they open their beaks, and because I don't speak their language, I don't know what they are actually talking about.

        About certain tweets I can make assumptions about their meaning, as they are somewhat similar in my ears at similar situations. Such as when my cat walks in the garden, the likelihood of a certain response in birds tweeting is significantly increased, as if my cat isn't out. Yet to be certain on this I had to do some experiments to eliminate chance and personal imagination.
      • thumb
        Apr 14 2014: @ Colleen

        Thank you for sharing your experiences with animals
        • thumb
          Apr 14 2014: My pleasure Lejan:>)

          It is interesting and enjoyable to explore languages with various critters, and it is joyful to remember the experiences, so thank YOU for offering the opportunity:>)

          I watched a documentary about dogs not too long ago, based on studies by several researchers over a period of many years. They studied the evolution of dogs, and how they have adapted to humans. The question asked at the end of the presentation was....."are humans really more intelligent than dogs"? The information provided, caused me to seriously wonder!

          Critters, other than humans, seem to have developed stronger instinct/intuition....perhaps because they do not have complex languages? Although, dolphins have a pretty extensive vocabulary of their own, and still seem to understand humans.

          My feeling, in general, is that human languages may NOT be the most intelligent communication tool, and perhaps instinct/intuition are more beneficial? Interesting to ponder and explore:>)
      • thumb
        Apr 14 2014: No problem Colleen to have offered this unintentional opportunity to you and others to display a variety of interpretations and intuitions on human/animal encounters.

        And although many words have been exchanged on this, my question has not been answered for me so far to any degree, as the field of intuition withdraws itself naturally of any discussion and debate, as it is a matter of believe, not of argument.

        So it seems I am doomed to keep wondering about 'what happened to birds over night, which makes it that urgent to share it the very moment they get up', yet it it is just one of many things I wonder about ... :o)
        • thumb
          Apr 14 2014: Lejan,
          I suggest that because birds are so busy and engaged with life all day, they sleep very well at night....no sleep disturbances with them. So, when they arise, they are energetic, enthusiastic and eager to start the day. How does that sound?

          That's kind of how I arise in the morning, so I'm projecting!!! LOL:>)

          Please don't lose any sleep while pondering what happens to birds at night:>)
        • Apr 14 2014: Hi Legan

          Well I am enjoying this conversation, problem is I am torn between it and my other work, and I still owe Vera a reply; however as to the dawn chorus; we do not whether the birds are singing or not, or if in effect they are shouting to each other in the morning to check up on each other. However what we do know is that the whole of the singing or shouting is joyful in nature; and this is a common human consensus of our combined "intuitions"; which is defined by the fact that we refer to it as being "choral" in nature or a chorus of songs, and it transmits to us various accents of melody. that have varied effects upon our mood at that particular moment in time.

          Sometimes, it may bring a sense of peace after perhaps some sad or traumatic experience, or perhaps given a lighter mood of ourselves, a feeling of peace and tranquility, or a feeling of spirituality, sometimes a deep sense of being connected to and belonging to nature; and as we listen, it can even mellow our senses causing us to be even more observation of the creatures of nature within our vicinity; and these I mention are only a small number of the ways it can effect us. Simply and very inadequately put, whatever our mood, the dawn chorus serves to tune us in to the wonder of natural kingdom, which we are of and all belong to; and the hows and whys cannot be pinned down, and clinically categorized and placed into a vein, or veins of linear thinking; it is amorphous, it is eclectic, it is ever changing, and it is never miserable or depressing to our souls.

          As to the original question, I would say rather are human "languages" the most intelligent tool to use to communicate; and I would say no: The reason being that all creatures have the commonality of mental imagery (IMO)/picture; therefore an international iconic based language would serve us far better than all our written word languages, and would serve us well IT wise, and evolve over time, and our computers could be used to produce it.
      • thumb
        Apr 14 2014: Hi Carl,

        seems your fingers are twice as big as Vera's or your artistic expressions more towards the G's than her H's. Never mind, art has its own mysterious ways. :o)

        This conversation is open for eleven more days, I need to sleep and therefore will reply tomorrow to you last comment. Seems we are almost on the same page, if my half-closed eyes are not deceiving me ... in short, no pressure on the time issue ... :o)

      • thumb
        Apr 16 2014: Ok, less on the same page as I thought when I was tired ... ;o)

        What on earth explains a 'common human consensus of our combined "intuitions"?

        That the world was truly flat unless the idea of curvature got introduced by some clever individuals?

        That the pigmentation level of human skin indicates the 'value' of an individual?

        Where is this 'combined intuition' when we kill fish for food more cruel that we do with any other species? Maybe because they can't scream their way of suffering by suffocating into our 'intuition' melodically, or at all?

        Let me give you another example. I don't speak French. And besides a view words I don't understand it. But I love the melody of this language very much. Now, a clever Frenchman, knowing this, could keep insulting me for hours on end, cursing me, giving me all possible vulgar names, but as long as he or she would keep a friendly face and moderate voice, it would sound just beautiful to my ears AND intuition.

        And by this I would be totally fooled even by my OWN species.

        Now how precise can our 'intuition' be for a complete different species? What is our point of reference, for comparison? That bird singing can be melodic? That it triggers or matches certain harmonic responses within us?

        Yes, a bird in pain tweets different than when sitting in peace on a twig. Yet I do not dare to claim to know the difference for 'them' being in total joy compared to sharing total banalities - or worse - by only take the highly charming and melodic ways to my ears as evidence,leave alone 'intuitive' evidence.

        The existence of 'counter intuitive' phenomena may spark some deeper refection on this topic?

        And how would you intuitively feel if you was told, that the airplane you were on was 'intuitively' designed by some engineers who made it? Or that your medical doctor 'intuitively' want's to remove your vocal chords, because to his intuition they will soon develop cancer?
        • Apr 16 2014: 16/4/14 (2) Lejan

          quote" What on earth explains a 'common human consensus of our combined "intuitions"?

          Yes indeed; what does explain it; regardless of whether you consider it to be a vast (7 billion plus people) and rather implausible/impossible coincidence; our overall consensus of shared opinion is that the choral is joyous in nature; however that consensus has not been gained via logic, reason, or analysis, it does not matter whether you are a primitive person living in the jungle, or an educated person; its beauty and its joy touches each one of 7 billion souls equally; and it this is therefore an intuitive consensus, because it is internalized by each and every one of us.


          Fundamentally music is comprised of the mathematical ratios, of the tones/reverberations/acoustics/sounds, being integrated/inter played/interacted/organized in chord-ant patterns of various mood effecting music, e.g. symphonies, blues, jazz, rock, etc; so as Birds do not possess any mathematical knowledge, or means by which to consciously compose all of the varied and most wonderful of symphonies of glorious sound, that are taking place around the world, at each of their mornings.

          Who is the mathematician, and who is the conductor, of all of this wondrous music that is reaching out directly to each and every one of us, from the natural kingdom.
      • thumb
        Apr 16 2014: 'We do in childhood. and then we are educated away from it'

        Even as a child I did not understand the language of birds and what they were talking about then.
        • Apr 17 2014: I am referring to intuition not, bird language
      • thumb
        Apr 16 2014: 'Yes indeed; what does explain it; regardless of whether you consider it to be a vast (7 billion plus people) and rather implausible/impossible coincidence; our overall consensus of shared opinion is that the choral is joyous in nature'

        So the earth was physically flat at that time when the majority of people intuitively formed that consensus? Do you really believe that?

        Just in case you got the initial question wrong. I asked if you know, that birds are joyful when they sing in the morning, not if their singing is pleasant to you ears.
      • thumb
        Apr 16 2014: 'Which is why energy may be converted, but it cannot be destroyed; and all energy though it may appear physically divided, energy as a holism is never disconnected, because it is an infinite and eternal holism.'

        How do you know, that this 'holism' you mention is infinite and eternal? Another 'intuition'?
        • Apr 17 2014: Far too many years, and far too long a process of progressive reasoning and logic too be able be able condense down here; see my earlier post. And this is why I am "in the process" of learning how to build (Already lost my front page no matter. still it looks pretty good all the same, but really have got to get more practice in) my new web page and revising, condensing, and transferring. my work to it www.fromthecircletothesphere.com
      • thumb
        Apr 16 2014: 'Who is the mathematician, and who is the conductor, of all of this wondrous music that is reaching out directly to each and every one of us, from the natural kingdom.'

        'The mathematician', 'the conductor'?

        It is necessary to you to have 'something' or 'someone' which or who arranged that animals use different forms of noise to communicate? Would it hinder your personal joy to listen to some of those noises, if there wasn't anything/anyone?
      • thumb
        Apr 17 2014: 'I am referring to intuition not, bird language'

        Interesting you separate the two now after you explained the understanding of one by the other.
        • Apr 17 2014: No I did not! go back and check the conversation; at no time have I said that anyone can understand bird language; I do not know nor does anyone to my knowledge know of any real Dr Doolittles.

          You are confusing intuition combined with, experiences,reasoning, knowledge and empathy, = you cannot in reality put yourself in any other living creatures place, nor can you walk a mile in another persons shoes; but logic reason and intelligence combined with empathy and intuition; can serve to build a general picture, if you have lived in isolation in the bush with all its strange noises at night, it does not take a great a great of imagination, to imagine, that birds who have no form of protection from predators through the night, are relieved to see the sun rise, and that their family have survived.

          And if you cannot equate with that, your loss.
      • thumb
        Apr 17 2014: 'Far too many years, and far too long a process of progressive reasoning and logic too be able be able condense down here. See my earlier post.'

        I did see your earlier post, yet there is no explanation why out of the existence of geometrical pattern in 'the whole' should follow an infinite and eternal existence of 'the whole', as you are claiming.

        Your take on 'Infinity and Eternity' on your web-page doesn't explain anything either as you conclude to 'go home and have a beer, and forget about it altogether', whereby 'it' was to count sheep on an imaginary plain from an imaginary tower.

        In case you followed your own advice, on what other thoughts do you base your claim on? Of special interest to me is, which exact insight of yours marks the line between guessing and knowing that 'the whole' or 'holism', as you framed it, has this remarkable features and no others.

        Or do we go now from 'I can't explain, its intuition' to 'I can't explain, its way to complicated'?
        • Apr 17 2014: Oh yes Lejan

          I am able to condense all the years of my thought processes down, into a few sentences; I do not thinks so get real:

          As I have said I am in the process of revising and condensing and transferring my work from my original web page to the new one; on top of this I have to learn how to build this new web page.

          Plus who do you think you are, that you someone special, that I should spend the time I am I sorely need, in order to carry on and complete that process on you.

          You can wait along with everyone else, otherwise try devoting your own mind to finding the answers to your questions; but the first step towards that, is re-questioning all you have been taught.

          You might begin with the 0 and 360 point of a circle (and a circle is comprised of energy) and the realization that a circle ("cycles" of energy - fundamental substance = energy = particles = matter = atoms = solid matter = order, and ultimate order = critical mass - Novas - chaos = back to fundamental substance) /cycle is mathematically both infinite and eternal; because the 0/360 alpha omega point, can be anywhere on the circle; and thus a circle has no beginning or ending, because its ending is its beginning, and its beginning is its ending.

          Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, which means that it is infinite and eternal (you cannot get rid of it, because it simply converts into another form).

          And the reason is, because it is cyclic (recycles) in nature.

          But you are entitled to believe whatever you want to, and as I have had enough of dealing with closed minds recently and their abuse; I am leaving it there.
      • thumb
        Apr 17 2014: '... but logic reason and intelligence combined with empathy and intuition; can serve to build a general picture'

        Without question, Carl, all of what you mentioned 'can serve to build a general picture', and my question on you was, how do you determine weather or not those 'pictures' match with the reality of a species, which language you do not understand.

        To me there is no obvious reason why the ending of the night would cause any bird to sing an 'ode to joy to be alive', as you named it, because dawn to them only marks the change of their main predators from nocturnal ones to 'daylight hunters', which to my limited knowledge, are far more in cheer numbers than there are at night.

        Earthbound predators, like cats for instance, hunt for birds night AND day, and have, like many other hunters, binaural hearing and this not only for aesthetic reasons as a 'homage on symmetry', but also to pinpoint the location of noise in space for targeting reasons.

        So in a way, being on that many menus than most birds are, tweeting away their current position at any time of the day is actually the most stupid thing they could possibly do if they are so 'joyful' to have made it into 'another day'.

        For them, 'silence is golden' in the run of survival.

        In analogy to that, I wonder, why Anne Frank did NOT open the window of her and her family hiding place so sing out loud her joy to have made another day escaping the Nazis who hunted them for their ethnicity.

        Did she have no reason to joyfully greet another day? Or was she just smart enough to remain silent about it and to keep it to herself?

        If I was to assume about her motives not to sing aloud, I would go for her cleverness and would act the same way if I ever had to.

        I can only assume that our species has been highly aware about the fact, that the noise it makes could attract predators and acted more wisely upon it while being at some lower end of the general food chain.
        • Apr 17 2014: Lejan

          No you don't get it because you are not intuitive and than is quiet clear; if you were you would know that intuition, is not something that you can coldly and clinically analyze and explain; no more so than you can explain what is the soul.

          If you truly wish to understand intuition, then you have too do the hard yards yourself, because the answer to all the questions you are asking, you already have the answers to, but you will have to go very deep into your psyche, and pass through the fires before you do; it is not pleasant, I do assure you.
        • thumb
          Apr 18 2014: Lejan and Carl,
          For what it is worth Lejan, based on reading lots of your comments over the years, I think you are very intuitive:>)

          I do not interpret your comment above as trying to explain intuition. It appears to me that you are offering different possibilities regarding why birds sing?

          Carl writes..."if you were (intuitive) you would know that intuition, is not something that you can coldly and clinically analyze and explain; no more so than you can explain what is the soul."

          And he continues to try to explain it....based on his personal interpretation....???

          I agree with Carl's insightful statement in another comment....
          "but the first step towards that, is re-questioning all you have been taught."

          For Carl to decide that you "are not intuitive", seems rather harsh and not very logical, intuitive or realistic.....and also.....not following his own advice to- "re-question"
      • thumb
        Apr 17 2014: Why humans should now assume that bird are joyful and not just plain clueless about the risks they are actually taking in tweeting away their position, remains unanswered to me still.

        I assume that once we've gotten at top of the food-chain, we rather tend to romanticize about it, by our inborn ability of imagination.

        Do I like the birds singing? Yes, very much so, yet I enjoy it as it is and without speculating about its meaning, purpose and motivation.
        • Apr 17 2014: Then why bother asking the questions; and what you are clearly showing me, is that you are not really interested at all; and any response given is a waste of my life hours, which are irreplaceable; and better spent on my work.

          So don't bother asking anymore
      • thumb
        Apr 17 2014: I think I asked you quite a real question, Carl, about your 'insights' and what you claim to know about certain things, and why this should indicate to be 'closed minded' and 'abusive' remains unclear to me as well.

        'Plus who do you think you are, that you someone special, that I should spend the time I am I sorely need, in order to carry on and complete that process on you.'

        I think I am no more special than anybody else is, Carl, yet it wasn't me who urged you to reply on my comment about birds. It was you who made that decision, alongside with your claim about the purpose of birds singing in the morning.

        Now, do you really expect me to read, leave alone wait, for your thoughts in html format?

        I already read your current take on 'eternity and infinity' and it didn't explain anything to me, neither in itself, nor in the given context you opened by your free choice to partake in this conversation.

        So can it be, that people who question your explanations about 'the world, the universe and anything' are discomforting you?

        Certainly you are free to leave this conversation at any time, and I am perfectly fine with that, but the reactions in your last comment leaves a certain taste to me about your true intentions when exchanging your mind with those of others ...

        Anyway, thanks for sharing your views.
      • thumb
        Apr 17 2014: 'Then why bother asking the questions; and what you are clearly showing me, is that you are not really interested at all; and any response given is a waste of my life hours, which are irreplaceable; and better spent on my work.

        So don't bother asking anymore'

        I thought you already left this conversation... but obviously you didn't, so I'll answer:

        Allow me to stress again the fact, that it wasn't me who urged you into this conversation, nor was it me who claimed to know what causes birds to sing in the morning. On the contrary, as I clearly mentioned, that 'I have no idea' about it.

        Then you offered to me 'your view' on it to fill me in ideas I was missing, which was fine, although the topic itself was more meant as a funny side-note rather than an 'open invitation' for discussion, yet I am flexible there as not all intentions become clear to others and so I didn't mind to move on from there.

        Yet now I should 'don't bother asking anymore'? How comes that? Because your explanations didn't resonate in me? I am sorry for that Carl, but so far, they just don't and this even on more than 'just' rational levels.

        But this seems not enough, as you move on accusing me to be 'not really interested at all'... because of what? That I don't fall on my knees in awe about your explanations AND the time you spent in sharing them with me ...?

        Oh dear, I must have truly proofed to be not worthy of your attention ... :o)
        • Apr 17 2014: Lejan

          QT: Allow me to stress again the fact, that it wasn't me who urged you into this conversation, nor was it me who claimed to know what causes birds to sing in the morning. On the contrary, as I clearly mentioned, that 'I have no idea' about it.

          Then you offered to me 'your view' on it to fill me in ideas I was missing, which was fine, although the topic itself was more meant as a funny side-note rather than an 'open invitation' for discussion, yet I am flexible there as not all intentions become clear to others and so I didn't mind to move on from there.


          1.No one needs an invite, it is an "Internationally open conversation"

          2. I simply made joyful comment, comment in regard to what I consider to be one of natures wonders, and a thing of beauty and inspiration; and this was simply accepted by others without any need of explanation, apart from an attuned comment from Colleen: Why! Intuition which comes of being closer/more attuned with the resonation's extending from the natural kingdom.

          3. However you chose not to let me freely express my feelings of joy; instead you then chose to dissect and attack it, from your own cold and clinically based perspective, and so called and black and white political correctness.

          Which is the same mode of thinking, and method used in the law courts demanding yes and no answers; that do not contain the grey areas of the context of mitigating circumstances etc, that has resulted in a conservative estimate of 1 - 5 on death row being innocent.

          So thanks for spoiling it for me at least, as I cannot speak for others;
        • thumb
          Apr 18 2014: Lejan and Carl,
          Since Carl mentions my name in the previous comment, I feel I can pop in here:>)

          Yes Carl, I think/feel your comment about the birds waking up to the new day is beautiful, and that is what I clearly expressed.

          Based on my intuitive and logical observations while reading all the comments, I would not say that Lejan is the one "attacking" in your shared conversation. My perception is that he is adding to the conversation by questioning for further clarification and understanding.

          He cannot "spoil" anything for you, and you COULD follow your own advice...."...the first step towards that, is re-questioning all you have been taught."

          You have the choice to continue the conversation, quit the conversation, perceive the questions differently than you are apparently perceiving, respond differently, etc. etc. etc....the choices are unlimited. No one has the ability to "spoil" a conversation for you, unless you expect him/her to agree with you all the time?
      • thumb
        Apr 17 2014: 'Lejan

        No you don't get it because you are not intuitive and than is quiet clear; if you were you would know that intuition, is not something that you can coldly and clinically analyze and explain; no more so than you can explain what is the soul.

        If you truly wish to understand intuition, then you have too do the hard yards yourself, because the answer to all the questions you are asking, you already have the answers to, but you will have to go very deep into your psyche, and pass through the fires before you do; it is not pleasant, I do assure you.'

        You seem to need several attempts to finally leave this conversation, Carl, but thats OK.

        You now claim that I am 'not intuitive' and that one has 'to go very deep into your psyche, and pass through the fires before' one finds the 'answer to all the questions'.

        Now, how do you know that I haven't passed 'my fires' yet found different answers than yours within it?

        How do you know that there is only one set of 'valid answers' and of 'valid intuition'?

        Because you found yours? Is that your measure of the 'one and only truth'?

        Give me a break!

        Thats the same source religions made and make their claims from to be 'the only valid one'.

        And given your reactions towards me, it appears that you carry the same shallow motive to claim authority over others to have found the 'infinite answer and knowledge of it all'.

        We've heard that many times before throughout history and still do!

        So good luck in spreading your 'yet another enlightenment' successfully on the web, as it may take some truly serious skills in programming and web-design to not get lost among all the other promises already out there ...

      • thumb
        Apr 17 2014: I am sorry if I spoiled your feeling of joyful expression, Carl, yet with no word you indicated that your comment about the dawn chorus was your personal interpretation of it.

        'The dawn chorus; an ode to joy to be alive, thats what its about: A Brand New Day.'

        If you would have added to this statement something like 'thats how I see it' or 'thats what I think it is' I would not have asked any further.

        But don't expect me or others to leave uncommented a statement which contains 'thats what its about' without asking for further clarification why that should be the case.

        You can see this world as you like, that is perfectly fine with me, you can also state whatever you like, this is also perfectly fine with me, yet as you rightly stated yourself, an 'Internationally open conversation' does not need an invitation to ask further questions and also to question what you are stating.

        When disagreement appears to you as 'cold and clinically' and makes you feel that someone 'dissect and attack' your thoughts, then I can only conclude that you have not come across often with other and independent thinkers, as otherwise you would already know how to deal with it.

        Many of your reactions and accusations I found when I was debating with very religious people, who seem to feel very uncomfortable when someone keeps asking simple questions about their claims.

        To me there is nothing cold in logic, reason and seeking for evidence, as I have no other filter than that against arbitrariness, fallacy and lies.

        It may surprise you after this discussion, that I love to imagine natures 'little spirits' when I walk through the countryside or the woods. That elves, dwarf's, gnomes and trolls and many more have their very business and meaning in all of this. And thinking this has a calming effect on my mind when it is troubled by something, or just enjoyable when my mood is fine.

        I imagine and enjoy this despite the fact that I have no evidence about any of those spirits.
        • Apr 18 2014: Lejan

          Please refer to my reply to Vera.

          I take your point. however somethings are spontaneous and just need to be said; and the term thats what its about, means that is my opinion, if I had to qualify everything I said so meticulously; I would be dead before I would get to say anything meaningful, or worthwhile.

          AS to the religions agreed, but just do not look to the religions look at the sciences and everything else with a healthy degree of skepticism; "rhetorical question" in regard to everyday reality.

          Why is it that we have no choice but to allow the Banks to receive our earnings, as a major part of their income which they use to charge us and everyone else interest on it, prior to their placing it on paper as being our income: And why is it that they have been allowed to charge me and all others to get our own money back, that they have already been charging us all interest on: And why is it that they get "our tax payers money" at low interest rates from the reserve banks at very low interest; and then allowed to charge us all 6 or more times that low interest rate, on our own money "that has been given to them by our privatizing of "our public - common wealth" owned assets; and sell bonds internationally in regard to our future GDP; or put put more simply, sell all of our futures, into international bondage.

          People need to stop simply looking into the face of the realities of life, and instead look through into, and beyond the eyes of that face, and observe the realities that lie beyond the falsities of the the facades, of life.

          As to elves, dwarves, trolls etc I have no such imaginings: I also have to thank you (hopefully if successful in my search) as you stimulated the thought to arise, that someone must have recorded the Dawn Chorus on "vinyl", so I am going onto google to search for it; and if you could listen to it on an analogue stereo system, rather than CD, you might feel feel it touch your soul.

          Will get back to you.
      • thumb
        Apr 17 2014: But unless I have evidence, verifiable evidence, I take it as my very imagination and nothing else.

        But it stays mine and I do not expect anyone else to share it. In fact, I don't often share this world and others I have with other people, as I feel very content to have it as it is within me.

        So if YOU experience the dawn chorus as an ode to joy to be alive, YOU are more than welcome to do so! Yet make it visible to others that this is your believe and not a fact, because then it may happen what happened and you feel dissected and attacked by others which happen to have different views and/or experiences or simply keep asking what makes you certain to claim such things...
        • thumb
          Apr 18 2014: Lejan,
          I'm pretty sure you know this, and I am simply reinforcing the idea:>)

          Some folks believe that whatever s/he thinks, feels or believes is fact. Some folks have done a lot of exploration in their lives (as you and I have as well), and believe that what they have discovered is the one and only truth. If that is their underlying belief, any questioning may disrupt that belief and feel like an attack.

          That is why, unless I have verifiable evidence, I preface most comments with....I believe...my feeling....my thought.....my perception, perspective etc. is.....bla....bla....bla........

          Then sometimes, I'm accused of making it "all about me"!!! LOL

          If some folks want to be argumentative, s/he will do so, and whatever we say, might feel like "spoiling" their experience when we are not agreeing. That is one very interesting dynamic with communications:>)
  • Apr 12 2014: Let's give you an example: suppose weather is too hot. Some people talk a lot to mention that. I mean really a lot :)
    and some people just by moving their shirt shows us what they want to see; and we instantly understand them.
    However, our effort should not be just reducing number of words. I completely agree with what you say "I also think if we have enough patience we can communicate more peacefully and meaningfully"
    We should learn how to make our talks more intellectual by patience and thinking about words and body language; and more importantly what we want to say. I met someone recently and we have a talk about half on hour. I'll try to follow his logic in talking. While we are talking, I realize that I'm talking just about what I've seen in his clothes. What a great color for your shirt? Wow, I've had one model like this before. Great shoes, wonderful ring ...
    So, you just waste your time no matter how you want to choose words and speak.
    The broad question is why we need communicate? We do not get people's experience without talking with them? How we can express our feelings by more efficient way to ourselves?
    Give me your opinion Vera
    • thumb
      Apr 12 2014: So true, Esmail. Like to read your posts and questions.

      "The broad question is why we need communicate? We do not get people's experience without talking with them? How we can express our feelings by more efficient way to ourselves?
      Give me your opinion Vera"

      These are fundamental questions. I think that our man-made language has a different nature compared with languages in wildernes which are universal and instantaneous.

      Our language is very artificial because it is unified as some collective symbols, while everyone of us is sensing the world uniquely. Our language is the slowest method of communication provoking endless problems. Why?

      Just my thoughts. Human Language has a long history and started forming into what we use today, in prehistoric times. It has been developed based on our prehistoric conscious imagination that inspire us to what we call "think".

      Without imagining we cannot produce any thought. Every word I believe was going through long-time transformations, from images depicted by a very emotional caveman artist on the walls of his cave, to symbolic and conventional signs that we call words.

      When we deal with very superficial stages of our imagination our conscious minds desperately want to see some order/logic, which are impossible for us to perceive in nature. We try to "separate" ourselves and our deeds from mighty nature using our own ways. One of them is our made-up language. It is not the most intelligent way but I see the reason which is hidden in our highly excited nature, We perfer amusing imagination, scenarios and games we want to play under our own control, while replacing instinctive direct interactions with real nature.

      This post-space is too small. If you wish me to contnue please let me know. Thank you!
  • Apr 12 2014: Unfortunately I don't have time to read all posts and I just read initial posts. I see even people here have problem in communicate their understanding or they need a lot of explanations to mention what they really want to say based on their audience feedback. This is really an interesting question that what is the efficient way to communicate with each other? How we can describe our feeling in shortest time in a very straight-forward and understandable way to out audience?
    I think first of all you need to know your audience (their words and knowledge). You may have a lot of thoughts and words in your mind in order to describe an experience or to talk about something. Then, a combination of body-language and appropriate selection of words could help you to describe what exactly you mean.I think everyone has some friends that they can enjoy and understand each other in 20min more than some other friends talking about 2 hours in the same concept and with the same knowledge. The main problem nowadays is people have a lot of thoughts in their minds and they don't think about words and body-language that we need. I believe we have more than enough words and we don't need to change our language.
    • thumb
      Apr 12 2014: Esmail, I think I understand what you mean.
      I also think if we have enough patience we can communicate more peacefully and meaningfully.

      We can watch so very many people around us talking endlessly but they mostly arguing endlessly. We might learn that we do not need so many words to explain ourselves.

      You said: " I believe we have more than enough words and we don't need to change our language." Do you mean if we speak just the way we speak we still have a good chance to express ourselvs fairly enough? I agree.
  • thumb
    Apr 10 2014: In my favorite book "The Giver" children are taught how incredibly important it is to choose the right words. In one scenario a very young boy is in line for lunch and makes the statement "I'm starving". The instructor immediately pulls the boy aside and explains that there is a very big difference between starving and simply being hungry.

    I feel like society has gotten rather sloppy when it comes to conveying a message with clarity and then communicating becomes a taxing ordeal. Language, culture, and experiences become barriers as we attempt to understand one another.

    There was a comedian I watched a while back who had a bit about how people misuse the word "amazing". He stated that his friend told him a bucket of chicken was "amazing". The comedian couldn't wrap his head around the idea that chicken, without doing anything out of the ordinary aside from taste good, could possibly be "amazing".

    That doesn't entirely answer your question, but it's just something I felt compelled to share.
    • thumb
      Apr 10 2014: Ang, your message is more than just a comment. Language that is proven by great literature and philosophy to be a sensative tool is used by many as some sloppy hammer. The result is an ugly deformed "expression"
      English is not my first language. Well, at least I'm trying my best not to deform it.

      Everyone who wants to be a little more clear towards his/her thoughts shall try to master language and get rid of senseless junk words. Thank you.
      • thumb
        Apr 10 2014: Our rapidly declining vocabularies cause me to view our future communication skills with the apprehension I felt while reading Orwell's 1984.

        The ability to communicate complex messages with a firm grasp and a full understanding of content and consequences is empowering.

        What would our thoughts be without a language of any kind? I'm not saying it can't happen, I just don't know any other way to think.
        • thumb
          Apr 10 2014: "The ability to communicate complex messages with a firm grasp and a full understanding of content and consequences is empowering."

          You've said it, Ang.
          Traditionally one's mentality and cultural level have been judged by the way one could speak and write.
  • Apr 9 2014: Addendum

    Only trained actors are able to fake body language, and even then this is in regard to their having studied the mannerisms, and the gestures another person, relative to the role and situations that person was involved in; but their/our own body language is governed by the autonomic nervous system; therefore involuntary and extremely difficult to suppress. And only highly trained agents involved in e.g the field of espionage are able to do so.
    • thumb
      Apr 9 2014: Carl, I have a couple of minutes to reply - must go back to work- sorry!

      We are ALL ACTORS and our inborn acting abilities are primordial. There is no living creature who can survive without expressing itself in various ways.

      Theatrical Acting as a form of art is entirely based on this very inborn instinctive ability to mimic others.

      We cannot avoid this acting training and self-training in our early childhood. Even the use of our language demands us to act as others we see, but in our minds. We have to do this to somehow undertand others, we try to feel like others.

      Our imagination is all about internal acting.

      In our minds we must imaginatively play as things, numbers, trees, stars, the universe, images under our microscope, images we love or hate. Otherwise we cannot know or understand anything.

      The process of our everyday thinking is based on internal acting on the stage of our own conscious theater of reality. We know no reality until we produce its scenarious within our minds (not in brains!) Because No one is able to jump out of his mind in order to perceive outer world directly as it is, our our reality is the product of our internal digestion of unique sensations.

      This very primordial inborn ability to build our internal reality where our Selfs may live and survive - is the most vital of all our abilities.

      I think that there is no other animals as far as we may know who can mimic others so well as human babies. We are one of the most helpless sort of babies - we do not "know" who we are in our society until we are given names and IDs. However, we might easily mimic those who usually take care of us, whether they are humans, monkeys, dogs or wolfs. A human baby would think he is a wolf if is raised by wolfs, but no baby bird, dog or cat would confuse itself with other kinds. A tiny bird knows well who it is, what to eat, how to fly and survive.

      I share with you with new thoughts based on our epistemology research.
      • Apr 9 2014: Hi Vera

        “No disagreement”! And your post contains a lot of what I would have wanted to also express in my post, also quote WS “All the worlds a stage and we the actors upon it”.

        All the worlds a playground, filled with an enormous number of variant individuals, and their play groups. And we are all the “Emoter’s” who exist within the hostile or friendly cascades, of its emotionally generated playing fields; not WS me.

        Will “pause” there with this post, as I need to collect together my trains of thought, and integrate them before continuing.
        • thumb
          Apr 9 2014: I remember your, I mean WS' super quote about our life as a stage where we are all involved.

          We go even much further here, in our conversation, saying that our very minds are playhouses themselves, moreover, I'd say that each of us must stage whatever we perceive and observe in our very unique theaters of minds - or we see nothing, and neither would be able to produce any thoungt nor communicate with anyone.

          Please continue, take your time. What we are discussing here is very new and daring even for philosophers. I'd call it a new field of our knowledge about our very nature of mind.

          I'd describe this thinking as - trying to find out why our minds must be so unavoidably "theatrical".
  • thumb
    Apr 9 2014: I still say I trust body language more than words---by experience. Of course many would disagree since only a few are good at reading body language. Most TSA agents are unreliable whatever they do that's why there are always complaints against them. But most investigators and police officers are very good at reading body language. The irony is that reading body language is mostly intuitive and most law enforcers scoff at intuition lol

    '...we can never be sure how others will interpret what our body language means, nor can we be sure we are interpreting the body language of another correctly.'
    I agree but as I said, we can also never be sure how others will interpret what our words mean. I'm even amazed at how some people can communicate effectively just by eye contact.
    • thumb
      Apr 9 2014: Agree with you on everything you have said :)
      • thumb
        Apr 9 2014: Thank you very much dear! I needed that badly! :-D
        • thumb
          Apr 9 2014: So very welcome. You're the most vivid, sincere, curious, spontaneous and tireless conversationist around here! Not easy to find all of that in one person.
    • Apr 9 2014: Hi Poch

      Just an additional thought, in regard to body body language relative to intuition; "the" - "body language" collectively of all those around us at any given time, is sending us multiple streams of signals, most of which we are consciously unaware (especially in the rat race and pace of modern day life, and the atrophy -desensitization of this natural ability, due a greater emphasis being called for and placed on our conscious interactive communications, with an ever increasing number of people and agencies and massive media input /distractions) of.

      However have you ever experienced that fuzzy feeling e.g. when surrounded by a crowd and so you pause to look around you, and lo and behold, "well look whose here, I would not have expected you to be here, I didn't think this was your sort of thing"

      IMO, Intuition most definitely does play a part, in filtering out the less important body language of those who are of little concern, and causes us to focus on those who should be of concern; commonly called a gut feeling; which is a milder form of our basic survival instinct.
      • thumb
        Apr 9 2014: Sure I did experienced that fuzzy feeling Carl!

        '...gut feeling; which is a milder form of our basic survival instinct.'
        Excellent definition.
      • thumb
        Apr 9 2014: By saying "Intuition most definitely does play a part, in filtering out the less important body language of those who are of little concern, and causes us to focus on .." you would not believe how closely you get to some new thoughts about our nature of perceptions. Talk to you soon.
        • Apr 10 2014: Not new, thoughts of/from a long time ago

          40 years ago: Words are as claws to the shallow (cunning), and are as bricks to the deep (philosopher).

          More recent: The words of logic reason and intelligence, prove to be ineffectual in the face of pure emotion, and belief.
    • Apr 10 2014: Disagree

      Most law officers are not good at reading body language, but very good at coming up with a theory and then trying to convince everyone they are right regardless of the human cost.

      And the Courts, Legals, Politicians, and Bureaucrats are more self interested, and care more about legal technicalities, and trapping witnesses in a dilemma, by demanding a black and white yes or no in regard to questions that by their very nature demand an explantation, rather than a black and white answer. Absolutely loath these non empathetic conscienceless miscreant B's.

      Interesting re the old adage "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me"; well its the Judges wordse that get you hung, and it is words that have started every single conflict, in the entirety
      of human history.
  • thumb
    Apr 9 2014: Vera, It is said that action speaks louder than words. I am only aware of one politician from your state ... Harry Reid. I would judge him on actions and NEVER on his word ... his track record would push me in that direction. That is not picking on Harry ... politicians rate lower on the trust scale than used car salesmen.

    Words favor the speaker biases and the same words are used against the speaker by the listeners biases.

    Police have signals ... warnings ... gut feelings about situations. These are based on knowledges, experiences, and situational awareness. Pretty much the same things you would use in your decision making.

    It is said that if a person crosses their arms they are not receiving ... crossed legs ... other signals .... is that ALWAYS true??? In self defense classes we assume postures for the event we are in and the stage of the event ... you can bet your bippy we are listening and watching .... a lady sitting properly crosses her legs ... would that be a sign of a closed mind as the saying goes ... I hope not.

    In summary there are more than one input into each conversation / meeting. We make decisions based on the other persons argument and if we in our experiences percieve it to be open and honest or not trustworthy.

    I am pretty much open to discussions ... I may not always agree ... but I think most of us are like that. Over time I have found some TED members very open and honest and others here for the fight. Open and honest by and large print their names and locations ... cheap shot people use a make up moniker. Not always true .... you be the judge.

    Be well. Bob.
    • thumb
      Apr 9 2014: Bob, I like your thinking. And your question "It is said that if a person crosses their arms they are not receiving ... crossed legs ... other signals .... is that ALWAYS true??? In self defense classes we assume postures for the event we are in and the stage of the event ... you can bet your bippy we are listening and watching .... a lady sitting properly crosses her legs ... would that be a sign of a closed mind as the saying goes ... I hope not."

      I think that probably in some cases these "signals" may be true, but in very many cases it truly depends on how a person feels in general, she/he can be desturbed by something unrelated to visible situation/meeting, feeling not physically well, or have some behavioral habits, again, unrelated to the observed situation. Our human psyche is too complicated and often confused.

      I would not blame individuals who do not wish to desplay their formal name or location publically (we live in the world of ill-minded crooks, and often prejudice judgements etc...)

      However, I so know, that an artist would want his name and ID to be chosen or created by himself in tune with nature of his art work. Our names and related numbers are given to us from our birth, not at all chosen by us - I do not see anything wrong if a person wants to change his/her given name, based on his/her special choice.
    • thumb
      Apr 9 2014: Bob, you seem to be conflating action (re: Harry Reid) with body language. As such, they are not at all the same thing. Body language transmits something of what a person wants to communicate, with or without speaking. And, because it transmits what the person *wants* to communicate, it may be "faked" to achieve an intended effect rather than an honest, unconscious revelation of the person's message. Actions taken after speaking/writing are representative of honesty, commitment and reliability.

      A couple of comments above yours, I noted that there have been recent news stories about how airline security people have often been misinterpreting body language of passengers. This can happen for many reasons, but especially when one is pre-disposed to be looking for evidence of particular intentions and motivations - we tend to see what we expect to see, even if it is not there. We overlay or impose our interpretations onto whatever we see and thereby cover over what is really there.

      I usually cross and uncross my arms and legs according to what feels comfortable for me at the moment. Once in a while, I will override my personal comfort and adopt a particular position in order to avoid being misinterpreted and misunderstood, but not usually. I think that a lot of people cross or uncross arms and legs according to personal comfort, which typically includes a need to change position from time to time.

      Body language can provide valid and helpful clues in communication, but it can also be used deceptively and/or easily misinterpreted.
      • Apr 9 2014: Hi Carl

        Both the recognition, and all of the study/work relating to the "entire scope of human body language" was carried out by Desmond Morris who was the curator of the London Zoo, and the host of the TV program Zoo, which I avidly watched as a kid. This was following his study of body language amongst the primates at the Zoo.

        His first book was called the Naked Ape which I also avidly read, however if I thought the Naked ape was utterly ground breaking; he surpassed this with the next Book Man Watching whereby he conducted his further studies on an international scale, comparing the body language of different races and cultures around the world.

        The result was that regardless of race, our "UNCONSCIOUS" body language is the same e.g. blinking when lying and covering the mouth (1 or the other or both) etc, while our learned gestures can vary from culture to culture, our body language does not. and it does not lie; and I had considerable experience in regard to thousands of people of different nationals, both in my travels and during my career, where it proved to be an asset.

        Classic example Schapel Corby; when she was describing what had happened at customs, she "naturally" carried out all of the physical accompaniments to what had taken place, to the point of looking downwards as if looking at the surfboard bag, as the customs officer opened it etc, because this is what we all naturally do, and it flows fluidly and naturally as we speak. This was also later confirmed by a world expert of Body language during a TV documentary.

        Later when watching an interview with her half brother, I observed that he was lying through his teeth, and even a friend of mine watching with me spontaneously said "he's lying" it was so obvious.

        It is also the reason that around 80% of Australians believed she was innocent; we might think its intuition, but no its Body language, and as much a part of human communication, as is tone, inflexion, posture, emphasis, and gestures etc.
        • thumb
          Apr 9 2014: Carl,

          As you noted, this is about "UNCONSCIOUS" body language. When people are conscious enough to be in control of at least some of their body language, then it can be used for deception.

          Also, when an observer is strongly predisposed to look for certain attributes of body language, the observer's power of observation becomes corrupted and body language that is "seen" isn't necessarily there. In addition, people can be notoriously poor observers even if not actively looking for something specific. That's why people make such poor eye witnesses, as demonstrated through research by people such as Elizabeth Loftus.

          The whole body language issue isn't as simple or as clear as people typically like to think it is, as this newly reported research reveals:

          How Body Language Lets Us Down
          Think you can tell when someone's lying? Think again.
          Published on March 23, 2014 by Bella DePaulo, Ph.D.
    • thumb
      Apr 10 2014: Oh, Robert! Communicating with Harry Reid is like communicatiing with Nothingness.. You have to be very skillful to learn how to say nice words, but mean nothing, therefore, be responsible for nothing. Harry's case is a perfect example of how our man-made language can be used for faking intelligence and responsibilities -a prevailing skill in our postmodern age.

      Since I was a child I was wondering why so many people talk so much making no slightest sense?

      I've explained to myself that many people desperately need to exchange their emotions but are incapable to articulate anything making silly emotional noise, The words mean nothing important : "I have nothing to say -but I'm ok" or "I'm shopping buying shorts!"

      If people would learn to talk only in case of something important we would have much less noise-pollution.
  • thumb
    Apr 8 2014: Babies think without the use of language.
    Unconscious thought does not require language.
    • thumb
      Apr 8 2014: Absolutely. In my modest opinion it is the most pure sort of sensing ourselves and thinking, still unpoluted by made-up conventions.
      • thumb
        Apr 9 2014: William James referred to this as "pure experience."
        What we think of as introspection is nothing more than retrospection.
        • thumb
          Apr 9 2014: Wondering how come we do not learn that in schools - we think based on retrospection only? We cannot look forward - we can only replay our incomplete vision and ideas of the past.

          I have all the books by William James, but honestly, have thought about the purity of a young child sensations and thinking, based on my own first impressions of life.
    • thumb
      Apr 14 2014: This is very fundamental knowledge we all need to try to comprehend, I think.

      Thank you, Theodore!
  • thumb
    Apr 7 2014: I definitely trust intuition more than words ma'am! As I've always said, we can never be sure how others will interpret what our words mean. Body-language is even more reliable than words.
    Even well-intending words get interpreted as malicious and of course that hurts. Intuition might even be better than logical reasoning.
    • thumb
      Apr 9 2014: I'm curious.

      How do you tell someone something through using your intuition instead of using word language?

      You can use your intuition to perhaps better understand what someone else is trying to communicate to you, but you can't express your reply through your intuition. In other words, we need to use, and trust, our words/language to try to tell someone something, except perhaps when we are face-to-face and can instead use body language.

      Body language has, however, been shown to be unreliable. It is easily intentionally used to misrepresent one's self. It is also often misunderstood and misinterpreted. There have, for example, recently been news stories about how airline security people have often been misinterpreting body language of passengers. This can happen for many reasons, but especially when one is pre-disposed to be looking for evidence of particular intentions and motivations - we tend to see what we expect to see, even if it is not there. We overlay or impose our interpretations onto whatever we see and thereby cover over what is really there. So, we can never be sure how others will interpret what our body language means, nor can we be sure we are interpreting the body language of another correctly.
      • thumb
        Apr 9 2014: Carl, some of us knows perfectly what intuitive communication is. These lucky peple do not need any explanation. But it cannot be explained by words, for the same reason as why our minds cannot be explained by bahavior of some neurons.

        This experience of using pure intuition is possible only when we're able to exchange our intuitive emotions and sensations directly with other living beings. We all feel it as young babies, still uncorrupted by man-made language and conventional ideas.

        We are alive only because we are self-producers of these intuitive, highly emotional sensations. Our human language, however, is an over processed, second-hand product.

        When we are lucky to explore our intuition we can find this blissful connection with animals, even with plants. You might feel this overwhelming sense of yourself within living and breathing environment, say, in the forest or in the mountains when no people or music around. I have this experience in my everyday life.

        If I say "mean" words to my animal buddy cat, he , UNLIKE humans would not pay much attention to those empty words, however, he'd catch my true emotional tone, and perfectly sense my peaceful mood.

        If one says sweet words pretending that everything is "fine", meaning to hurt an animal, this animal or plant! will feel some sinister situation instantly.

        It is a true bliss when you can reach that level - the nature's direct ultimate exchange!

        I felt I was blessed, since was a very young girl discovering how to "speak" to animals, birds, flowers and trees without saying a word and be in tune with them .. I was very quiet.

        I think this inborn intuition, or better to say our superb ability to reach and sense other's minds in any distance without any gadgets, becomes
        mindlessly replaced with our made-up, artificial language creating endless misunderstanding, deceitful pretentiousness, twisted ideas, followed by crazy dolt arguments and even war. Remember timeless "Duck Soop"
        • thumb
          Apr 9 2014: Vera, the underlying essence of the comment I made (above) is that intuition cannot really be considered to be better than or more trustworthy than word language because they serve different purposes.

          Words are used to transmit a message from person A to person B (assuming human-to-human communication here). Once received by person B, those words are processed mentally, emotionally, intuitively, resulting in some level of understanding. And, of course, person B can also transmit a message to person A, so the same process transpires in that direction.

          At no time is intuition used to transmit messages; intuition is only used to process and interpret the receive message - which may or may not be the same as the transmitted message, but that's another story - and perhaps also inspire and produce a response, but that response will be transmitted in words (unless it is instead transmitted through body language such as a hug or a slug).

          Therefore, it is really pointless to inquire whether one might "trust your intuition more than the words" because the sending of words to another and the intuitive processing of the received words are two different aspects of communication, meaning one cannot be compared to the other and declared more or less trustworthy.

          Both word language AND intuition are valuable and essential aspects of good communication, and both need to be used intelligently to effect good communication.

          A valid question might be: "Do you trust your rational mind or your intuition more when communicating?" Some people are very mind centered and may be unaware of, reject or deny intuition as a valid awareness. Other people are very heart centered and may reject or deny rational thought as a valid tool for analysis and communication. Both would be in error because mind and heart working together provides us with our greatest promise for real communication.
      • thumb
        Apr 9 2014: Carl, I see now that we have a very different interpretation of Intuition. I understand, correct me if I'm wrong, you believe that Intuition is somewhat spontanious emotional reaction. Many people think this way.

        But I trust that Intuition is the most crucially vital, most direct connection with our environment.

        Our intuitive interactions with objective to us environment are already fluctuating in our minds - Before we even begin to process these primary subconscious sensations for turning them into our feelings, images, words and things.

        My close friends, most of them are scholars and scientists, when they want to give you the highest complement for your thought or idea, they'd say "you're very intuitive".

        Without intuition whether it is badly suppressed, or in full power, we are Unable to use language and think. Moreover, No intuition, bad or good - no life. It is everyone's nature-granted personal compass in our existence.

        Without intuition at all no living creature can stay alive - it is not a side-product of some of our sensations it is this very pure kind of interaction with our environment, before we try to recone what is happening around.

        Intuition is the very basic source from which we may develop our imagination and intellect.
        • thumb
          Apr 9 2014: Vera, we may have different understandings of intuition, but I do not believe intuition is spontaneous emotional reaction.

          Intuition is a holistic awareness and knowing that can happen very fast, especially in comparison to rational knowing and understanding which is slow. By holistic, I mean that intuition utilizes all of our capabilities and capacities to be aware, to know, to understand and to arrive at decisions. It involves body or physical intelligence which is extremely fast in its ability to pick up on signals from the environment (as well as from within itself). Some of this input comes through the five senses. Beyond them, however, we also have an energetic or magnetic field that extends far beyond the visible exterior of our material body, and our magnetic fields are constantly intermingled and communicating, even though we typically tend to be unaware of this. Our emotional self is also involved, although it's quite a bit slower than our physical self, as is our mental or intellectual self which is even slower still.

          The heart is a physical pump that circulates blood through our material body and its beat is also a rhythm setter or timekeeper for the body. But we also have an energetic heart that beats with the same rhythm and these pulses travel throughout our wide ranging magnetic body. Its pulsing carries messages to and from all the other magnetic bodies it is intermingled with, thus communicating with all these other bodies. And not only human bodies, but with the energetic bodies of all beings.

          At the same time the energetic heart's intelligence is processing the input from all of these communications - magnetic, physical, emotional, mental - and the "voice" of the heart is communicating its knowledge, wisdom and understanding is constantly "speaking" to us about all of this. This is one way to try to not "explain" how intuition works but to try to direct our attention towards what is really going on in this somewhat mysterious process.
      • thumb
        Apr 9 2014: @carl
        I forgot to put my reply to this under your reply but put it in the main reply box.

        '...mind and heart working together provides us with our greatest promise for real communication.'
        I think you only have to say that and didn't need to refute body language and intuition Carl. Our arguments don't look legitimate imho.
      • thumb
        Apr 9 2014: Please correct me if I'm wrong - you describe a human being as two bodies in one?

        One is what you call physical ("fast") and the other is "slow" - emotional, or magnetic body? It looks that our magnetic body, according to how I understand your description, has some organs as well but these are forms of energy?

        "But we also have an energetic heart that beats with the same rhythm and these pulses travel throughout our wide ranging magnetic body. Its pulsing carries messages to and from all the other magnetic bodies it is intermingled with, thus communicating with all these other bodies. And not only human bodies, but with the energetic bodies of all beings."

        I like that you do not miss our animal buddies in that respect.
        • thumb
          Apr 10 2014: Be careful to not get too literal about this "body" stuff. But it's a common practice for many to speak of a physical body (material body), an emotional body (feeling self), an intellectual body (thinking self, mental self), a spiritual body, an energetic body (magnetic, electromagnetic), a light body (electromagnetic, aura). So, we can be said to have multiple bodies. But the term "body" is really only used to help visualize aspects of our whole self that are not detectable by our five senses. Bodies are also called centers.

          The intellectual center is the slowest, the emotional center is much faster, and the physical center (or moving center) is by far the fastest in the way they operate.

          The physical body does emit electromagnetic radiation - radiate electromagnetic energy. One teacher/friend of mine actually did an experiment by going inside a special room that shielded against any electromagnetic radiation entering. He sat and did heart rhythm meditation with a photon counter pointing at his chest/heart. It registered a significant number of photons being emitted from his heart while he meditated - almost equivalent to the amount of light given off by a luminous watch dial. Radiating light is not just a figurative or fanciful notion - it's very real.

          The physical heart is at the center of the energetic heart, which is at the center of the pulsing electromagnetic or magnetic field or "body" that surrounds each of us. In addition, the whole physical body, including it's organs, radiates energy, but not as strongly as the heart. So, in a sense, I guess one could think of the emotional body as having organs, but on the other hand, that's getting a bit too literal and it's really not particularly helpful to do that.

          When I say "all beings" I am not only including human and non-human animals, I am also including plants and what are usually thought of as inanimate objects, as when indigenous people speak of the tree people, the rock people, the water people, etc.
      • thumb
        Apr 10 2014: I truly enjoyed your last post, Carl.

        Please let me get back to you tomorrow, if you'll be around.
        • thumb
          Apr 10 2014: Hi Vera,

          My memory of the details of the meditation experiment that produced light was a little fuzzy, so I looked up the web page that provides a summary of it. Here's the link so you can read about it yourself:


          It's on the Heart Rhythm Meditation site of Puran Bair whom I have known for about 20 years.

          The "centers" terminology and speeds of the centers comes from G.I. Gurdjieff and "The Work" or "The Gurdjieff Work" which I have found great value in. The "body" terminology is used in a wide variety of "inner" or "spiritual" or "new age" work.
    • thumb
      Apr 10 2014: I cannot agree more. You've said "Intuition might even be better than logical reasoning."

      Ah, so great! I understand that Intuition is our primordial drive that have been explored within our human psyche for millions and millions of years before we have invented our conventional languages!

      Our intuition is always mixed, in varios proportions with our logic, that can only function based on visible images and images coded in language, also with something conventional "else", like numbers and symbols of all sorts.

      Good to hear from you, Poch. Thank you so much!
  • thumb
    Apr 7 2014: Trust n love are the most effective tool to communicate... U dnt have 2 say words to xplain.... ur eyes ur face tells everything
    n d 1 who truly loves u n has faith o u he/she will definitely understand u without ur xplaination....
    • thumb
      Apr 7 2014: I know what you mean. I have this very experience but only with animals, and very yong children.

      However, I am not sure that humans can be trusted, in general. Their minds are too twisted and locked up within themselves. Their words and motivations are commonly questionable. I knew many who told me that they "loved" me - their love was something selfishly demanding, and controlling..

      When you say Faith do you mean god? Then it is a different story..

      Thank you, Jai .
      • thumb
        Apr 11 2014: i didn't mean GOD, even if u r d gr8st devotee of god he wud never hlp u.... it is ur own noldge, own confidence which will help u to survive..... 4 eg: if u r d gr8st devotee of god n don't no swiming n u r drowning den even god cant help u....
        and about humans..... only ur behaviour n nature makes people good or bad... if u hav good nature den even d worst wud be ready to help u....
        atleast i hav experienced dis.....
  • thumb
    Mar 30 2014: Hello Vera,

    Language is just of our human facilities for communication {others include body expression, emotion, soul (the self-honesty with which we are communicating), the general 'vibe' we are giving off (eg: are we communicating to score a point over someone, or with openness for real dialogue), and our state of mindfulness as we communicate (are we thinking about something else as we are talking)}.

    Given this fuller range of communication devices at our disposal, the language element itself can always be taken with a pinch of salt. I think it is always best not to make assumptions about meaning, and always to ask questions for further clarification in order to "get on the same page".
    • thumb
      Mar 30 2014: Joshua, I think you have an excellent point:
      Given this fuller range of communication devices at our disposal, the language element itself can always be taken with a pinch of salt. I think it is always best not to make assumptions about meaning, and always to ask questions for further clarification in order to "get on the same page".

      It seems, though, people have "no time" to ask questions to make sure, that they understand others closely to what other's mean.
      • thumb
        Mar 30 2014: Then it becomes a question of reassessing priorities, I guess. Mis-communication leads to all sorts of mess-ups.
        • thumb
          Mar 30 2014: I think that no creatures in this world are so innovatively skillful for to confuse others as we, humans, are. Overwhelming information we try to digest is not knowledge, it turns into our minds/brains obesity and does not help to sort out what is clear and what is not.

          "Mis-communication" is our prevaling material for endless discussions.

          Maybe when a young child begins to mimic language he/she needs to be explained that the words, written or pronounced, are only symbols, and can be understood in different ways..
      • thumb
        Mar 31 2014: "Overwhelming information we try to digest is not knowledge, ...". You are right, Vera. Knowledge is beyond perception, and I think the best we can do in this world is to allow our individual perceptions to be "corrected" continuously in the direction of truth/knowledge/whole-knowing.
        • thumb
          Apr 13 2014: This shall be taught in school! You have a Super point, Joshua.
  • thumb
    Mar 28 2014: If intelligence defined as ability to acquire knowledge and skills, then some languages more intelligent than others. Spoken languages using least amount of syllables to pass knowledge and skills between one another may be more intelligent than others.
    I think speaking words after interpreting with intuition, can prevent a lot of unnecessary words.
    This idea appears to be unfocused as it blends individualized things, with generalizations of human race, without distinguishing between the two. I think the wording of this idea is an example of how English words are often used to explain how all humans perceive the world, which is impossible in my opinion.
    Can a language never thought of by a person, be used to express their world view?
    • thumb
      Mar 31 2014: It is so true that every language, itself, can be a more or less helpful "tool" to express our thoughts/experience.

      I somehow familiar with 3 languages and in some situations I wish to speak the one that seems to be more articulate, more precise. I think it would not be a bad idea for all of us to speak a few languages..
  • Mar 27 2014: Vera
    Before the spoken and written word is condemned, as outdated, would it not be advantageous to master the language.first?
    • thumb
      Mar 27 2014: I think that our human language is the most outstandingly artificial and confusing "method" of communication among all who exist in this natural world.

      I (personally) think that our language is highly symbolic based on our unique human Imagination. It has been developed since those first cave images depicted on cave walls.

      These cave images became our prehistoric art expressions, but I believe that this art created a revolution changing human mentality. Since the images were observed by others who somehow learned to recognise these images and became very excited, the first human conversations occurred over Depicted Symbols.

      I only guess that later in history these flat images became symbolic signs, these were our first abstract signs for communicating one another. We learn to recognize them and translate to prehistoric "words", the pronounceable sounds identifying the meaning of these flat symbols. I trust that letters were created afterwards, as some small details for various usage. Chinese language can still be a great example of symbolic images as whole phrases..

      I clearly see that our imagination is deeply artistic, based on our selective perceptions. This does not mean that we are all great artists, we can be very poor and horrible artists. I mean our abilities of creating something beyond real experience brewed on highly emotional imagination.

      If we accept the most fundamental law of nature of Flux, unavoidable instant, irreversible change, we'd understand why our mind's scenarios can be so " far away" from our Immediate experience while we're playing with our ephemeral imagination.

      I believe that every living being in this world has perceptions in order to adjust to its environment, and that these very perceptions are primordially artistic: we Focus on something that seems most attractive, but greatly Limited by perceptions we deal with our reality only based on fluctuating imagination.
      • Mar 27 2014: Vera
        It would seem by your writing that you may be somewhat of a metaphysical philosopher, in that you look for that, which may not be there.
        That the spoken word is emitted from a naturally evolved voice box; how then is it unnatural? Man did not fabricate this out of of materials unknown to nature. He did not fabricate the box.
        The debate as to when Man achieved language is still raging. There is no conclusive evidence, as to a chronologically fixed date. It would have been well before the drawings, which were a mere 35 to 40,000 years ago. and probably was. Some notables guess at about a million years. Language in all probability began when pre-humans began to group. In groups language becomes important for survival, for direction.
        Pragmatism is a good study in philosophical wonderings. Materialism adds to the flavor and most importantly, materialism rounds out the threesome.
        • thumb
          Mar 28 2014: 1. I'm not for to argue regarding that our experience is rooted in something unnatural. I actually meant to say that everything we make out of our existence is based on our nature's granted inborn abilities.

          I did not say that human language was in use only since the caveman arts.. it is as old as human kind itself. I pointed out that I believe that language had a great jump towards abstract imagination and thinking, since people started playing with flat images on the walls as symbols of certain experience.

          2. Would I categorize my thinking within Metaphisical interpretations of life? probably I would but only when I clear up the fact that all our physical, tangible experiences may not be ever possible without ephemeral set of our sense perceptions, whether we use them instinctivelly and subconsciously or through our physical bodies. The process of perceiving itself is still super mystery for researchers and scientists, unless they are conviniently and entirely ignore this very mental process, explaining it as some "chemical" reaction in brains.

          Long time ago G. Berkeley has mercilessly murdered already popular in his time materialistic mentality. Later I. Kant put this concept into his whimsical expression "things-in-themselves".
          Berkeley and Kant's work gets great attention these days, especially among physicists.

          Ironically "solid" materialism is entirelly based on appearances created by our deeply instinctive sensations. I think this ancient (since Democritus's atomic model) Materialistic approach is helplessly outdated in general and particular; while the old-fashioned Mataphysical ideas are not convincing enough for those minds who trust only superficial theater of consciousness.

          I'm closely involved in this new research on human perceptions and the laws of their limitations.
          WIll be happy to share with whatever I know so far.
        • thumb
          Mar 28 2014: Charles, I've read your brief "profile" on ted and i think I understand your curiosity regarding the essence of life. It is a "subject" that is missing in our education since the old Greeks.

          After attending a few toughest schools in Europe I came to realize that no teaching or training can make one a philosopher unless he/she is born to be one. If you're born to be a true philosopher you're forever on your own - you cannot fit any institution.

          I was wondering why some great philosophers made up their famous dialogs talking with their imaginative "friends" but not with real individuals.. I answered: every one of them was very lonely for he could not find anyone on his level, to think together.

          "To live alone is the fate of all great souls."
          Arthur Schopenhauer

          Best Regards
  • Mar 27 2014: I believe that intuition/first impression are far more forceful than many people think. There was a study done many years ago at the University of Colorado. The short summary was a person makes a decision in the 1st minute and spends the next 6 months justifying it. It was also pushed the idea that it was very difficult to overcome 1st impressions.
  • thumb
    Mar 27 2014: "Essays and Aphorisms"

    When you see the many and manifold institution for teaching and learning and the great crowd of pupils and masters which throngs them you might think the human race was much occupied with wisdom and insight. But here too appearance is deceptive. The latter teach to earn money, and strive not for wisdom but for the appearance of it and to be credited with it; the former learn, not to achieve knowledge and insight, but so as to be able to chatter about them and give themselves airs. Every thirty years a new generation appears which knows nothing and then sets about trying to gulp down summarily and as fast as possible all the human knowledge assembled over the millennia, after which it would like to think it knows more than all the past put together. To this end it resorts to universities and reaches out for books, and for the most recent ones too, as being its own contemporaries and fellows of its age. Everything quick and everything new! as new as it itself is. And then off it goes, loud with its own opinions!
    • Mar 27 2014: Vera
      A superb reference, but Arthur is dead. To this obvious end what than, do you say, as you are alive. From the past we learn, not withstanding political drama, or are the words and the wisdom of Arthur only quotable without action or renewed passion and intellect? Is it easier to quote, as the ventriloquist speaks behind a wooden head, than to note the best and add, assuming responsibility for your words and thoughts.
      Do you quote Arthur, "--not to achieve knowledge and insight, but so as to be able to chatter"-with airs of wisdom?
      Those who quote for focus and reference only, are perhaps, quotable by their own words. Those who merely quote have nothing to say and stillness is beneficial.
      • thumb
        Mar 27 2014: I see how many people are talking absurdly, but so enthusiastically!! over practically everything they cannot understand.

        While only mimicking the terms and words they are creating their own opinions. Some, (people like scholars and researchers) also "invent" new terms and words beliving in these terms as if there were the perfect explanation themselves.

        I could not ever express this typical loud recycling mentality, practicing "knowdge" better than great Schopenhauer. He was my salvation since I was little, when discovered his "Essays and Aphorisms". At that time I was so bewhildered and everwhelmed by human stupidity, felt helpless and speechless! This book is with me till I die. So sad, that the greatest minds are so rare and usually gone/unreachable.

        Nowadays, we produce endless information that turns into pseudo knowledge in our minds, making our physical brains grow, not because of great knowledge and experience, but because those brains of ours become horrifically obese.

        Since Diogenes "Dogs and philosophers do the greatest good and get the fewest rewards."

        Thank you for reading the timeless quote and your thoughtful reply, Charles!
  • Mar 26 2014: When we communicate with human language then what happens is, the message we want to communicate is gets encrypted , encoded and compressed in words. And while doing so much of the information is lost. It is a lossy communication.

    It is just like doing a black and white photocopy of a picture. When we do black and white photocopy of a color picture on xerox machine , then fine lines and much of the gradient portion of the picture is lost then what we get is the crude black and white picture.

    Same is the came with language. When we are not faced with any problem then we give out solutions, but when faced with a situation we behave differently.

    Same is the case with language. We often talk about understanding , but when faced with a situation we fail to understand.

    I have burnt my fingers with my recent experiment and that right there on TED Conversation.
  • thumb
    Mar 26 2014: If we could develop telepathy into a real thing then it should be a little better than language, like directly conveying ideas and emotions fully as the communicator understood it. I also like the idea of this gun. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsgbcYnmR6Y could solve so many communication problems. The internet is actually a great way to eventually develop a single homogeneous language, we just need to find a way to get everyone connected. Scientific papers try to get around the problem of differing understanding in meanings through defining their own terms, but this creates other issues. So anyway as of now, the best answer I think would be refining our language where all terms are agreed upon and understood.
    • Mar 26 2014: It is a good idea to define terms, however language will probably continuosly evolve. It is nice to think that perhaps the internet will evolve a common language. I'm afraid if English is its starting point, it may take a long time to evolve into something more efficient. Zamenhof created Esperanto to be a more phonetic language and it has a foot hold today. I wonder if we set a computer to the task, if it could create a language which would be completely phonetic, with single sound letters and consistent congugation etc.. With listed root forms one could rapidly learn the language. (And have fun creating new roots)
      • thumb
        Apr 23 2014: Hopefully our languages will evolve as we will be gaining new experience. I hope though we will get rid of sensless spoiled word-pollution. I do not mind new words but only if they make real sense.

        Esperanto was a great idea - but it was not a live language. I think English is getting more and more explored instead..
        • Apr 23 2014: The life and death of words is a popularity contest. I'm afraid we'll just have to live with that. Hollywood has taken taken English around the world, though with that justification, Bollywood may sneak a little Hindi into our international language. Perhaps via Holly & Bolly and the internet, we could initiate a game among the language-playful young, to overlay all language with a one letter/one sound, phonetic spelling and pronuciation system. The new spellings and definitions could enter an online dictionary, in a manner similar to these free on-line laguage learning systems. Grandually we'd have a common dictionary and system of spelling and pronunciation. Roots and word orders would be chaotic but, we would probably start with a phonetic mostly English, and gradually integrate other languages in varying degrees. I haven't the knowledge to know how a tonal language, like Chinese, would be addressed in a phonetic system, but perhaps someone would have ideas for that...
      • thumb
        Apr 23 2014: Bradley, I think it would be very sad to wantch languages to be grounded into some awkward concoction - though it is happening. Why I think it is sad? Every language has its long history of a colorful character, what we call nationality or ethnicity, but it is getting mixed up very quickly (like we cannot find authintic Chinese or Japanese food in the USA )

        Perhaps that global communication advantage demolishes some precious cultural traditions and moreover, we all now speak "computer language", and living most of the day in the unreal, made-up fantasy world of our postmodern communications.