Comments for What communication means to me http://www.cokercommunicationconsultations.com/blog A look at the underlying structures of human interaction Wed, 14 Apr 2010 04:37:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Comment on Perception of a Language by Adam http://www.cokercommunicationconsultations.com/blog/?p=12&cpage=1#comment-121 Adam Wed, 14 Apr 2010 04:37:32 +0000 http://www.cokercommunicationconsultations.com/blog/?p=12#comment-121 Unreasonable? Not at all. Language is in fact the effort to establish common reference points; key term being "effort" as it is never truly capable. Take the language developed amongst a small group, perhaps close friends or lovers. New words are born to fit pre-existing concepts and ideas. Over time, a lexicon is formed among the group. So while the language adapts; the communication is enhanced (through speedier, slightly more accurate communication of new shared terms), yet the perception changes very little or doesn't change at all. The sad fact is that it seems the majority of people choose to focus on just those things that they deem necessary, thus shutting out the possibility of additional layers of meaning/perception. This action directly limits their ability to perceive the world around them (and their understanding of it) due simply to a choice to ignore the larger meaning. Language, especially the English language, is a very rudimentary tool, often times ill used. Generally speaking, an individual's ability to perceive is greatly enhanced exponentially by the number of languages the individual has studied or learned. Thus, the language does little to open one's eyes to the universe surrounding them, yet knowledge of multiple languages forces one to become aware of the multitude of perceptions layering any culture or event. As far as <em>if we obtain more reference points for our language is it possible to exhaust the perceivable world?</em> Perhaps as a culture, though that is highly doubtful, but certainly not capable for an individual... Truly, is it capable for either? Language is a living thing. Archaic words are replaced by newer versions. Hip, trendy terms are replaced as quickly as they emerge. One's vocabulary can easily date the individual, illustrating the movement inherent in any shared point of reference. Understanding changes over time, through repetitive observation and experimentation, so too does the language that describes and communicates the understanding. Besides, in order to understand the inner workings of the Human conscious, one must first understand the emotions and the <a href="http://www.cokercommunicationconsultations.com/blog/?p=24" rel="nofollow">dichotomy of man</a> Unreasonable? Not at all. Language is in fact the effort to establish common reference points; key term being “effort” as it is never truly capable. Take the language developed amongst a small group, perhaps close friends or lovers. New words are born to fit pre-existing concepts and ideas. Over time, a lexicon is formed among the group. So while the language adapts; the communication is enhanced (through speedier, slightly more accurate communication of new shared terms), yet the perception changes very little or doesn’t change at all. The sad fact is that it seems the majority of people choose to focus on just those things that they deem necessary, thus shutting out the possibility of additional layers of meaning/perception. This action directly limits their ability to perceive the world around them (and their understanding of it) due simply to a choice to ignore the larger meaning. Language, especially the English language, is a very rudimentary tool, often times ill used. Generally speaking, an individual’s ability to perceive is greatly enhanced exponentially by the number of languages the individual has studied or learned. Thus, the language does little to open one’s eyes to the universe surrounding them, yet knowledge of multiple languages forces one to become aware of the multitude of perceptions layering any culture or event.

As far as if we obtain more reference points for our language is it possible to exhaust the perceivable world?
Perhaps as a culture, though that is highly doubtful, but certainly not capable for an individual… Truly, is it capable for either? Language is a living thing. Archaic words are replaced by newer versions. Hip, trendy terms are replaced as quickly as they emerge. One’s vocabulary can easily date the individual, illustrating the movement inherent in any shared point of reference. Understanding changes over time, through repetitive observation and experimentation, so too does the language that describes and communicates the understanding.

Besides, in order to understand the inner workings of the Human conscious, one must first understand the emotions and the dichotomy of man

]]> Comment on Perception of a Language by "je pense, donc je suis" http://www.cokercommunicationconsultations.com/blog/?p=12&cpage=1#comment-120 "je pense, donc je suis" Wed, 14 Apr 2010 03:51:09 +0000 http://www.cokercommunicationconsultations.com/blog/?p=12#comment-120 is it unreasonable to conclude that language is just an attempt to explain perception within the context of communication? reading this explanation makes me wonder as to extent of languages ability to define our understanding of our perception, and our understanding of not just our environment and perceived reality, but our understanding of our understanding(higher order thoughts). if we obtain more reference points for our language is it possible to exhaust the perceivable world? at which point we might as well work in reverse to explain how the human conscious works... is it unreasonable to conclude that language is just an attempt to explain perception within the context of communication? reading this explanation makes me wonder as to extent of languages ability to define our understanding of our perception, and our understanding of not just our environment and perceived reality, but our understanding of our understanding(higher order thoughts). if we obtain more reference points for our language is it possible to exhaust the perceivable world? at which point we might as well work in reverse to explain how the human conscious works…

]]> Comment on Perception of a Language by Adam http://www.cokercommunicationconsultations.com/blog/?p=12&cpage=1#comment-73 Adam Mon, 08 Mar 2010 15:18:41 +0000 http://www.cokercommunicationconsultations.com/blog/?p=12#comment-73 Not only that, the similarity in measurement of a body part, or a common cultural practice for that matter, grants the communicator a common reference point from which to relay information. In this world of relativity, it is often confusing what is meant by one simply due to their lack of clear references. I do find solace in the technical community, as we have no choice but to me very precise. Unfortunately, many clients/users simply do not understand why we seek such clarity, but these are the same people who think saying "My computer is broke" is the equivalent of filing an appropriate work order/request. The English language has always been an amalgamation of all other languages and references that it has encountered, not unlike water. As this linguistic water continues to cascade over and throughout the internet it will continue to grow and adapt quicker than ever before. The more points of reference that the language holds, the more <strong>important</strong> and <strong>necessary</strong> that we must be clear in our references. Not only that, the similarity in measurement of a body part, or a common cultural practice for that matter, grants the communicator a common reference point from which to relay information. In this world of relativity, it is often confusing what is meant by one simply due to their lack of clear references. I do find solace in the technical community, as we have no choice but to me very precise. Unfortunately, many clients/users simply do not understand why we seek such clarity, but these are the same people who think saying “My computer is broke” is the equivalent of filing an appropriate work order/request.
The English language has always been an amalgamation of all other languages and references that it has encountered, not unlike water. As this linguistic water continues to cascade over and throughout the internet it will continue to grow and adapt quicker than ever before. The more points of reference that the language holds, the more important and necessary that we must be clear in our references.

]]> Comment on Perception of a Language by Jason http://www.cokercommunicationconsultations.com/blog/?p=12&cpage=1#comment-59 Jason Thu, 04 Mar 2010 22:32:19 +0000 http://www.cokercommunicationconsultations.com/blog/?p=12#comment-59 While the Sapphire-Whorf hypothesis has in in may ways been discredited the underlying premise is sound, that language influences the way that we both understand the world and express this understanding. As you mentioned not all peoples recognize time in the same way. For some marking walking distance is referenced by the amount of time that it takes to cook rice. This is because everyone in their culture intuitively understands how long this takes. In the same vein many cultures still use human anatomy to mark distance measurements. Like a hand's width to plant certain crops. This was also the case in ancient times, where construction measurements were equated to body parts; most notably the hand, foot and forearm. Man truly is the measure of all things. While the Sapphire-Whorf hypothesis has in in may ways been discredited the underlying premise is sound, that language influences the way that we both understand the world and express this understanding.
As you mentioned not all peoples recognize time in the same way. For some marking walking distance is referenced by the amount of time that it takes to cook rice. This is because everyone in their culture intuitively understands how long this takes.
In the same vein many cultures still use human anatomy to mark distance measurements. Like a hand’s width to plant certain crops. This was also the case in ancient times, where construction measurements were equated to body parts; most notably the hand, foot and forearm. Man truly is the measure of all things.

]]> Comment on Leadership: Team Members vs. Employees by Sharon http://www.cokercommunicationconsultations.com/blog/?p=35&cpage=1#comment-44 Sharon Mon, 01 Feb 2010 23:00:00 +0000 http://www.cokercommunicationconsultations.com/blog/?p=35#comment-44 AMEN. Well said, I don't think that I could have said this any better. :) AMEN. Well said, I don’t think that I could have said this any better. :)

]]> Comment on Perception of a Language by Forialoorne http://www.cokercommunicationconsultations.com/blog/?p=12&cpage=1#comment-34 Forialoorne Mon, 04 Jan 2010 01:57:26 +0000 http://www.cokercommunicationconsultations.com/blog/?p=12#comment-34 Truthful words, some authentic words dude. Thanks for making my day! Truthful words, some authentic words dude. Thanks for making my day!

]]>