Why Insane Linguists are Absurd
By: Daryl Mowat
Tags: Words, Truth, Linguistics, Logic, Grammar

Preliminary Comments

Semiotics is the study of how a meaning (a definition) is developed. A sign is used by us to communicate a certain meaning of a reality which exists beyond this reality, while a symbol is used by us to communicate various meanings of a reality which all exist beyond this reality.

A sign only has a single meaning or definition; therefore, a sign can only be interpreted in a single way. A symbol has various meanings or definitions; therefore, a symbol can be interpreted in various ways. The same word may be either a sign or a symbol.

For example, the various definitions of the word, ‘impute’, are:

1. To attribute to a person; 2. To consider as the cause or source of; and 3. To ascribe a good or bad quality or condition.

The word, ‘impute’, may be used as a symbol so that its various meanings or definition are all possible interpretations of this word or this word may be used as a sign in which only one of these meanings or definitions can be applied.

In his excellent book, Language in Thought and Action, S.I. Hayakawa has described the attempt of some people to use all words as signs as the ‘One Word, One Meaning’ Fallacy. I describe the attempt of other people to use all words as symbols as the ‘One Word, Various Meanings’ Fallacy.

People want to use all words as signs so that there is no uncertainty in what is meant or defined. These people fail to understand that uncertainty is necessary because we can’t know all there is to know. People want to use all words as symbols so that the mystery of our experience is never totally understood. These people fail to realize that mystery is never in danger of being totally understood because the infinite details of our experience can never be totally comprehended.

A physical reality is often used to refer to a psychological reality. Unfortunately, some semanticists make the mistake of thinking that this physical reality is a symbol when it is used to refer to a psychological reality. The fact is that when we refer a physical reality to a psychological reality we aren’t making this physical reality a symbol, but are simply confusing this physical reality with one of our psychological realities. These semanticists have committed the mistake of confusing this physical reality for a sign or symbol. Semanticists are fond of saying, ‘The word is not the thing!’ They also need to realize that the thing is not a sign or a symbol.

For example, some people use the reality of a physically lighted candle to refer to the experience of psychological wisdom. This is how the word, ‘enlightenment’, became the symbol for our religions’ various interpretations of psychological wisdom.

A physically lighted candle is obviously not the experience of psychological wisdom; therefore, physical reality is not our psychological reality, even though, as real psyches, we are related to our physical world by way of our psychological realities (our psychological worlds) and energy. Consequently, the word, ‘enlightenment’, is not the reality of our psychological wisdom, although all religions use the word, ‘enlightenment’, as a symbol to refer to their own ‘brand’ of wisdom.

Semantics is meant or defined by my Funk and Wagnalls’ Standard College Dictionary as:

1. Ling [Linguistics]. The study and meaning of speech forms, especially of the development and changes in meanings of words and word groups. 2. Logic. The relation between signs or symbols and what they signify or denote… 3. Loosely, verbal trickery.

Syntax is meant or defined by the same dictionary as:

1. The arrangement and interrelationships of words in phrases and sentences.

We reasonably arrange and interrelate the meanings or definitions of words and word groups in phrases or sentences. We also logically (unreasonably) arrange and interrelate the meaningless signs we signify and the meaningless symbols we denote in equations and formulas. Unfortunately, Aristotle thought the grammar of his Greek language corresponded to the principles, rules, or laws of logic so he treated the grammar of his language as a predetermined formula or an equation in which to insert his words, rather than realize that he was absolutely free to improvise his grammar and choose his words in accord with his needs. This attempt of Aristotle to force our free use of grammar into the straight-jacket of logic’s principles, rules, or laws was his verbal trickery.

I contend that the attitude of a logician is dangerous to his (or her) psychological well-being, while the attitude of a linguist is usually more adapted to his psychological well-being, that is, if the linguist is not a logical linguist. I refer to the logical linguist as insane or malevolent because he has an insane or malevolent desire to enforce the principles, rules, or laws of logic, instead of a sane or benevolent desire to empower his needs. In other words, a logician is oriented to irresponsibly use power in such a way as to force compliance to his invented principles, rules and laws, rather than responsibly use power in his developed needs to motivate him to obtain his goals without the use of force. Consequently, this essay is concerned with semiotics because I will be showing how a person’s rational ultimate Truth is used by him to be the realistic foundation of his ability of arranging and interrelating the meanings or definitions of his words in improvised and meaningful phrases and sentences or how a person’s irrational ultimate ‘Truth is used by him to be the delusional foundation of his disability of arranging and interrelating signs and symbols, like numbers as well as words, in predetermined and meaninglessly formulas and equations.

The Sanity of Descriptive Grammar

A linguist’s approach to his language is related to whether he is using improvisation in his approach of descriptive grammar or using determination as his approach of prescriptive or normative grammar. A sane linguist uses descriptive grammar because she is reasonable. Descriptive grammar is a scientific approach to grammar because it is based on a speaker or writer’s choice of words which are improvisationally expressed by her in phrases and sentences which are in accord with her needs. An insane linguist uses prescriptive or normative grammar because she is unreasonably logical. Prescriptive or normative grammar is an unscientific approach to grammar because it is based on a speaker or writer’s choice of words which she rigidly attempts to fit into a predetermined logical formula or equation for speaking and writing which is in discord with her needs.

The insane linguist has no appreciation of poetry because poetry is reasonable, not logical. Poetry irritates the insane linguist because poetry is evidence that we need to improvise our expression of our words, while our use of principles, rules, or laws inhibits our ability to fulfil our need of improvisationally expressing our words.

That we don’t think about how to arrange our words in the sentences we speak when we are speaking freely is evidence that our use of descriptive grammar is spontaneous, while our use of prescriptive or normative grammar is the inhibition of our spontaneity and, thus, the inhibition of our ability to speak freely. When a person is not speaking freely, he is neurotic (if not psychopathically insane) because he is hiding his true motives or intentions behind his façade of principles, rules, and laws so that he will not have to reveal who he really is.

Aristotle thought that we should define our words by ‘class’ and ‘characteristic’, while modern researchers of scientism think we should define our words by their ‘operation’. An operational definition is based on what we need to do to experience the reality signified or symbolized by the word being defined. Unfortunately, Aristotle failed to understand and scientism’s modern researchers fail to understand that classes, characteristics, and operations are misleading if we use them as the basis of our ability to define because they are not the foundation by which we are actually defining our words.

The foundation by which a person defines all of his (or her) words is either his superstitious irrational ultimate ‘Truth’ or his realistic rational ultimate Truth.

Sanity, Insanity, and Oversensitivity

A sane person is a benevolent person because sanity is benevolence. An insane person is a malevolent person because insanity is malevolence.

People who suffer from oversensitivity (commonly and mistakenly referred to as psychosis) are not necessarily insane because, although they are deluded, they might not have a malevolent motive or intent to force others to comply with their demands; therefore, these mentally disrupted (not mentally ‘ill’) people are usually more at risk or at danger from a lot of so-called ‘normal’ people, than they are risky or dangerous to them. The truth is that the terrible treatment they receive from so-called ‘normal’ people when they are acting strangely because of their delusions leads them become dangerous to the bodies of normal people as well as their own bodies.

Mentally disrupted people differ from the normal population because their bodies usually have a faulty DNA sequence which predisposes their minds to become disrupted when they experience an intensely stressful situation. Mentally disrupted people are not abnormal because they are not mentally ‘ill’. Their bodies are ill because it is the faulty DNA sequence in their body that adversely affects their minds so that their minds become mentally disrupted and they experience delusions. Fortunately, medications can usually restore the chemical balance of a mentally disrupted person’s brain so that his mind is not adversely affected anymore and his mind ceases to be mentally disrupted.

The terrible treatment of mentally disrupted people is usually the result of the stigmatization of them as dangerous. Mentally disrupted people are no more dangerous than anyone else if they are treated with kindness and respect when they are deluded. Normal people who treat mentally disrupted people as if they were dangerous do not realize that they are stigmatizing them as dangerous because these normal people are afraid of their own insanity. Normal people are afraid that they are in danger from mentally disrupted people because mentally disrupted people remind these normal people that they are mentally disturbed. The danger most normal people fear is their own mental disturbance, not mentally disrupted people. Consequently, any normal person who treats a mentally disrupted person badly is simply afraid to face his or her own mental disturbance.

Irrational Ultimate ‘Truths’ and the Rational Ultimate Truth

Some linguists are not only insane, they are deluded, because their irrational ultimate ‘Truth’ is either predeterminism (all is destined to happen as it must), determinism (all is fated to happen as it must), or compatibilism (all is determined to happen, yet also happens with a degree of freedom). Insane linguists shun the rational ultimate Truth of libertarianism (all happens in absolutely freedom by our absolutely free use of the Source and Activator’s Will in tandem with It as well as happens by the Source and Activator’s absolutely free use of Its Will on Its own).

Insane linguists shun libertarianism because they are afraid to be absolutely free. They don’t want to admit that they are absolutely free because they fear taking total responsibility for how and who they need to be.

What makes insane linguists dangerous to everyone is that their minds are not disrupted by their bodies, like people who suffer from oversensitivity; rather, their minds are disturbed by their irresponsibility which is directly related to their irrational ultimate ‘Truth’. Of course, people who have absolute freedom as their rational ultimate Truth are not necessarily responsible because they may be using their absolute freedom as their excuse to be licentious, instead of their reason to be liberated.

The insane norm for people in our modern world is to delusionally believe in the principles, rules, or laws that their authorities have invented so that they are in conflict when they try to reconcile their irrational ultimate ‘Truth’ of predeterminism, determinism, or compatibilism with their unpredictable and continually changing actions and behaviours. Like the insane linguists from whom they have taken their lead, normal people usually fail to realize that their needs change with their situations or contexts; therefore they fail to understand that we all need to improvise our arrangement and interrelations of words in our phrases and sentences to suit our changing needs in different situations or contexts. Our words simply can’t be effectively arranged and interrelated if we use principles, rules, or laws to arrange and interrelate them because the principles, rules, or laws of grammar, like our societies’ behavioural principles, rules, or laws of conduct, are the same for every situation or context; therefore, the laws of our institutions of justice are just as unrealistically applied as the laws of the insane linguist’s prescriptive or normative grammar.

Some linguists are insane because they think we have a need for principles, rules, or laws. We don’t have a need for principles, rules, or laws because we are absolutely free in our use of our psychological worlds (our abilities and faculties); therefore, our use of our psychological worlds is not fated and destined by the principles, rules, or laws of a mythical ‘Creator’ who demands that we obey his principles, rules, or laws or else he will kill us. Nor is our use of our psychological worlds fated by the principles, rules, and laws which scientism’s researchers claim have always existed in Nature so that we are condemned to competitively struggle for survival, a competition thought by mortalists to be meaningless because they believe that we only survive as a postponement of death, not a transcendence of death.

We act and behave in relation to our needs, not in relation to the principles, rules, or laws that we make up to suit our whims. A sane linguist realizes that God is the Source as well as understands that the Source instinctively uses Its Will to evolve, grow, and develop all in accord with Its needs. A sane linguist understands that there are no principles, rules, or laws that were created by a Creator as well as understands that there are no principles, rules, or laws that have always existed in Nature. A sane linguist realizes that only our developed needs are effective, not our invented principles, rules, or laws. A sane linguist realizes that he is immortal because he understands that he was developed from and by the immortal Source; therefore, he understands that he has a need to develop wisdom, instead of concentrating all his attention on survival because the desire to survive is neurotic considering that we cannot die. After all, why desire to survive if you cannot die?

A linguist is able to begin his journey to wisdom by understanding that he is absolutely free in his expression of his emoting, imaging, imagining, sensing, perceiving, thinking, reasoning, understanding, intuiting, cognizing, recognizing, feeling, awaring, consciousing, remembering, anticipating, inventing, identifying, and naming. Although the goal of wisdom can be reached, the journey never ends because the linguist will always need to contend with his bottomless lack of knowledge so that he can continually deepen and expand his wisdom in relation to his always increasing knowledge.

It pays to be modest because we all lack omniscience (all knowing and all-knowledge) nor will we ever be omniscient because we cannot be everywhere concurrently so that omniscience could be ours. Scientism’s researchers would have you believe that they are on the brink of omniscience because they are vain. These researchers suffer from the mistaken hypothesis that they can fix their principles, rules, or laws in an equation which they suppose they will be able to use to fix our continually changing Universe in an unchanging pattern. These researchers fail to understand that that our infinite Universe does not occur in an unchanging pattern because our infinite Universe is not rigidly patterned by the lawful design of a Creator nor rigidly patterned by the laws of Nature because the Source is always instinctively using its Will in this infinite Universal pattern so that this pattern is continually changing in accord with the needs of the Source.

The vanity of scientism’s insane researchers and insane linguists is shown by their failure to realize that we lack the knowledge of the infinite details of the Universe as well as the infinite details of the unbounded Cosmos-Heaven in which the infinite Universe exists. They fail to realize that the Universe is infinite as well as fail to understand that we shall always lack the knowledge of the Universal infinite details and the infinite details of the unbounded Cosmos-Heaven because infinity cannot be contained by our finite memory store.

These insane researchers and linguists are blind to the danger of their delusional belief that omniscience will soon be theirs. The danger is that their belief in their own impending omniscience prevents them from having the modesty necessary to question their own irrational ultimate ‘Truth’ of predeterminism, determinism, or compatibilism which are all attempts to escape from libertarianism. Consequently, they invented principles, rules, and laws to justify their belief in their irrational ultimate ‘Truth’ so that they would not have to accept the rational ultimate Truth of libertarianism.

These insane researchers and insane linguists do not want to understand that principles, rules, or laws have no objective reality except as words on paper. Instead, they use their belief that their actions and behaviours are determined by the Creator’s laws or by Nature’s laws so that they can rationalize that they had no choice in making weapons of mass destruction.

Somewhere in their development, these insane researchers and linguists lost their way because they settled for an illusory irrational ultimate ‘Truth’, instead of continuing to question what the ultimate Truth is until they had subjectively proven what the rational ultimate Truth is. These insane people have used their propaganda to convince the majority of people on earth that we are not absolutely free to use our abilities; therefore, we fail to understand that we are absolutely free in our ability to act in accord with our needs and sane desires, while guarding against our disabling tendency to licentiously use our abilities to act out our insane desires.

Insane people try to show that we are not absolutely free by referring to the fact that our bodies can be confined, restricted in their movements, and killed. They don’t want to understand that the person who is living his body and has life in his body is absolutely free in his use of his psychological world, even though he is only relatively free in his use of his objective body, because these insane people have decided in advance that they don’t want to be absolutely free.

Insane linguists don’t want to be absolutely free because they don’t want to be totally responsible for how and who they need to be; therefore, they are unreasonable because they don’t want to recognize that they made a decision to escape from their absolute freedom which is also why insane linguists are absurd as well as malevolent.

References

1. Darwin, C. 2019. On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection. London, England: Arcturus Holdings Limited.

2. Fromm, E. 1969. Escape from Freedom. New York, New York: Avon Books.

3. Hayakawa, S. I. 1963. Language in Thought and Action. New York, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.

4. Hayakawa, S.I. 1943. The Use and Misuse of Language. New York, New York: Fawcett World Library.

5. Landau, S. I. 1968. Standard College Dictionary. Sidney I. Landau: Editor in Chief. New York, New York: Funk & Wagnalls.

6. Sartre, J. 1953. Being and Nothingness. Washington Square Press Edition. New York, New York: Pocket Books.

7. Strunk, Jr. W. and White, E.B. 1972. The Elements of Style. New York, New York: Macmillian Publishing Co., Inc.