Mornin' Fish. The caffeine hasn't really kicked in yet, but I'll try to respond to your last post re communication.

Was it Joyce Kilmer who wrote that poem? I guess, like you, I remember only bits and pieces and rarely remember the writer's name. At any rate, I stand corrected.

In regards to creating thought vs. being a mechanism by which we express our thoughts, I'm alluding to what I believe is the interesting aspect of how language allows us to internalize reality. Or, as some would say, it allows us to create reality. (Something I haven't looked at very closely but have discussed with others is a concept called "Creative Reality." It's a little scary actually, in that it suggests that our perceptions of what reality "is" is continually changing, and conversely reality is changed by our perception.) But there I go - digressing again. Come on coffee, do your thing.

What I'm trying to get at and what I appreciate feedback on is that one of the really enticing things about language is that it often moves us in unexpected directions. This can be in both ways that we're discussing here - outward and inward. But it can be one of the negative things also. I've often thought that life, social life that is, is a series of unfinished conversations. When I was younger I used to call it the "buzz;" the never ending cacophony of prattling that goes on around us. For years, I made a concerted effort to finish a conversation with someone. I don't mean something akin to, "Where would you like to go tonight?"......."How 'bout we go to see a movie."........"Okay, sounds good." End of conversation. No, I mean that kind of communication wherein we seek true levels of understanding. The positive thing is that we, because of the intricasies of language, can try to do it. The negative thing is that we rarely can do it. Why? Because we must often stop and ask for clarification and definition. We don't all speak the same language - even when we're speaking English. And so, I believe that by expanding our understanding of the language, and yes being aware of our audience, we can get closer to definitiveness and move closer to that point where our communication is not spiraling off until suddenly we reach that point where we're not even talking about what we started out talking about.

Think for a second about mediation, conflict resolution and the like. A mediator must have refined the skill of getting the conversation on track and must also have the ability to re-state what has been said by the participants in a way that diminishes anger and the confrontational attitude that it creates. We could say that by "simplifying" the conversation he brings peace and clarity to the discourse. But I'd like to believe that if more of us would expand our understanding of the language, mediation would be less necessary. (That and the fact that we need to be less accusative and more inquisitive - but that's a whole other notion.)

But you're right, some people - advertising agencies, politicians and the like, manipulate the language for gainful or even evil purposes. "He/she is so charismatic" is something we often hear about successful politicians. Beyond, or beneath, that charisma is the ability to use language to manipulate the sheep among us.

I like what you have written here Fish:
"As far as language being a mechanism for us to express our thoughts, well, that seems to be a bit dry and lifeless sounding. So often it relies on the emotion and the expression of emotion along with the words."
I agree with you. This cleary defines one of the main problems with true communication - state of mind. We can't all be in the same place at the same time. In fact we are so individualistic as we hop from one "reality" to another that I'm often surprised we can even come close to communicating. Right now, for example, your words, have my mind going off in a thousand directions. If we were having this conversation in person, I would have to rely on a "sophisticated" level of English use to verify my understanding of what you've said.

Do you remember the book, "Stranger in a Strange Land?" The catch word in that book was "grok," as in I totally "grok" what your saying. The meaning here was that there was an understanding that went beyond the simple understanding of the speaker's words, more of an ESP kind of thing. Maybe we'll get there someday. But until then, I think we need to collectively move closer to using the language the way it can potentially be used.

I don't think we'll ever totally get there though. Language evolves. We evolve. Culture changes meaning. Life awareness and environmental exposure even change our internal definitions. But we have to try.

I definitely agree with you that there is a time and place for the use of florid language. Again, we must know our audience. But here, we cannot know our audience. We can seek those who are "like-minded." In fact Fish I think there is more that unites us than there is that separates us.

Finally, your reference to physiology is right on the money. There is an interconnectedness that goes on that is absolutely mind boggling in that it works. It reminds me of the Japanese concept of evanescense. This is a concept that can only loosely be translated to English, but that in the Japanese mind clearly defines that special relationship between man and nature. It is that uncommunicable feeling that you sometimes have when watching a sunset, or feeling the rain on your face, or when you are totally captivated by the beauty of a dew drop.

But there I go again - being tangenital...lol, and proving once again that I can't clearly get to the bottom line of what I'm trying to say, and definitely can't answer your question regarding what I mean by creating thought - it's more a feeling that I have, and at this point I can't clearly define it.

Maybe I need a new brand of coffee.