Before we get started, I have to warn you: Things may get a little religious.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m the girl who at age fifteen got up on the bima and announced that God was dead. So no worries, no one’s trying to lure you into Judaism with promises of lazy Saturdays and sweet sweet hamantaschen. Though those hamantaschen are damn good.
So, I was at synagogue the other day for my brother’s confirmation (sitting up straight, crossing my legs like a lady, smiling at overly-friendly old people; you know, the normal) when I happened to tune in for a prayer I’d never heard before. Nothing life-altering in the overall, but here’s the part that caught my eye:
Blessed the One who spoke and the world came to be
Blessed is the One!
Blessed the One, who continues creating.
Blessed the One, who creates by speaking.
As a writer and a general lit dork, I’m a big fan of the idea of text as world — virtual or otherwise. And here it is, as literal as it gets: creation through language.
Also, having recently spent some time wandering through the Jewish quarter of Prague, I’ve still got the Golem on my mind — that mythical creature made out of mud and brought to life with a prayer written on his forehead. He also makes for an adorable souvenir.
Forming worlds with words… Just saying, maybe there’s more precedent for the idea than we might think.
Anyways, it’s off to San Francisco in a few hours for the Sex in Games Conference. No idea what to expect, but I’m hoping to come out all tingly-like. Of course, I’ll be rambling about it when I get back, but if you’re looking for dedicated blog coverage in the meantime, check out Noche at ApogeeVr.
A laidback, liberal outlook, a thriving gay community, and a fortune cookie factory… What more could you ask for in a city?
June 6th, 2006 at 12:06 pm
“Forming worlds with words"¦ Just saying, maybe there's more precedent for the idea than we might think.”
Actually, the concept of “creation through language” is a really old one - maybe as old as language itself. You’re just a little late to the party. :-)
June 6th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
Actually, if you go back to the original hebrew in Genesis, when it says “God created the heavens and the earth” the word they use for create could also be translated as sung, so the idea of text as world is pretty old, or at the least the idea of song as world is.
This is also likely where Tolkien got his idea for creation in the Silmarillion. He has God and his angels sing a three part song that proceeds to map out and form the past, present, and future of Middle-Earth.
Although I’m quite a fan of video games’ “math as world” idea myself, these are all powerful and fascinating metaphors.
June 6th, 2006 at 6:52 pm
Too late, Bonchik; I’m converting to Judaism.
And it’s your fault.
June 6th, 2006 at 8:42 pm
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” - John 1:1
I love the idea that language is in everything. Perhaps even more than in; language is creation’s wellspring. Language is a form of pure throught, and through thought we can create. It is a powerful idea.
June 6th, 2006 at 11:22 pm
Language is just a crutch for those who can’t handle telepathy.
June 7th, 2006 at 1:51 pm
Telepathy would use language just not through sound waves. Even images are language (as the more ancient languages like Egyptian wrote them).
So…
June 7th, 2006 at 10:01 pm
Images CAN be language, but are not necessarily so.
June 8th, 2006 at 4:17 am
They can be used for nonsense and mimicry as well I suppose, but those are hardly evidence of something greater than language (language is anything used to express ideas, thoughts, or feelings through a medium).
It’s said a picture can tell a thousand words, but that’s because a picture could be a thousand words (paint a picture of an open book with big pages or small writting).
Images used to express ideas, thoughts, or feelings are language and any telepathy using images not to express ideas, thoughts, or feelings is not something greater than spoken language (it would be nonsense as it would convey nothing).
You could claim: “The spoken word is a crutch for those who can’t use telepathy” and then you’d be closer to what you may mean. But even then I’d doubt it, the spoken word conveys more (per word) then just the visual simplistic version of written (or typed) word, as there is voice-tone and body language to assist it. The written word (not typed) also conveys more than typed since our hands actually guide and create the letters, which can add tone as well (though it’s hard to guarrantee anyone will understand the tone). And yet we type, because an idea can be best explained and understood (read: more quickly created and absorbed) when made long and without multiple layers of language. I could imagine a movie in my head which could explain everything I’ve typed better, and telepathically send it to you, but that would take longer and be much more subjective.
June 8th, 2006 at 1:27 pm
They can be used for nonsense and mimicry as well I suppose, but those are hardly evidence of something greater than language (language is anything used to express ideas, thoughts, or feelings through a medium).
Sure it is. Existence itself is greater than language, since it can exist apart from language while the converse is not true.
And image of a tree might be a form of language if I’m using it to “say” something, but it also exists in it’s own right.
June 8th, 2006 at 3:47 pm
Existence beyond self is arguable (though you’ll never prove it), but there’s no telepathy involving existence. To create with thought would be what the creator does, and then we’re back to the Song or the Word which is the origin of language and existence.
Existence itself is thought by some to derive from language (for knowledge of ones existence requires statement to self of such).
So I can’t say I agree that existence itself exists apart from language, since that statement can not be brought into thought without language and is circular (existence exists? as a statement in language that language need not exist for existence to exist O_o).
June 8th, 2006 at 5:21 pm
So I can't say I agree that existence itself exists apart from language…
Ok, try this.
(1) Do you concur that language-using creatures have not always been on this planet? I mean us, apes, dolphins, etc. Do you concur that there was a time when no such creatures existed? When, in fact, no organic life at all existed here?
(2) If the answer is “Yes,” then do you agree that this planet- and indeed, the pre-existing elements and forces that contributed to its initial creation - did in fact exist during that period?
(3) Would that not make the case for existence being precedent to and distinct from language - or indeed, sentience itself?
Put bluntly: Did the universe exist before we were here to talk about it?
June 9th, 2006 at 8:23 am
The universe and everthing about it did exist before we were here to talk about it. But nobody was there to care.
Is like the question “Does a falling tree make a sound if no one is listening?” Things are even if no one acknowledge them.
I think questions like that appear because, for us, language is so into our core that we cannot think about reality without it.
Mankind is a bit selfish when it comes to issues like this. The universe was here before us, and it will continue after us… We’re just a second in its history.
June 9th, 2006 at 9:42 am
It’s a no for me ;)
Existence came with language, anything we can imagine to have come before is only imagined.
But that doesn’t mean before a traditional recognized lifeform with spoken language came along (like us humans) that there was nothing, since there are many types of language: A tree uses language through its growth and natural rhythm to speak to its enviroment (that tree falling may or not make a sound, depending on its type of senses and other creatures involved, but it will have happened and effected that tree and its enviroment), just as how a creator would have “spoken” or “sung” through their creations.
June 10th, 2006 at 10:29 am
So, Gwen, nothing existed before you did? I’m 39. If you’re younger than that, let me tell you that I did, in fact, exist before you arrived.
June 10th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
I’m younger, but anything I can have imagined you to have done (even if given an indepth biography) would not in fact be what you did, but only my imagining of it.
But also, you’ll never prove existence beyond self to me ;)
June 10th, 2006 at 3:58 pm
Why didn’t you just declare yourself a solipsist right away and spare us all this babble about “language,” etc?
PS - If there is no existence beyond self, what created you? Something must have, since nothing can simultaneously be its own cause and effect. “You,” as self, exist. Therefore “you,” whatever “you” are, were created by Not-You. Therefore, something other than “you” exists.
PPS - I can also hit you with the falsifiability test if you don’t like the ontological argument given above.
June 10th, 2006 at 10:20 pm
I can see how you might make that mistake, but I’m not a solipsist, only on the verification of any claimed existence of others at that time outside myself. There are realities going on outside of me outside of my time, for one (like the me of yesterday), and their differing views (or even ability to perceive me) on the situation are decided by their definitions and interactions of the language they use.
As for creation, there’s no answer to that if you follow cause and effect and naturally forward moving time, creation from nothing is a contradiction. Change, however, is an eternal concept capable or returning to its origin (though it requires the statement “All is, that is possible” to be true, that is to say, that anything that could happen, does happen, though separated).
Now, for why the babble on language? Because implying a nonstandard form of communication (like Telepathy) would not use language is incorrect. By simple definition, a medium (air and air vibrations for spoken, some sort of mentally projected beam using some smaller particles for telepathy) change in no way removes the fact that it is using language.
If its more to your liking to dismiss someone to a label and their communication as babble, then I’ll leave you to it (just been trying to clarify statements for your benefit, I am beneficent whenever I am able and I’d hate to continue to add to your view that others are simplistic and substanceless).
June 11th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
Gwen: But also, you'll never prove existence beyond self to me ;)
Free Dictionary Online
“Solipsism: The theory that the self is the only thing that can be known and verified.”
Filosofia.net
“Solipsism: The view confining reality to oneself and one’s experiences.”
Oxford English Dictionary
“Solipsism: The view that the self is all that can be known to exist.”
…
A “label” is not dismissive if it accurately describes the thing under consideration. You are espousing solipsism. Period.
The “babble” in question referred to your defining “language” so broadly as to make the term meaningless. It’s nothing personal; I would be “babbling” too if I stretched the definition of, say, “politics” to include photosynthesis.
There are also problems with your answer to my “you/not-you” ontology challenge. And of course, the matter of falsification remains…
… to be taken up with someone else, because I’m off to play Ur-Quan Masters. :)
June 11th, 2006 at 4:01 pm
Here are another two definitions of Solipsism:
“The theory or view that the self is the only reality.”
I disagree with this. As I’ve said “there are other realities going on outside me.”
“The theory that the self is the only thing that can be known and verified.”
I agree with this. As I’ve said, you can’t prove the existence of other things to me, for all I know I’m seeing and hearing things.
The difference is between knowing and believing (I don’t believe mine is the only reality, but it the only one I can know and verify). I’m guessing you’re joking around, because you’ve made statements like “existence exists” and then called something I’ve said meaningless.
My definition of language is what you’ll find in a dictionary, and you’ve not mentioned the true topic since you ignored the mistake - telepathy necessitates language. The simple response, the thing you must have mistook, was that by language you thought speech. No need to apply haphazard labels and dismiss valid arguments.
June 11th, 2006 at 4:24 pm
People, people. I go away for four days and this is what happens. Anyways, fight away. I’m content to be a rowdy spectator :-).
For me, the main question when it comes to text as creation is the idea of text as destruction (not my idea — a critical literary theory). On the one end, language creates; on the other, it binds what has already been created into a package that can now be tossed aside.