Circumventing Language?

[Synthesis]

Recently came upon a thought that is essentially as follows:

There exists a common agreement that language serves as a conduit for pure thought, therefore granting a general mode of communication. While I have no qualms about this and can enjoy language/communique as much as the next human, I've found that direct translations from thought --> language leave a great deal to interpretation, consequently mussing up (No, not 'messing'; mussing) True meaning and therefore promoting inaccuracy. So, I posit that it is possible to circumvent such inaccuracies by way of art and other 'visual' projections of thought. While this may initially seem to be contradictory to solving the issue of communication's inaccurate manners, I instead think that - proper training and inclination all more or less equal - art/visuals can serve as better conduits, because they bypass the initial barrier that is language, ergo making the inaccuracies a thing to be forgotten (forgive the run-on; I could find no better way to phrase it). There rests in every artist's hands the ability to cause certain variables within their artwork to be interpretted a specific way without redundancies or mis-translations due to equal parts skill and manifestation of meaning - which can be read by an audience with artistic conditioning, as it were.

Note: I am quite well aware that transitioning to visuals would make' things' uniform and decidedly droll in comparison to some of the artwork/visuals existing now, but that is not the point I am attempting to make.

Hopefully someone can make sense of the above...not sure if I worded it succinctly/accurately enough.

Thoughts? Comments? Am I a total wackjob for thinking this, perchance?

Edit: I wasn't completely sure where to put this thread, move it by all means if it doesn't belong.

 

[KazeCraven]

Yes!


I mean, yes in terms of the fact that I had a similar idea, not that you are a total wackjob (though that's not to say that you aren't).

Anyway, I've been playing around with the works of Betty Edwards, who is all into the language of the "right brain" hemisphere (I made a thread not too long ago specifically arguing that we're better off just calling them two modes of thought and forgetting the brain issue entirely). She has a book Drawing on the Artist Within which talks about the language of line. In short, depending on how you wield your pencil (fast or slow, hard or soft, curly lines or rigid marks) you can express different emotions with just the way you draw the line.

Then, once the entire artwork is put together, each painting makes use of lines, shadows, colors, etc. as well as forms to create an entire idea expression. Some people even claim to think in images, and I see little reason to claim that they are wrong.

 

[Synthesis]

Hm. Interesting, I will have to read that book. It isn't very suprising that emotional state impacts one's drawing/artistic work, the same happens in writing.

"Some people even claim to think in images, and I see little reason to claim that they are wrong. "
I am one of these people

 

[Kuu]

I once thought like this too, but it is a severely flawed train of thought...

I've found that direct translations from thought --> language leave a great deal to interpretation, consequently mussing up (No, not 'messing'; mussing) True meaning and therefore promoting inaccuracy.

[blah blah blah]

(...) art/visuals can serve as better conduits, because they bypass the initial barrier that is language, ergo making the inaccuracies a thing to be forgotten.

You are terribly mistaken in claiming that 'art' bypasses language. It might not be spoken or written language, but it still is a 'visual' or 'acoustic' or 'formal' language (system of symbols)... and therefore so-called 'art' is equally (and in most cases I would say much much more) prone to the same post-modern post-structuralist semiotic pitfalls as written/spoken language...

There rests in every artist's hands the ability to cause certain variables within their artwork to be interpretted a specific way without redundancies or mis-translations due to equal parts skill and manifestation of meaning - which can be read by an audience with artistic conditioning, as it were.

Are you familiar with "art education" and "art critics"? People tend to mock them in general, but the truth is that one does learn how to (vaguely) read a visual language that the average person is only occasionally aware of.

How is this any different than what happens with literature and the usual learning of the written/spoken language?

There rests in every writer's hands the ability to cause certain variables within their text to be interpretted a specific way without redundancies or mis-translations due to equal parts skill and manifestation of meaning - which can be read by an audience with literary conditioning, as it were.

...


Certainly, some music or other 'artworks' can be quite intense and have a wide appeal, usually an emotional effect... but I wouldn't dare to call that anything close to being full of 'accurate, clear meaning' and 'free from interpretation' nor 'true meaning'.

So no, you cannot escape the evils of inaccurate communication that easily.
If you think literary theory is a pain, believe me you don't want to get into the brain-raping madness of 'art' theory... 'art' is much much more messier than written/spoken language... (and I am sure some people will insist that its greatest asset is indeed its very vagueness).


Even if one could somehow manage to keep a language static and enforce with all users a single sign for a single concept, it would soon become evident that the sheer amount of signs would increase to unsustainable levels, and the signs themselves of ever increasing complexity... (*cough* chinese *cough*)... not to mention the inherent flaws in the structure of the language itself that can lead to all sorts of ambiguities...

And finally, there is the massive assumption that thought is in itself clear and accurate rather than messy, fuzzy, semi-random, serendipitous... so even in the case of perfect direct transmission of meaning, it would still turn out to be a dissatisfaction...

You can despair now.

 

[walfin]

How about speech?

Though I suppose you might use music, ala Solresol.

 

[Latro]

I think directly in language. How do I fit in your model?

 

[Saeros]

There exists a common agreement that language serves as a conduit for pure thought, therefore granting a general mode of communication. While I have no qualms about this and can enjoy language/communique as much as the next human, I've found that direct translations from thought --> language leave a great deal to interpretation, consequently mussing up (No, not 'messing'; mussing) True meaning and therefore promoting inaccuracy. So, I posit that it is possible to circumvent such inaccuracies by way of art and other 'visual' projections of thought. While this may initially seem to be contradictory to solving the issue of communication's inaccurate manners, I instead think that - proper training and inclination all more or less equal - art/visuals can serve as better conduits, because they bypass the initial barrier that is language, ergo making the inaccuracies a thing to be forgotten (forgive the run-on; I could find no better way to phrase it). There rests in every artist's hands the ability to cause certain variables within their artwork to be interpretted a specific way without redundancies or mis-translations due to equal parts skill and manifestation of meaning - which can be read by an audience with artistic conditioning, as it were.

Note: I am quite well aware that transitioning to visuals would make' things' uniform and decidedly droll in comparison to some of the artwork/visuals existing now, but that is not the point I am attempting to make.

Hopefully someone can make sense of the above...not sure if I worded it succinctly/accurately enough.

Thoughts? Comments? Am I a total wackjob for thinking this, perchance?

Edit: I wasn't completely sure where to put this thread, move it by all means if it doesn't belong.

"There is no greater impediment to the advancement of knowledge than the ambiguity of words." - Thomas Reid

That said, I think that language is much more precise than art. Art leaves much more to interpretation than a statement. And there are certain thoughts that would be difficult to convey in art. For example, how would I go about conveying the same thoughts i've written in this post visually?

 

[Synthesis]

Kuu-

Thank you for the critique. I had already thought of the issues with artistic interpretation, yet wasn't quite sure what to do with them yet. In truth, I meant the model for those who think using pictures or some sort of visual processing - probably should've included that. I don't so much have an issue with literary theory, just think it could be more accurate.

Walfin-
I'll look into solresol. Thanks. As far as speech, how would that be different than what is currently accepted for mass communications?

Latro-
I'd see no need for you to adopt the prototype model, because it likely wouldn't be nearly as efficient as what you use now.

Saeros-
In their current states, I agree that language is much more precise than art due to the interpretation factors. On the difficulty of conveyance, i will attempt to salvage an answer when I am not quite so tired. For some reason, Strange Loops are sticking in my head about this.

 

[Synthesis]

Bit off-topic from the rest, but if humans were to reach a level of...awareness and consciousness (?) that defied all prior communication systems, where would our race turn then? Although, I suspect the question to be rhetorical and unable to be properly answered given the premises. Regardless, an entertaining thought for some.

 

[warryer]

I agree. I've said before that we should invent some kind of telepathic technology that can transmit meaning. Each machine would have to be specific to the person. We would all overnight be come empaths. I imagine crime would be zero (sociopaths exluded).

You don't have to look any farther than the state of law codes or contracts. So much tedious definition and hairsplitting and even still, somebody crafts a loophole. "Oh well I didn't know the law meant I couldn't do it this way."

With our current technology (if language is technology), we rely a lot on the discretion of other parties. A lack of trust.

Or maybe poetry? A combination of art and language.