/* I do like a little bit of infinite recursion on my bread...
I've been thinking a lot recently about how one can be affected by knowing how one uses symbols; about how the knowledge of the knowledge (woot! metaknowledge) alters how one sees one's use of basic symbols and how one perceives the world.
The thing is - that when I woke up to what the stone language was and how I could speak parts of it to people who didn't understand it as I did, and yet it still worked, I was somewhat confused; grateful, as it finally gave me a way to express certain emotions that I had no real way of expressing before, but confused. And as I learned about symbology I began to feel slightly guilty about using it, because it felt manipulative to speak to people in a langauge so deep they didn't know it was a language at all. But I'm not sure that it is; the datum of whether or not I am and was speaking it is entirely orthogonal to whether or not I actually am and was speaking it; knowledge and ability are not the same thing. And I know that a lot of the symbols I used before I knew what they could do and how they worked.
In a similar vein, I'm curious as to how the symbols one uses fundamentally shapes one's perception of the world around one; and how the knowledge that one is using them can likewise alter said perception. The thing is that, to an extent, everyone uses them; the price of being a pattern-recognising creature is that one is also a pattern-generating creature. The price of being resonant is that one will resonate. The price of being human, as Aiw pointed out, is being human. And the symbols, the live symbols that speak directly to the emotional self, are notable because even as one uses them to explain oneself to others, the shapes that the symbols that you use reshape one's own perception. As you speak the language, the language speaks to you. Though I suspect this is true of all such.
"I find myself gone from all but secret languages."Which leads also to the thought that words are wonderful because they tame the symbols; the act of speaking is considerably safer for sanity than the act of symbolising (whether that is making a symbol or, for bonus points, becoming one oneself), and while one can very easily be swayed by one's own words, it's much more binary and emotive than the use of symbols, which very slightly warp the fabric of perception itself on a more subtle level.
I wonder whether words and language themselves come from a need to tame and use the everpresent - for good biological reason - obsessive urge in humankind; a ritual is really just a symbol partially in the time domain; if you take a safety-ritual and transform it into the space domain you end up with the concept of a space being a symbol of home; and spaces are powerful symbols indeed. Witness the cathedral; the river; the bedroom.
"A sympathetic stranger lights a candle in the middle of the night."Maybe the self-symbol is partly (only partly; being archetypal implies that it cannot be entirely dismissed this easily) the ritual that is only performed once; the ritual of one's own life.
All of this can be seen to be a bit deconstructionist or negative or cynical; but I don't mean it to be. To assume that because I know what I'm doing then I'm doing it wrongly is a delusion that haunted me for some time. However; it is possible for a linguist to write. And it is possible for me to say truth, what I mean and what I feel, even if I do know how I say it. That's a difficult thing for me to understand. Maybe people who are less suspicious of themselves will have it easier.
This is all linked in my head to why proofs, poems, programs, stories and destinies are all the same thing; the rules by which symbols change over time or space or some direction are all linked; the direction is more or less arbitrary. This is what I said in the
Seven Manifesto; and indeed, this concept of the fundamental idea being a direction has been reinforced by the discussions I had today about UIs with Jimmy, and about monads and functors and all those other functional goodies...
SOYLENT GREEN IS MADE OF PREDICATES. */