Previous Page «

Everyone has a belief system, even if it’s shunning what they identify as belief systems.

Intentional Channel in Cognitive Semantics

Cognitive Semantics

Everything on our planet has a language, either passive or dynamic. From whale song to human speech, every living thing on this planet expresses patterns of intention. Even plants have a dynamic language, it’s just very slow from our point of view.

Observe what roots do! The same thing our neurons do.

It is really all the same language, but wherever you have parallel intentions you have dialectic complications. That is what gives rise to human language. We, having the degree of sophistication we do on a cognitive level, go through a complex process of negotiation with the environment and people around us.

Discernment of differences…? Yes. Arriving at terms of consensus so in a sense, we “learn” a language when in fact what we are doing is pairing down a huge array of reactions and responses to the environment around us. The emergence process can leave the source code we work with in serious need of defragmentation.

But, are we not also finding common denominators in those reactions and responses in order to communicate meaningfully with each other? We find those not through spoken language, but by a combination of genetic inheritance and our innate “social” wiring. We would discern mother and mother’s mother without being taught language.

I’ve heard the English language is the vaguest language as it can have multiple meanings. It is a real “commercial” language.

What we learn in acquiring language are social habits, rules or tack on subroutines to the core system of human interaction. When children are very young, they often call any small, furry, friendly animal by the same name, likely doggy of kitty, and to start we don’t mind that. We can intuit what they mean and what they are reacting to.

A child sees a bear and says, “Kitty!!!!” Situations like that could indeed occur, yet in time we correct their error. Why is that? We want to teach them what those experiences mean to us, what we “understand” about all the presences in our world, but that understanding is not arrived at based on our innate experience is it?

Something seen as repulsive in one culture can be seen as attractive in another. One culture may call an object by a word that means filth, while the other calls it by a word that means feed. Why is that? Would we have language as we know it without these distinctions?

The language attempts to form an “order”? The language attempts to direct intention, not attention. That can be done with a gesture or grunt, but intention… Would we speak without this understanding of intention we gain from our social experience? What could you say if you excluded any intention direction from your words? Some people are easily observed to have a deliberately narrowed scope of intention. Do they speak very much or very well in those cases?

They tend to be quiet, reserved. They are capable of opening that intentional channel further, and we sense that. How do people react to their decision?

When that person finally speaks people take notice? It stops people around them. Yes, but until that moment it repels people does it not?

Yes. We’re uncomfortable not seeing someone’s intentions?

I am now thinking of a non-verbal. A fellow in one of our group homes who wanted more than anything to have a comb to beat against his chin as a form of self-stimulation. Totally non-verbal from birth, but made his intentions very well understood. I can speak to why he wanted to “self-stimulate.” The sensory language can be hard to track, let alone any social nonsense, and a complex stimulation like that can provide an intelligible sense of order. The tines of the comb are all in order, the rhythm of his stimulation is orderly. It can make the mind feel much more anchored, but to assume he had no mind, well, that would be cause for provocation no matter who you judged that way. His was just difficult to deal with. Though perhaps I should clarify and say brain. It’s popular to insist that the two are the same. Even if you have a crappy PC, it’s still yours, and theirs isn’t even poor quality. It’s just really complicated, the user interface a pain to deal with. Ever get frustrated with your keyboard and just push a few keys at random?

gfhjkjasdjasp8qwpywet It’s what they are doing as well.

It’s the first step in trouble shooting technique. And for that reason. I have been making good process in my own trouble shooting, but I have had an atypical advantage in that area.

Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.

Travis Saunders
Dragon Intuitive

If you enjoyed this page:
Keep Reading »

Leave Your Insight