Language Makes You An Outsider Nathan Emerson

UCCS March, 2013

If you use language, you are an outsider. As needs be defined, the outsider is someone that is isolated from a portion of the world and in this case, the neuro-linguistic outsider (all of us) is a person who is separated from that portion of the world that is real. Language implies separation from the world, and using language makes us outsiders a priori, before the fact of the artificial structures created by society of outsiderness or insiderness. I will herein demonstrate that the very act of using language, both as a mental construct of applied symbol sets and as a function of the brain, creates between the language using agent and the world an impenetrable gap, one that is filled with ultimately arbitrary sounds and syntax, and which could never be crossed by the use of language itself, nor with the internal and seemingly unbounded faculty of our thoughts. Yet there is beneath the synthetic reality created by language a legitimate and essential world. Language is something that the majority of us take for granted by nature of its necessity. At its most basic, human language can be understood as having two purposes; to communicate external events or our internal thoughts to another, and to categorize the world or our thoughts so as to create a coherent mental structure of that world or those thoughts. Our use of language is governed in part by our neuroanatomy and in part by the way we are socialized; both of which create a feedback loop onto each other and modify the function of either side. For example, infants vocalize as a result of brain structures that react to external and internal stimuli without any external incentive, yet those very brain structures require a complex system of heard input and visual cues in order to physically develop, so as to vocalize with further intricacy and aptitude, creating in the infant brain and body a positive cycle of language acquisition that stimulates the brain and so on. The fundamental physical components of language are conjoined with the imaginary constructs of its use and definition, making the accurate analysis of language an ephemeral and difficult process. However, it is not impossible to do so. In many ways language is like a self-replicating virus that once allowed to infect a host, begins to coat objects and ideas with symbols that initially serve as containers for more complex sensory data, but which over time actually come to replace the object that the symbol is referring to with the

symbol itself. While this notion may seem far-fetched it is supported by both the artistry and philosophy of human culture, and the science of the brain. For the former, lets us explore an ancient Sumerian text known as the Namshub of Enki: The Namshub of Enki was considered a magical incantation and self-fulfilling prophecy that when read, would apply a specific type of mental transformation to the reader and their listeners. While it is not necessary to recite this Namshub in full a revisiting of its final lines is crucial: ...The lord of Eridu (Enki), endowed with wisdom, Changed the speech in their mouths, put contention into it, Into the speech of man that had been one. It seems innocuous upon tertiary examination, however the purpose of the Namshub is multifaceted; to retell an event of linguistic disintegration, and to cause that same linguistic disintegration by its retelling. By reading aloud the Namshub in its entirety, the same transformation applied to those that it refers to will also befall the reader and their listeners. The efficacy of this incantation may seem absurd and problematic, but Douglas Hofstadter makes mention of a similar phenomenon in his description of the use-mention distinction in Metamagical Themas, to quote Hosftadter When a word is used to refer to something, it is said to be being used. Which is to say that by using a symbol which has meaning placed into it, it is effectively the same as interacting with the thing that the initial meaning refers to, or in this case, by reciting the Namshub, one recreates the transformation spoken of in the Namshub as per the Sumerian belief system. This demonstrates an ancient and intuitive cultural understanding that is relevant to the exploration of language as being able to transform reality. The neurosciences, too, lend themselves to the understanding of language as a paradigmaltering viral agent. Research carried out by Ousterhout et. al. clearly demonstrated that learning a language enlarges gray matter concentration in the inferior parietal region of the left hemisphere, an area of the brain that houses neural structures related to the use and processing of language. One can

imagine the information for a new language that is being learned moving into the brain and being processed, slowly transforming neural pathways and clusters of specialized matter to accommodate its presence, much like a virus does to cellular dna in a host. Biological structures aside, the nature of language as a reality altering construct is supported by many researchers, including Sapir, Whorf and Boroditsky. According to the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis: We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native languages. The categories and types that we isolate from the world of phenomena we do not find there because they stare every observer in the face; on the contrary, the world is presented in a kaleidoscopic flux of impressions which has to be organized by our minds - and this means largely by the linguistic systems in our minds. We cut nature up, organize it into concepts, and ascribe significances as we do, largely because we are parties to an agreement to organize it in this way - an agreement that holds throughout our speech community and is codified in the patterns of our language. The agreement is, of course, an implicit and unstated one, but its terms are absolutely obligatory; we cannot talk at all except by subscribing to the organization and classification of data which the agreement decrees. In essence, Whorf is saying that the structures of language, such as grammar and vocabulary, determine our ability to conceive of and perceive reality. Boroditsky makes a similar claim as a result of her time spent with the native populations of Australia as well as her research into differences in the details of recalled events between Eastern and Western language families; a prime example being that people who speak different primary languages recall the events of a crime they witnessed differently, attributing to said event differing motivations and even a different sequence of events or responsible parties. Boroditsky's research demonstrates the affect language has on our perception of the world and the resulting ways in which we interact with it. The process of symbolic abstraction; when a symbol and its attached meaning become separate from the meaning with which they are defined, has the effect of distancing a language-using agent from the real things that their language refers to, resulting in the creation of a barrier that stands

between both the agent and the physical world they live in, as well as between the agents own understanding of their internal reality and their actual self. Baudrillard has much to say on the subject, and his treatise regarding the simulacra is of particular interest here. A simulacra is, in the plainest of terms, a simulation of a simulation i.e. something which is so distanced from the original thing being simulated that it is no longer based upon anything real, but rather upon copies of abstract simulations. Baudrillard defines the creation of the simulacra in four stages, his precession of simulacra: the first stage being the symbol as a reflection of a profound reality, the second sees the symbol being abstracted so as to mask and denature reality, the third when the symbol pretends to be a faithful copy but is no longer based in abject reality, and the fourth when the final stage of the simulation creates a simulacra with no discernible ties to true reality, instead operating in a deceptive mesh of other simulacra. The precession of simulacra matches precisely the generation of meaningful language. If a person says the word apple they intend to refer to a fruit of the Malus Domestica tree, however there is a mighty abyss between the apple that the word apple refers to, and the actual fruit that the communicator intends to share about. Let us assume that a person has seen an apple, yet has no word for fruit, food, apple, ad infinitum. At that point, the apple can be defined as neither solely its appearance, nor its texture, flavor, or food-value, but only as a thing for which there is no word to describe. In order for the existence of the apple to be communicated or thought of cohesively, a symbol must be used to capture what it translates to our senses as, and the symbol must be carried on more symbols, be they sounds symbolic of the thingness of an apple, or written characters to the same effect. Already, an apple is thrice removed from its reality as a thing through the use of language; once when the sensory data is processed by the brain, again when the brain applies a symbol to it in order to categorize and store the sensory data, and a third time when the knowledge of the apple is communicated and this is only in a mind that has no other thoughts, no history, no inference or personality, a true tabula rasa. The tabula rasa, a blank slate, is neither relevant nor possible, and as

such further layers of abstraction are applied to the apple; the warmth of the sunlight during its discovery, the mood of the finder, the entire history and memory of that person as well as that of their culture and environment, all modify the pure thingness of the apple during the process of thought that allows said thingness to become encapsulated by language. This final modifier in the process of language, that of the individual person, can be identified as Baudrillards fourth stage of simulation in much the same way that the previous three stages are drawn parallel to the rest of the procession. Language creates simulacrum of everything that it is applied to. If language masks true reality in a layer of abstract symbols, then what is that true reality? Can thought be detached from language? The answer to the former can only be inferred through study of the sciences and philosophy, while the answer to the latter is a resounding yes. Firstly, let us take the latter: Saeed et. al. demonstrated that EEG feedback devices can be used to allow the wearer to manipulate three dimensional computer generated images with thought alone; not using silent mental commands or verbal triggers, not using any physical signal, but merely by using EEG feedback devices to create complex series of brainwave patterns which bare striking resemblance to the brainwave patterns produced when the user manipulated an identical physical object in the same manner. The similarity between induced thought and normative thought demonstrates clearly that thought and language are not intrinsically linked, however the question then becomes whether or not language proceeds thought or vice versa, and the evidence is clear. Both Legerstee (1992) and Trevarthen (1998) found through their research on the cognitive development of infants that infants can distinguish between complex objects and people, receive satisfaction from meaningful interaction, and have a surprisingly developed concept of linearity and time all before the language centers of their brain are capable of creating language that could encapsulate those same faculties. As for the nature of true reality, a definitive answer to such a question is beyond the descriptive powers of any person for exactly the reasons outlined in this essay e.g. language cannot be used to define an un-languageable reality, however it is possible to direct a language using agent's attention toward the components of our fundamental reality.

Reality as we like to think of it is not static. The most minute components of matter are in constant flux from a wave-state to that of a particle, and thus far the only factor which determines the stability of either state is that of the conscious observer. Starting in the 1970's with Sudarshan and Misra and continuing to today with the work of UC Santa Barbara's Andrew Cleland, it has been demonstrated time and again that particles oscillate between a solid-wave state at steady intervals until they are observed, at which point they settle into a form that the observer initially measured (The Zeno Effect). The process of measurement and quantification in general is directly tied to language ability, indeed that is the purpose of language, and as such the world without language or attention set to it is one that is in a constant state of movement between possible configurations of matter and the potential events that result from said movements. This conclusion is evidenced in the works of philosophers such as Zhuangzhi, Lao Tzu, and George Berkeley. Zhuangzhi wrote his self-titled work as a supplement to the Tao Te Ching, within which he offers us an account of a dream he once had; in the dream, Zhuangzhi was a butterfly and had no memory of being a man. Upon awakening, Zhuangzhi was cast into doubt as to whether he was a human being who dreamt that he was a butterfly, or a butterfly now dreaming that he was a human being. The relative reality of Zhuangzhi is an example of the same kind of doubts about the static nature of reality that were held by George Berkeley, who posed the famous idiom esse es percipi or to be is to be perceived. In Berkeleys philosophy, if there were no observer to hold an object in their mind, the object would simply cease to exist. The parallel between the efficacy of attention in controlling quantum states of the particle and Berkeleys 17th century philosophy is quite striking, and serves as an interesting case for the truth of the matter as evidenced by separate observers. In our increasingly reductionistic global scientific culture, it is commonly believed that the mechanisms of the human brain are the primary source of all discovered cognitive phenomena, and that our consciousness is either non scientifically classifiable or merely the result of biochemical and electrical processes. The preceding notion of absolute physical reductionism is heavily contested by

researches such as Schwartz et. al., who have declared that the scientific paradigm which dismisses terms having intrinsic mentalistic and/or experiential content (e.g. feeling, knowing and effort) in the understanding and application of the neurosciences are in fact based upon notions of the natural world that have, for the past three-quarters of a century, been demonstrated as not only intrinsically flawed but outright incorrect. The work reviewed by Schwartz offers empirical evidence of a faculty of self-directed neuroplasticity, one that is based upon the Zeno Effect as demonstrated in sodium ion channels within the brain that are essential to synaptic functions. Self-directed neuroplasticity is capable of altering physical mechanisms in the brain, allowing for an unprecedented way of looking at the development of human cognition. If the review done by Schwartz is drawn upon as presenting fact, it becomes possible that the hidden faculty of quantum mechanically affected neuroplasticity acts as a medium for the attentive holding pattern preserved by society and language, a holding pattern which continuously enforces a simulated reality and which could indeed alter physical brain function so as to create a very real language barrier between ourselves and the world. It is now crucial to associate the commonly held understanding of the outsider in society with the barriers created by using language. The Outsider is oft-defined as a person who does not belong to a particular group , yet this definition can be expanded and broadened to pertain to any individual who is separated from a valuable or normative category, such as the language-using agent's own separation from an essential reality. The implications of a priori outsiderness on the life of the human being are severe; from being incapable of perceiving accurately those things which we do not expect, to interfering with noble goals like those held by Plato, Descartes, and Nietzche in their quests for Truth, the delusion of a static reality as caused by language can be seen as the ultimate source of commonly defined outsiderness and as the catalyst for the state of anomie that has slowly encroached upon human existence since the beginning of recorded history. Only in a world with clearly defined boundaries, neatly categorized roles, and deeply abstracted symbolic meaning can the negative associations of the outsider matter to the so-called inside group, and only in such a world can the creative flame and

evolutionary impetus of the outsider be relegated to those cast out of the cultural norm. The use and development of language has roots in the fundamental structures of the human brain, and its application is necessary to a cohesive relationship between individuals and with society, however it is in the conflagration of words with objects or ideas that a disingenuous and allencompassing paradigm of the world, ourselves, and our purpose, that we cross a one way bridge leading away from an essential reality and toward a world of synthetic and meaningless delusion. It is well documented that the world is not static, but rather a constantly shifting phenomenon of possibility and there is decisive evidence that the use of language as we know it transforms the world from its legitimate form to one that is lost in a mire of abstracted symbols and simulated meaning, a true simulacra. The barrier created by language is one that cannot be crossed with the use of language doing so would simply create another barrier - and therefore cannot be overcome using rational thought or with direct communication, but may indeed be overcome by a mind that is able to unthink the world and its operator, unhooking thought and perception from the confines of language to allow an interaction with - and perception of - reality that is True.