Por Fin

Y aquí esta lo que yo había dicho que iba a ¨POST¨:

Pictures. Fun times in Tegucigalpa. Thank God I’m back in my site. Everyone in my site things I just need a “Pulga” which literally means flea but apparently it’s a gift from Jesus that cleans out the stomach, like a laxative, on steroids.. if you can imagine. I, of course, cannot accept medicine como asi por Cuerpo de Paz. Thanks to Hilary, for her poem for me and for her CD. If I receive permission from her, I will post her poem on my blog. It’s just that good. :) Also, I heard from someone from Midtown Dickens something about sending me a CD…? I’ve thought about Eggs and Toast every morning since. Not the food, of course.

So I already tried to post pics on here and have since deleted them from my memory drive, but if you do indeed have Facebook they are on there. I´m trying to figure out a way to link the albums without the other person needing to join the cult that is Facebook. We´ll see.

Thanksgiving …
is coming up and though I’ve been out of site so much, I think I’m going to make my way down to San Marcos de Colon after an early Dr’s appt. (I think?) because school’s out and I’ve been working a lot and have a pretty bad cold right now so, you know, it’d be nice to spend Thanksgiving with others de EE.UU. Especially since we have so much to be thankful for here in Honduras.

Speaking of Thanks,
I want to say thank you from the bottom of my heart to all of the PCMO’s in the Medical office of Peace Corps here in Honduras. Their patience, kindness, and comfort has helped me a lot during this weird time.

Thanks
just as much to my family, who has consistently sent packages or e-mails or taken care of things I can’t take care of from here (you all know who you are). I feel like I princess with these last two packages from G&G, Mom, and Hil. I appreciate it more than you know. Anything is wonderful to receive, especially that which you’ve sent. And it’s actually pretty cold here, so the sweatshirts that I doubted I would need have been fabulous!

Pictures, Women’s Groups
I’m going to post some pics now while I research women’s groups. Apparently someone had started one (not a volunteer) but is dissolved quickly, like so many things here. SOSTENIBLE is the Spanish word. This is my 2-year goal, and the goal of us all as volunteers. How DO we make this sustainable?

Playlist for PCVs feeling a bit down:
Just a few suggestions.
1. “Philosophy of the World, The Shaggs, Philosophy of the World
2. “Lama Dorje Chang,” Yungchen Lhamo, Tibet, Tibet
3. “The Long Road,” Eddie Vedder & Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, Dead Man Walking Soundtrack
4. “Anywhere I Lay My Head,” Tom Waits, Rain Dogs
5. “Yolando,” Robert Wyatt, Mid-Eighties
6. “Paris 1919,” John Cale, Paris 1919
7. “Heads Will Roll,” Echo and the Bunnymen, Porcupine
8. “Washington Blues,” Elizabeth Cotton, Shake Sugaree
9. “Disorder,” Joy Division, Unknown Pleasures
10. “Novocain Stain,” Modest Mouse, This is a Long Drive Home for Someone With Nothing to Think About

Playlist for Mornings
1. “Is There Anybody Here that Loves My Jesus,” Viola James & Congregation, Sounds of the South
2. “The Bells,” The Smashing Pumpkins, The Aeroplane Flies High, Disc 5
3. “1952 Vincent Black Lightning,” Richard Thompson, Action Packed the Best of the Capitol Years
4. “It’s Only A Paper Moon,” Nat “King” Cole, After Midnight Sessions
5. “Pagina Ocho,” Prefuse 73, Read the Books E.P.
6. “Feel Like Makin’ Love,” D’Angelo, Voodoo
7. “Little Liza Jane,” Elizabeth Mitchell, You are my Little Bird
8. “Never Tear Us Apart,” INXS
9. “Ni Main Jana Jogi De,” Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, The Day, The Night, The Dawn, The Dusk
10. “Get Up,” REM, Green


Playlist for Working
1. “Watch the Sunrise,” Big Star, #1 Record/Radio City
2. “Pimpin’ for the Muse,” Tuatara, Cinemathique
3. “Oye Como Va,” Santana, Abraxas
4. “Transcendental Blues,” Steve Earle, Transcendental Blues
5. “Tuesday Heartbreak,” Stevie Wonder, Talking Book
6. “Blue Five Jive,” Count Basie, Kansas City Suite
7. “Lynguistics,” CunninLynguists, Will Rap for Food
8. “A Distorted Reality is now a Necesity to be Free,” Elliott Smith, From A Basement on the Hill
9. “Don’t Stop Til You Get Enough,” Michael Jackson
10. “Head Over Heals/Broken (Live),” Tears for Fears, Songs from the Big Chair (Bonus Tracks)

Language
I have found myself fascinated again with language, but this time with language as silence. It has opened me to accept a great many things about this country and culture that I’ve had such a hard time accepting.

Language is our most exquisite, paramount, vital tool and most thwarting, perplexing, inscrutable gift. Upon beginning this analysis, I will ignore the plethora of problems within the area I am addressing; later, I will go into just of a few of the problems in more detail. The goal of this paper is to show that representationalism, along with a few other perspectives in the philosophy of language, are the closest we have to being accurate as of now (yet all knowledge is, of course, tentative—as fluid as physics), and that the human tendency to categorize and represent internally our experiences, thoughts, and feelings into words (symbols) is innate, as Ludwig Wittgenstein and Noam Chomsky have addressed. Also, even while each word has different meaning (when most clearly defined, both internally and externally) in their various contexts (contextualism), it is possible to convey to others through use of symbols our thoughts, feelings and experiences, even if one hundred percent accuracy is impossible. Encoding meaning is perhaps our greatest skill and most terrifyingly difficult task—words both free us and restrict us (as philosophers and writers have discovered alike). Language is indeed a cultural artifact; as Andy Clark said, it is our greatest cultural artifact. Our ability to calculate meaning from previous texts and historical works bring about entirely their respective mythos and ethos is obviously a solely human trait on this earth; while there is a connotation and denotation for every word, it must be our task to extrapolate as honestly and clearly as we can the denotation from the connotation, in order to understand human intention better. In order to interpret those around us. And it is not words only that will give us this challenge, but silence as well, if not more so. Our interactions, and all human relationships, are created and then constantly affected and defined by our language or lack thereof.


It is my belief that figurative language does have its place in all forms of thought and understanding, and in particular communication. As I’ve learned a second language, I’ve realized that whoever said “what makes our own language most easy for us makes it most difficult for others who are learning” was absolutely right. As a creative writer, some of the airs that I attempt to put into words are often best portrayed and perhaps best understood (at least that’s what they say) by those who read when I neglect to spell out the feeling with the obviously associated words, and instead write within the realm of the figurative. Metaphor may indeed be all that language is, but when used distinctly and differently than usual, for example to warp the way something normally appears, or to compare, or to make the strange seem normal and the normal seem strange, we can see situations and experiences in a new light. Plays on words and the use of metaphor especially in literature are some of our most prized companions as writers: they allow us to keep on making it new (Ezra Pound said, “Make it new,” a quote that I continuously go back to). I am finally beginning to experiment with this in a new language. This is very hard, and as I’ve found, Spanish uses much less metaphor than English. Though I could very well be wrong.

In Philosophical Investigations, Ludwig Wittgenstein reversed his previously stated belief that we can understand the world without adequate language to say that real reality cannot be grasped outside of the forms of language. Recognizing the innate need to categorize and utilize symbols in order to understand reality is the best and most comprehensive way for us to understand those basic questions within the philosophy of language, for instance, how can we know language? How do we acquire language? What is the nature of language, its origins, and its use? Once we begin from a structuralist standpoint that agrees that we have a “language faculty” as Noam Chomsky has declared, we can begin to break the questions down and understand them better. Our attempts to understand and communicate are consistently within the realm of language.

However, I have found myself able to communicate with specific people on a more profound level. There have been three Honduran women with whom I have connected on such a level that though my Spanish may be imperfect, and though I may use the completely wrong word, there is an overwhelming sense of understanding. This of course could be a semblance, a mere illusion that I am convincing myself of this deeper level of communication, but I choose not to believe that and rather to believe that the roots of communication span much larger than language, verbal or otherwise, than I had previously thought. As a matter of fact, in the process of learning a second language, I have begun to understand my philosophy professor Jack Kwong and his Jerry Fodor-theories with more sympathy and accordance.

Not only is our perception of reality based on our language, but also our language is essentially built from our perception of reality. Friedrich Nietzsche posed the question: “Is language the adequate expression of all realities?” (From handout, “Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense”). His answer, it seems, is no. Nietzsche rejected the whole idea that language has truth-value at all, claiming that all language is metaphor. I find this claim bewildering, however, based upon the idea that our sensory perceptions are reflected into language, and thus the entire structure and intention of language arises, Nietzsche’s point is seemingly sound. However, according to him, it cannot have truth-value; we simply conclude from his analysis that metaphors are the only thing that we have in relation to the “real world.” Certainly all language is symbolic of some “thing” in the real world, whether it be a person, a country, a natural resource, a color, an idea or an emotion. However, it is my belief that not only can we refer to nonexistent things, but also we can conceive of them. The future, for instance, is some idea of the moment to proceed this one, and it is an idea with which most of us consider quite a bit of the time, for example, I woke up this morning and wondered: should continue sleeping because I don’t feel well, or should I try and eat some oatmeal because I haven’t eaten in 2 days? Because I would like to feel better in the future, I decided to do both, believing that I could pull it off. All of these notions were concerning time that was not yet existent present, yet I was able to formulate decisions based on whatever logic I can claim to have. Thus, our choices, or our decision-making capacity, is derived from our language and analysis of all past events and experiences that we have encountered. Therefore, while I do not entirely disagree with Nietzsche, I do not entirely agree with him, either. One of the things he addressed in “Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense” was the fact that text can “generate its own truth,” and that we in turn give meaning to the world, rather than “uncovering intrinsically the ‘way it is.’” He also recognizes the staggering importance of the perceiver, as our text consistently is analyzed from specific perspectives, based upon the lives and internal structures of each individual. This, I believe, of Nietzsche, rings the most true to me. It seems I am able to speak more rapidly with more cohesion with specific people because our perspectives of life allow for communication to be more easily facilitated.

We are constantly evolving along with our various languages, as new thoughts form, new people come into our lives, and new ways of looking at the world emerge. It seems only natural to me for natural language to evolve, however, some philosophers “suppose that because natural language is constantly changing, it is too unstable to support any one exact thought, let alone a clear philosophy” (Stanley Cavell, Must We Mean What We Say? , p. 42). However, language, as I expressed earlier, assuredly reflects its culture and the population of people that utilize it, and therefore, if evolution of culture is true, then evolution of language must also be true. Not only is the study of evolution in culture worthwhile, but also the study of evolution in language is worthwhile. The more we understand where our language has come from, the more we can use the vast range of ways to communicate. While Nietzsche had a point when he said that words are entirely arbitrary (lest each culture would speak the same language, right?), it seems that the changes in meanings of words and the amount of new words formulated all of the time indicate that indeed they are significant in our lives as representational symbols of evolving ideas and concepts. And while they are arbitrary as symbols, however their form and meaning are not arbitrary, as the structural properties of each word are manipulated and changed as other things evolve within contexts, and it is true that “this conception of language is internal, individual and intentional” (Chomsky, New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind, p. 26).

Words are most certainly symbols, however, to be able to claim that we truly understand any one communicated/communicable symbol is where the most difficult problems arise. Nietzsche described this problem by addressing how each tree is different, yet we call them all trees. Each context, every time we use a word anew, the meaning changes; we tend to ask the question often: what do you mean by that? –even when we understand all of the “normal” definitions of the words used. Let’s say that I hear a word that I have not previously encountered, but because of its context I know that it is an adjective describing a man, for example. So, I go to the dictionary. When I do this, I am expecting not only to understand the content of what I read, but to understand something more about the entire world. In the process of learning a new language in a new culture, this experience is much more time-consuming, it occurs much more frequently, and can lead to much more frustration—however, it gives a greater depth into the actual practical use of the language and how the culture actually uses symbols to communicate. At first it seems quite improbable that we can read words to learn about the world without the experience, (an externalist would likely disagree with this), but there is a widespread lack of acknowledging the fact that once we are born, and even as soon as we are conceived, we begin to understand and learn the world along with language and symbols. We begin organizing all that we see into categories, and we begin to put our intrinsic thoughts into these symbols. “Learning is a question of aligning language and the world,” (Cavell 20) and therefore the only way to learn and communicate is indeed through language. This language is “the ground for any given society or culture,” as John Locke stated. Language organizes our thoughts, collectively and individually. I am even beginning to think in Spanish, to dream in Spanish, and to desire whole-heartedly to have the ability to translate. And to learn Italian. And French. And German. And other much less-spoken languages. What I have learned as an adult immersed in a culture of speakers of a different language is that you MUST SPEAK, you must LISTEN, you much STUDY, and you must DESIRE to learn, or else you will be stuck in your head, perhaps even forgetting the most basic of words from your native language.

Because our comprehension of reality and the world relies so heavily on language, we have to address the limitations of language in order to understand our limitations on understanding. First, we have to distinguish between ‘natural’ language and other kinds of language, for example systems or jargon that are specific to certain areas. For purposes of compression, I will not address the languages of specific areas, but rather limit the discussion to our “natural” or “original” languages. When discussing these languages, we must address Chomsky’s coined phrase, “poverty of the stimulus,” which goes to say that not only is language acquisition natural and innate, but we as speakers, listeners and communicators in general learn language through patterns and various “positive evidence,” which is obtained from the correct grammatical and syntactical structures or sentences that we are surrounded by while growing through the process of learning language. We usually do not hear the wrong ways of speaking within languages, for example, where we normally place verbs, adverbs, nouns, pronouns, etc. This reminds me of the book I read just before starting Peace Corps, Words and Rules by Steven Pinker. If I interpreted one section of this book correctly, he explains that Chomsky’s theory can be expanded to include this theory that the process of learning any language (as a first language) is also the process of unlearning all other languages—for example, if I use incorrectly a term as a child learning a language, it is almost always the case that the grammatical or semantic mistake I have made is acceptable in some other language. This is simply more evidence to support Chomsky, it seems. There are many concepts that young people encounter after some language acquisition, which they can extract a meaning from even without instruction or experience that is relevant, for example fairy tales. Knowledge of language in regards to this can simply be assumed to be in a meaningful and significant way that is innately determined, and therefore seemingly consistent among all languages. In this way we also avoid discussion of other learning processes because of their transparency, their compatibility, their cohesiveness—they are taken for granted. It is only when problems arise does the normal mind question these sorts of processes. For example, learning a second language.
Ordinary or natural languages are not, by definition, concerned with scientific approach. Beliefs, desires, and perceptions expressed are, by definition, part of what we consider natural language. Science “does not try to capture the content of ordinary discourse, let alone more creative acts of imagination” (Chomsky 89). However, even though these are the case, we still define natural or ordinary languages as those which not only encompass human communication for general purposes, but also computer-programming and mathematical language. The definition of a natural language has often been debated, however, one less controversial aspect is that the language has evolved naturally, and is revealing of human comprehension and analyzation of the world, as well as our interactions. Chomsky’s theory of universal grammar is often taken into account concerning natural language, which states that every natural language has a set of essential and basic rules which explains language acquisition because it is common of all natural languages, and that these rules play an undeniable and imperative role in language acquisition, and while unmentioned in this book as far as I have read (I am obviously no expert), this applies also wholeheartedly to second-language acquisition.

Wittgenstein: “What we cannot speak about we must consign to silence.”

Bencivenga: “Only what we cannot speak about must we not pass over in silence.”

While Wittgenstein concluded with the first statement due to the philosophical problems that he encountered while defining language as innate, and I believe that he has reason and justification for this statement (not to mention that he is extremely intimidating for his intellect and influence), I cannot help but feel that Bencivenga’s point is more powerful because it leaves room for progress and can be accounted for the various leaps in our understanding of the world around us. These indefinable entities, such as love (“I would die for you”), hate (“I will kill you if you don’t shut the hell up”), chaos (“chaos has not been finally vanquished” Bencivenga 31), and cosmos (“cosmos has not been finally established” Bencivenga 31), (Sea lo que sea, o Asi es la vida) must be considered. Clearly, if we already have a symbol for an idea, we should continue to try and explicate meaning, whether meaning be assigned by individuals or “discovered” intermittently by groups of people. Other words take on a great many meanings, such as “God,” “Heaven and Hell,” “Death,” “Consciousness,” etc. Because of the undeniable fact that there is no general consensus, and there is a grand possibility that we will never comprise a “true” meaning of these words, we must either accept all definitions as valid, or none of them (as intelligent, rational human beings). If it is true that we give meaning to the world around us rather than finding meaning, then each definition tells us a little more about the person who intrinsically defines it as such.

To a first approximation what a word or sentence means to a person is just what their internalized semantic theory says it means. Segal, “Two Theories of Names,” (Logic, Thought and Language) p. 76.

Meaning and reference to me, as an inexperienced and non-well-read philosophy-lover, rely heavily on each other. One may not exist without the other, even without direct communication. During the process of communication, through our intentions, we relay meanings therefore referring to objects or ideas, with innumerable implications and as many possible interpretations as there are listeners, and thoughts, and emotions, and memories. We consistently refer to this resource of our own mind, and perhaps, this is the only thing we may truly use for reference. Reference is, to me, plays the most important role between our language and the world, including the role it plays within our conception of reality, and of knowledge, as well as intuition and meaning. This has occurred in a very special way to me as I learn Spanish. It occurs to me also that the debates (of which I am not highly educated) concerning reference are trivial, as reference can be applied to anything—even if it is not a “real world object,” for example, hair made of steel, or a dead person who walks, it is still referring to a particular idea, or metaphor, or thought, even though it may not have real world significance or application. When we speak of nonexistent entities, we are still referring, as far as I am concerned. Thus the fiction writers as well as the journalists are exercising the use of meaning, communication of intention, and thus both can provide for an infinite amount of interpretations. Thus I can use direct translation of metaphor from English into Spanish only to be laughed at for its lack of presence in Spanish, yet be understood. I can also make up any metaphor with any new words I discover and those Spanish speakers can laugh, attaining a level of understanding in which only metaphor can convey.

I am sailing back to Wittgenstein at this point. Now that we see how to relate our mental states and representations with our language, perhaps we can explain whether or not there is a point attempt verbalizing certain experiences, emotions or thoughts that one usually would render impossible. Since I believe that we should, I will try and advocate this position against Wittgenstein. He wrote, in his famous Tractatus, “A name means an object. The object is its meaning.” However, what about words like “infinity” or “electron”? What about other “abstract” entities, or intangible experiences? What about reference to nonexistent things? I believe that I have a perception of infinity, and of an electron, and I feel (quite importantly beyond words) the implications of these ideas, yet as human beings we have not yet seen them, or heard them, or felt them, nor have we been able to define them in terms that can be agreed upon by everyone (like, DOG), nor do most humans understand any of the implications or proofs involved that brought about the ideas of the terms. The origination of most “abstract” entities is inexplicable. Only through conveying a story in Spanish of my college graduation day can I explain how it feels to be a child of divorced parents, etc. Not only that, I can use the word in Spanish (any of these examples of abstract terms) and feel understood, yet when we speak with “political” terms, the rupture of communication, at least to me, is obvious. All of these complex issues lead me to believe that there must be a way to put into words my justification for searching for various definitions and ways of describing with words, and that even though I cannot necessarily verbalize the way I feel so that anyone may understand, I can attempt to clarify the picture as best I can, and even if it may be impossible, my attempts should not be dissuaded, and the confidence that I maintain in my experience, thought and observation has proven to help me in communicating, both in English and Spanish. Especially when I get to the point of conversation where even the Spanish-English dictionary will not resolve the barrier that has arisen. There are always going to be problems concerning language and how it is used, how we acquire it, and where it came from, but my beliefs have been established as viewing the aspect of language as an innate gift, as inextricable from our mental processes and comprehension of the world, and the “ultimate cultural artifact.” However, unfortunately, there is no way of moving from the actual language itself and that which the language I am using refers to, as I am using my language to do so. Perhaps after two more years of language acquisition (and many more…) I will better be able to explain myself.