/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.7218075]

Let's discuss this (pic related).

Might we create a language to unite the whole world? A tongue to survive our differences and ideals?

[Anonymous No.7218084]

It's called finnish.

[Anonymous No.7218097]

Do you think Chinua Achebe did the right thing writing his books in English instead of Igbo?

[Anonymous No.7218101]

Heh, the source of this screencap:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJVxPAiB7as

[Anonymous No.7218135]

>>7218097
I guess it depends on his intentions, and what he wanted to express.

[Anonymous No.7219226]

>>7218075
I think this was not what was addressed in this quote...
But the process of create one language maybe should be taken in an allegorical point of view : that's when you come to the encounter of an Other, thus according to him that, temporary at least, you're both sharing a world. That can be made also in a conflictual mode. This world would have to be taken as a perpetual work of political creation.

I'm not certain that creating ONE language would be of any good. The very political process itself is in the creation, always failing and always trying again to create this language. It's not in the given result which is utopia. If you come with an already made language, you take for granted the point that we all agree on the world we're sharing : that's killing the political process which conserves the work. That's taking the utopia's horizon as something which must be, and that's what totalitarianism do.

What I mean is that the fact of "creating a shared world" is not the same that "unite the whole world". This last point is more or less what is doing globalization, and its use of English language. You could see, I think, that globalization unites in one world by killing the possibility of the existence of other worlds : could we still speak about a shared world in these conditions?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think a "shared world" is something real or permanent, or something that should arrive at all costs. This is a political horizon of the collective action, and its only "beginning" part it takes is that it acts as a telos for actors.
If "to survive our differences" means annihilating them, then we're already dead. I hear language with all that it contains of singular, the very intimate languages of one actor. An "already" united language would be a nightmare, not a purpose.

To say things in another way, the only "way" (if there must be one) of creating a shared world (by essence, precarious) is not the lingua franca, but bilingualisms, trilingualisms, multilingualisms (and what I hear as a language here is not "French and English and Suomi and..." though it also contains this dimension. I'm talking about very much more intimates languages, which in the same time are never one's possession, and are always "promising" another language as Derrida says it)

Sorry if I'm not clear, I just woke up

[Anonymous No.7219242]

>>7219226
good post

[Anonymous No.7219256]

>>7219242
That's kind of you, I tried to explain what I find to be problematic for me into this, but that's a very difficult question – and I'm speaking about it in a language which is precisely not my "native" one.
But, to come back to the question, what do you think about it?

[Anonymous No.7219265]

>>7218075

English?

[Anonymous No.7219283]

>>7219226
>(and what I hear as a language here is not "French and English and Suomi and..." though it also contains this dimension. I'm talking about very much more intimates languages, which in the same time are never one's possession, and are always "promising" another language as Derrida says it)
What do you mean by this, exactly?

[Anonymous No.7219292]

>>7219256
Shortly - I'd agree and say co-existence supersedes unity. The creation of one true language would mean the dulling of cultures world over. I am much against global harmonization by way of striving to become a single agreeable entity, as I'm sure every non-English speaking country would be too. And whether it means decades more of cultural clashes so be it - though then comes the question of language and unnecessary cultural barriers disrupting human experience. But that's too big a question to bother with

[Anonymous No.7219370]

>>7219283
Ah, that's the question to be honest! I was thinking about Derrida's "Monolingualism of the Other". One could assume he "owns" his/her maternal language, which he/she doesn't. One doesn't even owns its "own" language, there's always something that exceed oneself ; language comes from/to the Other, it's never in plain "owned name".
Honestly I'm quite sad there because I'm not as fluent in English as I would like to really express myself about this subject...

The other thing I mean by " "French and English" and so on..." is that these elements are part of one experience, but this experience is much more singular than that. I don't speak the same French that my neighbour, my parents, my friends, etc. The fact that I don't own my own language (coming/going from/to the Other's direction/origin) doesn't mean that when I'm speaking, I'm speaking in a general idiomatic language which is owned by a larger collective. It means that each language is a very complex reality which deals not only with one's singularity, but also with what this singularity comes with.
I'm thinking about the fact that the formation of a "Me" is a very social, political and ethical question and that this "me" is a temporary result at a given time of all these delicate things, not an ontological thing given once for all. In other words, my language is not mine, because this "me, myself" thing is very much more complex than I would wish it to be (you could think of the subject deconstruction, or even "simply" psychoanalysis deconstruction of how the ego is thought)


>>7219292
I very much agree with you, I think ! Particularly about the part of cultural clashes. That's, I think, what I was trying to say when I said that conflict is also politics, also a way of trying to share. "To share" isn't something always "flowers and butterflies", it contains its own "share" of violence. (In fact, I think the conflict is one of the VERY essences of politics, but that's another question.)
I believe the only points which I differ from yours statements are:
- about the question of bothering about it or not (I obviously bother, but that's a matter of one's taste maybe!), and what bothering means (I'm not a militant at all by example, I just find these questions to be fascinating)
- about the part around human experience. I would not be so quick to agree with you about what I hear in your sentence on a core of united human experience. I tend to think that the focus should not be on "a core" of this, as I don't think this is really the centre of interest in politics.

[Anonymous No.7219375]

>>7219370
>>7219370 here (continuation of the last post, I didn't have enough space to write everything)

What I mean is that if we're thinking of a "core" to unite with, then we only resort on anthropological or biological invariant : we all have incest prohibition, we mostly all are bipeds, etc... I'm not certain this is the centre of the question of politics, I would rather think that the centre is the necessity to live and bear with the Other given its differences, and the fact that they "alter" myself. But that's a very difficult question about ethics and politics I think, and sadly I don't think I could speak about it in English...

[Anonymous No.7219481]

>>7219370
I get where you are coming from, but I believe these considerations on languages, while not enterily wrong, kinda miss the bigger picture and don't define their terminologies.

Firstly, the individual/society division isn't valid I think: the individual doesn't exist without the society, but the society isn't anything other than something that is conformed of individuals; you can't have a tree without wood, or wood without a tree.

Secondly, I feel linguistic differences, while very much real and important, are overstated: there are differences between everyone's languages yes, but in the same way we can all be said to have different genes, yet we still are the same species; similarly, in both systems (biological reproduction and verbal communication) information is passed sufficiently to give way to what is intended (offspring and understanding), so they are functional, though it's still true that some of the information is lost.

What I mean is that the difference in language between me and my family members is not the same as the difference between me and someone who doesn't speak English. Using biological analogies again, we can compare linguistic differences with different animals and their capability to breed with each other:

Different dog breeds can have children just fine (physiological differences notwithstanding); horses and donkeys can have offspring but some combinations are sterile; chimpanzees and humans can't have children at all.

Similarly: speakers of different Spanish dialects can understand each other easily; Spanish and Italian speakers can understand some of the other says; Spanish speakers can't understand Indo-European languages outside of those descended from Latin.

So what it's desired with a universal languages isn't to have a language that's literally completely the same for everyone (that's impossible), but one where information can be passed sufficiently well so as to produce understanding.

I don't think I'm really disagreeing with you exaclty, but I wanted to specify still.

[Anonymous No.7219542]

>>7219370 here

>>7219481
Thanks for your answer, which I found very interesting (even if, as you could imagine, I don't agree with everything you said !). I've got some work to do but I'll try to reply to you in a few hours !

[Anonymous No.7219575]

>>7219542
Thanks yourself. Right now I have to go to bed but if this thread is still up by tomorrow's afternoon, I'll respond, and if it ain't I'm still interested in reading your reply.

[Anonymous No.7219629]

>>7219292

[Anonymous No.7219785]

>>7218075
Another dunce. And his dunce-following.

We are both race(he says nation; but the concept of a nation doesn't make any sense without a certain genetic population to make a certain culture; so i will say race) and language. If you want to see proof of this just look at how the blacks have bastardized the English language. They literally cannot speak the language without adapting it to fit their predispositions... So things get shortened and simplified. What now Emil?

Me: 1000, some cunt: 0.

[Anonymous No.7219794]

>>7219629
The one thing that always got me with this picture is that he replaces the gun with a katana.
The Samurai were brutes. How is the katana anymore peaceful than a gun?

[Anonymous No.7219827]

>>7219794
why would you think it's supposed to be

[Anonymous No.7219919]

>>7218084
tämä otr

[Anonymous No.7219936]

>>7219629
If everywhere is multicultural you only have to walk down the street to travel.

[Anonymous No.7219969]

>uniting the world is a good thing

GLOBALISTS LEAVE
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[Anonymous No.7219985]

>>7219827
what the fuck's it supposed to symbolise then? An appreciation of other cultures?
>hurr I respect Japanese culture so I bought some obnoxious souvenirs, I'm so multicultural now

Honestly, I think both sides of that image are fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.7220068]

>>7219969
>uniting the world just so we can build the tower of babel again and get smacked down AGAIN by God Almighty

first as tragedy, then as farce

[Anonymous No.7220101]

>>7219985
About >>7219629 , I agree quite much with you. More, it really seems like a false dichotomy. In this picture, there would be only one way of keeping diversity of culture, which would be "nationalism".
That's completely missing real uses of nationalism, which may sometimes be used to resist an effective domination, but is also used (particularly in nowadays rich countries) as a way of federating masses against the scarecrow of "immigrants invasions", thus impoverishing a given culture by keeping it full of itself and closed in regards to alterity.
So if one wants to make a dichotomy at all price (which I think is certainly not a good way of thinking...), the difference would be between a nationalism used to say to the Other "Alter is still here, and that's us", and a nationalism used to say "We are Us and it's all that counts, Alter's got to die".

Anyway, instead of rehabilitating a concept by its sole nature, one should look how it is taken socially, in effects. My opinion being that this nationalism/multiculturalism dichotomy is simple a favour to the rise of nationalism against migrants (this nationalism being just crowd-control of people which are not in migration, and crowd culture is not exactly the finest). In this case, nationalism is not resisting against any hegemony ; it is not the migrants which are in power position but the rich countries, let's not lie to ourselves. The only hegemonic culture nowadays is not the different cultures from different migrants all around the world, the hegemonic culture is more around a way of thinking life as a business, an enterprise

So the "reasoning" behind the picture in >>7219629 just tag a "good" and a "bad" for the sake of rehabilitate nationalism versus multiculturalism. And in the same time, what is described under "nationalism" is exactly what an effective multiculturalism would be - minus the fact that, if you're not scared to death from migrants, you could meet people from other cultures in your "own" country, not only by taking a plane. Because this plane is there as an allegory for saying : "everybody in his own home, but don't step on my garden".

Simply, culture is not as simple as resorting only on the nation. I'm not denying nationalism have real effects on culture, the political power of such a force is real (in French school, during a long time, we were told our ancestors were the Gaulish. Historically speaking, this is plain and pure stupidity, the only constant of this territory being migrations ; Gaulish being a part of these migrations as are others, such as Romans, and later, people from all around the world). But it's happily not the only form of culture

There are a lot of conflicts nowadays resisting globalization and culture hegemonism on a local scale, which are not in a nationalism way of thinking at all.
Thinking that nationalisms are the only way out of hegemony is a way of not taking into accounts these different experiments.

[Anonymous No.7220102]

>>7219969
How can it be bad?

One planet, gotta share it all

[Anonymous No.7220105]

>>7218075
its called Esperanto....google it

[Anonymous No.7220131]

>>7220101 here
Anyway, this thread seems to quickly turn into a nationalism thing, which is quite sad.
There are a lot of other ways for approaching >>7218075 question. The Cioran's quote suggest a path which is not nationalist, that could be interesting to take a step aside the omnipresent discourses evolving around nationalisms (whether they support it or not)

>>7220102 and >>7220105
Not >>7219969, but I tried to evoke multilingualisms rather than English or Esperanto earlier as a possible reply

[Anonymous No.7220143]

>>7219265
>>7220105
Guys, we're talking about "commonly made" languages, not unused (Esperanto) or imposed (english). Do you think that a non-english guy will feel identified while he speaks in english?
Would be nice to create a language, here in /lit/. OF course, under a few parameters, like "must sound elegant", "not too simple, not too complex"...

Just a random example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDftyQ96ZVs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1CjxQXXA7o

In this song, she's not singing in any actual language. It's just a mix of "Scottish Gaelic, Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, French, English and Japanese" inspirations.

>>7219969
Under my point of view, it's not about globalizing all ways of life, but about making all of them capable of understanding themselves. To not live in ignorance.

(muh shitty english...)

[Anonymous No.7220309]

>>7220143
For people to understand themselves they need to be able to contrast what they are with something different... If the world unites under one banner, one language there is nothing to set them apart from each other. We will all become like children then: this is exactly what our rulers wants. It's much easier to exploit people bereft of any identity.

Why am i talking to a shill.

[Anonymous No.7220313]

>>7218075
It's called Latin anon

[Anonymous No.7220315]

>>7220309 (me)
I'm out. don't have time.

[Anonymous No.7220333]

>>7218075
what nonsense...language...bullshit what about people who speak more than one language or countries that speak the same language ?

[Anonymous No.7220631]

>>7220143
>it's not about globalizing all ways of life, but about making all of them capable of understanding themselves. To not live in ignorance.

What the fuck does that even mean? Do you even know yourself? Or are you just spouting hippie nonsense with no substance?

[Anonymous No.7220640]

reminder that the rationalist-liberal has faith in the human rights and prays very hard that science backs up his faith, with of course ignoring that science is as full of faith as his faith in the human rights, so he cries when other people do not accept the human rights, that the rationalist-liberal created himself and decided to sanctify. He despises any form of plurality, since he is a rationalist, even after centuries if not millennia of lack of finding any objectivity and truth.

[Anonymous No.7220653]

>>7220631
You could just read carefully what anon wrote. It's very sensible and beautiful indeed.

[Anonymous No.7220664]

You can have language that would 'unite the whole world' but still it is culture that manifests itself from the way you speak.

[Anonymous No.7222213]

test

[Anonymous No.7222242]

>>7222213
ban evasion

[Anonymous No.7222276]

>>7219481
>>7219542 here
Hello again, I told you I would reply to you about your post, I hope you could see it.

I very much agree with your first point, about individual and society. That's what I was trying to say by an "ego worked by social and politics".

I tend to agree a lot on your second point, particularly about the existence of some invariants in humans. Where I would be less in a hurry to agree is about the notion of "information" in language. It's indeed an important point in language (it's hard to deny this!), but my interest goes more on the question of "adress", of the movement toward the other. What I mean is that maybe there is a main point in language, which is keep quiet a little to much : the fact that we also speak only to speak, not only to "say something" (in other words, one could say that "what is say" is "I talk to you". I'm not referring to a phatic fonction of language, it's more concerning what is meant by the act of talking, not what is meant inside the talking. I tend to find the phatic foncion to be quite despising : we say "he/she's talking for nothing". No ! He/she's talking to me, and that means something - not about the substance of the language, but about its meaning to alterity)

The biological allegory you suggest is not "natural" to me because of my feedback in social sciences, but I find it to be very interesting concerning the idea of discourse's "fertility". (Once again, I'm quite sad to not be as fluent in English as I could wish, because this is really something I'd like to discuss more with you, but my words are lacking)
The point where I think I differ from you is about the question of an universal language which would be on an information scale. I tend to think such a language looks a lot like English, nowadays ! And I don't really feel that it particularly help us to make us consider "other's world" or "other worlds". What I mean is that what you think as an information, I tend to see it as a way of "altering" oneself with the Other. And as I tried to say before (with difficulties), maybe there's a part of non-understanding in this work, a part of violence (I'm being "disturbed" by the Other in my egoist continuation of myself - note that I'm not employing these terms as a moral judgement)

[Anonymous No.7222309]

>>7219481
>>7222276 continuation


To tell you a little more what I have "behind my head" (I don't know if this idiom exists in English, whatever!) : I could think of ways of approaching languages between, by example, an human and such or such animal, or between this dog and this turtle, etc. What would such a language mean? Obviously, the level of information and the path of it are not the same as a certain "regularity" seen in humans (most of the time : we could imagine deaf and mute people don't exactly speak the same way as people who aren't, and there is this question of multilingualism, and so on...)
So I'm on a language definition which may be quite large, and it's indeed hard to me to define precisely the terminologies in English. But I could try by "throwing" the word "praxeology" : what are "doings" meaning? Or even semiology, as what we say or do always exceed in sense what we "intentionally" mean (this intentionality being very problematic if we wish to strictly define it)
The problem about these approaches, I think, is that we are very much centred in a vocal-human definition of the language. So it's very hard to "speak" about what could be a meaning of an act, without once again be using vocal-oral-human semantic field, maybe to the detriment of the question!

[Anonymous No.7222634]

>>7222276
Hey, glad we could be up around the same time!

>And I don't really feel that it particularly help us to make us consider "other's world" or "other worlds".
Oh, of course not, not at all. The desire to communicate, if thought of like the desire to reproduce (they could even be said to be the same, see memes), is not at all something that is beyond egoism and basic instinct. One purely reproduces for one's own sake, to pass on one's genes/memes, essentially the ego. Everything we do, I think, is for ourselves; our existence is one of the ego, by the ego, for the ego. The ego however is not just the individual, it can extend to family, culture, race, species, existence itself or be reduced so as to abandon parts of the individual, like the physical body. If we're talking about what we like or dislike, I need to make a point on identification: the person either likes what it feels it needs or what it feels is like itself; inversely with dislikes. Again this can extend or be reduced to pretty much anything, but the measure is invariably oneself.

So of course, there is a "violence" as you said; the ego pushes itself on the "alter", and this alter an be, just like the ego, anything. Not even the mind escapes alterity, because we have memory (perhaps memory is the originator of alterity, in opposition to the moment?) and so we can think of past, future or alternate selves. And the ego must push itself on the alter, by whatever means it can, because it cannot conceive of anything that isn't itself, it cannot think in terms that aren't of itself. So of course, there is a part of language that must remain hidden because the ego of humans is very much aware the human alter is aware like itself; even the person themself needn't be conscious of the things they're doing by using language. And I'm sorry for fallling back on biology again, but much like men-only prisons don't stop rape, a universal language wouldn't bring any sort of paradise, in fact, just like prison it could probably exacerbate violence.

However I don't mean to say that it's a wholly reprehensible idea; I think perhaps what we should strive for today, is not a world under one single language or law, but a world were everyone has two, one that is shared by everyone (alter language and law) and one that belongs only to whatever extension of one's person (ego language and law). The first one would be used only when dealing with those outside of the personal.

So if you were to ask me what the "meaning" of language, or of any human action is, I'd say the meaning is "ego sum". If you asked me about the nature of language (or perception), I would say it is not meaning, or communication, or form, but "separation"; therefore any knowledge (or experience), is "discrimination", with all the good and bad that word implies. I could go on but I'm getting side tracked, I feel.

[Anonymous No.7222642]

>the best thread on /lit/ right now is about some random quote
I like you guys.

[Anonymous No.7222669]

>>7222642
I wouldn't call it random, these are issues that are likely to become more and more visible in our lives. Just look at what game series the OP's screenshot is from.

[Anonymous No.7222697]

>>7222669
I'm sorry to say I've never played any Metal Gear, I thought they were kinda like Splinter Cell but from Japan?

[Anonymous No.7222720]

"Language is dead.
Long live the voice."

[Anonymous No.7222733]

>>7222697
You should if you have the chance. If you don't have the time or can't stomach videogames, go check Super Bunnyhop's Critical Close-ups on the first five games, they're well worth it.

[Anonymous No.7222769]

>>7222733
Alright, will do, thanks Anon.
I could probably stomach the games well enough, but I'd have to buy three generations of consoles or something.

[Anonymous No.7222781]

>>7222769
>I'd have to buy three generations of consoles or something.
I think you can play all of them on PS3 actually.

[Anonymous No.7222791]

I give you some quotes OP and peoples

>>7222720
"Many a page of prose and many a narrative has been devoted to expressing what was, in effect, a sob, a moan, a laugh, or a piercing scream. The written word spells out in sequence what is quick and implicit in the spoken word.

[...]

Henri Bergson, the french philosopher, lived and wrote in a tradition of thought in which it was and is considered that language is a human technology that has impaired and diminished the values of the collective unconscious.[1] ... Without language, Bergson suggests, human intelligence would have remained totally involved in the objects of its attention. ... Language extends and amplifies man but it also divides his faculties. His collective consciousness or intuitive awareness is diminished by this technical extension of consciousness that is speech.

... Speech acts to separate man from man.

>>7218075
Our new electric technology that extends our senses and nerves in a global embrace has large implications for the future of language. Electric technology does not need words any more than the digital computer needs numbers. Electricity points the way to an extension of the process of consciousness itself, on a world scale, and without any verbalization whatever. Such a state of collective awareness may have been the preverbal condition of men. Language as the technology of human extension, whose powers of division and separation we know so well, may have been the 'Tower of Babel' by which men sought to scale the highest heavens. Today computers hold out the promise of a means of instant translation of any code or language into any other code or language. The computer, in short, promises by technology a Pentecostal condition of universal understanding and unity.

The next logical step would seem to be, not to translate, but to by-pass languages in favor of a general cosmic consciousness which might be very like the collective unconscious dreamt of by Bergson. The condition of 'weightlessness' ... may be paralleled by the condition of speechlessness that could confer a perpetuity of collective harmony and peace."

__________________________________________
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPZtRmx1Dyk

[Anonymous No.7222808]

>>7218135
He said he wanted to use the language of the colonizers to pick apart colonialism. But honestly I think that's just an excuse. I think he wrote in English because his story wasn't meant to be read by Nigerians, he was writing for the rest of the world.

[Anonymous No.7222823]

>>7222697
Hideo Kojima (the mind behing the Metal Gear saga) took the red pill. He criticizes the USA, NATO, war economy, fights for power, false flag attacks...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMyoCr2MnpM

>>7222808
>But honestly I think that's just an excuse. I think he wrote in English because his story wasn't meant to be read by Nigerians, he was writing for the rest of the world.

Probably this. 99% of people wouldn't learn a language just to read the stories of a black guy...

[Anonymous No.7222876]

>>7222791
What I don't understand about the collective unconcious is, how would it even function? What would it do with itself? To what degree would people be united? How would it relate to the individual? Perhaps this is just my egoism, but the idea seems potentially terrifying, not all that different from being controlled by ideology, just more aware.

[Anonymous No.7222959]

>>7222876
>What I don't understand about the collective unconcious is, how would it even function?
Not him, but...
If you resolve this, you'll take the next step of our evolution as species. Somehow, the idea is to give part of yourself, not just to communicate with others. Not sure if you know what I mean (non-english fag here).

>>7222791
Thanks, I'll think about it. But I guess that the idea remains. A language is the way in which we communicate with others (at least nowadays). We need to deal with more than one language, and this is one of the things that keep us scattered as a species.

[Anonymous No.7222964]

>>7222876

>How would it relate to the individual?

Forget about the individual in collective affairs. There is not room for private individuality in such a world of unity. This is what he means by "speech acts to separate man from man."

Maybe there's a phrase that usually says it all: "I have nothing to hide."

It functions a bit like the thing that makes you compelled to channel your thoughts towards 4chan, or the invisible thing that makes you sit on your chair for hours in front of a screen typing madly and lurking things that have no importance whatsoever, yet you do it because you must keep in touch with the Internet.
It is not unlike what we already have. An invisible sense of community that you derive from a screen.

>To what degree would people be united?
Unfortunately this unity can be also seen as a superimposed coexistence that gives place to lots of frustrations, insecurities, uncertainties, conflict, etc. The individual would be asked to possess a lot of confidence and empathy, or understanding over his own actions and intentions. Also a willingness to value collective experience vs individual.

This is obviously a threat to, say, personal achievement as a private outlook. The room of the artist and the intellectual is more to fix, program and optimize these conditions than to assert himself as a name.

>What would it do with itself?
>not all that different from being controlled by ideology, just more aware.
wot

[Anonymous No.7222985]

>>7222959

But isn't the internet the way in which we're communicating. Its 'language' speaks immediate understanding. Merely by plugging in, you're already on the same page as everyone else. Anything concerning misunderstandings is a consequence of not knowing this.

But I liked what you said:
>Somehow, the idea is to give part of yourself, not just to communicate with others.

[Anonymous No.7223005]

>>7222985
Not sure if I understand you... We're not computers, we're just people using this digital platform to communicate. But in our own languages, of course. Internet reinforces the distance, not the quality of our conversations.

But I guess you're not talking aboout that. Sorry... It's too late here, and I can't think right.

[Anonymous No.7223015]

>>7222959
>Somehow, the idea is to give part of yourself, not just to communicate with others. Not sure if you know what I mean (non-english fag here).
No, I think I get it, it's just that it doesn't seem much too different from what say, an ant colony works is like. If I'm correct it would be just like any other organism, just bigger, and we wouldn't have changed anything of our condition beyond the individual.

>>7222964
>It is not unlike what we already have. An invisible sense of community that you derive from a screen.
See, that's what I don't get. How would it be different from what we have had for all of our existence as a species, if we disregard the wires and the external thoughts coming into your mind?

>wot
Yes, let's say we achieve a collective unconscious, what then? Probably our material needs would be fulfilled, what does that leads us to? How would it be fundamentally different from the way we are right now? Because let's say the CU embarks on journey of exploration through space, how would that differ from an organism propagating itself through the cosmos?

>not all that different from being controlled by ideology
People being driven by culture, is what I mean.

[Anonymous No.7223028]

>>7222876
I share your opinion. I'm really not keen on a "computer resolution" of languages : that's only adding more languages - and that's not a bad thing! But thinking the problem is the diversity of languages is... problematic!


>>7222634 Sorry for late reply, I'm glad too!

I agree with your statement about the fact than an ego could be see as not only individual. I indeed think that these notions could be used to analyse humans groups relation, this is even a very important point for analysis in anthropology and ethnology (it's called "The Great Divide" : between an "Us" and a "the others").

I think I see the point where we're taking different paths. I can tell you my background, so as you can see into what "path" I can go or come from. I for one think that the main effect and cause of the language is the Other rather than the Same, the "myself". I'm in a Levinassian perspective : "ethic precedes ontology, it's the very first ontology". Then, of course once the Same has emerged, there's no coming back and one welcome the Other from its own position (the position of the Same). But this welcoming is an openness of the Same to the Other, the Same feeling its own overflow by this Other oncoming.
The ego, as you said, as for tendencies the fact of wanting to make things be itself (Levinas says that the Ego tries to "totalize" everything). But that's precisely when the Other comes that the Ego fails to do so, because of its overflow by this Other. Ego pushes itself to the Other to "assimilate" it, and indeed it is a violent gesture (just as the Other apparition to the Same is a violence to the Same).
Where I don't follow you is about the function of language to only identifying things to the "Same", to the ego. It has of course this function, but not only. By the language you realize that the Other is not "totalizable" by the Same : something is resisting, you could not get a hand on this, you could not make it same (because it's the Other). And this is the very function of language which I think is kept quiet, if we think of it only as a transmission of informations or as a way of "marking territory". (Not even wanting to play the Deleuze's fan, but languages may be a way of de-territorialize oneself rather than the contrary). In others words, language come as an appearance of the Other, in a "here I come" told by the Other.

[Anonymous No.7223035]

>>7223028 continuation
>>7222634
So the dimension of the Ego as wanting to separate or assimilate other speaks to me, in the way you say it. But I really think this is not the only thing in the equation : because the relation between the Same and the Other is not simply a relation between an ego and another ego. There's a fundamental asymmetry : one always speaks as from oneself, to the Other, never between two Others or two Sames. There is not a third position of a person seeing an Ego and an Other. You're always in the game as an Ego, and the Other always appears as such, never simply as an ego. In other words, the world is not only a word of egos, there is something more and this is my relation to the alterity.

I totally agree with you about the point of "one and only one" universal language : that would simply be a nightmare. So we agree on a multilingualism point of view. What I don't get is why you're suggesting that one of these lingualisms should be an universal one?
I think one's lingualism is very much more intimate than simply a way of speaking the same tongue as familiar people. I quite much agree with the Cioran citation on a very singular perspective : I (try to) inhabit my own language, and not only this tongue is not the same tongue as my familiar people, but more, it's not even mine!
So I see this language on a very singular scale, each language being quite unique - that doesn't mean it's equalling the egos, as I tried to suggest.

You said you were getting side tracked, but maybe I'm drafting away too! (Though, if we're talking about these points, maybe there is something to see there)
Let's say my main position here, is that a tongue is a world, and a world that is unique : this tongue is not shared with people from the same idiom (I don't share my tongue with French people just because I speak French : my tongue is on a more singular scale, in the direct relation between myself and Others in my own experience).
Well I'm getting a little too long and maybe quite confusing, so let's stop this post here!

[Anonymous No.7223046]

>>7223028 here
>>7222985
I don't really agree with you about the point you made : that would be supposing we really know what we mean and what we do when we're speaking! There are a lot of different motives to speak to another, and these motives are also part of the game I think! There are really huge chances that when you're saying something, my experience of it is really not the same of yours. I'm not a big fan of an analysis in "qualia", but there's something there which is really individual in interpretation. Beginning by the very structure/grammar of one tongue, which make a preemptive work of meaning before even saying anything! (A very much other's world)

[Anonymous No.7223056]

>>7223015
>How would it be different from what we have had for all of our existence as a species

Go to western 18th century, and the "collective unconscious" is virtually irrelevant. Culture is guided and defined mostly by private outlook.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkJZOxqB-qk

But go to several historical Eastern environments, say, China, India, etc., and you'll easily find it.

[Anonymous No.7223118]

>>7223046

>that would be supposing we really know what we mean and what we do when we're speaking!

"I might be wrong, but I'm never in doubt."

>There are really huge chances that when you're saying something, my experience of it is really not the same of yours.

Forgetting about individuality in collective affairs is what gives rise to the benefit of doubt. That attitude: "if he offended me that's probably not what he meant."

>I'm not a big fan of an analysis in "qualia", but there's something there which is really individual in interpretation.

Ofc. Maybe in the context of what I said before, the task would be to minimize qualia? I'm sure that in a rock show, everyone, most, will have a very similar experience. It deals greatly with the sensory
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ3bFRUahsQ

[Anonymous No.7223203]

>>7223046 here

>>7223118
I didn't think of a rock show and I think this is a good example in favour of what you're saying. I must agree there that there is something collective which is happening of course.

I don't really see what you mean by
>Forgetting about individuality in collective affairs is what gives rise to the benefit of doubt. That attitude: "if he offended me that's probably not what he meant."
Could you come back on this?

At last, for your first sentence :
>"I might be wrong, but I'm never in doubt."
I can't agree! What I feel in your discourse is a tentative to evacuate the polysemic aspect of language. I don't know if that's what you mean, you tell me!
But, by example, during typing all these words since the beginning, I put up a discourse I didn't hold ever like this before. I don't really know the points where I'll be going before typing them, and even then, there are a lot of hypothesis, I don't believe everything I say when I rhetorically suggest them to be true for the purpose of my reasoning. More, I don't know at all what is the motive of my action when I'm speaking to you or to others : I don't know the meaning of this, I'm replying to desires in me I can't really point. And these desires and other unknown things are part of a language, and of a conversation!
I'm not saying that you could make a sentence says everything you wish, that's not my point. I would even be quite in the contrary : every sentence is over-determined by things we don't even know, and an interpretation pretending to be absolute and true is problematic (that doesn't mean "my subjectivity decides", it's the contrary : "I can't know the whole thing", it's always escaping)

[Anonymous No.7223390]

>>7223028
>But thinking the problem is the diversity of languages is... problematic!
The thing is that if my conception of understanding:discrimination::language:separation is correct then a truly universal language couldn’t be capable of saying anything at all.

>I for one think that the main effect and cause of the language is the Other rather than the Same, the "myself". I'm in a Levinassian perspective : "ethic precedes ontology, it's the very first ontology". Then, of course once the Same has emerged, there's no coming back and one welcome the Other from its own position (the position of the Same).
Perhaps I didn't explain myself sufficiently. I might have given the impression that the ego is somehow the lone originator or essence of our perception; now this might seem contradictory with my "of the ego, by the ego, for the ego" and the "ego sum" part, but these statements do not exist outside the concept of separation. Think of it like this: does a parent exist before there is a child? We can say yes, this person existed and gave birth to a child, but we cannot say they were a parent before there was a child, because there wasn't anything to be a parent to. Similarly "ego sum" cannot exist by itself: by the act of saying "ego" -itself- I'm differentiating, so the "alter" remains, implicitly but inherently. They both originate at the same moment because the one cannot exist without the other; the moment of their birth is not a light following a darkness, but a line cutting an undivided reality. It is not that value B follows value A, but that for there to have Value, at all, you need to have a Non-value distinction. You cannot say, "I'm here" without drawing a line, and that localization has an implicit opposite because it can't mean anything on its own.

>By the language you realize that the Other is not "totalizable" by the Same : something is resisting, you could not get a hand on this, you could not make it same (because it's the Other).
And here we agree, because what follows from above is that the one is incapable to identify itself as everything, because 1st) one cannot exist without other, 2nd) the act of identification itself requires something that is rejected from that identification. As I said the ego is the measure for everything, but what is it that it measures? The other! It can't measure against itself, that would be the same as not measuring at all.

[Anonymous No.7223407]

>>7223035
>But I really think this is not the only thing in the equation : because the relation between the Same and the Other is not simply a relation between an ego and another ego. There's a fundamental asymmetry : one always speaks as from oneself, to the Other, never between two Others or two Sames.
Of course, what I meant was that the one can recognize accidents it shares with the other, in the platonic sense of something that is not essential; and in fact the act of recognizing the semblances creates even more otherness, because the accident cannot be what make me "me". The act of speech itself cannot be between two sames, because there would be nothing to say; it cannot be between two others because there would be nothing to hear.

>What I don't get is why you're suggesting that one of these lingualisms should be an universal one?
It was simply a proposal, one I admittedly have no formal basis for, but I think it's a possibility worth looking into. A language which belonged to nobody, that did not replace personal or national languages, but worked in parallel to them, so as that the things that could really clash between two world views couldn’t even be spoken, that’s what I mean. A language of sport, of games, where both sides first agreed on common ground which belonged to neither; a sort of unreal language if you would, like a fiction where anything can happen because it’s not the “real world”, so we can show violence, but nobody gets hurt. That’s what I meant. Of course this is probably pretty idealistic of me. But perhaps… the “collective unconscious” could be this language? Maybe if rather than subconscious, it were superconscious? Much like this same world wide web actually, a play of a world, where we are everywhere and therefore nowhere. Hmm… I have to give this more thought.

>that doesn't mean it's equalling the egos, as I tried to suggest.
Of course, and I'm not meaning to equate it to the ego either.

[Anonymous No.7224539]

bump

[Anonymous No.7224554]

>>7218075
If one grants the quotes premise, that a language is the fatherland, why would anyone voluntarily relinquish their fatherland?

Seems to me a question of identity. I don't want to live in a world where there is no diversity of languages, peoples, races, ethnicities, and it seems a very sinister idea to argue for it's annihilation.

[Anonymous No.7225876]

>>7224554
When the soul of a man is born in any country there are nets flung at it to hold it back from flight. You talk to me of nationality, language, religion. I shall try to fly by those nets.

[Anonymous No.7225881]

>>7224554
You should consider the context. The screencap is from a game, where they say... (See pic related)

[Anonymous No.7225914]

>>7222276
Mon dieu, en fait tu es une fille.

[Anonymous No.7225929]

WORDS CAN KILL

[Anonymous No.7225934]

Is Metal Gear the most /lit/ video game series?
You see influence of Stirner, Nietzsche, Chomsky, and others in the games.

[Anonymous No.7225940]

>>7219292
Hi Skullface

[Anonymous No.7225941]

>Foreign soldiers?

[Anonymous No.7225962]

>>7220333
Primary Languages vs Acquired languages, as for the second part look at Austria and Germany

[Anonymous No.7225966]

>>7225881
>In his eyes, the greastes symbotic parasite the world's ever known isn't known isn't microbial, it's linguistic.
He's right. Our civilization really needs to raise awareness on the fact that ideology and biology, not just psychology, throughly influence people. (And when I say biology I'm not talking about simply race, but about diet, physiology, instinct, etc.)

[Anonymous No.7225971]

>>7222823
See >>7222669
He even criticizes the "red pill"

[Anonymous No.7225975]

English is the answer - everyone knows it.

[Anonymous No.7225993]

>>7225966
As much as /lit/ hates business culture and self-help, they do just that, and appropriate that knowledge for their own ends.

[Anonymous No.7225997]

If I quote metal gear irl do you guys think that people will see me as deep and smart

[Anonymous No.7226008]

>>7225993
Do they? What kind of techniques do they use?

>>7225997
Quoting never makes you seem smart and deep.

[Anonymous No.7226015]

>>7225975
English lacks the complexity of other languages. It's expansion only responds to domination and war.

>>7225997
You just need to sound cool.

[Anonymous No.7226016]

Jesus, how can you take such a beautiful quote about our differences and jump to the thought of creating one language?

If you want to erase differences, kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.7226068]

Except Ciorans quote ignores how Nations assert themselves regardless of sharing the same languages, the breakup of Yugoslavia is proof of that. A better understanding in my mind is what Patrick Pearse said "A country without a language is a country without a soul", certainly in Irish terms the large loss of the Irish language was a detriment to the Irish identity and changed the political landscape but it did not stop the flow of Irish Nationalism

[Anonymous No.7226078]

Is it just one guy, or is there something especially appealing about /lit/ to metalgear fans?

[Anonymous No.7226627]

>>7226008
>Do they? What kind of techniques do they use?
They accept that ideology can drive someone in the face of total adversity and are pretty into nootropics when it comes to what to eat and how long to sleep.

[Anonymous No.7226719]

>>7226627
But do they have specific ideological precepts or is it just a "believe in yourself" kind of deal?

[Anonymous No.7226733]

>>7226719
They accept that "believe in yourself" is an ideology

[Anonymous No.7226756]

>>7226733
Do they justify it beyond "it's good for you"? is what I want to know.

[Anonymous No.7226791]

>>7226756
They accept it as a way to get more capital.

[Anonymous No.7226816]

both options are bullshit. There's already a kinda universal language. And if you anyways want to tech it as a first language all around the world, who's gonna pay that teachers? Why should all that money be invested to teach an universal language to people who ain't never going out their countries?

[Anonymous No.7226851]

>>7218075
>Might we create a language to unite the whole world? A tongue to survive our differences and ideals?
But anon, English already exists.

[Anonymous No.7226855]

>>7226791
So they don't see the ideology behind it after all.

[Anonymous No.7227175]

>>7218075
the idea doesn't make sense to me. we don't understand natural languages yet, how are we going to create a new one for anything other than recreational use?

[Anonymous No.7227177]

>>7227175
>we don't understand natural languages yet

maybe you don't, but anyone who has taken even an intro to linguistics course knows exactly how language works lmao

[Anonymous No.7227184]

>>7227175
>>7227177
lmao

[Anonymous No.7227207]

>>7218075
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto

[Anonymous No.7227409]

>>7226627
>and how long to sleep.
heh.

[Anonymous No.7227438]

>>7227409
>Voltaire
Jesus Christ.

>Kafka
Makes sense.

[Anonymous No.7227446]

>>7220143
> Would be nice to create a language, here in /lit/.
OK I'll start
Fjolki means book

[Anonymous No.7227474]

>>7227446
>Fjolki means book
Why?

[Anonymous No.7227498]

>>7227474
Well, all base nouns start with a vowel. In this case
>olk
Meaning 'skin'. Then a prefix
>Fj
is appended that indicates the use of the noun, in this case signifying 'to flip'. Finally a suffix
>i
For the singular neuter.

Flip-skin = book

[Anonymous No.7227505]

sg. dl. pl.
fjolki, fjokitte, fjolkit (nom)
fjolkja, fjolkjende, fjolkjen (acc)
fjolkim, fjolkjavde, fjolkjav (gen)
fjolker, fjolkerate, fjolkera (dat)
fjolkyma, fjolkymde, fjolkym (inst)
fjolkijo, fjolkijude, fjolkiju (ess)
fjolkele, fjolkeljade, fjolkelja (loc)

[Anonymous No.7227514]

Just bring back latin.

[Anonymous No.7227535]

>>7227514
Bring back proto-indo-european.
https://soundcloud.com/archaeologymag/sheep-and-horses

[Anonymous No.7227539]

>>7227498
If you're actually interested in creating a language you need to dive WAY deeper than this word means this.

for example, if i were to write a language, i would have certain sounds express certain emotions or feeling about the subject. IE the sharper the sound (S K and T), the more powerful the connotation. dull letters or sounds (D B P) would mean one feels more apathetic. thus creating a language with a focus on context, instead of verbiage.

[Anonymous No.7227547]

>>7218075
You're a dumb fuck for thinking that is the natural implication of what should be done. You're even dumber for wanting that implication.

Languages in and of themselves hold up and perpetuate certain values. The existence of other languages allows for one to step outside the innate prejudices of one's language if one takes the time and effort to learn it. Why would you want to deny the world of that experience and perspective?

Anyways, it's a moot point. English is already headed there one way or another whether we like it or not.

[Anonymous No.7227554]

>>7227498
>>7227505
Interesting.

>>7227539
Also this. I'd like to make special focus on beautiful sounds, and deep meanings.

[Anonymous No.7227573]

>>7227539
>IE the sharper the sound (S K and T), the more powerful the connotation. dull letters or sounds (D B P) would mean one feels more apathetic. thus creating a language with a focus on context, instead of verbiage.
That would require the language to have a ton of consonants or a lot of syllables per morphome. Vowel changes might be more practical.

Let's take a common Turkic vowel inventory of:
a á e é i í o ó ö ő u ú ü ű y ý (accent signifies length). Here we have a four dimensional system contrastic front-back, high-low, plain-round, short-long. You can assign a different contour to each axis. Go wild.

[Anonymous No.7227578]

>>7227554
meaning could be hybrid with the user/author having their own ability to create meaning

[Anonymous No.7227579]

>>7227573
>ó ö ő
Damn, I nearly puked trying to say this...

[Anonymous No.7227591]

>>7227573
the idea stays the same. Map emotions and feelings to sound.

[Anonymous No.7227600]

>>7227446
taolin means shit

[Anonymous No.7227602]

>>7227591
map some part of the expression to hexidecimal RGB colors

[Anonymous No.7227609]

>>7227177
Seriously ?

>>7225914
En l'occurrence, pas que je sache, mais quels indices te laissaient penser que j'en étais une ?
>>7223028 here once again!
>>7223390 >>7223407
I see we quite agree about ego and other, except for some little things where I don't really share your opinion, but I think that may be more because of a terminology question than a substantial difference.
Mainly, it's within the idea of the "ego as a measure of the other". For me, the Other is precisely what is not measurable by the Ego, because it offers an infinite which the Ego can't hold.
What I hear when you say
>the one can recognize accidents it shares with the other
is the idea that the ego comes sharing a world with the Other when he is appearing. Is that what you mean? (It's an opinion I indeed may have). What I was trying to say about the asymmetry between ego and Other wasn't exactly what you stated, but strangely enough, it quite arrives to the same corollary than the one I had in mind
(nothing to say between two Sames – though I could not really imagine something as two Others existing one for the Other. Two Sames, to make a caricature, could be two egocentrics ignoring each other. It would quite equal, to an individual point of view, to the negation of the Other, thus arriving at the equivalent of an Ego alone ; this is almost a common experience when I'm taking public transportation to be frank. But two Others is not something I can imagine, because while Ego can exist in its own egocentricity, in its own "sufficiency", an Other only exists in appearance to the ego. Anyway, once again it's a terminology question, but I think it could put a light onto what I'm trying to say about this)

Though, once all of that is laid down (phew !), I totally agree when you're saying :
>a truly universal language couldn’t be capable of saying anything at all

And that's quite why I can't really understand your proposal ! (the one in >>7223407 ) Though I understand it is still a "construction area", so I won't try to very much assert my point there. Except (ah! joy of apophasis) concerning the idea of a collective unconscious, which I'm really not too keen of. I think it's a concept often used to only designate something that we could call a cultural background...

[Anonymous No.7227614]

>>7227609 continuation
All in all, I'd like to "come back" to a point in >>7218075 theme, because I've got a feeling it was not addressed too much yet :

– It is not the point of the "utopia" (for me an unsettling horizon...) of an universal language, which I think would be a nightmare, politically speaking, and I think we came to agree with this without too much problems. (It would simply be the end of the politics as a conflictual situation, which would be quite aporetic. That would mean we're all united in a "Same", which is quite difficult to assume. As your discourse implies it, even the worst political forms need an "Other" to federate a "Same").
I think we agree on the point that a Lingua Franca, Latin or English given as the only language would really solves literally nothing, as it would be only a path to a forced integration of the alter into an "us". That doesn't mean it could be successful, given the resistance of said alter, and the fact the very Latin or English tongue is not the same for every people who speaks it. In other words, such a lingua franca, forced down upon the throats would be a kind of Newspeak or Lingua Tertii Imperii, carrying a whole lot of violence under its shell.
What I think here about the concept of "information", is that a language used only and thought only to carry textual information and nothing more would only be this Lingua Tertii Imperii. It would be indeed a very "economical" language, but would fail to address the most important point which is address to the Other (no mistake : I'm not saying that the referential function in Jakobson scheme is essentially nazi ; I'm just saying that's what was trying to be done by this L.T.I.)

– The point I'd like to come back to is more referring to the Cioran's quote. I tend to agree with him on his point (and that may be one of the rare Cioran's politics thoughts that I find to be really insightful – no mistake again, I love his work, simply less when he's speaking about politics). I think it would be a good idea to explore in which dimension one inhabit a tongue ! Because, sneakily, I feel it to be the thing which subtend the politics side we have been speaking about until now.
You know by now that for me "tongue" means a very intimate (no pun intended) shape of language. What I'm asking myself there is, what does it mean to inhabit a tongue? Even more if this tongue is given as the thing which I don't own, because any time I speak it must welcome, in a way, the other? There are some really great words by Derrida that I would like to bring here and share with you because they are very enlightening regarding this subject. Sadly I can't get my hand on them in English, and I'm not fluent enough to make a good translation

[Anonymous No.7227619]

>>7227591
i - joy, o - sadness
y - acceptance, ö - disgust
a - fear, ü - anger
e - surprise, u - anticipation

[Anonymous No.7227631]

>>7227539
>>7227554
>>7227591
>>7227619
I like the poetic point you want to go to. Though, as >>7227547 implied (minus the "dumb fuck" part", I agree with all that remains in the post), I'm not certain that the effect of a certain sound would be an universal thing.
I rather much think that the beauty of one consonant or vowel is entirely depending of one's cultural context... Though if you take it as a kind of Oulipo in one's language it still would be a fertile idea

[Anonymous No.7227639]

>>7227631
#78adee m8

[Anonymous No.7227703]

>>7227631
when it comes to all things

Function > Beauty

[Anonymous No.7227712]

>>7227703
function = harmony
harmony = beauty

[Anonymous No.7227750]

>>7227631
>I'm not certain that the effect of a certain sound would be an universal thing.
What made you think I'm implying that? Sound being different from meaning is linguistics 101 fam. I'm just seeing how to work around Anon's proposal.

[Anonymous No.7227761]

>>7219226
It's fascinating to me to see individuals of a different mother tongue present ideas in English. Understandably the grammatical errors will slow the absorption rate of the content but the shift in style contributes significantly to this.

[Anonymous No.7227824]

>>7227409
>day job
>all are less than 6 hours
Lazy fucks

[Anonymous No.7227873]

>>7227750
That was just a prejudice from my side, sorry about that. I was not trying to suggest I just discovered, all by myself, a totally new genius idea ! I was talking about it on a conditional tense just to not sound aggressive, as there are a lot of people with different backgrounds here. I guess that's a failure

>>7227761
Well, I take it as a compliment ! It's very hard to write something in English for me, even more when I've got to deal with specific vocabulary which I don't know the exact translation.
When it's common chatting, it's ok, I don't have to think first in French, then in English : I think directly in bad English. But when I've got to make an harder sentence, that becomes quite harder to not think in French.

And grammar is a real pain, by example there are a lot of "set phrases" that I know they are only valid in French, so I try to write an equivalent but that's very unnatural. But most of the time, I don't even know that such or such phrase doesn't exist in English, because it is at this very time out of my thinking possibility. So I translate word-to-word and it gives something hard to understand. The word "set phrase" itself is a good example, I'd have to search for a translation of "locution figée" on Google. I could have said "idiom" but that's not the thing that popped in my mind.
And I'm not even speaking about verb tenses, or where do I have to put the adverb, and so on... These are things that I really fail to remember each time I think about it. By example, you've got a "one time" difference between French and English : what is written in preterite in English is "passé composé" in French, most of times. "I ate an apple" = "J'ai mangé une pomme". So my first impulse is to say "I have eaten", which is grammatically false in English for what I was meaning.

That's the kind of thing I may be speaking about, when I was saying that a tongue is a very intimate thing (though here, there are chances this "tongue" share quite a lot of things with other French speakers. So I was rather speaking of one's words' resonance in one's "world" or mind)

[Anonymous No.7227895]

>>7227873
and about this present perfect / preterite thing, I've just seen this is even more difficult than I thought, I give up on this...

[Anonymous No.7227899]

>>7227609
>En l'occurrence, pas que je sache, mais quels indices te laissaient penser que j'en étais une ?
les constantes excuses

[Anonymous No.7227953]

>>7227899
Eh bien, c'est un diagnostic agressif. Le côté éristique à l'écrit ne me passionne pas, encore moins sur internet et sur un site comme celui-ci.

[Anonymous No.7228204]

>>7227609
>For me, the Other is precisely what is not measurable by the Ego, because it offers an infinite which the Ego can't hold.
To me it is impossible for the ego not to "measure" the other; this doesn't mean the ego is in dominance of the other however, nor that it perfectly understands it, which is impossible, but it does mean it always understands there is an other. There must always be something that is acknowledged as "not me", and this knowledge is always incomplete; however that doesn't mean the other extends indefinitely, because it is still "not me". It's a very subtle difference between a thing that is "infinite" and one that is "incomplete". This is exactly the cause of angst for the ego, the thing you mentioned it could not hold; understanding can never be complete because the act itself requires something to be left ungrasped: in the ego-other relationship it's not the other that isn't understood, but the ego - which always must have a conception of other to exist, a conception which must always be incomplete, because it is lacking the ego, which is what makes the conception possible in the first place. It's a stable paradox loop; to understand we require separation, that separation requires something to be left without understanding. Therefore why I say understanding is discrimination. Because the ego isn't understood, it is complete, likewise the other is understood, because it is incomplete. The complete cannot be understood, or rather, it cannot give understanding, because there is nothing to say about it; in turn there is something to be said about the incomplete, by virtue of it not being complete.

[Anonymous No.7228208]

>>7227609
But please don't misunderstand, I don't mean to say the ego is -identified- with what is not understood, because the act of identification is an understanding in itself; the ego does not require identification with itself because that would mean nothing. This works on various levels, but if we think of culture, what is thought of as the norm, is exactly that which is not discussed, what goes unrecognized; on encountering abnormality, that is when conflict begins: the fear (acknowledgement) of what is "not me", followed by the choice between these two things, now neither the (present) norm, which is what makes choice possible in the first place. But through all the process the ego never sees itself, just like the eye doesn't see itself unless in an external mirror. And just as this separation is the origin of all suffering it is the origin of all pleasure. How? Through the same choice; good is that which was the norm, bad is all that is not the norm, that intrudes, so when we recognize what was the norm, through otherness, is when pleasure comes. This is the epiphany, the moment when that -obvious- solution finally surfaces; the joke, the punchline which requires a set up; the getting-it of the reference; the peekaboo movement of face-not face-face. In all the cases it is the surfacing of something that was already there, an unvoiced assumption, which comes into light as response of something else; which is why the ego chooses it over the second thing, because it surfaces from what it now assumes was itself! Or rather, not “not me”, a conception which surfaces from the contrast with the abnormal, a response, a thing which wouldn’t be recognized without the other, which is why it can be chosen. As they say: “out of sight, out of mind”.
What I’m trying to articulate is not only the nature of the ego and the other, but the nature of all understanding and language. It’s not that the ego is a thing that happens to measure; it is the act of measuring. It’s not that the other is a thing that happens to be measured; it is the act of being measured. Conveicer and conception can’t exist without one another, and the ultimate recognizer will always be unrecognizable, because otherwise it would be recognition, it can’t be both at the same time just like I can’t presently return to the location I’m at, I need to be somewhere else. Exactly as you said:
>Two Sames, to make a caricature, could be two egocentrics ignoring each other. It would quite equal, to an individual point of view, to the negation of the Other, thus arriving at the equivalent of an Ego alone

Here’s a related video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIX3r1_ZPRE

[Anonymous No.7228240]

>>7227609
>And that's quite why I can't really understand your proposal !
What I meant by a truly universal language, that is a language that can conceive the whole universe, is not the same as the proposal. The proposal would be a non-personal language, not one that would be the same for all people. By virtue of not being the “real language”, it would prevent the things that would harm us from being uttered in our personal languages. Not unlike fiction, where we can have a simulacrum of reality, and people don’t need to go to war in real life to know war is bad, we would not need to have conflict in our personal language. Of course this would need a balance; we must still need to be capable of communication with others in the personal language. And also I’m not sure language as we conceive it now could fill this role; which is why I speculated about a collective super conscious, a shared simulacrum of all language. Like a nuclear deterrent, perhaps, where the two superpowers needn’t engage in mutual self-destruction, but satiated their need for fighting through proxy wars or the Olympics.

>>7227614
>It would be indeed a very "economical" language, but would fail to address the most important point which is address to the Other
>What I'm asking myself there is, what does it mean to inhabit a tongue? Even more if this tongue is given as the thing which I don't own, because any time I speak it must welcome, in a way, the other?
Could you expound on the incapability to address the other, and the not owning of the tongue?

[Anonymous No.7228342]

>>7228204 >>7228208 >>7228240
>>7227609 here
Hello again, I'll try to really reply to you by tomorrow.
What I can already tell you is that I may almost retrieve my opinion into what you're saying, but often by inverting the roles of Same and Other. It's quite odd, as I really see a similar structure of one way of thinking alterity, but with other words. I'm too tired right now to really reply on the spot, I'll try to explain myself a little more later.
Though, once again, it's actually funny to see this structure similarity, did you read Levinas? (I'm also asking you this because of the word "epiphany" which for me is really "Levinas tagged")
See you!

[Anonymous No.7228381]

>>7228342
>Though, once again, it's actually funny to see this structure similarity, did you read Levinas?
I'm ashamed to admit I haven't. I haven't read much philosophy, despite being interested in it, outside of dabbling about a bit into Eastern religions such as Buddhism and Taoism, which offered me concepts that got me out of depression and gave me useful tools to fight my neurosis. Language, thought and the conception of reality simply fascinate me so I'm always trying to think of them.

[Anonymous No.7228574]

Entire world broken up into 9 official languages.

Problem, /lit/?

The average English speaker is too stupid for English to be an ideal global language. We need something like Latin with no native speakers to make sure idiots don't get a headstart at birth.

[Anonymous No.7228594]

>>7228574
What dialect of Latin does subsaharan Africa speak?

[Anonymous No.7228684]

>>7228574
>Biblical Hebrew
I wonder who's behind this post.

[Anonymous No.7229996]

bump

[Anonymous No.7230027]

>>7228594
Uh, well that would be as an influence of French, German, and English; 'dialect' seems an odd question. Personally I think more West African countries should be placed under Latin rather than Arabic, but on the whole it looks to be an okay map.
>>7228684
What else would be there silly

[Anonymous No.7231180]

>>7227573
Is this the base to start creating a language?

[Anonymous No.7231980]

>>7228381
>>7228342 here
Sadly, I don't have much more time than yesterday to reply. Though, there's really no reason to feel ashamed as for me, I don't read a lot of philosophy neither, we try to do what we can given what we have... And it's quite cool in my opinion to see someone who didn't read much philosophy to have such similarities with Levinas' discourse. (If you may find it, I suggest you to read "Totality and Infinity", there's a chance it "talks" to you. If you wish to read it, don't let yourself feel "lost" if you don't understand everything, just read it like poesy in a first time). Anyway, glad you got out of depression, it's a tough thing to deal with.
I'll listen to the video you linked. See ya !

[Anonymous No.7232125]

>>7231180
It can be if you want to.

>If you may find it, I suggest you to read "Totality and Infinity", there's a chance it "talks" to you. If you wish to read it, don't let yourself feel "lost" if you don't understand everything, just read it like poesy in a first time
Thanks, I'll check it out if I get the chance.

Also, I want to say this conversation has been really constructive for me, as it has given me the opportunity to put into discussion many of the themes I want to explore in my art. So thanks again.

[Anonymous No.7232127]

>>7232125
Meant for >>7231980, whoops.

[Anonymous No.7232147]

>>7222791

Footnotes? On my /lit/?

Who are you and how many degrees do you have

[Anonymous No.7232233]

>>7220309
>For people to understand themselves they need to be able to contrast what they are with something different...

Notice the increasing obsession with the possibility of extra-terrestrial life? I wonder if we secretly hope there is alien life out there for this reason. Globalization IS here, and most of the world knows this. If globalization was successful in "uniting" all under one consciousness (to use the lingo in this thread), then of course, how to then construct the SELF off of an OTHER? Alien life, I'd be inclined to say. So, do we secretly want this?

[Anonymous No.7232235]

>>7232233
> Notice the increasing obsession with the possibility of extra-terrestrial life?
Waaaay down since the 90s and early 2000s as far as I can tell.

[Anonymous No.7232236]

>>7219226
someone give this man a PhD

[Anonymous No.7232251]

>>7232235
Granted, but that's due to a rise in skepticism. UFO enthusiasts are mocked, and the common rationale is now sort of, "We don't know. But we'll wait and see".

That's why I wonder if we 'secretly' want it.

[Anonymous No.7232443]

>>7232235
......I remember alien stuff everywhere as a kid, I thought that was just independence day, that shit was like Zombies

[Anonymous No.7232455]

>>7232443
Weird, if there's a genre I can think of as being oversaturated during my childhood, it's slasher films; things seemed so much darker and brooding than they are today. Makes me think of how the kids of today will perceive superheroes.

[Anonymous No.7232465]

>>7232455
they still make a lot of scary movies

[Anonymous No.7232475]

>>7232455
>Makes me think of how the kids of today will perceive superheroes
Good question. Oversaturated to the extreme.

Which bothers me since it's mostly just based off of famous Marvel/DC characters. I'd rather have original creations, not stuff from 30+ years ago.

[Anonymous No.7232490]

>>7232475
well you're not the braindead public who throws money at those boring movies now are you?

[Anonymous No.7232596]

>>7232475
To be fair, for all the shit cape films do and get, the ratio/popularity of original-to-big-two films is WAY above the same ratio for comics, and even then on the Marvel Studio side of things, all their films are pretty distinct from one other and more-or-less obscure; I mean just look at Guardians of the Galaxy. Compare DC which is only Superman/Batman still.

Also, I want to make a point that superheroes are not a genre. They're a trope; so are aliens or ninjas or mechs. Which is why that other Anon (>>7232465) isn't exactly correct on my statement of slasher films: the horror genre hasn't gone away, but the elements of the slasher film aren't as used as they once were.

And this takes me to the usual /lit/ debacle on "genre fiction"; because if you ask me, sci-fi or fantasy aren't really "proper" genres in the way things like comedy or horror are. You can have a fantasy horror or comedy without substantially changing the elements used, for example, but it being both horror and comedy will change the tone completely.

Back to another discussion in the thread, it's funny to see how both the elements of science-fiction and fantasy, hinge on the same love-hate relationship with otherness.

[Anonymous No.7232629]

>>7232596
like 2 movies using slasher "elements" are out right now, Black Mass and Sicario

[Anonymous No.7232693]

>>7232629
>The true story of Whitey Bulger, the brother of a state senator and the most infamous violent criminal in the history of South Boston, who became an FBI informant to take down a Mafia family invading his turf.
>An idealistic FBI agent is enlisted by an elected government task force to aid in the escalating war against drugs at the border area between the U.S. and Mexico.
Well I wouldn't know from these descriptions but I do feel like checking them out, so thanks.

[Anonymous No.7232706]

>>7232693
....I might not get what you mean by "slasher" however

[Anonymous No.7232722]

>>7218084
Jeesus tulee oletko valmis? Kiitos hyvästä kukkaviestistäsi arvon herrasmies

[Anonymous No.7232732]

>>7232706
< this kind of thing

[Anonymous No.7232734]

>>7219919
Kalja on selvästi juotu vikisemättä kun ei suomikaan enää onnistu

[Anonymous No.7232837]

>>7232732
I thought you meant like "shitload of eerie suspense before someone dies"

[Anonymous No.7233522]

>>7232837
Nope. Check out the wikipedia article, it's ridiculously through:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slasher_film
>Slasher films are a subgenre of American horror films which typically involve a violent psychopath murdering several victims. These villains often wield bladed tools. Although the term "slasher" is sometimes used colloquially as a generic term for any horror movie involving murder, analysts of the genre cite an established set of characteristics which allegedly set "slasher" films apart from other horror subgenres, such as splatter films and psychological thrillers.[1]

[Anonymous No.7233526]

>>7232455
There's always good material to enjoy, you just need to search. For example, most people listened Elvis Presley, but in the same decade you could have enjoyed Jeff Wayne's "War of the Worlds". (muh "Forever Autumn")

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPYJgjRV0XQ

[Anonymous No.7233557]

We all speak the same language here and I feud more with you fucks on /lit/ than anywhere I can even think of.

What makes you think that sharing a language automatically translates into a unification of will and ideal?

The political differences within states are born of socioeconomic disparity and quibbling over petty matters of religion and morality.

Obliterating the biodiversity of human language on our planet would just mean we can all hate each other intelligibly.

[Anonymous No.7235297]

>>7233557
I partially agree with you, that all depends on what we mean by "language"

[Anonymous No.7236292]

>>7228204 >>7228208 >>7228240 >>7232125
>>7231980 here
Hello there,
I will not "truly" reply to you regarding the "ego and other" matter, since as I said before I think we've got very similar discourses, in a way!
Though, if you wish, could you precise to me a little more what you're thinking about in this sentence ?
>And just as this separation is the origin of all suffering it is the origin of all pleasure. How? Through the same choice; good is that which was the norm, bad is all that is not the norm, that intrudes, so when we recognize what was the norm, through otherness, is when pleasure comes.
I've got troubles understanding how you link it to the immediately following sentence :
>This is the epiphany, the moment when that -obvious- solution finally surfaces; the joke, the punchline which requires a set up; the getting-it of the reference; the peekaboo movement of face-not face-face.
(Though, this epiphany question talks to me a lot, as I said you.)

When you say in >>7228208 :
>. In all the cases it is the surfacing of something that was already there, an unvoiced assumption, which comes into light as response of something else; which is why the ego chooses it over the second thing, because it surfaces from what it now assumes was itself! Or rather, not “not me”, a conception which surfaces from the contrast with the abnormal, a response, a thing which wouldn’t be recognized without the other, which is why it can be chosen.
I don't have exactly the same concept of "epiphany" (except with the first sentence where you use the word - notably the peekaboo movement example, where I really share this feeling about epiphany). And, given that, I've got some trouble really getting to your point. Could you reiterate in other words, maybe? Just to be sure I'm on the point, I understand it as an analysis of "why the ego is being interested by the Other", is that it? (Feel free to correct me if I misunderstood what you meant!)

>Conveicer and conception can’t exist without one another, and the ultimate recognizer will always be unrecognizable, because otherwise it would be recognition, it can’t be both at the same time just like I can’t presently return to the location I’m at, I need to be somewhere else
I didn't think of saying it that way, and indeed that's really matching with what I meant. That's really interesting and funny for me to see that we come both to this conclusion with different words ! By the way, I listened to the video you linked, but sadly my oral English is not good enough to really get all the words... That was nice anyway to share it with me, I'll try to improve my English! By the way, it was also a pleasure for me to discuss with you, thanks to you.

[Anonymous No.7236304]

Why on earth would you want to unite the whole world.

[Anonymous No.7236322]

>>7236304
To advance to Type 1 level civilization.

[Anonymous No.7236325]

>>7236292 continuation
>>7228240
If I correctly understand what you're saying, do you mean such a non-personal language would be a way to rid our others languages of violence? I believe I tend less to agree with you about this point (for me violence is inherent to language, because language being a movement toward the Other, it brings with itself the violence that the epiphany also represents, and my desire to dominate this Other who appears)

Concerning the "incapability to address to the other" :
I was talking only about a language which would be on an "informational level only". I think such a language would fail to address to the Other, because this language would affirm it only relays "matters of fact". That's a position assuming that such "facts" are equally perceived by the two interlocutors, and that we could refer to them as if it was a given. Thus, it comes (if information is the only function of language) to negate the worlds' difference between two subjects, and fail to address one side of the language : we speak to the Other not only to say SOMETHING to the Other ; we also speak to the Other for the sole "purpose" ("purpose" is not an adequate word) of speaking TO the Other (even without anything to say in particular). In other words, I don't think the reject of a "talking for nothing" stance as a vanity is absolutely justified.

I don't think it's needed, but if we absolutely want to find a "meaning" in that stance (what it is "saying") it's a : "I'm speaking to you". Here we quickly get trapped in an "informational way" of thinking language : we absolutely want it to "say something", and so we absolutely want this meaning to come with articulated words, I mean words that come from the mouth and pharynx. But there are ways of "saying" : "Here I am" or "I'm speaking to you" which don't take any words. The look may be a clue (but not only, there are also attitudes, etc.)
Anyway, I'm not thinking this reasoning as a prescriptive one ("language should not be used like this"), but as a descriptive one. (Of course, that's also an often used trick to say "it's descriptive" while being prescriptive... Your choice to share my opinion about this, or not!). What I mean by that, is that the "address function" of language is not supernumerary, but essential to the notion of language. (My opinion being even more precise : address is not only essential, but is the first use of language, its first reason - ontologically and chronologically)

[Anonymous No.7236331]

>>7236325 continuation
>>7228240
Concerning the "not owning a tongue" part, I'm afraid I can't really approach this in English, I wouldn't really know which words to use.
But if I want to give you a poor clue about what I mean, maybe it could be the fact you have to modulate your words in order for me to get a meaning from them. You have to accommodate to what you're thinking of me, and what you perceive as my world. However, ego being ego and Other staying outside, ego never really knows what the Other's world is. And that way, you have to become a stranger regarding your own tongue, you have to make an effort to de-identify yourself. In other words, letting yourself to be "alterized" in a way. That doesn't mean at all that you're "truly" becoming the Other, but rather that another "Other" may emerge in you, that there is trouble being born. And that's an experience where you feel your tongue not being yours (that's what I feel)

[Anonymous No.7236574]

>>7236292
>Could you reiterate in other words, maybe?
Think of it like a mathematical problem: 2+2=4 but also 4=2+2. These are all just variations of the same statement, not unlike passive and active voices in language; the solution is already given in the problem itself. So when I "discover" a truth, I'm not really saying something new, just accepting it as the more "real" or "natural" statement of a problem that actually means the same; the acceptance happens purely due to the identification of the "problem" variant, as a "problem", which only happened as it appeared to intrude unto the previous norm, and therefore the "solution" variant is a "solution", despite saying the same. And once the "solution" is accepted, it ceases to need further discussion, and therefore becomes the norm, that is to say what isn't perceived, meaning the ego. It's dialectics without progression, basically.

>I understand it as an analysis of "why the ego is being interested by the Other", is that it?
Close. The ego can't be anything else than being "interested" by the other. All problems come from the act of observation and are solved by the act of observation.

>>7236325
>If I correctly understand what you're saying, do you mean such a non-personal language would be a way to rid our others languages of violence?
No, I don't really think that's possible so long as it is language.

>That's a position assuming that such "facts" are equally perceived by the two interlocutors, and that we could refer to them as if it was a given.
Yeah, I think we have the same conception of it. There's no statement if we're saying something that was already understood by both parties.

>What I mean by that, is that the "address function" of language is not supernumerary, but essential to the notion of language.
Yes, exactly, there's no we without addressing others, because us and them are defined in opposition.

>>7236331
>And that way, you have to become a stranger regarding your own tongue, you have to make an effort to de-identify yourself. In other words, letting yourself to be "alterized" in a way.
I see, so it's the same thing I explained about perception of oneself, in the accidents shared with the other can't be part of the essence of the ego.

[Anonymous No.7237554]

Damn, this thread grew a lot!
This deserves another MGS quote (pic related).

[Anonymous No.7238773]

>>7237554
Well, this one inspires me less than the other, despite myself not being a stranger to resentment's feeling...


>>7236574
>>7236331 here
I believe I see much more what you meant, now.
I also found a video that will maybe interest you :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AGDjpg72ng
(sound quality isn't exactly perfect)
See you and have a great night!

[Anonymous No.7239103]

>>7237554
damn...

[Anonymous No.7239684]

>>7238773
That was indeed interesting. The part about intruding unto others in particular, spoke to me (to use your expression); it's interesting to think of it as the perception of accidents shared by the other and the person, essentially the generation of more otherness through self-perception. It's funny I'm only just noticing that epiphany can also be seen as the dead of the other.

>>7237554
Wasn't Nietzsche's statement on facts being just interpretations also used? Reminds me of the retcons in the Minutemen comic series that came out a couple years ago, being left up to the reader.

[Anonymous No.7239690]

>>7218075
like esperanto?

[Anonymous No.7239695]

>>7218084
MITÄ VIDUA :D:D:DD

[Anonymous No.7239707]

>>7239690
>2015
>Esperanto

Pick one.

[Anonymous No.7239715]

>>7220101
Post the damn picture.

[Anonymous No.7239779]

>>7238773
Oh, and I forgot, I think his comment on responsibility to others being more important to us than freedom is particularly relevant to us today.

[Anonymous No.7239954]

post more mgs lads

[Anonymous No.7240095]

>>7239684
Glad it pleased you. According to you, in what way epiphany could be death of the Other?
About your sentence in >>7239779 ,
I quite agree and tend to think it's a great way of rethinking politics. Though there's a thing to note about Levinas, it is that he was quite in a descriptive rather than normative point of view (to come back to this distinction). One could think he says "you should", but not really : he's more talking about what a "you should" could mean, how a "should" appears. He doesn't force you to "should" anything (I don't know if that's proper grammar)

>>7239715
It was posted by someone else, I was only reacting to it. It was apparently deleted.
If I correctly remember, to abstract, there was two sides on the picture : on the left, tagged "nationalism", a man goes around the world, going from bitter and racist to lover of human kind by seeing different people with different skin colors and cultures in different places. The right was tagged "multiculturalism", pictured the same man seeing these people from all around the world. But in this side, each time the place is the same : it's a big city's street, with people always wearing same clothes everywhere and same signs on "consumerism culture" ; the man stays bitter.
I was stating that the "tags" weren't what they claimed to be (globalisation isn't multiculturalism, nationalism isn't the only way to promote cultural plurality). Also, the implied fact in left side of the picture was that the guy loved others cultures, as long as they don't come in his country.

[Anonymous No.7240354]

>>7240095
This the picture?

>According to you, in what way epiphany could be death of the Other?
In the sense that it becomes the norm.

>One could think he says "you should", but not really : he's more talking about what a "you should" could mean, how a "should" appears. He doesn't force you to "should" anything (I don't know if that's proper grammar)
Yes, this is something I've thought about quite a bit myself. Why do people do things and they complain about them for example? Why do we feel obligated to do some things when we think of those things a pointless effort? What is duty, to us?