Here is something that none of us probably think about. If the language you speak does not accommodate words for certain areas of human culture it may change the way you see the world. In one interesting example a language that had no number words made it hard for its speakers to count accurately.
Although number words and counting are a fixture of life in most cultures from the time we are old enough to play hide-and-go-seek, some languages have only a handful of number words. In a paper published in 2008, MIT cognitive neuroscientist Michael Frank and colleagues demonstrated that Pirahã, a language spoken by a small Amazonian community, has no number words at all. The research team simply asked Pirahã speakers to count different numbers of batteries, nuts and other common objects. Rather than having a word consistently used to describe "one X" a different word for "two Xs" and yet another word for "three Xs," the Pirahã used hói to describe a small number of objects, hoí to describe a slightly larger number, and baágiso for an even larger number. Basically, these words mean "around one," "some" and "many."
Link
WORDS WITTGENSTEIN -YOU-!!!
That's sure to clear things up.
Because I read material from all ages, I occassionally slip in and out of middle-english and Shakespearian use of language and employ a mass of historical references that more often than not leave my listeners dumbfounded. It gets even worse when I engage in technical discussion of scientific theories, recently while discussing the effect of caloric intake on obesity I made the error of mentioning peroxisome-proliferator activated receptors, and at that very moment the conversation ended and it's contributors dispersed, as a matter of fact, even before I could finish saying it.
The idea that you have to work for knowledge and understanding is burried deeper than the mythical Atlantis, these days everyone already knows everything or their opinion or private reality is every bit as good as anyone else, so why would we need anything more than a kindergarten (a German word meaning "Child"+"Garden") mastery of language.
That is, we fully recognize that someone donning a P.H.D. or Doctorate in some field is qualified to be as verbose as needed, even if their listeners do not understand and are merely consumed with awe.
But the Age of the Polymath is gone. Despite the historical fact that a large body of social and scientific progress was pioneered primarily by autodidacts. Anymore, to be recognized as someone possessing understanding in more than one field of human knowledge requires one spend their whole life in a study hall. They will achieve their goal just in time to die.
I make the exception with respect to psychology and it's subfield morality, because these are areas where people are easily offended and maintain their own personal reality or version of the facts regardless of the source of conflicting information. It wouldn't matter if God itself revealed it to them, they would still not be willing to accept it. But when it comes to building bridges, we readily recognize that some exerpience or technical mastery is real.
There is one other field of "Knowledge" which shares a wide skepticism despite it's conclusions and that is the philosophical study known as "Epistemology" wherein the limitations of human understanding are explored and defined. People get really sloppy about this and quickly arrive at their beliefs without ever considering a study of epistemology. When their convictions are apparently undermined by some bright epistemologist, they are satisfied to fall back on the institutionalized scientific establishment as if it were a concrete reassurance that epistemology is unimportant.
Worry less about your verbiage and more about your grammar.
Love your comments. If only I was not drunk out of my mind rigt now I might be able to say someting sensible.
Never the less:
I forgot what I wanted to say. Never mind.
Oh; who or what the fu** are you?
bye.
Thanks for the tip. It is something I spend time on.
Close enough. Apart from being 'artificial', though that distinction is something I'd challenge. And I prefer to think of myself more as God's Advocate and the society; the devil. More of a protagonist with the majority being antagonists. The roles are backwards is all. Mind you, those appearances are probably rooted in which side of the fence you are on.