Thoughts into words/Wordless thoughts

[novella]

watercrystal posted this interesting quote on another thread (hope you don’t mind my moving it):


“Words do not express thoughts very well. They always become a little different immediately they are expressed, a little distorted, a little foolish. and yet it also pleases me and seems right that what is of value and wisdom to one man seems nonsense to another.”

--------------From Siddhartha

I tend to think that we can’t even know our own thoughts until we put them into words. But maybe that puts too much emphasis on the conscious mind.

Can you have a thought that is not verbalized? Interesting problem to think about.

It led me to think about those circumstances in which one would say “Words fail me.” That is, words are not adequate to express how I feel. Maybe that’s an inability to fully understand one's own emotions?

It may be why showing—through good scenarios and dialogue—is a more powerful form of expression than telling what the emotions and situation are in a novel.

Primarily, I think it’s worth discussing whether language is necessary to thought, and if not, how can a person without language order the world?

 

[hay82]

I don't think you can have a thought that is not verbalised since language has been a part of your life since you can remember.
I think that when people are unable to say what the think, it has something to do with the emotions and pictures you connect with your thoughts which are not easy to communicate to others. What certain words mean and expresses to you is most likely not the same to anyone else.
I would think that someone who didn't have language would see the world as a series of emotions and images.

 

[Lyra]

I always thought that this was explored quite well in Orwell's 1984 with the explanation of how new speak was developed and how certain words are elimiated every year as the regime gets more and more oppressive.

What about dreams? The reason I always think it is hard to tell someone else about your dreams is that you do not dream in words and the very act of trying to explain dreams in words inevitably distorts them.

 

[Ashlea]

I think it is emotional and sensory content that is difficult to describe. Smells, for instance, not too easy to describe. But generally, when I can't find the words, it's because i'm trying to describe something that I feel emotionally, not think rationally.

Was reading The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock recently, he says, "It is impossible to say exactly what I mean!" and generally, he's trying to describe emotions he doesn't understand himself.

 

[Wabbit]

I read an interesting article on this. Some anthropological researches were doing a study on a tribe deep in the rain forest. The tribe had no concept of numbers at all. They had no words in their language for counting and numbers. They only had words for "single thing" and "more than single thing"

When the researchers did tests they were amazed to see the just could not count at all. Even when objects were laid down in front of them and were asked to move "5" things over to another pike they could not no matter how well explained it was and how well demonstrated with drawings and so on. They just had no concept of it.

The study gave weight to a somewhat controversial theory by another anthropologist from the 1930's that language and thought are closely linked. What he basically said was this: "If you cannot say it, then you cannot think it."

 

[honeydevil]

"If you cannot say it, then you cannot think it."

I could go with that, but on the other hand, you feel something even if you can't say it in words, why can't you think something without putting it in words??

 

[Ell]

Can you have a thought that is not verbalized? Interesting problem to think about.

I think you can have feelings that are not verbalized, but doesn't a thought require language in which to contectualize it? (Not really an answer - more a rhetorical question.)

It led me to think about those circumstances in which one would say “Words fail me.” That is, words are not adequate to express how I feel. Maybe that’s an inability to fully understand one's own emotions?

I think this is more of an inability to verbalize one's emotions with suitable vocabulary; not so much an inability to understand the emotions. Take, for example, a child with a limited vocabulary. She might say, "I'm sad," because that's the only word she knows. But what she's really feeling might be closer to "devastated, crushed, disconsolate". So when a person says 'words fail me', what's meant might be, "I'm so overwhelmed by what I see that I can't find an appropriate word to describe how I feel."

 

[novella]

If you can't formulate a thought without the language to put it together (an idea that I accept), then original writing is a passage of self-discovery.

 

[bobbyburns]

novella, are you familiar with jacques derrida?

 

[True@1stLight]

novella, are you familiar with jacques derrida?

I've read him, but I don't agree with him at all. Of course I don't really buy deconstructionism to begin with, so I suppose that plays a large role. With reference to literature, since it seems particularly relevant to this forum, I don't accept his absolute pluralist view of interpretation either.


*On a side note, weren't there cognitive studies done that showed when you thought your tongue made micromovements indicating speech? I'll have to look for that, can't remember the details.

 

[Crystal]

The reason I always think it is hard to tell someone else about your dreams is that you do not dream in words and the very act of trying to explain dreams in words inevitably distorts them.

Cool. I was reflecting on that (refers to the dream thing) as reading your this message. The dreams were not like the daily life during which we talked, acted, moved.... In dreams, it seemed you were swimming, floating, in cloudlike atmosphere.you did not think in words but were just experienceing.


Re the emotion thing, I think the most difficult part for describing a certain feeling to others is that you should recognize it first, that you should give it a name first. However, that seemed to have twisted itself in the process of recognizing it.

whatelse?? later.

Goodday!

 

[Crystal]

jacques derrida

I've read him, but I don't agree with him at all. Of course I don't really buy deconstructionism to begin with, so I suppose that plays a large role. With reference to literature, since it seems particularly relevant to this forum, I don't accept his absolute pluralist view of interpretation either

 

[novella]

novella, are you familiar with jacques derrida?

But of course, my dear Watson.

And Lacan, Barthes, Levi-Strauss, Foucault, etc. My lit guru at NYU was Bloom’s student, and I was a naïve young thing who believed it all and thought I was mentally inept when I found Derrida indecipherable. I tried so hard to become that kind of thinker.

Then I decided it didn’t matter.

Then I wised up and realized that all ideas are good ideas, even bad ones.

Questions of intent, meaning, and influence are fun, maybe interesting, but the French can go on about the symbolism of lingerie with a depth of seriousness that just beggars belief.

The most significant fact about Derrida and Lacan and Foucault is that they are French, and the French can't write a decent song or a novel (ever listen to French pop? OMG), but they can deconstruct the crap out of us dumb Yanks.

We need more French posters here.

 

[Eugen]

But of course, my dear Watson.

And Lacan, Barthes, Levi-Strauss, Foucault, etc. My lit guru at NYU was Bloom’s student, and I was a naïve young thing who believed it all and thought I was mentally inept when I found Derrida indecipherable. I tried so hard to become that kind of thinker.

Then I decided it didn’t matter.

Then I wised up and realized that all ideas are good ideas, even bad ones.

Questions of intent, meaning, and influence are fun, maybe interesting, but the French can go on about the symbolism of lingerie with a depth of seriousness that just beggars belief.

The most significant fact about Derrida and Lacan and Foucault is that they are French, and the French can't write a decent song or a novel (ever listen to French pop? OMG), but they can deconstruct the crap out of us dumb Yanks.

We need more French posters here.

Ah! A good writer. Passionate too.

 

[bobbyburns]

she prides herself as such is the case.

 

[kafro]

i know the whole arguement for this is that You cannot have a complete thought if you do not have the words to describe it. my english teacher said this and always proves it right, even when someone brought up emotions and dreams. he says that if you think hard enough on them you can describe emotion and dreams well enough to get your point across, but if you do not have the vocabulary, then it is not a complete though. and whenever you say "i get it in my head i jsut can't say it" that is not a complete thought because if you can't say it how can you get it? for some reason this arguement just rubs me the wrong way. i mean just cuz you don't have the words to express yourself you never have complete thoughts? i don't know, i mean they are thoughts but they are not COMPLETE...i understand it but i just don't want to accept it so can someone please prove this theory wrong!

 

[novella]

i know the whole arguement for this is that You cannot have a complete thought if you do not have the words to describe it. my english teacher said this and always proves it right, even when someone brought up emotions and dreams. he says that if you think hard enough on them you can describe emotion and dreams well enough to get your point across, but if you do not have the vocabulary, then it is not a complete though. and whenever you say "i get it in my head i jsut can't say it" that is not a complete thought because if you can't say it how can you get it? for some reason this arguement just rubs me the wrong way. i mean just cuz you don't have the words to express yourself you never have complete thoughts? i don't know, i mean they are thoughts but they are not COMPLETE...i understand it but i just don't want to accept it so can someone please prove this theory wrong!

So far, you're goin' great. Just run with you own verbiage. Nothing wrong with you.

Keep talking and writing.

Good luck lad.

Novella