Caged by language

A recent conference I was lucky to attend reminded me very eloquently that the expression of our emotions, for one, are constrained by our language. A telling example was given that the Romans imposed a controlling and contained language on us where our use of 'Nature', even when softened to Mother Nature, is a one stage removed abstract. Compare that to a pre-roman direct connection to 'Mother', being the earth and surroundings that support and nurture us. A very direct positive and emotive connection to the land that sustains us. Tosh? Not when you explore your reactions to your environment and understand that the words available to you to explore your inner feelings are remote, detached, non-connected. Other languages do have a much more positive connection, you to your tribe, your ancestors and to those you depend on. 

Not that I had that insight prior to the conference but I was stumbling around becoming aware we are both constrained and liberated by our language strictures. For some things we have wide variety of terms to draw on yet in some other areas there are no words or phrase which can quite offer a true summation of the inner thoughts processes. The wealth of English words is vastly enriched by all the nuances of association or social propriety that by phrasing or posture or altered tone it can be imbued with. Whilst we do enjoy a rich language we must do not lose sight that it is also limiting. Our obligation to each other must be to strive for clarity of expression, to get as close to our inner thoughts as possible. The fudge, the double speak actually spread confusion, not the harmony claimed (see also It is not important). 

The other aspect of this very rewarding conference, Woodland Edge, was how, for me, it was disconcertingly touchie and feelie. I believe I have no trouble getting in touch with my emotions. My discipline depends on a continual examination and introspection of emotive responses to every conceivable environmental circumstance. How to respond to colour, texture, light, space, ownership, as non-exclusive examples. Every creative response requiring this internalised autopsy. This then is where I take some issue to the touchie feelie brigade. Though a maelstrom of connectedness and a feeling of oneness is cathartic, though it builds bridges which can become pathways for future problem solving what it does not do is to identify all those friction points where conflicts of objective or intention can become stuck. I have been schooled to objectify my internalised emotional responses. What is it that generated such a response and how might it be changed to heighten or diffuse that response. So touchie feelies also need to progress beyond the exhilaration of feeling and explore those areas, not of agreement, but of divergence. Bottoming out on where they differ, not so feel good, but actually more important as this will reveal insight into future possible problems. 


All the time we must not lose sight of the limitations of our language and just as importantly the constraints of our particular discipline's thought processes and the jargon with which they are expressed. The more I see the more I realise that we humans are more or less on the same wavelength. In the end it is the just words and phrases used that seem to pose threatening discord. Strip back the words to more neutral expressions and we are actually expressing similar thoughts just but couched differently. That is all there is in the supposed conflict. Language. Remember every time you start a sentence it sets off a wave of limits and expectations to be followed. Start the same idea but with a different sentence lead in and you will end up communicating some thing slightly different, with a shifted emphasis. We are caged by our language but it is all we have to express all of ourselves with. It is essential to talk, to talk clearly and talk precisely.