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

        http://www.ted.com/conversations/23569/is_our_human_language_the_most.html?c=845397


        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.

          Tolerance:
          "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

        Lejan .

        • +1
        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'

        Agreed!

        End of message.

        ;o)
        • 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.
  • 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.
      • 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

    Lejan .

    • +1
    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!

    :o)
    • 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

        Lejan .

        • +1
        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:

        www.greenschool.org

        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 ...

        ;o)

        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!

        #Lehan
        • thumb
          Apr 14 2014: Sweet dreams and new discoveries while your mind is free of daily fussy mode of life.
      • thumb

        Lejan .

        • +1
        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?

        www.kickstarter.com

        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

        ;o)
        • 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:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative
        http://www.usworker.coop/about

        And closest initiative to your place here:

        http://www.gofundme.com/5azn98

        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

        Lejan .

        • +1
        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

        Lejan .

        • +1
        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)

        #Legan
      • 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.

          Why?

          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

        Lejan .

        • +1
        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

        Lejan .

        • +1
        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.

          Points

          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 ...

        :o)
      • thumb

        Lejan .

        • +1
        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

        Lejan .

        • +1
        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.
          http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/living-single/201403/how-body-language-lets-us-down
    • 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:

          http://www.appliedmeditation.org/tests/light_emission.php

          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"
    ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER(1788-1860)

    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.
  • thumb

    W. Ying

    • +1
    Mar 26 2014: .
    Yes!

    I do.

    Reason:
    Instinct is the computation results of the data proper.
    Words are used to express the data.
  • Apr 25 2014: Less than 5 minutes ago: Rodrigo Capucho Paulo
    • +1

    • Reply
    1 day ago: How does a new-born mammal know to suck on the teat and does that count as innate wisdom?

    1. Rodrigo.26 – 04 – 14. Science claims genetic memory, despite the fact there is no empirical evidence to support this “claim”. And given that the entire genome of the living planet contains the genomes of all living creatures, how is it that although a human baby can only suck on a teat, a wildebeest foal can recognize predators, and run from them within an hour; is this intuition or innate wisdom?

    Based upon my own experiences and relative considerations I say no, but rather we/all creatures are all born with varying degrees of amnesia; and varying degrees of ability to tap into the greater consciousness/“wisdom” of the living biosphere (As with theme of the film Avatar). What we refer to as intuition, results from unconsciously tapping into the greater pool of wisdom of the living biosphere. It has to be remembered that all flora and fauna extend from the original living cell or cells to form in the oceans. Therefore “all” living creatures past and present have played their parts, in the evolution of the increasing intelligences of all living creatures.

    In regard to this tapping into the greater consciousness, perhaps a decade or more ago there was a plagiarism court case in regard to the novel “The Towering Inferno” due to another author having written the exact same story; however it was found that there was no connection between the two authors, they had simply both written the same story simultaneously. Many time I have experienced the same, whereby I have invented something or come up with an idea, only to witness someone else coming up with the idea shortly, or sometimes much later after my having done so.

    Continued
    • Apr 25 2014: Evading predators is a 3 billion year-old genetic memory? There's no "empirical evidence" that it isn't!
  • Apr 25 2014: 2. 26-04-14. Rodrigo

    From my own experiences I have found, that these bouts of intuition/inspiration only occur following extremely deep sleeping, meditation, pain, or severe depressions (which when they occur or when I have induced them; I try my damned best to face with a positive attitude, because although they are debilitating and extremely unpleasant; they always result in me gaining answers to questions that previously had baffled me; e.g. after 6 days of being virtually prostrate with depression, I came out of it and immediately wrote down the explanation of how magnets are able to attract and repel each other; believe it or not; so depression is not an illness, it is a natural state of introspection that brings us closer to our subconscious mind, which is closer to the “veil that separates” our subconscious mind from that of the minds-cape of the “greater wisdom” of the living biosphere..

    Depression is not an illness but it is the opposite extreme of the feeling of elation e.g. as with winning the lottery, and as opposed to that of e.g. losing a loved one; depression is telling us that we have a problem, and rather than taking pills that serve to falsely elevate our moods, rather we need realize there is always a cause for depression; it may be organic e.g. hormonal, or neural due to post disease, or injury, or delayed depression due to the mind putting up barriers to protect the mind following some great emotional trauma.; or due to liver damage caused by alcohol or drug abuse (6 stages depression - anxiety attacks – delirium tremens – flapping tremors – liver failure - abdominal ascites – death.

    Common expressions resonate, because their subject matter has been commonly experienced by so many humans throughout human history, a common expression relative to this experience became permanent within the greater biospheres mind-scape/consciousness.

    Could go on, but it’s a very large subject matter, with many relativities..
  • Apr 24 2014: Intuition Rodrigo; or Wisdom?

    Esoteric Language: ""The Language of the Birds"" (Also called Green Language)

    Reference; The Nostradamus Code - Author David Ovason; see footnote

    THE HOLY GRAIL

    Mystique:

    A Man may find the measure of Man; but he will never find the depth of Mystique to a Woman

    Temple of ISIS, Sais (Say IS) Egypt:

    I Am All That Has Been; All That There Is; All That Will Be - Nor has any mortal; ever been able to discover what lies beneath my Veil=

    I Am Alpha Omega the Beginning and Ending

    Esoteric Language: Language of the Birds - Green Language; ( Ref: The Nostradamus Code, David Ovason; see footnote.

    "H" "G"

    Holy Grail

    Holy Ghost

    Holy Veil

    Vale of a Ghost

    Vale of Death (23rd Psalm)

    Temple of ISIS in Sais (Say - IS) Egypt

    ISIS

    GEN - ISIS: I Am Alpha Omega the Beginning and Ending

    I = IS = I

    I = IS = AM

    I Am + Ra (Egyptian Sun God - Source of Photosynthesis - Life) = I AM RA (Anagram) = MARIA

    I am Maria → Mariam → Miriam → Mary →

    GRAIL: "Anagram of Grail" - A GIRL

    I Am The Grail

    I Am A Girl - I Am Maria - I Am Mary

    Footnote; Sceptics of Nostradamus point out; as the event/reference point of his prediction is not known in advance; a prediction cannot be held to have been proven.

    However: Refer to the 1972 Documentary "Nostradamus" BBC TV:

    A quatrain is “interpreted by the producer” of the program as to referring to the future fall of communism (Red Guard) in Russia: And indeed as per the prophesy; the old guard did initially hold firm in the Russian Whitehouse, until driven out by forces loyal to Boris Yeltsin.

    Note: ISIS the Mother Goddess and consort of Ra the Sun God; Is also known as the Moon Goddess or, She Who Walks on the Waters = "Light"
  • Apr 24 2014: Hi Vera

    I don't imagine anything in regard to the person because it may not be a person, it may be a group who knows? And even if it is an individual, it makes no difference what is there to imagine, as the only insight I have available, lies within, and can only come from the words that have been written.

    Therefore I tend to respond to what is written, while being aware that there are an unknown number of others internationally, who will be following the conversation, and forming their own opinions about the conversation: Which is why I am prickly about the context of what I have said being changed; because people often read the change or misinterpretation; but then do not go back and check if this is what was actually said.

    And one particular person (Not! Lejan as has been inferred), I have recently been in another conversation with, deliberately made a habit of doing this, to the point of lying in regard to what I had actually said. Why to disrupt and spoil the flow of the conversation, and wreck the points that had been made, due to the fact that he did not like the truth contained therein. His attitude being that if he cannot defeat the points the other person makes and he can't delete what has been written, then the answer is to overwrite it with his own comments, that then overshadow and change the context of what has been said, and imo this is quite childish, contemptible, and deceitful in nature.

    Sometimes, mostly I would say I respond spontaneously, but sometimes as with the latest question posed I have to think about it; and the latest one is just so massive, I have to think how best to tackle it, given that so much could be said, but space and time will not allow it.
  • thumb
    Apr 23 2014: Do you talk spontaneously to all? or prefer to imagine a character of a person, before you are going to talk to this person?
  • Apr 23 2014: I think your previous question is quite broad enough, without adding more to it, its a massive question as it is
  • Apr 23 2014: Wow

    Think I might take a little time to think about this before attempting to answer this, so perhaps tomorrow:

    However in the meantime; interesting how it was claimed that Einstein used far more of his grey matter (RAM) than the rest of us, which is why he was "supposedly!" more intelligent: However it has now been discovered that its not the grey matter that counts, but rather the white matter which relates to the storage of the knowledge gained through our life experiences, and source of our wisdom which grows accordingly.

    Sorry can not remember where I read this, perhaps the International Express Newspaper.
  • Apr 23 2014: Yes Rodrigo

    But what is the point you are trying to make; I really can't tell?

    Chinese, Egyptian, Cave men (Carl Jung) all languages stem, and develop as a means of describing the visual and physical aspect's of the world.

    Put it this way, the visual represents the complete geometry of the painting/picture/panorama, numbers and words represent the inherent mathematics that exist within all languages, and we use to describe the measurements/comparisons/elements/shades/tones/dimensions etc + etc of the visual aspects of physical reality.
  • Apr 23 2014: How to do you put 1000 pictures into a single picture/icon? it the word, is simply a memory tag which stimulates our mind to access images that are already stored in our memories.

    When we observe scenarios; our memory and mind imaging faculty, allows us to lay down and store these images in our minds eye; and memory + words/language, allow us to carry away these images to elsewhere, and describe them, or even even re-fabricate them.

    Which comes first, the picture or the photograph of the picture; and not even the most acute mind or perfect photographic film; can exactly replicate the original.

    Don't get me wrong I understand what your saying; which is why as I said, an iconic/picture based language combined with words.
    • Apr 23 2014: Common expressions do more than jog memories because they resonate with something deeper. If that something is innate wisdom then why do we need to talk to each other? And if we don't need to talk to each other because we are innately wise then why do we have common expressions?
  • Apr 23 2014: Without the pictures/scenarios/events, of Hitler, Titanic, Spielberg; there would be no words to attach to them; and don't forget light, travels at 300 000 km per second (within Earth's gravitational field); sounds and words do not run even a close second.
    • Apr 23 2014: A single word can't paint one picture, let alone a 1000, but it could remind us of a 1000 pictures so single words can be icons, too, as well as common expressions.
  • Apr 23 2014: Hi Rodrigo

    Yes and the Egyptian’s, however it goes back right to the beginning to when primitive man first started to make tools and hunt. As it was at this time it has been theorized, that man first began to speak

    When did human speech develop Cosmos 13.7 www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2013/09/05/.../when-did-human-speech-evolve

    However if this was the case, why is it that monkeys and chimpanzee’s use tools, e.g. sticks to obtain ants to eat and reach honey, rocks to break coconuts etc. and yet have not developed speech?

    If we stop to consider that all animals must use land marks, memory, and mind imaging of those landmarks in order to be familiar with their environment, and in order to hunt and survive, then it follows that we all share this visualization faculty, and it lies at the root of our development of written symbols, to attach to objects and things. Therefore I would suggest that art preceded speech, and perhaps the very first symbol used by man was an arrow drawn it the dirt by the lead scout, to inform the rest of a hunting party which way he had gone.

    And that the purpose of cave paintings was not as some form of decoration; but rather these were drawn on the cave walls as a reference; whereby a hunting member of the tribe not possessing speech, could use these to inform other hunting members, as to what type of herd of animals was passing nearby, to be hunted.

    And it was the production of pictures/icons that drove the attachment of certain particular types of grunt, and from different types of grunt for each type of animal, so language evolved.
    • Apr 23 2014: "A picture speaks a 1000 words" but can a single word convey a 1000 pictures? Hitler? Titanic? Spielberg? Internet?
  • thumb
    Apr 23 2014: Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world.
    Arthur Schopenhauer
  • thumb
    Apr 22 2014: Can some words really smell, sound or even touch ?

    Why words can make us happy, worry, scared or feel elated, loved or very sick --- these are just words? How do we perceive words - really?
    • Apr 23 2014: We build, store, retrieve and compare internal pictures. Hearing or reading words causes us to build, store, retrieve and compare internal pictures. I think we can remember smells but not imagine them.
  • Apr 22 2014: Hi Vera

    No need for you to be sorry; I don't know why it happened that it went to you rather than Rodrigo; perhaps something to do with TED updating their page.

    Will have a look at the full conversation to see if it appears under Rodrigo's post to me

    then I will log off for the day.
  • Apr 22 2014: Hi Vera

    I obviously don't quite understand the TED system; I have received your reply as an e mail from TED; and have clicked on that email, which brings me to the reply box: Which states over the top, Showing single comment thread. Then in red font. View full conversation.

    And this is how I am replying to you now

    Please Advise best way of replying
    • thumb
      Apr 22 2014: Right now your reply works fine - because you addressed it to me.

      But I was talkig about your message to RODRIGO - it was sent to me directly in stead of Rodrigo for some reason.

      FROM TED: Carl's message begins: "Hi Rodrigo

      Not too well at the moment, bur would like to get back to you; but for the moment bec..."

      Respond to the comment
      http://www.ted.com/conversations/23569/is_our_human_language_the_most.html?c=846112
      ......
      Sorry about this mistake..
  • thumb
    Apr 22 2014: There are only 2 forms of communication we use.
    1) verbal whether that is spoken or written
    2) non verbal which involves all our other senses.
    As to verbal communication, yes, there certainly are limits. As you say, some terms are not interpreted the same way by each and everybody. Other terms become obsolete and disappear and new ones come into existence.
    Language isn't anything static but changing constantly, let alone the huge number of different languages we have.

    As to non verbal, that might sometimes be a more powerful way of communication but far more difficult to control.
    We can't control easily how our odors, some of which we can't even perceive consciously, communicate something.
    Even controlling our visual cues isn't easy, Nobody can control constantly how to move, to look, when to smile, etc.

    So, lacking other alternatives, I think language, although not perfect, is the best tool we have if we consciously want to get a message across.
  • Apr 21 2014: Hi Rodrigo

    Not too well at the moment, bur would like to get back to you; but for the moment because of the internet we need a team of "experts in languages + computer programming etc" to develop a common iconic/picture based language, that we (all nationalities) can all use to communicate our thoughts with each other; and I say iconic because (IMO) we and all creatures think in terms of extremely rapid mind imaging, (unlike the slowness of our vision) although we do not realize it. All the words we use are our attachments to the visual world; phonetic words are taught using pictures. And as the saying goes a picture can speak a thousand words.

    Common expressions I meant those of an international nature/usage; and just for it to be kept simple at the beginning and allow it to evolve over time.

    And note I know little about languages as such, and only speak English myself, which is why now with the internet and international conversation; I feel we need this to happen
    • thumb
      Apr 22 2014: Carl, just some tech question. Lets make sure that your post is visible to Rodrigo - that thread conversation is missing "reply" when the comments are following the 3d window --- as I understand Ted's system "works" that way. Does Rodrigo has a reply link on any of his comments?

      (that is how I'm finding your comments for to reply - I'm using the initial one that works, even if your comment is not directly directed to my reply... sorry :( :( )
  • Apr 20 2014: I apologize for a degree of insensitivity and anger, I perceive and recognize in some of my responses.

    However, as I, as well as many others, search for the right words to convey our thoughts; we often do not get it quite right, or even fail abysmally in our attempts to do so, and subsequently a misinterpretation of the original thoughts occurs.

    Therefore it is always useful for the reader to assume that the words used, absolutely represent the original thought process; and rather ask or say "did you mean?" or "this is how I interpreted what you were saying, is this what you meant" and in regard to the international scale of languages, and where English is the second language, this is far more likely, and liable to occur. And I do need to give this greater consideration, but no doubt at times I will again fail to do so, because "I! have failed to follow this same advice!"; and have to apologize again.

    Which is why we need to develop a common international, iconic - word related language

    Carl.
    • Apr 21 2014: How do you say "Which is why we need to develop a common international, iconic - word related language" in an iconic-word related language? Use more common expressions like "keep it simple" with iconic punctuation like quotation marks?
      • Apr 22 2014: Hi Rodrigo

        Not too well at the moment, bur would like to get back to you; but for the moment because of the internet we need a team of "experts in languages + computer programming etc" to develop a common iconic/picture based language, that we (all nationalities) can all use to communicate our thoughts with each other; and I say iconic because (IMO) we and all creatures think in terms of extremely rapid mind imaging, (unlike the slowness of our vision) although we do not realize it. All the words we use are our attachments to the visual world; phonetic words are taught using pictures. And as the saying goes a picture can speak a thousand words.

        Common expressions I meant those of an international nature/usage; and just for it to be kept simple at the beginning and allow it to evolve over time.

        And note I know little about languages as such, and only speak English myself, which is why now with the internet and international conversation; I feel we need this to happen
  • Comment deleted

    • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

  • Apr 20 2014: Colleen

    QT: I agree that when one is facing challenges, it may feel like our "own anxious soul/mind amid all the memories....".

    I was not referring to when facing life's challenges; I was referring to my two experience relative to the actual nature of Hell; believe or not!.

    Qt: One thing that has helped me move through challenges is.....rather than asking "why me?", I ask "why not me?"

    Oddly enough and I do not know if this will make sense to you or not; it does not matter whether you ask why me, or you ask why not me; the question remains the same, what are the relativity's relating to the question, because that is one of the challenges to be unravelled; and that is why the Creator gave me free will, and the strength to face such a challenge, though that strength has deserted me at times.

    Qt: I believe we CAN move through challenges, learning, growing, evolving and come out the other side of the challenge more mindfully aware.

    If this were not the case, I would not be taking on such numbers in regard to orthodox, and commonly excepted theories and beliefs; that is not something one does or takes lightly; too many in the past have died at the stake for doing so.

    Qt: I do not believe that we are condemned to the never ending horror of a perceived hell. I agree Carl, that it is the anxious mind which creates the perception of hell.

    As I said given the experience I am indeed terrified of Hell; however if I were destined for Hell, why would I not already be condemned to Hell?; so no I am not unduly anxious about going to Hell, but rather I think the experiences were more designed to give me an awareness of its nature; and this serves to make me think I would not wish it on my worst enemy; but then in regard to souls beyond the pale, I have no problem.

    Given my experiences & intuitively as I use the term, that I will see my enemies in hell, but I will only be visiting: As such this remains an area I still have questions to be resolved.
    • thumb
      Apr 20 2014: Carl,
      The questions I ask myself may not matter to you, and that is ok. They DO matter to me, which is why I expressed what I did....sharing my perspective.

      I am sorry your strength deserts you at times. I'm wondering if it is because you are depending on a creator to give it to you? I am also sorry that you are terrified of hell....."terrified" seems "anxious" to me.....again....simply sharing my perspective and understanding of the use of words.
      • Comment deleted

  • Apr 20 2014: Agreed

    However there are things in my life, not crimes as commonly recognized as such; but rather cruelties that I would rather not have had my character committing during childhood etc (But I did learn from); and other lesser ones in later life, that do not sit well with my intellect.

    But then regrets are wasted, as all our actions serve towards our futures; and if we could go back and change a single one of them; we would not be at the point where we are today.
  • Apr 20 2014: Vera you would have got it/there yourself anyway, and your welcome

    And I am still terrified of hell, as too many questions remain about myself, that need to be answered; and so I am not sure I am not destined for hell; but I think if this was so, I would already be there.

    Addendum

    And I do wonder despite what the degree of the crimes, miscreants have committed against me in my life, if they deserve to go to such a horrendous, and everlasting Hell; Stalin, Hitler, Pol Phot, etc etc etc, no problem; but these?.

    So my only prayer ever is in regard to the Creator; judge me and judge them, and punish them as you would punish me, if I had committed those crimes against them.

    And trusting in the Creator, and thus universal justice, I don't know the hows, but I am sure it will be so.
    • thumb
      Apr 20 2014: My way was very simple- endlessly powerful balance within - no matter what people do to me, no matter where i've managed to get involved myself, I cannot forget - I'm serving my "parental spirit", I feel it's mighty Goodness. No material things can make me happy for more than a few minutes. Those individuals, educated or ignorant, smart or stupid, when feel themselves as spritis, not much as bodies, they feel themselves invincible.

      My luck --- I never took my body as if it is myself. Maybe this will sound funny to you but I see others' bodies as if they are some vehicles, many look revolting, some ok, some rare and look kind of like new. I see the way they move, sound and talk - but I'm looking for the "drivers".

      The invisible minds/souls are those drivers who are moving their vehicles/bodies.


      As long as you think that the world is what you can see "directly" and we are those awkward things we call bodies you make yourself outrageously vulnerable..

      I have no right to give any advice but I'm just writing this.. Take care of your body and "drive" it very carefully, but remember, you're the real driver!!!! No one can reach you, or hurt you. We are tiny creators of INNER Selfs - whether we are terrible or great creators we have our little time to learn, improve, and even evolve through horrors, and salvations. Lots of happiness ahead!
      • Apr 20 2014: If you consider the so called Mystical Pentacle not as it is portrayed in supernatural nonsenses, but rather symbolically.

        It has a head two arms and two legs in the form of a body, made up of five points; and each point can be taken as representing one of our five senses projecting out into the surrounding reality; with the sixth sense of our mind/soul/id within, looking outwards via those five senses.

        And the soul within plus those five senses, serve to create the interactive communicative sphere that surrounds our body of physical existence, relative to all the other interactive spheres of communicative existence.
        • thumb
          Apr 20 2014: In my understanding a body has no chance to be what we imagine it to be - it is a constellation of living forms and compositions of living forms about which we have very fantastic ideas. Those living forms are not really us, but we are connected with those somehow, temporary. We recognize these living formations as viruses, bacteria, cells, genes.. we can see them using our sense-perception of sight - the most deceiving and illusive of all perceptions we may possess.

          I would never know what these things are - no lab research is able to get into them as they are, these are "things-in-themselves". All we can see - only appearances of something very "foreign" to our minds/selves. I see no mystery in my own mind but deep subconscious and superficial-conscious realities. I am to create my realities based on my interactions with the world.. I believe that every living form must be creative this way just on order to exist. We can be very poor or wonderful creators/artists..it is up to us.
  • Apr 20 2014: Intuition

    At the age of 12 some 52 years ago, and having previously given the matter some considerable thought; I was in the schools morning assembly, where we were all expected to conform and sing hymns, and then end with the Lords prayer.

    Well I had already decided no way; subsequently one of the teachers who stood along side the assembly to monitor us for talking to each other etc. Seeing I was remaining silent came along the line and told me to sing, which I ignored. So this teacher who also happened to be the scripture teacher pulled me up outside, and asked me why: I told him you and everyone else tells me there is a God; but there is no proof that there is a God and while I do not know of you and everyone else is right, and I am wrong, I am not going to sing or pray to something that may or not exist: He was excellent, as he said he understood, and that it was my right, and informed me that I was an agnostic.

    Some three years later, and having started work a few months earlier,I was leaning on my bike in the city and looking at the few trees I could see, and it hit me, all of those leaves on the trees are identical to each other, and then thought of the billions of clover leaves around the world which are identical to each other; and who is in charge of quality control, ensuring they are all the same?; and then another thought as I referred back to my recent and basic schooling in biology and technical drawing, biology is geometry in motion, and something or someone is in charge of it all.

    Typical kid 15 years old, a week later I had a tattoo put on my arm; a cross behind a picture of Christ,s face, with the words "Life Love Death - In God I trust".

    This new religious fervor did not last, as religions Gods, did not gel with the ultimate intelligence needed, to be the ultimate quality controller of evolution.

    I later became a Rosicrucian at 16, & though leaving the order (Twice - and now inactive), I still hold their basic tenets & principles in esteem
    • thumb
      Apr 20 2014: Oh Carl,
      Your story reminds me of something.....

      As a 6 year old, making my first communion, I had to learn the act of contrition....sounds like you may be familiar with it? It starts with....oh my god I am heartily sorry for having offended you...."

      Well, little 6 year old Colleen memorized it as...."oh my god I am HARDLY sorry for having offended you...."

      My intuition, even as a wee little child, told me that I was NOT a sinner.....I had done nothing to offend a god, and that was when I started questioning many of the other teachings as well!
      • Apr 20 2014: I started around the age of 4 - 5, when I used to try to understand how everyone was telling me there was a beginning (God/Creation) to the universe, and it simply did not make sense, and neither did the alternative infinity and eternity; to the point it was put aside; and it only finally made sense when I worked out the infinite and eternal, and yet exact length of a circle; and that the 0/360 or Alpha Omega point of a circle, can exist anywhere on the circle; and so a circle has no beginning or ending, because its beginning is its ending, and its ending is its beginning; that can happen anywhere along its length.

        Hence the engraving at the temple of ISIS in Egypt: IS - I & IS = Am

        QT: I am all that has been, all that is, and all that there will be; and no mortal has ever seen beneath my veil.
        • thumb
          Apr 20 2014: I agree Carl...a circle has no beginning or ending....I love it when we agree:>)

          You say..."No mortal has ever seen beneath my veil".......well ok......perhaps your "veil" is more transparent than you think?
  • Apr 20 2014: Colleen Steen 500+ 0
    5 minutes ago:

    QT: I am VERY aware of life Carl. I have no desire to review your web site Carl, because if it is any reflection of what you are projecting here in the TED conversations, it does not seem desirable.

    Personally speaking, I am not aware of any actors or ex professional actors who are VERY aware of life; and contrary to your (A previous comment) comment in regard to "walking a mile in another's shoes" in this regard. Actors as you said refer to "their own emotional experiences": In other words they overlay their own emotional experience, in order to provide an "emotional simulation" of what the "Writer Has Written" in regard to the proposed fictional, or the real events that have taken, place.

    What sort of insane world is it; where a male actor gets $30, 000, 000, and a cut of the box office profits: for playing the part of a real war hero; while the hero gets a wheelchair, and subsists on a disability pension; while the film hero gets all the glory, plaudits, and attention, and gets an Academy award.

    & Indeed if he was so good at walking a mile in the hero's shoes; how come he gains all the latter, minus the post traumatic stress syndrome, and the hellish blood a guts nightmares of war, to haunt him for the rest of his disabled life.

    Interesting Billy Graham said quote "If God does not destroy America, He owes Sodom and Gomorra an apology".

    I would not condemn the whole of America is such a manner, but Hollywood certainly is in need of consideration.

    I am aware that you were referring to your conversation with Lejan...that is probably very clear to anyone reading your comments.

    QT. I do not agree with you on some issues, and I have clearly expressed my thoughts, feelings and perceptions regarding those ideas with which I do not agree.

    That is your right.

    You say you are always prepared to argue. How is that working for you Carl?

    Very tough going as always through my life, but thats life, when you refuse to be a sheep
    • thumb
      Apr 20 2014: Sorry you have never met any professional actors who are VERY aware of life Carl.....there certainly ARE many of us out here:>) Seems kind of harsh to judge all of us based on the fact that you personally have never met one. Perhaps now you have met one:>)

      For clarification.....I did not "overlay emotional experiences".....I genuinely "FELT" what I was portraying to the best of my ability.

      For example, when I played the role of a woman whose son had died, I tried to get to the emotions in myself of how that would feel for me. The director kept saying....you're not there yet....go deeper! Just the thought and feeling of my son dying brought me to a depth of emotions that was not comfortable, and even seemed unbearable.

      The performance was fine, and I expressed a great depth of emotions with a monologue right after the funeral. However, with a review of a video, I agreed with the director.....I did not, and apparently could not, get to the depth of emotion that might be experienced with the death of my son.

      My point is, to feel what someone else might be feeling (compassion/empathy), one puts themselves to the best of our ability, in the exact situation of the person we are trying to understand.

      I agree with you regarding the actor who plays a role, the soldier who lives the experiences and the discrepancy in pay. If it is any consolation to you, I never received "$30, 000, 000, and a cut of the box office profits". What I DID receive and welcome, was the opportunity to learn about others, compassion and empathy.

      I agree that it is my right to disagree....we seem to agree on that:>)

      We can refuse to be a blind follower and NOT always be argumentative Carl:>)
  • Apr 19 2014: Lejan

    Now it is clearer where you are coming from; yes indeed intuition "can seem to be" -or- "be horribly wrong" to the point that 16 years ago it seemed (I believe it did) as if my subconscious conscious mind took over my life causing me to make decisions, totally out of character, and overriding any counter intuitive thoughts.

    Result, the total loss and detruction of all I had worked for, all of my pets/friends who I was responsible for, all of my personal possessions including hundreds of irreplaceable 45rpm & LP records, I had collected since I was 15, and so access to all of the memories connected to this audio library; all of my sports trophy's, all of my photographs; and the end of an unblemished 23 year career served 3 different countries. Finally being evicted from my home, and forced to live in the bush for almost 5 months like a primitive man.

    Why; because I fought back against low life corrupt officialdom; costing them millions of dollars and winning that particular fight; and they then used their official powers "criminally" in order to destroy me ( Bad mistake as they have made an enemy, whose soul will not rest until it sees every one of theirs in Hell).

    However had all of this not occurred, then I would not have been granted the years of time, needed to be spent, in deep introspection and thought, to gain the insights I have; I had set out to write a book 16 years ago, now I have a web site with 9000 + visitors in 120 countries, and am involved in these conversations on TED.

    Personally worth it?, it remains to be seen; as when I consider all this, and observe the ever increasing corruption and destruction of the Natural Kingdom, that is taking place, due to insatiable and mindless greed: I do wonder "Why?'; and so remind myself there is a reason for everything, I just can't see the wood, for the trees.

    So yes I do agree with you; we do need to be skeptical! in regard to our own, and others intuitions; and I include everything else as well
    • thumb
      Apr 20 2014: Carl, I think I'm related very cloesely to what you've described in your story.

      1. Intuition I think has nothing to do with our compulsive moods and moves. It is not at all intuition!! when those powerful sudden feelings and urges push us to do drastic things, it is Not intuition ---- this happens when we collect our reactions towards idiotic, unfair, mindless human activities, especially when we are very young.

      I've had my real, deeply subconscious intuition that stopped me from creating a lot of mess in my life based on those urgent moves... while I urgently wanted to be FAIR. My intuition told me - you did not create that human society - you were born into it... Well, I still get into a huge mess periodically..

      2. Based on your last comment I'd like to post a new topic - RECOVERING from destruction..

      Just to let you know I've recovered (though lost everything possible to lose, properties, cars, paintings, antiques, books..) and rose from the dead, not once!

      I'm happy I've learned something about the "unreal" ways, but every time I need a new "method" and find some different internal power to rise from hell - I mean the hell that is right here - created by humans and their unstoppable activities.
      • Apr 20 2014: And always the question keeps rising, is it worth it? and why do I keep getting back up?; and the last three years, have indeed been hell, and so it continues.

        Still I do know what the real hell is, and its is not demons and supernatural beings and fires of damnation etc; there nothing there at all, except your own "anxious" soul/mind, amid all the memories of all you have been and you have done, and no way out or back to back to the realities of physically living, as you used to know.

        And for all of life's tragedies and griefs etc; nothing can compare to being condemned to the never ending horror of the real Hell, of being nothing but you.
        • thumb
          Apr 20 2014: Ah, that is why I never was scared of any "hell" since I've heard this word for the first time. I knew one has to create it yourself - within oneself to really get it!

          Thanks for this timeless wisdom.
        • thumb
          Apr 20 2014: Carl and Vera,
          I agree that when one is facing challenges, it may feel like our "own anxious soul/mind amid all the memories....".

          One thing that has helped me move through challenges is.....rather than asking "why me?", I ask "why not me?".

          I believe we CAN move through challenges, learning, growing, evolving and come out the other side of the challenge more mindfully aware. This I have learned from communications with others, intuition and experience. I do not believe that we are condemned to the never ending horror of a perceived hell. I agree Carl, that it is the anxious mind which creates the perception of hell.
  • Apr 19 2014: Colleen

    Concerning your post to Lejan and myself of 1 day ago (which being tired I just mistakenly flagged thinking I was replying, no matter)

    1. I did not say that Lejan was attacking me; I opened with "what annoys me about people" a generalization and in regard to other TED conversations where this has occurred; had I been referring to Lejan I would have used his name within the paragraph concerned with the subject.

    2. Follow my own advice in regard to all I have taught; excuse me? The very reason for the controversies in conversations, is because nearly all that I put forward challenges orthodox thinking and its teachings; as it extends from my own intellect,rather that that which others have sought to both teach me, and make me swallow; and as such, convert me, nag me, coerce me, bully me into accepting and conforming to their beliefs.

    What has been going on in regard to my conversation with Lejan, is that Lejan simply cannot accept that intuition exists, because as I have said it is not something that can be coldly and clinically, or scientifically explained; only those who are intuitive, can accept the reality of intuition. But Lejan keeps insisting that it be explained, according to his filters; and because it cannot be done according to his filters, and on his terms; the conversation simply goes round and round in circles.

    So if you think you can explain intuition, according to his filters, then please do so, because I certainly cannot.
    • thumb
      Apr 19 2014: Hi Carl,
      Yes, I think it is important to walk our talk....follow our own advice because it makes communications more understandable and believable.

      I do not agree that all that you put forward challenges orthodox thinking and teachings......perhaps you think it is going to challenge in some way? Sometimes, it seems like you are already prepared to argue.....?

      I do not perceive anyone in this conversation trying to make you swallow anything, convert you, nag you, coerce you or bully you into accepting and conforming to their beliefs. I perceive people in this conversation trying to have a conversation with you. Do you want to do that?

      I do not agree with you that anyone in this conversation suggests that intuition does not exist.....I don't know where or how you are getting that idea Carl.

      A conversation CANNOT go round and round in circles unless TWO people contribute to that dynamic. If one person decides NOT to go round and round in circles, the circular conversation ends there. We all have a choice about that.
      • Apr 20 2014: Again you read into

        Not this conversation "Conversations and life in general" which you are obviously not aware of, and equally in regard to the controversial subjects covered on my web site.

        QT: I do not agree with you that anyone in this conversation suggests that intuition does not exist.....I don't know where or how you are getting that idea Carl.

        I was not referring to anyone else in this conversation; but rather in regard to my conversation with Lejan, within this conversation.

        And in this regard; I really do not need or want, your advice; and I am quite sure that Lejan is quite capable of taking care of himself.

        And yes I am always prepared to debate and argue; and carried out in a civilized manner; this world would be in a damn site better condition, and a much better world as a whole if others did so, rather than rolling over, accepting, and simply going along with the political, and media driven flow.
        • thumb
          Apr 20 2014: I am VERY aware of life Carl. I have no desire to review your web site Carl, because if it is any reflection of what you are projecting here in the TED conversations, it does not seem desirable.

          I am aware that you were referring to your conversation with Lejan....that is probably very clear to anyone reading your comments.

          I do not agree with you on some issues, and I have clearly expressed my thoughts, feelings and perceptions regarding those ideas with which I do not agree.

          You say you are always prepared to argue. How is that working for you Carl?
    • thumb
      Apr 19 2014: '...is that Lejan simply cannot accept that intuition exists, because as I have said it is not something that can be coldly and clinically, or scientifically explained'

      You are mistaking, Carl.

      I accept that intuition exist. I even base many of my decisions just on it and against my ratio.

      See:

      http://www.marriottsridge.net/~falcon9xr/postsecret_archive/2012_07_21/what_is_your_scientific_approa.html

      (The name changed, so find me by the picture)

      But I know that intuition can be horribly wrong, because it has been in my past and in my experience.

      Therefore I do not take my nor anyone else's intuition as valid explanation, leave alone evidence, about the meaning or purpose of natural phenomena and do not agree with those who do, because the universe is filled with counter-intuitive occurrences.
  • Apr 19 2014: Hi Vera

    My apologies for beginning my last reply with Bam, rather if not very childish of me; however it was simply great to read that someone else is thinking and has caught on, to what I have been trying to get across to people for years, with it just meeting with a facial expression, lying somewhere between blankness and confusion, and simply going over their heads.

    QT: You just triggered something I kept in my mind for a long time.

    We have some very special sort of terms/words that people have been Invented on Purpose - those terms are not to deliver their meaning but to confuse and camouflage their meaning. It is a kind of "language" used in tricky businesses, legal paperwork and forms, banking/lending or political "endeavors".

    I think the idea of inventing that sort of mysterious words has been stolen from that the old religious cults "practicing", when the members must obey without understanding of what is happening to them.

    That special language is NOT meant to be understood but to trick. Typical human invention - for abusing others..

    Have pasted this into word, and your latest post; Which I am not happy with (Joking) only is so far as I think with only six days to go in this conversation; your latest post of 6 hours ago is of such import that it should be used to open an addendum conversation to this one.

    For now as have to do some more thinking a lot of life's truths, lie in the reading of childhood fairy tales, capitalism Jack and the Bean Stalk (City slickers relative to rural people/workers; and in this regard - rhetorical? how is it that the greatest amount wealth, lies in the hands of the non-productive and least creative), but seldom with a happy ending: Life; Ansel and Gretal and the Hobbit & Lord of the Rings etc;; there is always a path and the warning not to stray off the path if you want to complete your quest/journey; and such is life; watch out for tricksters & tricky business; because its everywhere your looking, and not looking
  • Apr 18 2014: Vera

    You are on exactly the right path/wavelength, re the false facades/faces of reality; that you have to rather than look at (Not seeing the wood for the trees) look into, and through what is being presented; and into the beyond where all the workings of the nefarious schemes, have been devised and have been evolving, and have evolved over the last two thousand years; and still continuing to evolve; as people cannot see the wood for the trees/propaganda lies, con jobs, advertising, marketing, frauds.

    And it is the insatiable greed of these legalized dishonest practices, that are in the process of destroying this world.

    Last night I was watching David Attenbroughs planet Earth, an original population 300. 000 Blue Whales, now only around 3000 left; and Japan has so out fished its surrounding ocean, they can only catch jelly fish: A program Mighty Ships, this factory ship called the Northern Star catches thousands of tons each year; and unbelievably they go looking for shoals of "pregnant fish" because the fish roe fetches five times as much lucre os the Asian markets.

    Crass stupidity and insatiable greed, and not allowing these fish to breed is killing the future of both the fish, and the children of those, who are committing these "criminal" acts against the natural kingdom.

    Pteropods in the Southern Ocean are being destroyed by acidification, estimate extinct by 2030; no its going to be sooner; as it is not what the scientists have taken into account, it is what they have not; that is the kicker.

    Every city is = to a primal active volcano, with heat from all the domestic, industrial, and street cars, rising into the air, and the rain is heated as it passes through this heat, and heated further as it hits the warmed buildings and asphalt. And all of that heat flows to sewers, rivers, oceans, along with heated effluents;
    Greenland is now green, glaciers and ice caps melting, and it cannot stop, as heat production is continuously increasing - acceleration.
  • thumb
    Apr 18 2014: I just want to let everyone read what Colleen has said in one of her comments

    "I believe we can communicate with all kinds of creatures, and one of the first steps is to really listen with all our senses...."
  • Apr 18 2014: Sorry Lejan my mind needs a break; but for now "no you can't imagine it and thats the point, and no one can do it for you.

    As to how I know these things; because I have as the Chinese saying/curse goes, led a very "interesting life; caused by the actions of the self serving and vested interests of the dull, ignorant and abusive; however what does not destroy you strengthens you; and what consoles me is that what goes around comes around, and their turns will come; and that is based upon both experience, and personally gained knowledge.

    And the greatest majority of the curses of life have their origins, in the realms of the egos of the supposedly intellectual mind gods

    Refer to

    www.fromthecircletothesphere.com

    Last section, of Einstein's Theories

    Catch you later got to have a break
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Apr 18 2014: You just triggered something I kept in my mind for a long time.

      We have some very special sort of terms/words that people have been Invented on Purpose - those terms are not to deliver their meaning but to confuse and camouflage their meaning. It is a kind of "language" used in tricky businesses, legal paperwork and forms, banking/lending or political "endeavors".

      I think the idea of inventing that sort of mysterious words has been stolen from that the old religious cults "practicing", when the members must obey without understanding of what is happening to them.

      That special language is NOT meant to be understood but to trick. Typical human invention - for abusing others..
  • Apr 17 2014: I Honestly could not care less, you simply go round in circles; demanding that the inexplicable (Intuition) be explained to you; quite simple you have your opinion about the birds singing good for, you stick with it; the reply to you was/is in an open conversation; and given relative to an open conversation.

    As to the use of the word process; that was poorly put; I was referring to the process of answering your questions which simply go round in circles and I am done with them; find the answers within yourself; do the hard work yourself.
    • thumb
      Apr 17 2014: If you're refering to me personally, Carl, I'm afraid that my topic-question is still unanswered (should be placed in a "Questions" category)

      What can we do to improve our endlessly confusing communications based on language?

      Call me opinionated but the truth is impossible to escape - our man-made language is mainly based on artificial imaging, symbolic abstractions and artificial order.

      We did not get to this point yet in this talk, and I agree with you, sort of making rounds. This is how the most important ideas come to our minds.

      The subject is rather daring. But I see many members who have brought inspiring thoughts.

      The truly serious problems of language as communication are not revealed anywhere, neither in philosophy nor in psychology. The problems we face everyday are not clearly detected and understood.

      This topic demands serious thinking, it is not just some chat with strangers.

      Thank you for your participation, I like many of your comments, I appreaciate it.
      • Apr 17 2014: Vera

        No I was not referring to you, had I been, I would have used your name; and if I do not use the persons name then I am usually speaking generally.

        Also I will apologize "to an extent" for my testiness and irritability; I was answering Lejan's questions, after a very hard day of traveling to and from the city while not being too well, and responding to Lejan until 2 30 in the morning, not a good mix. I have now had some four and a half hours sleep; and normally this hour (at least) time which lies/merges between the veil of sleep and the full consciousness of the day, is spent in introspection and deep thought.

        However as I awoke as usual and recharged with new perspectives, and thoughts etc, I decided to log on and read Lejan's further comments before responding; which apart from a very short reply I am not going to do immediately, but should be doing so a bit later when my thoughts are more in order.

        Qt: Because! This topic demands serious thinking, it is not just some chat with strangers.

        "Or one particular person"

        Addendum well I guess my reply to Lejan was not so short; ah well never mind
        • thumb
          Apr 17 2014: Carl - you must have a good rest. This happens to me often, when I'm overwhelmed, tired to death and still need some work to do, and am aslo rushing to reply to someone... in a hurry... :)

          I appreciate your honest way to talk in all your comments.
          Bless you!

          P.S I really meant to say that in order to find something valuable in our work or some research we do make lots of "rounds" - it is actually the only way.
  • 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.

    Why?

    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.
  • Apr 16 2014: 16/4/14: (1) Lejan

    You know what really annoys me about people in general? it is that despite their not having spent the enormous amount, and times it takes in deep, & often torturous thought obtaining answers to many fundamental questions in regard to life & its realities, the universe etc; if you offer an opinion and it does not agree with theirs, they will personalize it, and attack it and you.

    Or if they are genuinely seeking answers, and they think you might be a source that can provide them with an answer, then their attitude is that somehow they possess the "right to demand" an answer to any question that they might ask of you. Despite the the fact they have not done, or completed the hard yards (many relativity's) towards acquiring the answer. And you being the lesser person, are expected not only provide the answer but also to simplify its mass and present it in a super condensed down mode that can be easily absorbed.

    So let me say; I am happy to share my opinions and thoughts with others; my opinions, and my thoughts, and philosophies have been gained at great cost to me, and they are my intellectual property; no one has the right to "demand answers" of me, or hit me with attitude when I try to explain/convert/simplify those thoughts as best as I am able to.

    Quote

    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.

    French language is melodic; but it is a humanly constructed language, the dawn chorus stems from nature itself, and is not being "used" in any such base manner.

    The birds may be counting how many have survived the night, regardless the whole choral intuitively brings us joy.
  • Apr 14 2014: And what you said; still that paints only an infinitesimal fraction, of the multi dimensional jig saw of the overall big picture; not inclusive of said, to its relativity's to the greater physical and metaphysical aspects of the cosmos/universe Creator.

    Thanks for correcting me re Lejan's name; will do
  • Apr 14 2014: Hi Lejan

    Know the feeling 4 1/2 hours and up again; did not get the comment regarding G's and H's, perhaps my age, as in, perhaps its recent jargon which is a major factor in killing (blurring) communication between generations: And as to language in regard to subject matters, academic speak with its classical English background and penchant for the use of long impressive words, is virtually alien to the common vernacular of the average person.

    This then knocks on into the international forum of the internet; whereby for instance, you used the term thank you for your imaginings; I then had to stop and think, is this person being sarcastic? So I had a re read a couple of times and decided that it was not meant that way.

    I really think that while its good that languages continue to evolve new words; as in too many cooks spoil the broth; too many unnecessary words expand, stretch and water down the communication factor: And as English is the major language of communication on an international scale; it should be looked at condensing it and producing a common international usage version. And even better if used in conjunction with an iconic form, as similar to being of a literal and diagrammatic form.

    Came across an abbreviation a couple of years ago, that sums it up in regard to teaching and communicating and perhaps developing an international language, KISS; keep it simple stupid. (And I suspect, I am a major offender in this regard).

    Carl
    • thumb
      Apr 14 2014: Dear Carl - you're a wholesome soul, so rare.. you always make meaningful comments.

      The languages are mirrors of our mentality and psyche, but reflects our mental state the most! As overcrowded mindless and hectic mode of our postmodern life pushing all of us around, the communication changes and not to it possible best..

      Fast, quick, very loud, and very rough , no time to think, no time to understand, but only move and move pushed in no-go direction, but only making rounds.. stepping on everything valuable and even precious treasures that have been surviving for many generations.



      P.S. Please correct Lejan 's name, it's Lejan. :)
  • Apr 14 2014: Ps have noted the/my typos, but will leave them as I have to get on

    Cheers Carl
  • 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.
  • Apr 14 2014: your welcome
  • thumb
    Apr 14 2014: “When most of the greatest individuals in history were misunderstood and you've spent so much of your own adult life misunderstood, you can't help but believe that the majority of people know very little worth knowing.”
    ― Criss Jami
  • thumb
    Apr 14 2014: “One of the things Ford Prefect had always found hardest to understand about human beings was their habit of continually stating and repeating the very very obvious, as in It's a nice day, or You're very tall, or Oh dear you seem to have fallen down a thirty-foot well, are you all right? At first Ford had formed a theory to account for this strange behaviour. If human beings don't keep exercising their lips, he thought, their mouths probably seize up. After a few months' consideration and observation he abandoned this theory in favour of a new one. If they don't keep on exercising their lips, he thought, their brains start working.”
    ― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
  • thumb
    Apr 14 2014: We often think we "learn" by mimicking words, satisfied with not a bit of understanding.
  • Apr 13 2014: See posted reply to Legan
  • thumb
    Apr 13 2014: Thoughts are the shadows of our feelings - always darker, emptier and simpler.

    Friedrich Nietzsche

    Can we replace thoughts with "words" ? WORDS are the shadows of our feelings - always darker, emptier and simpler.
  • Apr 13 2014: We, any sentient beings, communicate to get to know each other and to spread ideas. Face to face is the most intelligent way to get to know each other. But writing is the most intelligent way to spread ideas.
  • Apr 12 2014: What I understand from your talk is language arises from our imagination. Imagination is universal and language is narrow, so language cannot describe our imaginations perfectly or sometimes may destroy it; for example two people with different language cannot communicate together, but two ancient people were able to communicate just by make a smile, or move their hands or heads or whatever which basically was instinctive .
    So, you say we should not allowed every word during different times of human history entered our language. I agree with these and I think if you investigate root of a lot of words you can find that they are meaningless and far away from our imagination and you cannot communicate well by these words.
    I always be interested in finding out how animals communicate; suppose you put one monkey from Africa near one monkey from Asia, what happens to them? I think they can find out to communicate more rapidly that two humans :)
    So, I agree that our man-made language far people from each other more and ruin the nature attribute of our life. Do you have any solution for this?
    • thumb
      Apr 13 2014: Esmail, thank you for thinking along! I'm a life-trained reseracher lucky to work on the most, I think, pioneering project related to perceptions and their grand limitations. The greatest of classical thoughts on our limitations were expressed from ancient time (Heraclitus and Protagoras) and later in work of LOCKE, BERKELEY, HUME and then KANT. But none of these great philosophers has explained WHY we are so limited (except Berkeley who "explained" limitations by God's will).

      This is actually my work - finding the very explanations on WHY we are so greatly limited.

      Our language and the way we limitly use it (and abuse it) one of the subjects I've been working on..

      The most fundamental explanations are rooted in HOW we perceive ourselves and our unique realities.
      Our perceptions are govered by a few basic laws - these are not universal but our internal laws. Before we experience and observe our realities our subconsciousness does the work that is impossible to see under any miscoscope. However, I trust anyone can watch his/her perceptions work through that very routin we have never pay any attention to.

      We cannot perceive a thing, no image or a sound, feel no sensations of any sorts, unless we instinctivelly COMPARE whatever we sense. The we Select watever gets our emotional attention the most (that is why we so often miss so many details, even when staring at those "things") . Them we compose a scenarion or a COMPOSITION of what we selectivelly perceive. It can be a landscape, a room, a formula, numbers and symbols like our language, etc,. In order to craet some logic we must Frame our mental composition so that logic would not "swim" out of our mental composition. These are the most recent quite pioneering observations on our perceptions - our the most fantastic tools for composing and recomposing our limited scenarios of realities we may see or hear or touch. The rest of the world is impossible for us to know as it is.
      • thumb
        Apr 13 2014: Vera,

        When we come into this world, we have all of our possibilities ahead of us - to learn, to feel, to do, to communicate, to become whomever we might be capable of becoming.

        And then we start learning limitations.

        We might recognize physical limitations that keep us from doing some things. We also impose physical limitations on our selves according to what we think or imagine we cannot do, or what we become afraid to do, perhaps because we fear injury or fear being laughed at, resulting in emotional injury.

        We get our feelings hurt and limit our connections and vulnerability to further emotional injury and pain, which limits our ability to build healthy and fulfilling relationships with others. We bond to something or someone who seems to offer some security, which limits our ability to find encouragement, support and security among many.

        We suffer mentally when our thoughts and ideas are not accepted or possibly even attacked. This might happen only because of our inadequate ability to communicate clearly and concisely with others, or perhaps our inability to understand others. So we learn to protect ourselves by keeping quiet about many things, or by being careful about what we say and how we say it.

        Every time we focus our attention on something, we exclude many other possibilities, which limits us in what we see, hear, feel, think, do. Every time we choose to believe something, we immediately exclude other possibilities, which again limits us.

        Most of the pain and suffering people endure in life results in learned limitations. Those limitations tend to lead to even more limitations. And often we learn "wrong" lessons from situations and events in our lives. Most of our limitations are not imposed upon us by others, they are learned by us; we choose to take on these limitations.

        The good news is: because these limitations are learned, that means we can UNlearn those limitations and become free from them. That means we expand our possibilities again.
        • thumb
          Apr 13 2014: While many of the ideas that are presented here are popular one and often parroted, they are never the less beliefs. They also ignore the degree to which an environment reenforces certain conditioning and conditioned associations.
          The writer claims, " Every time we choose to believe something, we immediately exclude other possibilities, which again limits us." Is the writer not falling into the same trap; setting forth a belief and excluding other possibilities? Please support these idea of with some actual research.

          The one great limitation in all cultures is that they usually hold to a singular coherence; a one size its all mentality.
        • thumb
          Apr 13 2014: I'd like to add some thought to your keen thinking.
          I see our Limitations as our creative "tools" for endless Possibilities to carve out our realities in new ways. if we change our staubborn methods, hammering the same spots, we may begin to learn how to CHANGE and develope ourselves, using our limitations differently..

          Nature takes care of change and we need to practice to get along with it.

          Without any limitations we would be melted down into everything else in no time. I think our limitations are our Protective Boundaries. No one even thought about this blessed nature's condition, as it "works" within every form of life.

          Our protective boundaries, or as we understand them to this very day, Limitations, are very fexible allowing us to get along with our everchanging, challenging environment.
        • Apr 16 2014: Hi Carl Karasti

          Sorry Un-learning is just about impossible for most, as recent study (sorry cant remember where I read it, probably the International Express Newspaper) sowed that first impressions have the most powerful effect upon us; and even given absolute proofs that those impressions were wrong; the original impression still continues to effect the person.

          And when it comes to belief, as I know from personal experiences; they are virtually irremovable, and the believer will both consciously and subconsciously do just about anything to protect their belief; regardless as to how absurd the belief has been proven to be.
      • thumb
        Apr 13 2014: Theodore,

        I don't have any "research" handy to offer, and I don't know if there even is any such research out there that would be relevant. But consider some simple examples.

        If you look south, you are not looking east, west, north, up or down, and you cannot do so without turning away from looking south. Yes, you can turn, but then you are no longer looking south, or any other direction other than the direction your are looking. Therefore, your view is selectively limited by which direction you choose to look.

        If you choose to believe God exists, then you cannot believe God does not exist. If you choose to believe God does not exist, then you cannot believe God does exist. If you choose to believe it is impossible to know whether or not God exists, then you cannot believe that God does or does not exist.

        I grew up hearing the absurd advice that if your toe was hurting, if you hit your thumb with a hammer your toe won't hurt anymore. As silly as that is, it's based on the truth that if you are attending to one thing, you cannot also attend to something else. Yes, you can switch your attention back and forth, but the fact remains that you will only be fully attending to one thing at a time.

        If you choose to believe I have fallen into my own trap, then you cannot believe I have not done so, or that there is no trap to fall into.

        Pretty much every group, whatever the size or type, is formed or united by something that is held in common. Often they are based on a belief or set of beliefs, either actually held or outwardly expressed. Anyone who does not subscribe to the group beliefs is out, anyone who does is eligible to be in. Any group formed around something held in common will exclude those who do not hold to whatever is necessary to be in the group. There may or may not be tension and/or strife between those who are in and those who are out. If disagreements arise between those who are in, cohesion will diminish and the group may split or disintegrate.
        • thumb
          Apr 13 2014: Carl, you say: "I grew up hearing the absurd advice that if your toe was hurting, if you hit your thumb with a hammer your toe won't hurt anymore. As silly as that is, it's based on the truth that if you are attending to one thing, you cannot also attend to something else. Yes, you can switch your attention back and forth, but the fact remains that you will only be fully attending to one thing at a time."

          This is related to the very old ancient Chinese PRACTICING when helping wounded solders, on which the acupuncture treatment is based.
      • Apr 13 2014: Vera, Thank you for bringing up this discussion

        We should accept that our brain's power is limited as a human being. Even the most genius people in the history needed many years studying, thinking and trying to understand some nature rules, some facts about our life and some realities. You should have a PhD to understand basic laws in each field. We have billion fields in the world. After thousand years live in this world, how much we realize about ourselves and our world? Speed of increasing human's knowledge becomes faster but this is not because we become more intelligent.
        Look at how we train ourselves; we should go to school from age of 6th to 18th to just prepare for basic understanding of our life. No one can deny the fact that we and our tools for understanding(our senses and our brain) is not enough. Even whole human power is not enough too.
        If you combine the power of most genius humans, animals and robots you are still limited.
        I think you are looking for reasons of this limitation; but, I'm curious to know why we want to have an unlimited perception power? We cannot have a great life with this amount? Or how we could change our life based on our limitations to be more happy? What happens to human limitations in next 50 years? Human limitations increases or decreases? (I have some thoughts about this but I'm not sure)
        • thumb
          Apr 16 2014: Hello Esmail. Let me share with my own explanation on Limitations. I think that Limitations are actually our protective boundaries. I imagine that if we have had no limitations and could interact with everything Directly, absolutely unprotected, we would melt down into everything in no time, like lumps of sugar in a very hot cup of tea.

          Moreover, I think, our limitations within our minds/souls and bodies are not only boundaries but also work as if they were our mind's sculptor's chisels carving out our unique/personal realities out of the rest of the world. That is why everyone is more or less unique, has its unique internal conditions and circumstances .

          I'm just thinking for myself..

          In philosophy we could not find any explanations WHY we MUST be limited. It is an open but absolutely untouched by our consciousness field of knowledge.
      • Apr 13 2014: Let me ask you my final Question Vera to have your opinion.
        I believe people in this century (modern life) have an increasing tendency to fashion, art, music, sports.
        How do you relate this to our limitations?
      • thumb
        Apr 16 2014: Carl Dalton,

        Yes, I know it's easier to reinforce what a person already believes than it is to change their belief. That's old news. But it applies to situations where someone is trying to change the mind of another through presentation, discussion, argument, persuasion.

        However, un-learning that is self-motivated is quite easy. The only trick is that people need to wake up to see that things might be different than they had previously been led to think. That can come about in various ways, and what it takes and how it works depends upon the person and the timing.

        For some people, all it takes is the 'right' suggestion, the 'right' bit of information, the 'right' situation at the 'right' moment. And 'right' depends upon the person. So, it could be something their boss or minister or co-worker or friend says. Or something a child says or does. Perhaps something in a book they are reading or a movie they're watching. It could be inspired by falling in love. Or maybe by sitting quietly watching waves lap up on the shore or watching a sunrise or sunset.

        For other people, it can take something more dramatic, often very dramatic. So, the death or close call for someone near and dear to a person, or perhaps for the person themselves is the shock needed to awaken them. Or maybe some natural or man-made disaster resulting in significant destruction and/or death.

        Whatever it might be, and where ever it might be on the spectrum of relative power, severity or 'shock' quality, people need something to help or make them break the habits they've been caught up in, just long enough to allow some openness to seeing something differently, thinking or feeling something differently, doing something differently. This kind of insight can help people shed years, decades of old stuff and open the way to a whole new way of seeing and relating to the world.

        Spiritual experiences such as meditation, chanting, praying, etc. can also bring about this kind of shift in a person's life.
        • Apr 18 2014: I know

          And un-learning has never been a problem for me, but rather those (not directed at you, generally speaking) who have constantly tried to shove their beliefs/learning down my throat, or bully me into believing their non-senses; non have ever succeeded, and non ever will.
    • Apr 13 2014: The reason is that the universal language of the universe, of the dreams and the nightmares is of all living creatures, is biologically (inherently) geometric = iconic in nature.

      Which is why e.g. a wilder-beast foal within two hours, will recognize a predator, and run in terror from it, despite the fact that being only a couple of years (Edit oops hours old) old, it has never seen or experienced such a predator.

      Scientists based upon nothing more than that of assumption and arrogance, choose to call this genetic memory; but rather it is intuition.

      Or more concisely "Inner Tuition" = "we all creatures" are born connected to, and remain connected to, the universal intelligence of our creator; via the means of inner tuition.
      • thumb
        Apr 13 2014: Just to support your thought:

        "Scientists based upon nothing more than that of assumption and arrogance, choose to call this genetic memory; but rather it is intuition. Or more concisely "Inner Tuition" = "we all creatures" are born connected to, and remain connected to, the universal intelligence of our creator; via the means of inner tuition.

        My conmment: I'm sorry that while scientific thinking is so entirely influenced by deep intuition, we still know nothing about what drives the best and the most intelligent things we may do. Our very intuition. "
        -----------------
        “The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.”
        ― Daniel J. Boorstin, The Discoverers: A History of Man's Search to Know His World and Himself
        • Apr 18 2014: And the first step towards being led astray (from the path) is to believe one is too intelligent to be led astray.
  • thumb
    Apr 11 2014: sounds like you don't think it is. So what do you think is better?

    I would say in general it is the most effective way to communicate, but there may be specific situations where it is not.
    • thumb
      Apr 12 2014: Hello Greg. I think that Every word that is heard or pronounced by us needs some time to be digested in our imaginative minds - see as some image(s) and connect it with our memories instinctive and superficial conscious memories.

      It is a very long process while in wilderness communications are based on momentary instinctive, though very complicated for us to recon, highly emotional exchange. Our language-of-words is the most slow type of our communication, and also very confusing for the reason that every one of us thinks differently, reacts differently, feels and memorizes very differently. The process of selecting the "right" words to express our thoughts also takes time.

      I guess no super gadgets can help us understand one another any better than millenia ago.

      What do you think?
      • thumb
        Apr 13 2014: do you really mean this literally, vera? So if I want to say to you "I like your dress," first I should say the word "I," then I should give you some time to process the word "I," (how long would I give you?), then I should say the word "like," give you some time to process that, and so on?
        • thumb
          Apr 14 2014: Thank you, Greg, you understand me perfectly.
      • thumb
        Apr 17 2014: so I seem to recall on your food conversation you were having dinner parties with friends? But do you chat with each other at these parties, you could hardly do that if you talked this slowly?
        • thumb
          Apr 17 2014: Oh, no. Cannot talk to anyone while composing my food, it takes a little longer that process words in our minds. Though I'm very fast for a cook, it's almost a "sacred ceremony" for me :)

          Why do you ask?
      • thumb
        Apr 17 2014: well, you had said that you did mean for people to talk very slowly, to say a word, wait a few minutes for the other person to understand the word, say another word, wait a few minutes. How can you have a friendship this way as friendships are built on conversation?
        • thumb
          Apr 17 2014: Hi Greg. I absolutely agree with your suggestion about that we need to talk more slowly, this would make a big difference.

          Here is how I understand it might Practically work:

          1. I shall think a few times over what I wish to say, before I write or pronouns the words

          2. I must be responsible for what I'm saying - or I better say nothing.

          3. first and foremost I shall imagine someone's possible reaction to my words, that can be very negative, and I shall be prepared to handle the situation constructively, I might be missing something I am not aware off..

          It is very easy to confuse other people who might interpret our "simple" words variously, even when they think they, themselves, understand "exactly" what we mean! In reality people give your words THEIR unique meaning.

          We are all greatly emotional and commonly under some stress. Stress is increasing confusion among us but we try to "fix" the situation by exchanging more and more controversial and provocative words - with no good results

          It is unavoidable that we see our realities very differently even when naively think that we see the same world.

          Even "Simple" words need a ton of explanations.. Those short ancient sayings provoke endless explanations , and many of them are controversial.

          We shall learn great deal of patience before we'll find some better way to communicate than using words.. In the faraway future?
  • Apr 10 2014: The problem is the superficiality of education. We do not learn to define. We are limited to visual definitions of objects. When it comes to concepts, such as education, justice, etc., we do not have a clue about their true meaning. Socrates dealt with this problem by developing the art of dialectics. And it works! We can have as concrete a definition of justice as we have of a tree. Children should practice in dialectics starting 1st grade or even earlier.
  • thumb
    Apr 10 2014: Every word that is heard or pronounced needs some time to be digested in our minds. Our language-of-words is the most slow type of our communication.


    When I hear, read or write the words I must imagin things or events related to these words. I have to play these words as images , sounds, shapes, colors, movements..in my own mind just in order to translate their meaning for myself. I have to re-play the process a few times untill feel - I somehow understand the message.

    The process takes a lot of time if we compare it with intuitive communications that can be instant. But unlike intuitive, momentary communications in whilderness, we're mixing both types of our communication, instinctive and that is based on our conventional language together, in different proportions.
  • thumb
    Apr 10 2014: @vera, fritzie
    Now that I've read Fritzie's comment,:
    'I don't think "intelligent" is quite the right word for comparing one avenue of communication to another...'
    It occurred to me that the question "Is our human language the most intelligent tool to communicate?" is adding more to confusion. We have divided 'human language' into verbal language, intuition, and body language, and argued about them. Also, what if you paraphrase the question to: 'Which is the best tool for communication: verbal language, intuition, or body language?' So what do you think dear Vera? Am I making sense?
    • thumb
      Apr 10 2014: You do make sense, Poch. I should be more specific. But I meant just our language-of-words, not body or any other sorts of what we also can name "language".

      But we can compare the language-of-words with other expressions, like our behavior, intonations etc

      Well it is my fault, sloppy me.
      • thumb
        Apr 10 2014: Don't put yourself down just for that Vera. I am newer than you at TED yet I already edited at least 2 of my convo questions lol. I mean it's a small, common, pardonable mistake.
        • Apr 10 2014: At least two!

          I only wish! I am constantly finding errors in mine and editing them, keep promising myself to do them in word first and then paste them, mind you the tiny text in the TED post boxes does not help matters, but its no real excuse.
      • thumb
        Apr 10 2014: lol I post by copy/paste with no problems so I think you really should do that Carl.
  • Apr 10 2014: Hi Carl Karasti agreed again: Continued

    Anyone experienced in dealing with trauma, would have recognized this condition as being the equivalent of shell shock, this poor mother was trying to cope with the mind images of her baby being eaten alive, a mothers worst night mare, and her mind trying to close these horrors out of her mind in order to protect her sanity; she was not expressing a lack of emotion but the opposite extreme of the same "Near state of Catatonia".

    And all of the time these low life parasites of the media were following her every where she went, and constantly poking dozens of their weapons (microphones) into her face, hounding and baiting her; to the point that those images of merciless cruelty, and of kicking an innocent and helpless victim when she's down, and praying for her release from the horrors the mind eye images of her baby being torn apart; still anger and sicken me thirty years later.

    But what is also worse, is that despite her having since been proven to be totally innocent; nothing was learned or has changed, as a more recent and similar case proved.
  • Apr 10 2014: Hi Carl Karasti agreed again;

    Heres a good example of what we are discussing; I meant exactly the "same sort of thing" takes place with the written word; but because I used the word exactly this suggested literally rather than generalization.

    And indeed I mentioned those aspects of conversation, as opposed to written text in one of my posts,

    No I did not miss your reference to the article; and to psychologists and their researches, and the assumptions made relative to their observations - relative to their own pre fixed educations - race - cultures - experiences - gender - religions - theories - Sigmund "Fraud' etc.

    They need to first recognize that you cannot walk a mile in another's shoes, and you do not see body language expressed in the raw, until you have witnessed its breakdown "so many times" in face of pure emotional agony, despair, depression, loss, grief, and death ect; and you do not understand it; until you have walked through those fires yourself.

    Classic example: Lindy Chamberlain whose baby was taken and eaten by a Dingo. Despite having been cleared in two coroners courts, the vested interests of the tourism industry and the Kangaroo Courts of the Australian media, pursued this poor grieving mother mercilessly and relentlessly, until under pressure and despite zero evidence; and the impossibility of it having happened as witnessed by dozens of witnesses, (How do you kill a baby in a camping ground with dozens of people around, and then make its body abracadabra disappear in ten minutes) the Police acting under growing pressure charged her with having killed her baby; and all of the witnesses were excluded; result sentenced to life with hard labour; how low can humanity sink?

    The only aspect the matter that the press could use against her, was what they termed as being her hard cold visage (Blankness of expression) and lack of emotion. I wonder where all the psychologists were then?

    Continued
  • Apr 9 2014: Yes I really do have to sign off, as I have a ton of work to do re new web page, I have only had about three hours sleep.

    Cheers Carl
  • Apr 9 2014: Some perhaps 15 -16 years ago I had a quick look at a work by Karl Jung (Dreams - Symbols - Icons -Pictures; e.g. how does a Wider-beast foal recognize a predator, only an hour or to after being born, and some even able to outrun it through wild terrain it obviously never seen ) seen before , I only scanned some of it, as IMO he was definitely on the right path, maybe I will get another copy along with Man Watching; the latter also being of great sentimental value, as it was bought for my birthday, by the only love of my life.(Brilliant Man - Brilliant Book).
  • Apr 9 2014: Carl Karasti +1
    4 hours ago: 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.

    Hi Carl

    Agreed!!

    And it is exactly the same with the written word, as I experienced in a recent conversation, whereby what was was written was both unconsciously, and consciously edited in the persons mind reading it, even to the point of lying.

    However the truth as to what had actually been, and was originally said, remained the same; regardless of what the person did to sabotage it.

    And therefore you are absolutely right in what you say, but the unconscious and underlying body language of itself is honest. and it does not lie; the consciously aware of the situation person does, or the observer of the body language for reasons as you stated, and or for self vested interests.
    • thumb
      Apr 9 2014: Hi Carl Dalton,

      Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say that "it is exactly the same with the written word" because there is so much that is missing from the written word that is part of face-to-face spoken word. (Over the telephone there would be some limitations due to attenuation of some energetic input.) As I noted in another comment: "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."

      And, in case you missed it in another comment I made, here's a link to an article about some recent research regarding the reliability of body language:

      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.
      http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/living-single/201403/how-body-language-lets-us-down
  • Apr 9 2014: will do please see latest post to Poch

    Ps. Epistemology; nice word, glad I bought an electronic dictionary! and no I am not being a smart a, no I really do like that word.
    • thumb
      Apr 9 2014: Well, our language is all about words/symbols They have labeled my new research in which I'm very involved, to squeeze it into some category.. that is the only way you can be accepted by being categorized. Some day I'll categorize it based on its true nature.
  • Comment deleted

    • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

  • thumb
    Mar 29 2014: Language; I'm not really bothered about it being the most intelligent, but languages communicate better than other forms of expression, in fact, art (another form of expression) uses language to communicate through music and other performance arts.

    A film, a painting, can also mean so many things to so many people; but the word "Ringo is dead" is clear to most English speakers.
    Words like "Happiness", "Love", "Family", may mean far more different things; but even my intuition is not the same as yours.

    When it comes to finding a common ground between people or communities, it is a matter of choice.
    There is a level of human understanding that has little or nothing to do with language.
    We dont need to understand each other holistically to live in harmony; we just need to accept each other.
  • Mar 28 2014: Vera

    All men are islands and women are not exclude in this truism. Formal education is a good thing providing it does not rearrange the molecular structure of the brain, as is being done in our schools today.
    I think that it is difficult to define philosopher or when such a notion, talent, enters into the thinking process. Perhaps, it is the questioning of things, of existence. This talent is as the artist, who is an artist before before a brush is touched. As Auguste Rodin did not create The Thinker he found him and then released him from the rock. The philosopher does not create new, he examines the old, questions the old and it is new again, perhaps in a more succinct, a more rational and coherent manner, as The Thinker.
    Those famous philosophers, be distant from their paths, as many had fools for friends. As it is said of the self taught, a fool for a teacher. I believe that came from the teacher unions.
    For some, I think, lonely is a mandate of the individual and too, it is there that we find our first and last best friend.
    Many though, without realization, have a tendency smother friendships with to much attention.
    I am of the Ayn Rand and other Realists schools of thought. Aristotle, more ancient Greeks and those of the ancient Carvaka schools of thought.John Lock was a significant thinker. I have no use for the Nietzches' of this world.
    Subjective philosophies are prone to the whims of emotion where truth can be subverted by want. Objectivity is the most difficult, but the most revealing when it is reason that we are pursuing. Take care not to deny human emotions in the process.
    Pangaea was an island and it was all there was, no more was needed.
    • thumb
      Mar 28 2014: Charles, you said: "Perhaps, it is the questioning of things, of existence. This talent is as the artist, who is an artist before before a brush is touched." Maybe you'd be delighted to know that there is a related nature's law, governing our very perceptions and thinking, that reveals how true your observation is.

      And, yes, we are driven in our actions depending on our emotional flow - I think, emotions, is the most vital energy of all we may experience.

      I think you have a couple of more splendid comments "Those famous philosophers, be distant from their paths, as many had fools for friends." In my childhood I thought that great philosophers could not find any other sages around so they came-up with their famous dialogs talking to their "imaginative friends".

      "As it is said of the self taught, a fool for a teacher. I believe that came from the teacher unions."

      I trust there is no learned person if he/she is not SELF-LEARNED. The rest are only trained and tamed.

      I just want to add that I think objectiveness is actually absolutely impossible for us - our perceptions are crucially limited.. and we may see only appearances. But we can keep comparing our experience, and through comparison we may know more and more..about ourselves and the world but only through our unique interactions.
      No mind can jump out of itself to see the world as it is. Though we have our fantastic perceptions of it (even think we can "measure" it.)
    • thumb
      Apr 9 2014: I agree that pholosophy did not produce anything entirely new since Heraclitus, Democritus and Protagoras.
      But there were some new ways and endless attempts to explain old wisdom with great limits.

      Well, since that blessed time of ancient Greek philosophy, there were no enlightening ideas produced on the same scale. "Things-in-themselves" do not give us true inspiration for trying to discover and explore our new abilities to experience life in crucially different ways.

      We have never left the same recycling human psyche for thousands of years - but we are slightly different from our predecessors because we are producing more and more techological toys to play, while still fantasizing about our realities..

      Our art did not evolve because it still serves public conventional opinion and demand.

      My experience as a painting artist was very different from what is usually understood as art.

      My experience was helping me understand human perceptions as a hidden, from our conscious observations, process. I was wondering how our minds work subconsiously and instinctivelly before we eventually able to see or hear our internal reality. An artist is brewing compositions in mind before he touches the brushes. It is a conventional and traditional way. I'm holding brushes BEFORE I put something on blank canvas - practicing this since I was a young teen. Any premeditation, inspiration! is forbidden - I must surprise me..

      Instinctive behavior of mind before we actually see anything on a surface of our consciousness (consciousness is very superficial even if we believe that there is some "percpective" and debts but it is an illusion)

      I have a proof - in order to see anything every mind just like any artist must do instinctive work, bringing some instinctively pre-selected, deeply complicated, flactuating sensations on the surface of the blank canvas of conscious mind. The hidden laws that govern this process are unavoidable.
      • Apr 10 2014: Vera

        To your, "our art did---." All things physical, I think, that are related to the human mind as, art, writing, etc. reach thresholds of achievement in terms of expression. I think for many that threshold has been reached. The masters were, in deed, masters and only mimicry is possible, with only subtle differences.
        I do not see this, as a deterrent to art or philosophical thought.
        Being a spirited young man over 5 decades ago, I focused on religious belief, thinking that by attacking such an entrenched truth I would learn the great mysteries of life and the universe. Prior to 1960 I had become a self described Atheist and I was told that without God there was nothing, no truth, love, kindness and no meaning to life.The door had been slammed shut. I was alone, an outcast, a leper would have been more warmly received.
        My quest now was to find purpose and the, a new word for me then, 'essence' of me.
        I came to the conclusion that my life was not for others to define. My mind is who I am, its creativeness, its quarks. I decide the good, the bad, what is and is not art or probing thoughts, Convention was a stale notion of complacency satisfied with a six pack of beer. I drank Bacardi on the rocks.

        The Laws and Limitations of Human Perceptions.
        I do not possess universal intelligence. I don't know whats out there, but I do know that it would be unreasonable to think, that there would be anything greater than a being with a reasoning mind and I have one. With that concept us humans are very special, a very special life form. And then we go to war and kill each other. A quandary, is it not?
        There are no limitations on the human mind; only to the individual and that is to a limited life span.
        Your proof is of an imaginative, creative and reasoning mind. Let it work and not be defined by the convention and limitations of others. I didn't, but I had to put my rum away. Sometimes the sun does not shine.
        • thumb
          Apr 10 2014: Thank you so very much, Charles, for sharing with your thinking about 'essence' of me. . ' as you put it so clearly.

          I will share with you with my experience in return.
          Bewildered and confused with my life since I was a baby-newcomer desperatly looking for the answers explaning this awkward human reality. I started reading philosophy when i was 11. I was trying to find my Great Teacher even if he lived millennia before myself.

          I never felt myself physical a bit, and my body was always alien to me, even to this very day. This probably helped me become much stronger that people, who're more "down-to-earth".

          The bliss of that essence of my Self never left me. I so admire Schopenhauer - the greatest psychologist in history I think, however, I have my belief in irreplaceable Will to live, and that "selfish" Self.

          I eventually came to realize that nature has given us highly creative tools - our unique personal perceptions and even though they are always so limited we can change them and experience ourselves and our reality in very different ways and evolve and grow our minds/souls/spirits. Our sensations we call "physical" are ephemeral.I guess George Berkeley came back in his whole glory (except his ideas on God) to the leading world of experimental physics, just recently.

          I trust that we are naturally equipped for to create our own character while our challenging environments and different obstacles work on us like sculptor's chisels carving our unique Selfs out of the "matter" of the world.

          Once I was ill and was forced to go through those horrific heart tests. They gave me too much anesthesia and I was clinically dead for a few minutes. There are different Out of Body cases. Mine was very rare. I can continue if you wish.

          Since that experience i put away Locke, Hume, Kant, and many others as they appeared to me as wonderfully gifted but naive children..
      • Apr 11 2014: Vera

        Thank you for the insight and yes we are a very complex being. We are unique and in some ways a contradiction to the natural order that exists around us. No other animal possesses such a mix of emotion, physical and intellectual traits; each of us having a blend unique to that person. Combining all this with the nurturing process that, again, is unique to the individual offers some astounding potentials.
        With you, as such a unique individual and others that carry a sense of something else within their being, other than what is a categorized human structure, lends a promise of a new door to, an avenue perhaps, of a new defining of human and what if.
        When i talk to people of such difference and potential, I wonder of those who would attempt to place us all in nice neat boxes, with convenient labels, as to function and purpose. It is almost is if the human could be neatly placed on a shelf and plucked off as needed, as a human resource to fulfill a defined need of the State.
        The philosophers you mentioned all have certain points of value, but they should be labeled as, "May be detrimental to human well being."
  • Mar 28 2014: Hi Vera

    While its good to know someone has understood or interpreted along the same lines, what you are trying to communicate, thumbs up otherwise for me at least, are not really important.

    And again the same applies, thank you.
  • thumb
    Mar 27 2014: Vera it is interesting subject, can you make a debate about "THE LOGIC OF MADNESS" LET'S gathering a madness people to that debate ;-)
    • thumb
      Mar 28 2014: Dear Bilal. Maybe it would be better for you, yourself, to start this debate, since you have mentioned it first?
      I'll join you! Please let me know. I think it would be a super Topic.
  • Mar 26 2014: A large and important subject especially in regard to this internet age of international communications, and in regard to my two - pennyworth.

    My mind tends to consider past, present, and the future of this reality from a cause and effect and the multiplication aspect. of events. And in regard to writing and communicating on computers and via the internet; how many millions of us every single day, face the time consuming distraction of the spell checker, correcting our english to american, or vis a vis. Surely Microsoft could have by now provided a single overall form of computer English, rather than American, Australian, Canadian etc in regard to common words such as e.g. colour & color. It might not seem much of a problem, but when you consider that this time consuming distraction "and the irritation" relative to say a billion computers world wide, the productive life hours lost to humanity each day, multiplies up to becoming life years lost each day, for 365 days per year (hope that makes sense). and this is not including the human emotional costs, resulting from the computer rage effects.

    Another aspect are icons; why has Microsoft not developed programs using "permanent" internationally recognisable (Damn! Spell Checker now wants a Z instead of an S) icons to use, rather than with every new program you buy, having to waste time (life hours) learning, and using the icons that the program writer has invented and chosen to use?

    Also the already recognized international symbols for emergencies - trades - professions etc should be readily available for use by those writing trade and professional programs, and papers etc.

    And as to that damn spell checker, it ruins my train of thought and irritates the hell out of me at times, and no doubt this has the effect of being reflected in what I am writing, to some degree at the very least. Despite the fact that I am able to get over the irritation - interruption quite quickly.

    Just my two- pennyworth

    Cheers Carl
    • thumb
      Mar 27 2014: So delighted to read your comments, Carl. But the Ted system does not let me to give you anymore "thumb-ups" - limitations applied. Therefore, I want you to know - I thank you tremendously!
  • thumb
    Mar 26 2014: Our human interaction is the best way to get, but we need to develop this tool to help us to get a message and send it back,

    New way to interact between blind person and a depth person, this tool called "pranka" it is invited by a young man he is mid twenty. Cool idea.
      • thumb
        Mar 27 2014: no not that was i meant this one

        it's a language between blind person and deaf person by hand and it's in Arabic language i don't know if there is English one it's cool idea to develop our interacting.
    • thumb
      Mar 27 2014: Hello Bilal. I'm wondering, do you think that it would be possible for us, instead of making up more tools, to try to awake our suppressed from our very early childhood intuition, and learn to read our sensations beyond what we see on the very surface of our superficial realities? I think we are the most confused creatures on earth because
      we 're still believing in our illusive and superficial perception of Sight as if it is the most "dependable" source..

      Interesting, you mention blind and deaf people - we usually think blindness or deafness are crippling conditions.

      There is plenty of evidence of how people develop their minds based on sensations other than flat pictorial impressions or physical sounds.

      I think we might learn endlessly from them. Please let me know what you think :)
      • thumb
        Mar 27 2014: Hello Vera. That my main idea by different minds making not just impossible even things that we cannot imagine.

        Did you hear a Term "LOGIC OF MADNESS". the madness people having something that we cannot have it it's madness maybe you will ask yourself what the madness he talking about but hold on the madness people can do things we cannot imagine. like a randomness in math. that gives us the strange action in our society.
        • thumb
          Mar 27 2014: It is a fascinating subject - so true that we can be absolutely "logical" for ourselves, no matter how bloody mad our thinking and actions may become!

          Our natural limitations in perceiving and therefore in our thinking are colossal. The reason that makes us be so sure about our own truth and objectiveness, is rooted in these limitations. Limitations would not let one compare and know beyond his limited experience. We can only presume that there is much more to understand, but only a few of us think this way.

          We may never see anything for "real" but only appearances put together by our own minds, and in our own made-up order.

          I'm wondering how would our sciences have developed if we were all born blind? Would we be able to imagine anything similar to what we call "sciences" at all? because our sciences are all "based" on the most illusive and deceiving evidence created by our very superficial sight.

          It would be no false sense of perspective, or time,perfect balance or perfect copies... these are the most deceiving ideas based on our ultimately crued experience of corporeal sight.

          I think if we could have managed to learn about our very limitations in perceiving we would discover breathtaking possibilities to understand our own nature. New mentality, ethics, lifestyle, sciences, new ways of communications among ourselves and with our ultimate teacher - nature.