MarkAman wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2017 6:37 pm
What is present can be referred to by the simple act of pointing. Earliest man used this means first and exclusively to refer to what was present, since, like any animal, he was not yet aware of the possibility and power of absence. And of course we still use this means of referring to present things as when I 'point out' which building on this street is the library. However, ONLY when an object is ABSENT, is there a need to 'call' it back into presence. Pointing to a present object with the index finger is the precursor to language. But language itself is born when the game, the berries, the food to be found in the bush, the life-sustaining water in the stream, for some reason, this year, does not appear as usual. It's the ABSENCE of the thing that requires a name for it and this naming is first a 'calling' of it back from its terrifying absence.
Great observation. The nature of language breaks down to the nature of the "point" (beginning and end of finger) and "line" (finger). It is in this nature of the point and line from which further points and line manifest to the structures we observe as reality today.
The nature of "pointing" with the finger being the "percieved" beginning of language (whether or not that is the actual case we will use it as the premise axiom) maintains its ground in the nature of "physicality" or the observation of a world that is in a continual state of flux. This act of communication is in a constant state of flux as if one cannot point to something they cannot communicate an idea. Take for example a hunter wants to talk about buffalo. In order to communicate in this strict physical means the buffalo must be in his approximate area. The caveman must relate to the buffalo and in these respects that nature of communication had a high grade of "relativity" associated as "physicality" or "flux".
The problem occurs where in observing the nature of communication as strictly Relativistic or in a state of continual flux (for in order to communicate about a buffalo the cavemen observed that the buffalo must be "nearby") one observes a constant (the memory of the buffalo appears as an abstraction which exists as a reflection, yet is a construct in itself) for to observe everything as "relative/flux/physical" one observes a constant. This "constant" manifests as a nature of "reflection" or "abstraction".
It is in observing this nature of relativity/flux one moves to reflection/constant (this can be seen in aspects of Aristotelian philosophy where we learn about "above" by observe "below"). The nature of language, specifically that aspect of naming, is the move towards abstraction as the observation and manifestation of unifying dimensions. Where the cavemen had to observe the buffalo in the physical sense, the observation of a "name" or "word" as an "abstract unifying reflective space" enabled the caveman to move towards a greater degree of "unity" not only in the nature of observation as knowledge but in a practical means of communication as well. Where the nature of communication was literally a physical form of
"geometry" (caveman pointing to buffalo) the nature of "words/names" allows for the abstraction of this geometry with a greater degree of consistency through unity as "reflectivity".
It is from this nature of Relativity and Reflectivity, within the nature of language that a third element results: the axiom as Synthesis. It is in this nature of simultaneously pointing to the buffalo in both a physical manner and abstract manner that the cavemen where able to develop "axioms" or "points" of communication through the nature of the "word/name" (now whether or not it "really" happened this way is up for debate. I do not believe it happened this way, however for the sake of argument we will continue with this line of reasoning). This nature of the axiom, through the physical/abstract nature of language, enabled the caveman to Synthesize structure through the manifestation of "dimensional limits" as axioms and from this dimensional limits, "possible natures" (or further dimensional limits) as further axioms.
It is within this nature of axioms as the Synthesis of points that the caveman was able to not only produce further points but simultaneously maintain and regress other points. It is through the nature of Axiom Synthesis that the cavemen was not only to reflect an abstract structure and relate to physical particulation, but simultaneously manifest a median between the two.
It is in these respects the caveman had to "triangulate" reality through the points of Reflection, Relativity, and Synthesis in order to mediate it. This nature of the axiom as a "point" is a universal construct we observe with the ancient world by not only the emphasis of geometry and astronomy, but also their nature of measurements being premised on a median with the nature world (systems of measurement being based on the stars, seasons/cycles, etc.).
It all breaks down to geometry. Once the caveman were able to fully observe this, the nature of their communication expanded like a seed growing in to a plant with the plant producing further seeds that grew into further plants.
Language is either exponentially unifying or diverging...like roses and weeds.