The Power of Words

I talked a while ago about the origins of language, and how it fascinates me. In this post, I'm going to focus more on the power of language.

Here are some quotes I got from an iPhone app (:P) that I love:

"The greatest mistake you can make in life is to be continually fearing you will make one." - Elbert Hubbard

"The degree of responsibility you take for your life determines how much change you can create in it." - Unknown

"What the mind can conceive, it can achieve." - Napoleon Hill (this is one of my personal favourites)

"When you move beyond your fear, you feel free." - Spencer Johnson

"If you're not willing to risk, you cannot grow. If you cannot grow, you cannot be your best. If you cannot be your best, you cannot be happy. If you cannot be happy, what else is there?" - Les Brown

"Minds are like parachutes. They only function when they are open." - Sir James Dewar

What is it that draws people to quotes? Or, as I'm speaking for myself here, what is it that draws me to quotes? Technically, quotes are simply random words drawn together to convey a certain meaning or message, or many. The beauty of quotes, of strings of words, is in their effect.. words stimulate the mind, force us to think about ideas possibly beyond our current knowledge. These quotes inspire me; when I read them, I don't see words but what they represent. The bigger image. That's the beauty of words; they are not meant to be entirely considered and appreciated in their literal / written / physical form; they create an avenue for people to see extraordinary new images.

Words enable us to communicate. Words create change. All in all, words are a powerful weapon or tool; possibly the most powerful tool any person can have.

"I do not want to foresee the future. I am concerned with taking care of the present. God has given me no control over the moment following." Yes, I do love Ghandi.. so, so many wonderful words :)

However, this one I believe carries an important point - 'I am concerned with taking care of the present'. My mind soars straight to climate change and conservation, predictions and debates. My simple question is - we know there are problems with pollution now, we know we are losing wildlife from human destruction of the environment now, so, instead of arguing over what's true and not, why not just deal with the issues that might be causing it? It would be healthier for everyone and everything, including the economy.

Anyway... back on topic

The most meaningful and powerful quote I have read is Ghandi's "You must be the change you want to see in the world." These twelve words combine to convey an idea that attempts to encourage and inspire people to study the bigger picture; they are words that one will read and immediately be drawn to consider. This is the power of the mind - when we read something, we automatically, involuntarily think about its meaning because that's what each word is to us.

"A Small body of determined spirits fired by an unquenchable faith in their mission can alter the course of history." - Ghandi

With that I leave you with another quote of Ghandi's to ponder;

"In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place."

Video everyone should see and learn from

Are her words not true? Why is it that governments and people with the power and ability discuss and debate to no end without acting, or at the most with minimal action? Is it based on convenience and keeping the people happy, thereby keeping their power? What is the point of having the power if it isn't going to be applied to anything?

Some questions to consider..

A quote that requires no discussion...

“All our lauded technological progress—our very civilization—is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal.”

~Albert Einstein

Dedicated to Caged Victims

The following video (and I warn you, I've cried both times watching this..) is the reason I started my search for a neglected, abused budgie to adopt. Our little girl, Chloe, is currently snuggled asleep in her flight-allowing, entertainment and yumminess equipped cage. When she is more settled and less anxious, we'll begin letting her out to fly around the room.

Please take a few minutes to watch this video and learn from it; the immense reward and joy you can get from an abused or impounded animal you choose to adopt instead of purchasing from a pet shop. For information on how you can help ease the plight of the caged, email binkys_cause@hotmail.co.uk



The video below is an example of the immense joy that can be gained from rescuing an animal; PLEASE consider adoption.

Mental Stuffs

It's been a while since I've updated this. I have no excuse aside from uni and sheer laziness. Perhaps also somewhat lack of inspiration.. which is rather silly since every day I see and experience things that cause me to question the world, and people in it. A lot.

I've been happy recently getting back into some animal 'stuff'. I've taken an interest lately (or should I say, refuelled my somewhat neglected interest) in mistreated / abused / neglected animals, and the mental states of the people who commit such atrocities. Watching a few cases on RSPCA Animal Rescue, I am truly horrified to know that some people could actually have the capability to do such things; to realise they are inflicting harm on a living creature. My question is: what leads people to such states? I realise not all these people realise what they are doing; but then there are some people so apparently sadistic that they really do see their actions, and the consequences, amusing.

Only days ago a woman was caught on camera putting a cat into a bin. Thankfully the general public's reaction to this showed that we are, in general, a society that loves animals; whether many of our actions prove that or not, at least the presence of that compassion is positive.. especially as this woman was later reported to say 'it's just a cat'. Indeed, that struck a sore cord in me.

Something a little happier, or at least less saddening, I've been contemplating as a result of this and something someone said to me (or something along these lines); Are we who we say we are, or are we how other people see us? I believe this relates to mental states and some potentially resulting problems, might they be inflicting cruelty on humans or non-human animals. Is it our actions that dictate our true state of mind, or might our actions be a more complex facade or outlet for expressing a complicated web of thoughts and emotions we have trouble understanding? It's all very well telling someone to think differently, or do something they may have mental barriers about (i.e. fears), but without knowing the exact build up of emotions and thoughts an individual experiences, it is nearly impossible to decipher their reasons for doing something. Even the most in-depth experiment cannot obtain absolutely conclusive answers as any one individual may have a slightly different reaction that would render a result at least partially invalid.

It feels strange that I'm trying to see the other side of the mind; from the abuser's perspective. Just to clarify; I am in NO way defending anyone's actions; I believe any harm inflicted on human or animal is inexcusable, unjustifiable.. I am simply contemplating, in a very general way, what drives people to act in any way, and what it is that makes up one's 'person', 'identity'.. who they are.

I maintain that the mind is an extremely powerful tool.

A Philosophical Ramble

A quote by Aristotle: “We are what we repeatedly do.”

This rings true in so many ways. One problem I can see is that we generally perceive only actions that differ to our normal activities as ones which may have more negative consequences; that is, these are our experimental actions. Those rituals that are deeply embedded in what each of us does everyday seem to be overlooked; a blind spot in humanity’s eyes since they have no obvious further consequence than our neutral existence.

Plato once said, “We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.”

‘Light’, in this case, is obviously symbolic. Might it represent truth? Perhaps an alternate version of something that challenges the individual’s prior belief/s?
Herein lies the difficulty: in my opinion, the biggest irony that we know today is that ‘fact’ in itself is false. If nought is fact, then lessons are largely based on opinion and perspective; in education systems, majority rules, or government dictates.

This brings me to an important question put forward by Socrates: “What is good and what is evil?” If societies do, in fact, participate in war for the sake of protecting what is ‘good’, and defeating what is ‘evil’, is this not merely a difference in perspective, each person fighting the image of themself in a distorted mirror?

I was fascinated to learn about part of Socrates method for building the perfect utopia; a complete and harmonious world – that children are only allowed to hear heroic and uplifting tales. To me, this leads to greater challenges. As suggested by the idea that happiness cannot be fully known without sadness, perhaps real ‘good’ can only be known by the experience of ‘evil’. Given the two are fundamentally linked – one can’t know ‘happiness’ without knowing ‘good’, it seems logical to conclude that, in a perfect utopia, neutrality would persist.

Lang-u-widge

Where does language come from?

Yes, it is a rhetorical question; but that’s only because I’ve asked it many times before, and have always been given similar answers that address languages coming from different cultures and whatnot, but not its core origin.

So, what did I do? I went on a search for myself, and found this, by Dr. C. George Boeree:

“There are many theories about the origins of language. Many of these have traditional amusing names (invented by Max Müller and George Romanes a century ago), and I will create a couple more where needed.

1. The mama theory. Language began with the easiest syllables attached to the most significant objects.

2. The ta-ta theory. Sir Richard Paget, influenced by Darwin, believed that body movement preceded language. Language began as an unconscious vocal imitation of these movements -- like the way a child’s mouth will move when they use scissors, or my tongue sticks out when I try to play the guitar. This evolved into the popular idea that language may have derived from gestures.

3. The bow-wow theory. Language began as imitations of natural sounds -- moo, choo-choo, crash, clang, buzz, bang, meow... This is more technically refered to as onomatopoeia or echoism.

4. The pooh-pooh theory. Language began with interjections, instinctive emotive cries such as oh! for surprise and ouch! for pain.

5. The ding-dong theory. Some people, including the famous linguist Max Muller, have pointed out that there is a rather mysterious correspondence between sounds and meanings. Small, sharp, high things tend to have words with high front vowels in many languages, while big, round, low things tend to have round back vowels! Compare itsy bitsy teeny weeny with moon, for example. This is often referred to as sound symbolism.

6. The yo-he-ho theory. Language began as rhythmic chants, perhaps ultimately from the grunts of heavy work (heave-ho!). The linguist A. S. Diamond suggests that these were perhaps calls for assistance or cooperation accompanied by appropriate gestures. This may relate yo-he-ho to the ding-dong theory, as in such words as cut, break, crush, strike...

7. The sing-song theory. Danish linguist Jesperson suggested that language comes out of play, laughter, cooing, courtship, emotional mutterings and the like. He even suggests that, contrary to other theories, perhaps some of our first words were actually long and musical, rather than the short grunts many assume we started with.

8. The hey you! theory. A linguist by the name of Revesz suggested that we have always needed interpersonal contact, and that language began as sounds to signal both identity (here I am!) and belonging (I’m with you!). We may also cry out in fear, anger, or hurt (help me!). This is more commonly called the contact theory.

9. The hocus pocus theory. My own contribution to these is the idea that language may have had some roots in a sort of magical or religious aspect of our ancestors' lives. Perhaps we began by calling out to game animals with magical sounds, which became their names.

10. The eureka! theory. And finally, perhaps language was consciously invented. Perhaps some ancestor had the idea of assigning arbitrary sounds to mean certain things. Clearly, once the idea was had, it would catch on like wild-fire!” (C. George Boeree, 2003)

However, even this new insight into language invention, I still wonder, and find it fascinating, how people originally connected some words with their objects, and even more so, how words were prescribed a meaning, or vice-versa; how terms were appointed to various descriptions.

Did someone one day pick up a carrot and decide it should be called a carrot? What does ‘carrot’ even mean? The miraculous thing that comes out of this ‘naming’ is that now, whenever anyone mentions a ‘carrot’ for whatever reason, most people will know what they’re talking about. But, how, in any other way, does the word ‘carrot’ seem related to the long, pointy, orange vegetable?

To philosophers and to people in general, it is generally accepted knowledge, ironically, that ‘fact’ doesn’t exist. Nothing is certain; humans simply observe, analyse and label things to attempt to understand them. The names and descriptions we prescribe to these things is simply our method of understanding them.

So, in saying that language is a product of how we perceive and understand the world around us, and given that different cultures have different words for the same name (which, again, could be considered an entirely different word?? It’s just another way of identifying the same object in a more relevant way for a different society), doesn’t this mean that, as words and definitions are only a product of human ‘labeling’, and therefore changeable, other human-created ideas and concepts are just as changeable? Perhaps, due to the limits of our understanding, beyond this things are even more vulnerable to change or destruction.

Then again, if what I suggest has any truth, and language bares little truth bar what we make of it, perhaps this is fake! ... Fortunately, it seems that what we make of things is the most important thing.