----------------

Human Language
The Individual and Society ----------------
In brief, human language forms...
  within one's immaterial subject as an analogue of what materially also had imprinted one's psycho-neurology. That psycho-neurology is one's formatively-factual "subconscious" which also imprints knowledge from that sometimes-active subject. If it is so active, one undergoes standardized "thought." Yet while this formation involves the convergence of such expertises as psychology and semantics, it's only the consequential applications from the formative truths which can permit the experts or the knowing, thinking layperson to move beyond her or his conditioning to and through word-concepts.
  Human language requires words to be one's subject's medium. Yet words alone first imprint only as any other sensation does. They only can assume meaning as language- the very concept of a "word" itself within that meaning- first from within that subject. If they don't, the human simply responds to them as they impinge and imprint either from audible or visual sensations or from their sensational recreations within his or her subconscious. There and then, the stimulating word- or any other sensation- remains within knowledge.
  The immaterial object for the "subject" has a formative synonym in the standardized word-concept "mind," and it may or may not process words as thought under two formative conditions. If the stimulus only is a sensation from without with the subject/mind aware, the subject/mind is conscious. If it's directly from the subconscious and also without the human's sensory awareness, the subject's in the dream-state stage of the unconscious. Either way, the subject links with a material subconscious which includes the senses with the brain.
  If the subject doesn't process words, the subconscious still may export them to it- along with other "mental pictures" or recreated sounds for the "right brained." If it would process them, the human must engage his or her subject as a wilful act to import the words. A standardized "thought" results which next also imprints as knowledge. That thought involves the words also in two possible ways. The first is in response to a sensational stimulus. There and then, there's no immediate processing because the word exported in response already had been processed if it were to be of language at all. If so, it forms to be a word-percept, a word which already had imprinted with the essence of its associated sensation.
  The second way transcends standardized "perception" to include immediate processing, and it also can include any exported images. There and then, we willfully act subjectively to import other words from their subconscious imprints to process meanings within the analogous subject. That alternative ability to import logically means we willfully can act only where and when we do process meaning first, and only then also can we understand as only next to know that the subject still is "analogous." That is, its immaterial object distinguishably parallels the sensibly-material object of that subconscious etiologically upon which its own formation depends.
  It's also that formation of language from within the subject which  standardizes "mental processing" through the medium of words as   standardized "word-analogues." Certain of these analogues distinguishably parallel the sensation impinging from outside or within one's own body as word-percepts, but it's another as  standardized "word-concepts" which minimally enables their formation and provides a minimal processing.
  The concept consciously or in dreams forms within the subject's standardized "contemplation" where and when words directly and unperceptually vest with standardized "meaning-" with analogous applications. It does this through other words first known either as word-percepts or as redundant to the spatio-temporal formation of sensations. The latter form to be those we've called "prepositions," "particles," and articles- those which correspond exactly with our awarenesses of things as entity-events without the need to assign words to them in order to contemplate them otherwise at all.
  We then relate these words to one or more "key" words to give  them meaning as concepts or formatives. That processing abstracts from the known essence we'd applied to form the meanings of and for all the words within our contemplation, and that in turn effects the meaning of the key words. A concept which results then may or may not relate to a known sensation. Yet the word-concept next possibly to become a word-percept imprints either way. It also imprints the past-associated essences of the other words, if any, as of its own essence where and when what standardizably we'd first "comprehended" through it never absolutely could include even all of what we'd "apprehend" otherwise.
  Word-formatives avoid this pitfall and require a higher form of mental processing. They do because their abstracted essences form from combined essences which do comprehend completely all the characteristics of particular entity-events where and when our essential ignorance of sensible particulars itself is a formative fact among them. Beginning with the formative truths, they carry the essences which explain and enable the formation of all the conceptual formations they'd also permit us to standardize through our otherwise-also-ignored formative logic. It now remains for us to contemplate as only next we could know and- finally- act from their leading and common authority....


     Home    Contents    Communication    Top    


Thanks for visiting The Formation Quest
Last modified on September 19, 1999