Problems of Language

A central problem that I explored is that language is self-referential, whereas values are derived from relativity [¹]. How did I discover that language is self-referential?

During my 40s and 50s I undertook a quest into meaning. What was the meaning of my psychological problems? I gradually learned to translate my inquiry into the questions “what were the emotions that underpinned my problems?” and “what were the unconscious ideas that underpinned them?”.

I centred on using language as my chief means of solving my problems, together with the technique and ideas of psycho-analysis. My hope was that by understanding them they would disappear. What actually happened was that three times I went round in linguistic circles.

On one level I started my psychology from the need to understand fear; I explored situations and beliefs which generated fear in me. This exploration led to other emotions, other kinds of situations, other beliefs. During my analysis I traversed all my dominant emotions (the ones I regularly experience), and ended up at fear again (after several years); to arrive back at the beginning generated a lot of confusion and frustration in me. This was a circle of psychology and emotion. I learned to understand myself.

On another level I started from existential philosophy and the problem of Being (the world of unchanging reality). From Being I went into Becoming (the world of changing reality). Being and Becoming are related to one another. They can only be taken to be separate when inquiry is superficial or prejudiced. Becoming led back into Being. So I ended up back at my starting point once again. This was a circle of philosophy and intellect. I learned to understand the ego and its place in reincarnation theory.

Now I am traversing a third circle, that of will and activity. I am re-experiencing situations that severely inhibited my will years ago. In this circle I am learning acceptance of life, with all its sorrows and occasional joys.

The Circular Nature of Language

This circular process is inevitable because of the nature of language. Language is based on concepts, and all concepts have only a relational existence. In Saussure's [²] view any language term (for example, a noun) can only be defined by other terms, using relations of difference. We do not define an object by what it is (which would mean defining it in terms of its essence), but only by how it differs from other objects. This is the problem that language causes. The empirical inquiry into language, when pushed hard enough and long enough, takes the seeker round in circles.

Take any starting point and explore language for meaning. A problem leads to an answer X, a concept X; but then X is seen to depend on concept Y. As Y is explored it is seen to depend on concept Z; and Z only leads to concept A, etc, etc. If the person continually pushes language in order to try to extract meaning from it, the person simply chases one relational term after another. Meaning is always deferred unto the next term in the sequence. [³].

If this pushing of language is maintained long enough then the relational chain brings the person back to his starting point. In this manner language functions as a philosophical-Idealist intermediary system between the individual and the world. Relations hold only between ideas and events, and not between objects. Language is like a circle, there is no beginning and no end to it; it is just a treadmill. However, each time that I go round the circle my intellectual grasp becomes more sophisticated as I eliminate confusion and self-deception.

Each era poses new problems. Empiricism refines the awareness of these problems, so the intellectual standard of each era becomes more sophisticated than that of previous ones. Therefore the way that the circle of language is traversed is always different from one era to the next. The quest for truth always brings the seeker back to his starting point. What does this circular wandering achieve? As the seeker’s intellect grows in power he can gradually eliminate self-deception from his mind and begin to form an accurate assessment of his state of evolution. Without such an assessment, choice is illusory.

Language is an intermediary between the individual and society. Meaning does not reside in language but in the individual. Therefore if a person seeks meaning in life through language, he goes round in circles. What needs to be done is to first find meaning in life, and then encapsulate it in language. Language has the function of converting meanings into values.

The relational nature of language has led many seekers who have accessed high spiritual states of consciousness to spurn intellectual (that is, linguistic) understanding of their experiences. Unfortunately this has meant that they become incapable of explaining those experiences to other people.

The circular nature of language is derivative and not primary. It is derived from the way that desire and emotion create a psychological loop within the mind of each person, the loop of projection and introjection.

Sometimes language forms a closed system of thinking; this happens when any framework of knowledge tries to ask and answer all questions concerning values and standards within its own boundaries. Such a system does not lead to the acceptance of any knowledge that is outside those boundaries. So another name for a closed system is an ideology.

A closed system of thought pre-supposes that all answers are contained within it. Language can be open or closed. If the individual keeps his mind open as he seeks for truth then the language circle remains open and the journey is more of a spiral as that person achieves ever-greater sophistication of his knowledge. All concepts of reality are contained in language. As the empiricist and the thinker continually attempt to refine the problems of reality so language evolves and the circle is never a closed one. However, once a person ceases to seek new knowledge, his mind and his language become closed systems – this means that familiar problems just reproduce familiar stereotyped responses.

Self - Reference 1

Because language has a circular nature it is self-referential. The idea in the mind is not identical to the objective referent (the external object which gives rise to the idea of it in my mind). Language comes between the individual and the object, or, language comes between the individual and reality. Language is simply a construct that is put on reality; language does not mirror reality as it is but only as we are conditioned (or constructed) to see it. Why is this so? Although language is derived from the mind, it functions differently from the mind.

The way I understand the difference is that language is self-referential whilst the mind is relative. Relativity and self-reference interact to produce specific effects. This means that the interactions between the consciousness of the individual person, the social consciousness, and language generate specific forms of determinism or social conditioning.

Mind structures language to produce the synchronic mode. [4]
This is achieved by the sign. This is determinism by the sign.

Language structures the mind to produce the diachronic mode.
This is achieved by grammar. This is determinism by grammar.

Language is a sign system. In my view, this system is modelled on consciousness, and so I consider that consciousness itself is a sign system. Hence there are two sign systems, those of language and of consciousness. As an existentialist centred on the sign of consciousness I am trying to realise value from myself. In the sign of consciousness:

The synchronic mode is referential to subjective mind.
The diachronic mode is referential to language.

The diachronic mode developed as mankind became social; society developed as language developed. At first glance it seems that language is a social product; this view is a superficial one and is the reverse of what really occurs. In actuality, language pulls the person into social reality, into being subject to social conditioning and social learning (I develop this idea in the next article). Language, and objectivity, is the basis of society. The social person orientates around objective values. In contrast the existential ego pulls the person out of language into intuitive contact with one’s own reality. The individual orientates around subjective feelings and meanings.

The synchronic mode is the individual factor.
The diachronic mode is the social factor.

What is the difference between self-reference and relativity? The mind is form whilst thoughts are content. The mind is relative form, and thinking becomes self-referential content. Therefore relativity means only that mind is involved in whatever is considered to be relative. The use of thought is language. Everything that uses language becomes self-referential. Ideas are relative but language is not.

One way that I describe a person is that he is ego plus karma. For the existentialist, karma relates to values embedded in language, and is therefore self-referential; ego relates to relativity and is form. In the moment of equanimity, consciousness remains relative but ceases to be self-referential once language ceases.

I re-phrase these ideas.
The relation of a concept to reality is relative.
The use of language is self-referential.

Self - Reference 2

Now I explain what I mean by the self-reference of language. Language is modelled on projection and introjection, in the way that subjective thought processes are transformed into objective communication.

Projection and introjection form a loop of desire and emotion. If the loop were always fulfilled immediately, then language would never have arisen. If, in the absence of language ability, I want to communicate my actions to other people then I can get by with a few varied grunts and pointing actions. However, this is ineffectual in situations of delayed fulfilment of desire. The importance of imagination is that it played a major part in the creation of language. Language was created so that the person could fulfil long-term desires. Animals do not have long-term desires, and consequently they have never evolved any language beyond a few sounds.

The more complex that projection and introjection are, the more sophisticated the language becomes. Now since projection and introjection form a closed loop, so similarly the use of language must form a closed loop too. Projection and introjection centre on the individual; the loop points to the needs of that individual. Language centres on society; it usually points only to the needs of that society.

The difference between the two loops is simply that the psychological one is based on individual meanings and the linguistic one on social values.
The self-reference of language is a reflection of the self-reference of society.

The self-reference of society arise from its own needs.
It is always the pursuit of needs that create self-reference.

[³]. The French philosopher Jacques Derrida came up with the idea that meaning is forever “deferred” or postponed through an endless chain of signifiers. [3]

[4]. For understanding synchronic and diachronic, see the article Structuralism. [4]

The copyright is mine, and the articles are free to use. They can be reproduced
anywhere, so long as the source is acknowledged.

Ian Heath
London, UK

If you want to contact me, use the address at the bottom of the Home page.

Also, since there are numerous articles on this site, please include the title of the article if you want me to clarify or discuss particular issues.

It may be a few days before I can respond to correspondence.

.	Going Round in Circles A major issue in modern philosophy is language and the problems that it causes. Language is a major way of relating to an external world of objects and events. Consciousness learns to relate to this external world by first creating objectivity. Consciousness creates objectivity, and it does this by assigning value to objects and events that are important to it. What we like is assigned positive value, and what we dislike is assigned negative value. These values become incorporated into language; by this means we can discuss and debate these values. Consciousness creates objectivity, and the particular view of objectivity that is created reflects our value system. Language is the expression of this system.
Sub - Headings
Circular Nature of Language
Self - Reference 1
Self - Reference 2
References