Language, specifics, dreams and impressions

Sentient

"As soon as there is language, generality has entered the scene."
- Jacques Derrida

The itch I can't scratch.

I thoroughly believe that language is an enigma. It's meant to serve us and allow for expression where it rather appears to cause a great amount of confusion. Derrida believed that words refer only to other words, not to things or thoughts or feelings. As far as I'm concerned, Derrida hits the nail on the head.

Have you ever read a work of literature (often psycho-analytical or Jungian) which probes and asks the question 'in which language you dream'? After having pondered the question, I realized I don't dream in words or languages - no, my dreams are impression based and completely visual much like the description of a premonition or vision.

To this end, I am curious how other posters experience language and if/how it features in their dreams (sub- and unconscious mind)? Another question would be how we can convey a thought or feeling when we haven't even been able to qualify/quantify them in any meaningful way. What I mean by this is that nobody knows the exact mechanisms or 'substance(s)' which control either (which of course ties heavily into the discussion 'what is real' and consciousness itself).

If we allow for language as being a facet of consciousness, what then is its exact significance if any? Keep in mind that primitive humans communicated through song and vocalizations (grunts) which we still utilize to this day in the form of music and when engaging in strenuous activities of any sort.

I'd appreciate any and all feedback.

Shevek

As far as Derrida goes, he would resist the idea that your experience, your dreams, or some 'inner' unarticulated psychological reality offer some foundation or more 'fundamental' truth beneath language. If an experience is meaningful to you in anyway, it's still going to be mediated by conceptual activity. Articulating this experience in language does not refer to some 'unmediated' or 'fundamental' reality, but only another text, so to speak. You're just mapping one system of differences in relation to another, without any actual reference to something 'outside' the text. And what's more is that the particular 'nodes' in those systems of differences can never be properly represented, stabilized, and 'ontologized' to constitute something like objective knowledge of the world (or of your self). They are shaky at best, and are always already in a state of deferment.

As for me, I often dream in language. Sometimes I may even be dreaming only in language, sometimes continuing a debate in my head between two or more interlocutors, and this often happens when I'm sick oddly enough. But sometimes I dream in impressions, as you say, and what's more is that often I'll think in impressions in my waking states.

Another question would be how we can convey a thought or feeling when we haven't even been able to qualify/quantify them in any meaningful way. — Sentient

I agree that language is a crude tool, but it is a tool nonetheless. And while understanding, and its later articulation in language, is never perfect, I still believe it can be refined and progressed dialectically.

Sentient

↪Shevek

As far as Derrida goes, he would resist the idea that your experience, your dreams, or some 'inner' unarticulated psychological reality offer some foundation or more 'fundamental' truth beneath language.

Exactly, it's this reason why I separated 'words' from 'impressions'. Since I've never dreamt in 'language', all I can do is fundamentally agree with Derrida that words refer only to other words. Whether or not he'd agree there's a validity to unarticulated realities is neither here nor there for the moment as it's not the premise of my argument.

I always marvel at people who dream in words. It's obvious that 'dreaming' isn't a uniform experience since you do dream in words and I don't. On occasion, I have had dreams where numbers were featured or revealed to me but always using 'visual cues', for example, a piece of paper with a number on it.

Similarly, I also think in impressions during waking states. On occasion, I wonder if our thoughts (and conversations with interlocutors) create their own realities, therefore, the more thoughts you have; the more realities you are creating.

Language as vocalization exists within its 'own' solipsistic sphere and is a part of but not equal to communication. To me, it's obvious there's a 'place' or reality beyond language which likely contains more of the Universe than words.

Monitor

Another question would be how we can convey a thought or feeling when we haven't even been able to qualify/quantify them in any meaningful way. — Sentient

I don't know if this is helpful, but perhaps when we attempt to convey a thought or feeling we are simply inviting another's interpretation of us and trying to manipulate it into a desired response. Whether we really know what we are trying to convey or not, the desired response is the prize. I have been an actor on the stage and a sane actor does not attempt to fully invest in being in Denmark or being Hamlet or that the words are really his. They are not and the audience knows it. But he does not believe that if he died on stage that he died while lying. We demonstrate somebody's truth and seek a desired response from whomever we care is observing.

Sentient

↪Monitor

I don't know if this is helpful, but perhaps when we attempt to convey a thought or feeling we are simply inviting another's interpretation of us and trying to manipulate it into a desired response.

So, you are saying we don't express for ourselves, we express for the benefit of the responses of others? I disagree in a very real sense.

A good actor never acts for the audience, they act for themselves. Also, it's interesting you bring up the idea of acting versus genuine feeling. Why did you, actually?

We can't demonstrate anybody's truth because there are none and simultaneously many. It's hard enough finding our own truth. Have you not spent a life time finding yours and aren't you still?

Do you know the mechanisms behind a thought? Or how it comes into 'being' after which it's turned into a word which conveys a meaning? I don't, namely and spend a lot of time thinking about it.

Monitor

A good actor never acts for the audience, they act for themselves. — Sentient

I disagree in a very real sense. If they acted for themselves they could do it alone in the basement. The actor's task is to fulfill the playwright's intention which, by the way, is an attempt to communicate. If this could be reliably done in an essay there wouldn't be plays.

Also, it's interesting you bring up the idea of acting versus genuine feeling. Why did you, actually? — Sentient

My whole point is that perhaps there is not the polar distinction between acting and genuine feeling that we suppose.

We can't demonstrate anybody's truth because there are none and simultaneously many — Sentient

Then what / where is this genuine feeling you can't talk about but must? Yes language is a dull tool. What I'm saying is that maybe at some level we realize we don't know what we really mean (or what they'll understand) and we don't have the right words for it anyway. So we take a shot at it and make do with the best response we can believe. Doesn't this support what Derrida is talking about? Or Wittgenstein"s language game?

It's hard enough finding our own truth — Sentient

Indeed, but it is not an objective truth I can act on, only a premise. A premise I made up, that changes everyday and only by acting on that premise can any exact mechanisms or 'substance(s)" possibly be confirmed. There is no point in talking (or acting in the theatrical sense) to myself. So I run it up the flag pole and see who salutes.

Language, specifics, dreams and impressions

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions