Chapter III
The Evolution and Digression of Words

Many animals have no neural capacities whatsoever other than genetic. Many animals’ neural capacities are limited to purely those concerning reproduction and survival. Reproduction and survival for the sake of this argument will be called “instincts.” All living species have survival instincts.

Language in humans has been known to separate the human species from the rest of the animal kingdom. It is commonly believed that language began as the imitation of animal sounds, eventually coupling these sounds in response to, simultaneously with, or to promote action. Language and action were used with one another; they were a coupled pair.

To say speech distinguishes humans from animals, and to say that language distinguishes nations and culture would not be entirely true. In order to discuss language, we must start moving away from it. We must see and experience once again communicating meaning and understanding.

Language once conceived and structured our thoughts, our cultures. Language now is destroying all it has helped to create. No longer is our language in accordance and harmony with our actions, experiences, emotions, and life. We no longer value our genetic and primal need to perpetuate life. Life is no longer the most valuable thing, and we have suppressed our instincts for logic and rational methods of thinking.

The transformation of language, not the evolution of language, for the evolution of language never happened. There were different phases, different stages, but the essence of language has remained the same up unit a particular moment in history. When language was beginning to be structured and outlined with extreme sophistication. When the oral traditions all but ceased to exist.

The transformations in language—the digression, the inverse evolution of words; and the detaching of language from reality, the detaching of language from the human spirit and human experience—this has brought about the cyclical patterns in human culture, and the dark transformation we currently find the human species faced with.

There will be a time when we can briefly discuss socio-economics, ethnographic contexts, and semantic structures; there is much to be accomplished. On a simplistic level, a model will be illustrated, effectively supported, and transformed. A microcosm of the macrocosm will provide a perspective and context. It will be shown that on an isolated individual level, one human is quite insignificant. Communication is no longer a unifying activity.

Scientists were studying ants. They were studying ant behavior. It wasn’t in a controlled atmosphere; these scientists were out in various locations throughout the world. Unknowingly the scientists had been occasionally observing the same bizarre behavior in ants. There were ants that would run up a blade of grass, and when their weight was at the top of the blade, the blade would give way and the ants would plummet to the ground. These ants had stopped being involved with their ant communities. These ants had stopped eating. All these ants would do is run to the top of a blade, or different blades of grass, then plummet to the ground until their eventual death happening one of two ways.

Scientists started asking themselves, “What the hell is going on with these ants?” They did not know why ants were doing this. And they were asking themselves the wrong question. It serves no beneficial purpose whatsoever to the ant to continually run up a blade of grass then plummet to the ground. Later it was discovered that all of these ants had a brain worm, a parasite that had taken control of them. These ants in particular were hosts with no control over their neural capacities.

It was discovered this particular parasite occasionally occupies the brains of ants but ultimately wants to live in the intestines of small mammals. The higher it is, the better chance it has of getting into the intestines of a mammal. As vulgar as this is, ants occasionally climb into the assholes of mammals, they die, and the parasite, the brain worm perpetuated its existence and accomplished its mission. The parasite controls the host, and the host is powerless.

Knowledge, information, philosophies, beliefs—whatever word we prescribe to what is contained in the human mind has blinded humans and prevented humanity. This is not suggesting that knowledge is not important, but in many ways we have allowed the contents of the human mind to be parasitic. They drive the direction of the host—to the point where the host (people) is doing things not knowing why they are doing them; doing things that serve no purpose; and being driven by things that are not real—not important. This is only part of the problem and part of the reason why language has separated from the human experience and spirit.

The human species has limited itself. Language, knowledge, and beliefs in many ways have not only become more important than life, but have disgracefully defined life. Language, knowledge and philosophies are biological influences affecting actions—affecting the human experience. No longer do humans know why they are doing something because they have been conditioned and designed to do what it is they do. They have accepted or not accepted their realities in the same cyclical and predictable patterns. All along the underlying seed and soil, the underlying animal desires to eat, sleep, shit, and fuck swim through the parasites in the mind.

Jumping forward, it cannot be argued, nor is it worth the energy to argue that religion was always bad/negative. At one time, religions were revolutionary, exotic, and full of good intentions from a simplistic perspective. Religion was a unique hybrid, a minority, and the vast majority of the human species were afraid of this foreign entity.

Religions have all killed their hosts. The most obvious and recent example that cannot be argued any other way is the Shaker faith. Their clearly ass backward traditions and defeatist beliefs determined their extinction. One must feel sorry for their frigid existences, but realize the whole of the human species is just as frigid and closed. All religions are so commercialized, domesticated, user friendly, outdated, elementary, and hypnotic that they have effectively killed their hosts. This has created two distinctive types of human species—none being free thinkers however.

In the very recent future, before the human species comes to the realization, it will be entirely too late. People won’t be able to think or articulate anything meaningful. Humans will continue to have nagging itches, and voids that will be more easily and instantaneously comforted with technology, pharmaceuticals, and more knowledge. Technology, pharmaceuticals, and knowledge in the sense we understand and accept them to be are parasitic as well taking over the host.

The human experience has been a future of pasts. Technologically speaking, if you define advancement and sophistication in an elementary sense—sure we have made advancements. The wagon to the car is an advancement. But one can make an airplane out of cardboard and propel the damn thing with rubber bands as a child. How more sophisticated is a bile-spewing engine from an engine that runs cleanly off of stored kinetic energy?

This is not to suggest that all societies and people go back to horse and wagon, or commercial airliners could be propelled with rubber bands, but something must be done. Conservatively speaking, and from a logical perspective fossil fuels should have become obsolete 30 years ago. And this could take a heartbeat to start, and at the absolute maximum two years to be in full swing. The excuses humans have accepted are ridiculous.

Technology, as with language, in the truest sense of the phrase, the most advanced and sophisticated must be utilized. And it must only be utilized if it is in accordance with nature—in harmony with life and the human experience. Not only do we not utilize our most sophisticated methods of communicating and structuring our minds; we certainly do not utilize the most sophisticated technologies in accordance with our mother. In a poetic yet true sense, earth is our mother and earth is all of us.

The clearest way to further support this argument is that it is commonly known, commonly accepted, and understood that even in our time more sophisticated technologies exist. Also known is estimated dates as to when these numerous technologies might be made public, or made more affordable. All decisions of a technological nature are purely economic. All decisions are externally driven, just as trends in the transition of language are environmentally driven. These external forces are often created out of themselves. The public is lead to believe they created, desire, and need what is being presented. Ultimately language and technology must be seen hand and hand. They are both being perceived as progressing, when in actuality they are both deteriorating, and destroying all that makes us human.

With the advent of the printing press, and the solidifying of all forms of human knowledge and human experience—around the world—the world has become increasing smaller. One would have been lead to believe that for the first time the ability to exchange information, a collective consciousness, and unification would have happened on a philosophical and real level. At the very least, with the ability to understand and translate primitive languages (meaning earlier but not less sophisticated), one would think that all human societies would see how exactly similar they are to all before them. Are we any less barbaric really?

Now with the mass media, the Internet, and satellite technologies cultures still exist in an elementary state—the state we have always studied them in. But all species of humans are not utilizing language or technology in an idealistic and natural manner. Nothing more, nothing less. Technology exists today that could create an automobile not only 100% in accordance with nature, but also in accordance with autonomy. Actions and words exist today that could stop us from hating, hurting, and not respecting one another.

To say the language of gesture and spoken language originated naturally and simultaneously is to say nothing new. When thinking of the five senses, it could also be said that our sense of sight, our sense to see with our eyes is the most important sense. We value our sense of sight more so than any other sense. Something visual causes a greater impact than something heard, something auditory. The colloquial, “A picture is a thousand words,” is commonly used in many cultures. So to make the logical jump and say that something visual, visual stimuli can say more than actual words is no a huge leap.

Egyptian hieroglyphics should briefly be noted. A highly sophisticated language that was completely indecipherable for some time. It can still be argued that these ancient symbols can still not be deciphered, but only related to in a modern sense. The true essence of individual languages is lost in translation. This is because all languages with the exception of Egyptian hieroglyphics have disconnected the gesture and audio. Languages have become the mirror image of the written word. When no longer coupled with the gestural component language is antiseptic, meaningless, boring, and controlling. No longer does it express the human spirit; it defines the human spirit.

Hieroglyphics are not read in the way one would read these words. Hieroglyphics are not simply gazed upon. They are felt with hand, they are accompanied with actions and sounds uttered by the individual(s) interacting with and embodying them. Egyptians of yesteryear did not say things, or distinguish between the spoken and written language; their language showed things, illustrated things, and was experienced. Their language was action, there language moved. They understood the desire and want to solidify and preserve their essence, and that is why they chose to write a language of actions and pictures. The Egyptian language wasn’t created—it was just a manifestation of the human experience. Hieroglyphics/the Egyptian language were one in the same; a manifestation of gestures and sounds.

It is also said that one speaks to the eye, and often those that use words evoking mentally imagery are said to be the best speakers. If you cannot see the landscape, if you cannot see the argument, see the words, the language is dead. Spoken language is capable of producing imagery, and effective or good language is perceived to do so. Take a moment to see in your mind, red—now blue—now green. Now imagine mannerisms, gestures, and different intonations accompanied with these colors. You would know the difference between crimson and rose within the context of the same experience.

Individual words, or symbols, or experiences, or concepts, or whatever you would like to call them were once extremely sensitive. Within each parameter existed a magnitude of adjustable sensitivities. Just as you change the speed of a ceiling fan to suit your exact comforts, one was capable of adjusting words within themselves for exactness. One was capable of adjusting actions within actions for exactness.

We still see this today, but with an infinite spectrum. Stop could be said an absolute maximum of five ways. Just the word, just the parameter “stop,” could be interpreted no more than five ways. And in order to even explore the maximum number of ways “stop” could be understood or misunderstood the context must be taken into consideration. And what the context achieves is the portraying of a landscape. And the entire mental exercise is trite. “Stop” along with an infinite other words are so casual they have no power, no expression, and no feeling. The context is more important than the word because the word is absolutely meaningless without it.

Emotions and feeling created language—language was birth through this, and now language is no longer a part of emotions or feeling. It is cold and detached. Sounds are emitted from the majority of most species, but the ability to manipulate; to control these sounds is a completely conscious effort. Utilizing vowels and consonants is a conscious effort requiring fine motor capabilities that we take entirely too serious, or haphazardly.

Language increasing becomes colder in one of two ways. Language can become more structured and only speaks to reason and logic; or language can be verbal or written streams of consciousness. The language of the Internet and E-mail is that of a fart. There is no structure or care whatsoever. This is because no longer is language an expression of love and passion. In the quest to make language commonly understood and more universal we destroyed language. This crystallization first seen in its purest sense in ancient Egypt, and seen today in electronic and written texts around the world, language has been altered and detached from meaning. In trying to achieve a beautiful dream, language lost its soul, its life, its purpose, its essence, its meaning.

Everything said thus far, is meaningless. When one consults a dictionary to know the definition of a word, that act is meaningless as well. We must continue to utilize this infantile language, stripping back the layers allowing ourselves to communicate using the most sophisticated language we can when communicating meaning and understanding between each other. People know what words mean, or sort of do, but they don’t know what the words are.

Language as it exists today, and has existed since shortly after being first transcribed should only be used by and between individuals in order to amuse themselves, and never for any matter concerning true importance. First we must trace our language (all language) back to the time when only words were written, and no longer sounds and actions. The more people have read and learn, the more people have obtained knowledge, languages have morphed and become more universal. Anyone who speaks Spanish can understand Italian, and visa versa. Anyone who speaks Italian and Spanish can understand French once the accent and dialect is stripped away. Anyone with a basic knowledge of Latin can understand, infer the meaning of most words in the English and Romance Languages. With time, understanding all languages will become easier and easier only because of languages oversimplification and desensitized nature.

We must go back to the when language was whole and successful—when language was free. What we have come to know as language is no more than twenty five percent of a something castrated by fifty percent thousands of years ago. Language as we know it is only used for survival, structure, and control. The digression of words is upon us. The advent of these quote on quote advanced technologies is destroying what little respect and admiration could be found in language. The Iliad only stopped being sung when it was transcribed and could be referenced with immediacy. Once The Iliad stopped being sung, it stopped being experienced, and now it’s purely read, memorized, and reflected upon.

Success comes with acceptance. It is not necessary to mention names; and these individuals should be viewed purely as trendsetters and followers. There are very few unique and brilliant thinkers, and we should not casually consider mediocre minds to be intelligent or brilliant. For the sake of this argument, and every argument consider all established theories to be mediocre and short sited at the very best. They are nothing more than verbal exercises and mind farts more often than not created by elitists.

Chompsky’s theories, his carbon Pinker’s theories, and numerous others linguistic theories merely dissect the so called “empirical knowns.” They are successful because they can be logically followed, and argued for and against. Nothing about their work is revolutionary, nor do they dare to venture outside the constructs of what they are studying. They fail to incorporate other significant findings because their closed minds lead them to believe all other findings are completely unrelated or inaccurate.

If a principle belief is one trying to elevate human language from all other animal forms of communication—it could be argued that every logical conclusion thereafter is based off of a false premise. Chomsky, Pinker, and a variety of linguists would say language (implying human language because that is the only language that exists) is clearly and obviously different from other animal’s forms of communication. They would and have said the human form of language is superior to other animal forms of communication. They have an infinite array of statements, philosophies, and lives of work that are completely bullshit. And most theoretical knowledge is pawned off as factual with half- baked but logical arguments and examples. Linguists like Chompsky and Pinker are in fact incorrect, and the only elements of there work that is useful or salvageable are those elements that assist individuals with linguistic problems.

Linguists discuss the evolution of language. Once again what does this word mean? Their claim is not accurate because evolutions in language and words have never taken place. Transitions, transformations, have clearly taken place. Evolution, that word has positive connotations. When one hears evolution, one doesn’t think negatively—a negative evolution doesn’t exist—that would be a digression, or regression, or another completely different word. Words are unconsciously charged and contain bias. A clitorectumy rolls off the tongue. Say the word clitorectomy—it roles off the tongue nicely. When western societies discuss this practice in other cultures it is referred to as female genital mutilation. How can one present an unbiased argument, or take an objective stance when they call what they are studying mutilation. A person with a tattoo or two does not view what they did to themselves as a form of mutilation.

Linguistics deals with elementary transitions. The deconstructing of language. What they call the acquisition of language. And all of these things can be observed, quantified, logically predicted, and studied. In order to speak about language and words, language must simply be knocked down to the human species communication system. Language must not be viewed as something that has evolved, or something that is superior, or something that is drastically different than other forms of communication between the human species, and species in general.

The functions of the human mind can no longer be considered to be the major difference between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom. Humans have continually considered themselves to be the only animal on the planet with both the capacity and ability to manipulate language and this is asinine. If anything, the human species has the capacity to manipulate and understand all forms of communication because of their neurological capacities, but has chose to limit there minds and consciousness by structuring there minds and languages to death. By putting one form of communication, one form of language on a pedestal and kowtowing to it. Language has not lead to consciousness and emotions, nor is consciousness and emotions unique to the human experience. Language grew out of consciousness and emotions.

When looking at the English language, it is evident the Angles, Saxons, Jutes influenced the language. The French, or Norse influenced the language. Latin influenced the language. And the dates are known fairly accurately. And when words are dissected, there origins can be traced. Transformations in meanings, spellings, and pronunciations of words can be traced.

It is known where on your tongue, teeth, and pallet sounds are formed. Sure language can be studied, and the structure can be broken down. But what is new about that? What is so revolutionary? What about all the sounds that are made in all different languages? What about all the sounds that aren’t made? What about all the methods of communicating we have lost, or fail to incorporate into our own methods? Children can unconsciously differentiate between verbs and nouns. That statement is true, but so what? When a child is raised in a bi-lingual family, a child can differentiate between the two languages. So what? In no way does this suggest that linguists haven’t contributed positively. Linguists are valuable and have made significant contributions in assisting children and individuals with speech impediments. Like it or not language and action define individuals. Many individuals have acquired confidence, fulfillment, and acceptance because of the assistance of a linguist. If one were studying the transitions in language, or the evolution of the human mind, one certainly wouldn’t want to study linguistic theory. One would have to think and feel other areas of human knowledge and experience. Linguistics clearly illustrates the de-evolution of the human mind and the strong patricians we’ve built in our language, theories, and mind.

There is no one definition of language that satisfies everyone. Doesn’t this seem problematic? Language very basically is defined by most theorists to be a mechanism whereby humans transmit and structure thoughts. Language has rules that must be followed. But let’s use language to discredit it and knock it down a peg. Does one have to know all the rules in order to have linguistic abilities? Keep in mind linguistic theorists have already illustrated how children unconsciously differentiate between verbs and nouns.

To answer that question let us not discuss language. We will discuss baseball, the American pastime. If Mr. X (a human) was to demonstrate that he had the ability to run the bases, hit and bunt the ball, catch the ball, and throw the ball--we could logically conclude that Mr. X has the ability to play baseball. Now, let’s say we find out that Mr. X doesn’t know the infield fly rule, or doesn’t know what a balk is--would we then say he doesn’t have the ability to play baseball? Of course not! Language is the same way.

Small children don’t know all the rules of language, in fact most humans using language everyday don’t know all the rules of language—but that doesn’t mean that they don’t have linguistic abilities. To go back to the linguists for a moment, how linguists like Noam Chomsky and Steven Pinker can say ape language researchers shouldn’t bother trying to communicate with, or help apes acquire abilities manipulating human languages is baffling to me. Their concepts are elitist. Chomskian theorists are frightened because recent research is starting to smear the proverbial line that for so long separated humans from the rest of the animal kingdom, and unfortunately they are all going down with the ship rather than take their preverbal heads out of their ass.

Pinker and Chomsky both have made irrelevant points trying to discredit the acquisition of human language in other species—more specifically great apes. They have said things like, if apes could use language they would do so in the wild, or no research has every demonstrated complex communication among wild apes. First and foremost, both Chomsky and Pinker fail to review/incorporate researched literature pertaining to the observation of apes in both nature and captive environments. And they have done so with good reason because biological anthropologists are on the other side of the spectrum. Biological Anthropologists discredit themselves with their inferences and over simplification of incomprehensible complexities existing in life. They present what is clearly an art form, a biased viewpoint as scientific. Sue Savage-Rumbaugh, Jane Goodall—these anthropologists/primatologists are extremists seeing in many instances what they set out to, and want to see. Their experiments, observations, and work are elementary and ordinary.

Jane Goodall names great apes and discusses their lives much in the same way one would talk about children. The way apes live in the wild, they have no need for a language like ours, but this does not mean they need not communicate. Their forms of communication in the wild suit them well—they have a very complex social structure and create meaning through a number of different gestures and vocalizations. Apes intentionally gesture just as we do. This isn’t to say that apes create symphonies as masterful as Mozart—but primatologists would lead you to believe many things that are fantastical and larger than life. (Apes have biological limitations that do not allow them to form constants. They are only capable of making vowel sounds. In a traditional sense, words can’t be formed or structured without constants. This is why apes cannot and do not use spoken language in the sense we as humans do.)

There will be no reference to another individual in the field of anthropology. As far as discipline—anthropology, psychology, sociology all have serious problems and empirical flaws. For our purposes the social science disciplines will be viewed as oxymoronic—just as their name suggests. And the contributors to those disciplines with few exceptions will be viewed as elementary thinkers magnifying knowledge to such an extent that they have lost site of what was being studied, and destroyed what was being studied. The social sciences will be viewed as social arts.