So this Saussure guy. He rejects the idea that there is a "root" to language, a beginning that we can somehow get back to our linguistic roots (i.e., Sanskrit). He also rejects the idea that there is an authority figure (Divine or otherwise) from which meanings of words can be obtained. Instead, he argues that the association between signifiers and signifieds is completely arbitary (for example, if there is intrinsic value in the pairing of words to the objects that they represent, how can "dog" and "chien" and "Hund" represent the same thing?). I suppose you could argue that one of those is right, and that the other two are just messed up, but that's a moo point (a cow's opinion), because the purpose of language is to allow a "commun"ity of speakers to "commun"icate.

Rather than a naming process--which implies that there are pre-existing concepts and ideas being attached accordingly--Saussure argues that there is only a negative value to language. What we call something is completely arbitrary, except that it is different from all the other "somethings" in the linguistic system. "Box" is "box" only because "box" is not "shoe" or "mug" or "salamander." In a linear fashion, language is what it is because of what it isn't.

Now he doesn't say that--because there are no pre-existing names attached to concepts--reality doesn't exist outside of language. Rather, he would argue that it is entirely nebulous and out of our grasp, and that language enable use to articulate reality.

So, what is the point of all this rambling? Well, firstly I'm trying to wrap my head around some stuff, trying to say the same key things in a different way so that I "get it". But, it relates a lot to stuff that goes through my head on a regular basis. Especially spiritually... the language to which I have access falls pitifully short of expressing certain aspects of my faith, and I would argue Christianity in general. It's not that the concept or the feeling isn't there, but we're forced to work within certain parameters, within a limited system. We have to try to awkwardly fashion together a string of words that will communicate something that doesn't fit within the language available to us. I figure that's why we hear the same old same old. Words that pop up all the time, not just in the context of faith, but communication in general.

Instead of going all Big Brother/1984 and wondering if you can have the thought without the language, tonight I'm turning to a different question.


Can you “language” something (particularly an emotion or feeling) into existence (by which I mean it needs to take a form that can be expressed between human beings)? Is it possible, with the support of a willing community, to bring something from fuzziness into cognition through giving it a signifier and sound-image (see bit on sound-image below)? Is it possible that there are all sorts of ideas floating around in our heads that are nebulous and blurry and still exist but that we can’t express because the words don’t exist. . . not saying that there is a "presupposed system", but that there is a presupposed idea, or at least an already-present idea. Or maybe this will get us into just as much trouble. What would it take to do this? Can you invent words? Can you invent feelings? Can you invent reality? And even if you could do all that, would you still need to use ALREADY present signifiers/signifieds in order to describe the new signifiers/signifieds words? Would it require a WORD REVOLUTION? To draw a bit from someone else (Heidegger), can you "thing" new "things" into "thinging?"

Yeah... I dunno where I'm going with this. But, I like thinking about stuff along these lines. It confuses the hell out of me, and often leaves me wishing my brain worked better, but still... kinda cool.

I wonder what the hell I just wrote... meh, I'm going to go to sleep!

[edit]: I KNEW this would happen, and I'm pleased. A new tresaure discovered in the text. Deeper understanding, and thus, adjustment. Not of his argument yet, but to the terms.

"Sound-image" (from 'Course in General Linguistics'): [N]ot the material sound, a purely physical thing, but the psychological imprint of the sound, the impression that it makes on our senses. The sound-image is sensory... The psychological character of our sound-images becomes apparent when we observe our own speech. Without moving our lips or tongue, we can talk to ourselves or recite mentally a selection of verse.