Ancient Dreamers

By: Jonathan Seidel

Dreams symbols and prelinguistic societies 

While it is still up for debate how language emerged it is pretty much accepted that our ancestors didn’t grunt. While they may not have had an alphabet they did have a linguistic system. One based on symbols than grammar. Symbolism points to objects in sight. There is no sound that is necessary to describe it. Insofar as symbolic orientation precedes the syntax. Non-verbal aspects of communication precede a grammatical construction. The interpreter was able to signify the object and thus master its function in society. Grammar becomes relevant as society advances and becomes more complex.  

Human language began symbolically before syntax was introduced. While language even in its primitive essence was more than grunts, sounds did define reality. They weren’t mute but their comprehensiveness was limited. As knowledge expanded so did symbolic linguistic. Symbolic illustration is realistic representation not solely ritualistic. To communicate objects need signification. Symbolic behaviour is a method of comprehending reality. A method of conclusive cohesive understanding. Palaeolithic era humans had symbolic features of considering the world they lived in. Developing a culture via tools and art. Their method was restricted but demonstrated a model of communication. Images and illustration found signification in a structuralist collective unit. Symbols emerged from an enhanced consciousness translating reality into smaller boxes. Complexity needed collective unification to overcome. Whether it be for food or shelter. 

Symbolic behaviour is found amongst animals. Yet humans are much more sophisticated. Whether through evolution or their anatomical structure, the more exposure to technology and building the more necessary symbolic linguistics. Transmission to the next generation to continue to build was innate ensuring evolutionary continuity. It was a learnt step in the process of accomplishing the homeostatic yearning. The importance was not how to say something but that something was said. The best way was to point it out in order to properly administer the functional superiority. In the simplicity of survival, grammar was not the most important aspect. It was also more culturally cohesive. The same symbols were used for the various ideas of the culture. The culture had a symbolism that superseded any ritual element. It is only after dispersion and communicative complexity that grammar become more of a force amongst humans.

Dreams are in the unconscious they precede and succeed man. The unconscious eludes contemporary science and even Jung was baffled at its tremendous prowess. Whether repressed desires or future events both sides of the coin hypothesise an unconscious openness to conscious phobia. The dreamer is an elaborated vast revelation of concepts that the mind struggles to divulge to the individual. It is a symbolic representation akin to the palaeolithic artwork of symbolic linguistics. The dream is its own language game to curb the messaging. It is easy to translate similar to the artwork. If the experts of their time could do it so can the experts of our time. The unconscious is surmised as a foreign region of reality. It is the underlay of brain activity. Unveiled in colours instead of logic. The symbolic aptitude speaks to a primitive humanity. Structural affinity encases human evolution. Language is a conscious motif. A model of external communication with others. A dream is an internal metric for self identification. The unconscious need not meet speech as it need pecker at the internal vacuum.

The unconscious is not intellectually deficient. It instead recognises the complexity of humanity. Language cannot automatically explicate its source. While the aspiration is for the conscious mind to pick up on the simplicity of the request, the mind is overloaded with circumstantial evidence. The dream world is a state of motionless fluidity. There is no adaptation since human evolution never made that leap in the unconscious. The symbolic is preliterate but also is more extensive. It artistically denotes in broad strokes. It does not fling the idea to the mind but allows it to deconstruct in stages. Symbols allow for pause and realise. For the individual to venture to understand his dream. The vision is underwhelmed when it is unveiled slowly. It heeds to a primitive era that understands the cinematic flow. An internal dialogue absent verbalism. A state devoid of comprehensive deduction. Neatly conveyed in the colourful order of repressed coordination. 

Cultural translation is a dreamworld’s fantasy. It is an internal matrix. The self may struggle to interpret but the mind is hovering along for the proactive conception. Salving the conscious mind from the horrid full power possibility. Shackled into the unconscious to be divulged by unveiling the symbol. Churn away from the usual symbols in society. The unconscious is not a conscious copy. It has its own rules and its symbols are culturally held not societally relative. The symbolic sensitivity correlates with the mind’s structuralist approach to drum construction. The symbols are necessarily a foundation of the individuals persona manifested outwardly. A foreign substance to the verbal creature. Yet not to the psychoanalytic professional. An expert in symbolic translation. The individual’s ignorance is similar to a Christian baffled at Jewish symbolism or vice versa. The symbolism is unique to the threshold. Even non-observant Jews to certain rituals. The foreign nature is the disconnect. The same with the symbolic and the verbal.     

Did preliterate Neanderthals understand their dreams better? Maybe not. It is unclear. Yet our disinterest in cave art and ignorance to hieroglyphics follows an alphabetic grammatical mindset. The complexity of grammatical sensation churns symbols in particular ways. Seeming sexual innuendos are not always the proper explanation. “Primitive” models of signification thwart forward as the structuralist foundation. Realistic manifestations of the personal impression of events may be sullied with preconceived notations. Mistranslations come from the conscious mind. What contemporary rationality would interpret but that is not how the symbolic world operates. Extensive symbolism undermines the original connotation. The mind works wonders. The brain is still a fascinating study for scientists. A man is mortal but his brain can interpret ancient symbols or anticipate a cataclysmic event. The horrifying truth is the vague assumptions we have. Nevertheless, the psychoanalyst acts as this expert to aid the dreamer through this revelation. Symbolically associating the dream with a genuine conclusion. 

Why is this the case? It may be biological and it may be social. The former is an easier answer. Humans were symbolic culture before they became grammatical ones. The use of structuralist signification was a method communication that transmitted through the generations. Even if it was lost in the open it was a major facet of the unconscious. At night humans remembered their origin of symbolic representation. Today’s ignorance is due to routine absence. On the other hand, the social point is still important. While grammatical alphabets with nuanced sounds do hold more prestige, this does not take away from the consistent symbolism. The reason people misinterpret their dreams is because they are used to contemporary symbols applied congruently. Only issue being, the internal dreamworld does not operate like the natural one. Whether there is a uniform consistency to every individual or within every individual it is on the expert to sniff out the code. The symbolic layout is to be divulged slowly and cleverly. It is a maze of misappropriation so long as the verbal soundings take initiative.       

Symbolic (A)symmetry

By: Jonathan Seidel

Taoism, postmodernism and linguistics

I read an excellent briefing of taoism on Super Owl’s stubstack. What caught my eye beyond much of the intriguing elements was the lacking linguistic element. Derrida’s deconstruction of language and the semiological expansion found a common ally with taoist indeterminacy of language. Struck by the ever daunting classification of terminology to depict reality, it soothes into our consciousness bracketing into stages. Yet there is an overextension permeating the rational mind. The confident positivist categorises traditionally with little wiggle room to oscillate words. The cultural divide today is between whether language truly matters and how we define reality.

Lacan’s real is a perfect method of decoding this reality. The real is the prelinguistic. The experiential untainted by categorisation. A holistic picture of the absolute appearance. The symbolic is the scripted. Written off as a part of something. It is no longer an observation but a hypothesised theory. The real is a wondrous enigma to the mind. A child’s first encounter with the unknown. The confusion between different animals. A spirited epiphany at the complexity of nature. Noticing details without stereotypical lingo spouting off the lips. Tranquil in a wordless message. A mindful experience arousing the sublime in the intentional metal. 

The symbolic stage retreats to a jargon infested mentality. Categorising birds into their fare divestment. Signification testifies to the utter madness of sense making. How to define the world. Rationality cannot cope without the symbolic phase. Though the rational faculty calls this truth. The socialised terminology is considered positivistic in its genetic consultation. It is merely a tool to reconcile the variance. Pictures are phonetically deficient to articulate the perceptually expanding universe. Naming for our sanity to distinguish and comprehend categorically. Nuances are the signal for division and ordering divergently. 

Differentiating between the real and symbolic is highly difficult in a consistent chatter conversation. Dialogue is a mainstay of human socialisation. Encountering one another in everyday necessities. The real purely exists in the hilltop awe-filled grandeur of nature’s beauty. With zero words to describe the imminent encounter. The experience overhauls the senses engulfed in the visual personification. A jam-packed directed internalisation with no commentary warranted. A phased moment of ecstatic serenity. These periodic moments are foreign from the routine investment. Conversation is an inevitable aspect of engaged society. A successful linguistic parallel.

While language is important it need not strive for positivism. The binary construction of language is mediated by empirical routine. The normative becomes enshrined as the sole authority and sole possibility. The ever evolving humanity cannot be entrenched in dogmatic personas. Yet our language is so part of daily habit that these binary measures remain. Categorisation is simplistic and eagerly maintains the usual. Redefining matters is far from easy. A surge of frustration shoots into the defiant energy. Language reflects the cultural standard but that habituated norm originates in a perpetuated status without review. It is an untested pseudoscientific hypothesis 

Language is culturally related but it does not manifest in absolutes. It carries the engager into the matrix. Captivated by the organic layout of circular modalities. The norm recycles itself in an encrypted coding surrounding the cultural framework. The pillars on either side holding up the ideological frame maintain the symbolic format. The peaceful fluidity of communication. A universal acceptance of patriotic subordination. The rules are upheld in the dialogical encounter. Routine usurps any passionate rebellion. A paternalistic fortitude refuses to question the plurality of varied shades. The either-or assumption is a simpleton characterisation. It undermines the libertarian outlet. Humanity is an evolutionary species open to expand its stifled attributes. 

Binary formulations are fondling adult observations. Externally fraught with misconceived nuances. Engulfed in the game normalising the sides with little mobility. Drawing a line of the possible. Humanity as a test subject is ontologically sound in binary categories. Unique in so-called superior perfection, no need to look deeper into potential shading. Habituated to fit norms with fallacious consistency. A presentation that carries a significant posh stride. A collapsing moment with little historical recasting to stand on. A tip of fortified construction. A blood-redded do not enter sign looms large on the unfinished skyscraper. Walling off any considerate inquiry into the sustainability or relevance of such formatting. The danger, keep out, pop ups shouted out to beware and stay away. 

Identification is claimed at the first scene. Do not divert from the current description. Maintain course with the masses brainwashed normatively. Born into a dystopian artistry. Masked with meta narrative nonsense. Providing sufficient mobility to cease questioning. Joyous citizens caught up in the day to day hectic facilitation of life leave little room to think about the more abstract questions. Consumed with the tumultuous daily struggles ignores the meddling of nonsensical extrapolation. It is the way it is. There is nothing more, no conspiracy no controlling cabal or space laser. Yet the normalisation and routine exploits the irregular divestment track. Concrete investment deals with citizenry inquires but those of everyday necessities. It does not bypass to the abstract because people are too invested in their materialistic needs.

Abstractions are met with ignorance. With less recognisable affect or impactful change, it is of little recourse to engage in futility. The nature of those settled facts is  defended harshly by proponents. Advocates are indoctrinated knights loyal to their traditional kingship. There is little wiggle room to protest the overdo standard. Knights stand guard blocking any leeway to manifest a nuanced perspective wholly deviating from the normative movement. Forced to submit to the routine. The red pilling to escape the matrix will be little tolerated by the system. Conversos hide their estrangement. Privately practicing their norms to stay out of trouble. Not wishing for the authorities to pounce upon and derail perpetuity. Sufficient public exposure and routine will slowly deconstruct the divestment discreetly.

Public uproar denounces the change. Conversos are forced outside because of their shifting alignment. Their rebellious norms are revolting to the public. Habituating public conduct overhauls the internal deviation. While the public is not protesting or raising signs, their persistence in a specific norm cutting off any oscillation is a form of passive protest. Ignoring pleas of change for the sake of continuity. The normative is a straight line from one side to another without any alteration. Much of the public are simpletons acting without a recourse. It is the routine that it interrupted from the conversos behaviour. Peering into the window of a converso’s home and seeing their blasphemous secrecy scares the citizen. Running straight to the authorities to rid this danger of difference. 

Hiding forever will only perpetuate the norm and the hate. Conversos forced to conform concealing their heritage from public scorn. Privatisation weans prowess and intent. Before long, the action in secret is a mimicked patronage not a ritualistic affair. Yet, public demonstrations appealing to the human pathos to invigorate numbers. Emotional appeal to the sympathetic side of humanity. As long as the norm is consistent the public will fail to aid those in need. The public identifying with the normative, submitting to the governmental statute solidifies their fate. There must be a sufficient group alien to the norm. Without credible mass aid the protesting group will falter completely. The state’s decision does not match the public’s resistance. The public must opine by the grievances of the downtrodden. The protestor must be accompanied by public enragement. To overthrow a discriminatory system the privileged must lend a hand. Salvation is at the hands of cohesive defence.

Blasting down the doors to the normative delusion. Deconstructing the meta-narrative fortifying the collapse. The knights must be overpowered with public push. With efficient empathic impulse the downtrodden can be rectified. If the state is alone in its defiance it can be overpowered. The people as a group must overcome the fear of state execution for communal tranquility. It does not require a coup but a systematic change to the current regime. Revolution entails overthrowing and replacing the current regime. Rebellion is less hostile in forcing the authorities to alter the norm for their positions. To shift the norm with propaganda for the betterment of society. Spreading slogans and catchy conversation bits to arouse approval. Going against the grain is easier with more numbers. 

A sincere challenge to the normative is a cultural battle over the future sovereignty. The cultural battle becomes ever clearer when the protesters take the streets. Feeling significantly recharged they push their agenda with ferociousness. Trying to spread their ideology as far as possible. The culture battle is not a local battle but a universal goal. Aiming high is not solely for the purpose of landing at a higher peak but in attempt to shift the entire global scheme to a new framework. The track must be diverted to a new avenue. A whole new world order is expected. A tectonic alteration in the routine halting a bygone representation. The state is but the first step in reconceptualising society. This movement is not part of human advancement. A rebellion for humanity’s sake. To see a brighter tomorrow unbridled by governmental oppression.

The protesters disapprove of the normative. They garner sufficient backing to displace the norm. Open to change in the relativistic mentality. The symbolic is an illusionary presentation. Protesters happily denounce the positivistic captivity in favour of the shifting paradigm. The spatial circuit is a game that is rewritten. Chess maintains the same pieces but the movements change. Reality persists but with new rules. New orders compel novel representation. Moving for a lapse in prosperity. Counteracting the symbolic with a new symbolism. While the protesters may claim they are articulating the real, they are themselves buying into the same philosophy. Their view as relativistic as the old. Yet pragmatically may be a more fruitful specialisation than the old. 

Retreating to the real expands the encounter and the multitude of possibilities. This gives extensive signification yet once the signification is endowed it advances to the symbolic stage anew. Communication and norms are a product of human expression. The engaged individual is haunted by the matrix he creates by communicating with the world. His involvement and rule following is a symbolic realm obedience. Escaping this world is through silence or protest. Abandoning society to live a hermit away from society is genuine silence. It is the act of non-communicative identity. Constructing his own norms. Yet his desertion is a protest that though does not manifest in revolution, individually manifests as a solo outcast. 

The level of the real is a brief stint of marvelled engagement with the sublime. It is a passing moment unable to internalise for future encapsulation. It is akin to carrying a holed bucket of sand. The sand will seep out slowly. The wonder of the ocean or the desert captures the temporal amazement quickly disappearing. Reoccurring awe is via meditative spiritual connection. Recognising the holistic picture. Only the external onlooker has a more reasonable approach. The hermit listens to both sides unbiased with zero agenda. His paralinguistic method recognises the competing symbolic representations. Flags raised on either side ready for battle. He watches from afar with little concern. He is a deserter. Unimpressed by the battle’s theme and goal. As long as he remains alone in his own world can he be objective otherwise he is tainted. 

Baseless division are just competing narratives vying for supremacy. Each side generating their weapons to overpower their enemy. The assailants progress forward in an authoritarian march to engender their ideals on the world. The story is a classic tale of the hero’s journey wishing to either topple the enemy of resist the enemy. Both have the same portrait but with the reciprocal painting. They both think they are Robin Hood fighting the elites and saving the downtrodden. Both are caught in the matrix of signifying paradigms. With their own chess rules unable to match up with one another, unable to have proper discussion. The hermit transcends this silly skirmish allocating the symbolic to a comedic wretched state. He laughs loudly at the blinded struggle haunting the phobic futures. Seeking the real above the symbolic he reaches a sphere of recognising the socialisation. He understands the game. He may not be able to escape but he understands it.

It is this socialisation that is important. Understanding the rules of the larger game. Not just where people stand but why they stand there. What their motives and their goals are. Taking a step back and analysing honestly will demonstrate two fair perspectives. Yet imbibed with fearful dramatisation, extreme measures are taken into account. Instead of seeking compromise they reject one another. Since in their minds the adversary is out to get them. They are unwilling to see their own puppeteering. Unable to see the patterns and elitist manipulation. The holistic picture reconciles the greedy privy individuals pinned against the caring activists. It is the absurdity that those caught in the middle cannot escape. Trying to mediate between the two is a lost cause. Their language game is their perception of reality and cannot as a group break from their ideological hold. Individuals must do this for themselves before it is too late.  

Oral Mastery

By: Jonathan Seidel

Oral superiority spills into five categories: the mutual experience, the imagination, the influence, the emotion and the active role. 

Orality historically precedes literacy due to the difficulty to read. Reading and speaking a language are two different aspects. Language fluidity is memorisation. Making sounds is natural from the baby coos to childish bye-byes. The baby hears and responds. Undeveloped he cannot articulate the words fully. Able to coherently comprehend leads to mimicking. Much of speaking is copying parents. Parents but a sentence together so does the child. The natural sound-making is practiced from a young age. Its routine exposure only educates further. 

Oral messaging is naturally internalised. A parent reading a bed time story or lullaby is rhythmic and narrational. The child imagination understands the words and their meaning. The oral communication is passed to their child to his understanding. The listener actively participates by fostering a movie-like reality in his mind. The simplicity of the story and their empowering energy captures the child’s limited knowledge. They lack sophistication and prestige. The spoken word is interpreted in the listener’s ear and into his mind. He makes the story a film to imagine the plot line. 

Reading presents an extra step. The words on the page need to be translated in the mind and then create the imaginative focus. Reading focuses on the text as a translation. The words are a wall before the imagination. Only once able to sound out the words, interpreting them in of themselves and then in the context of the sentence makes the inaudible understandable. This same process is applied to books written in foreign languages. the word itself needs to be understood and then in its context. In the Jewish lexicography, the talmud is split by Rashi’s semantic reading of the Aramaic word within sentence context and Tosafot’s semiotic reading in literature context. Is there one or does multiple translations, does  context change its definition? The same goes for the child.

A foreign language is inaudible but orality comes with external action or description. A book does not provide visual confirmation. It is a guess of the reader. The listener recognises pictures, facial expressions and emotions. It is not a bland slate. Speaking has fluid style. There is a right way of speaking and a wrong way of speaking. Though non-natives have discrepancies in speech and different dialectics i.e. Arabic arise, images ease the translative burden. Divergencies are inevitable but vary socially and geographically. 

Orality is unique to a culture. Arabic has multiple dialects that aggravate communication while the written form remains distinct. While Moroccans and Egyptians will read the same word, it will sound differently. “Fusha” and “Amiyya” are the written and spoken forms of Arabic. Amiya differs due to advanced vocabulary and pronunciation. The encoded language in newspapers is collectively understood but the geographical distance and external influence causes misunderstanding. There is a language game of sorts and culturally organic model. The internal cohesiveness of attuned folk empowers the special relationship between them. The fact that Moroccans and Egyptians don’t understand one another only furthers the particularity of their respective dialects. The spoken word is sacred to the sole interpreter. 

Even English speakers find nuance. Many people struggle understanding the hard Scottish accent except those who speak it. Additionally the differences between American language and stand with England is far more obvious. Geographical distance and ideological isolation also may have assisted in this. Yet many brits are accustomed to american slang while not true vice versa. Brits are far more exposed to American entertainment. This in turn makes speech much more audible. Combining imagery with exposure and everything seems much clearer. To be fair asking for directions in a different dialect can hurt transparent communication. Though a first time exposure isn’t going to help anyone. Even for children, routine is necessary to full comprehend. 

The spoken word transcends the grip of limited literacy. Look at Shakespeare versus Hemingway. The terminological use differs. Books are a manifestation of their time. Reading requires more skill because it is not the natural flow of words. It forces the child to sound out and then make heads or tails of its meaning. The spoken word is evolutionary and can lead to the extinction of language. Hebrew was deemed a dead language for generations, only preserved in books and prayer. Still its ability to survive lay in its continued verbal and written usage. Though not used commonly conversationally with others it was with God. Yet its usage preserved its phonology. 

Though there are difference between ashkenazi, Sephardi and yemenite Jews. Do to their social land geographical distance they produced different readings. Ashkenazim do not distinguish between ales and akin while sephardi jews don’t between text kaf and kuf while yemenites do both. This does not mean that ashkenazi are wrong (though we cannot know for sure). He lack of semitic similarity for ashkenazim put them at a disadvantage.  Yet, concerning vowels yemenite is the worst with only five  while Ashkenazim have eight like the Biblical Hebrew. So each focused on one side: either consonants or vowels. Though ashkenazim were far from a semitic language like Arabic they maintained a traditional Hebrew dialect by writing in Hebrew and focusing on the peshat of the text. The Andalusians wrote in Arabic while the French wrote in Hebrew. The latter were also extensive grammarians. Using that knowledge to further their knowledge of biblical text. 

It is important to recognise the necessary fluidity of language for translating literacy. Despite the grammarians efforts, their semantic readings undervalued the semiotic function. Synchronic investigation melded by Mishnaic authorities and exegetical traditions promotes the ancient reading. The semiotic interaction attacks the text at face value disregarding it. It debunks the philological attempts to portray a text with a time syntactically. Ironically, the Tosafists did not apply their talmudic model to the bible. They focused sentence context instead of literature context. The genuine translation is one passed down not studied. The Andalusian model captured the talmudic peshat from its predecessors. The semiotic model is esoteric and provides an internal structure that if read with medieval eyes would misunderstand. Semiotics preserves the oral character behind the text as the rightful manifestation.  

In the long run, the Spanish oral hermeneutic maintained earlier transmissions with the studious effort to uncover what may have been. The French grammarians focused on the text as a literacy when in fact it was an oral compilation. The textual explanation were divergent from the text but as a result of a misunderstanding. The text was the source for the pre-existing allegory or law.  The narration preceded the codex. The emergence of ladino as well as yiddish muddled efforts to maintain pure Hebrew, still the hermeneutical aspect remained due to the oral transmission. Devoted to secure orality is confounded in the game of telephone. It is possible to deviate but consistency breads authenticity.      

Textual exposure merely provides semantic phraseology to connect. It under appreciates the massive link in oral symmetry. Language evolves but it can also be honed. Language may shift but not necessarily the stories. Orality is is not solely speech but transmission. The interpretative community from the oral sphere is sacred in its own right. It can only be determined by those who understand the language and the intent. The Hebrew language developed and with Aramaic overwhelming Hebrew dialogue, Hebrew was kept alive in the outskirts. Each group did a good job of tending to the discrepancies between letters. Phonology was lauded but using that model of “authentic Hebrew” back into the text does not work identically. The interpretant cannot sole pronounce but also interpret. 

As language evolves the stories are changed by the words characterised. Think of “simcha” it has no English counterpart. We term it “joy” but we are deluding the proper translation because we are not aware of the original mark. Mistranslations grow and stories are changed. Jews having horns was a mistranslation without the aid of a proper dictionary (though its debated if St. Jerome was aware of the true meaning). The grammarian return to text posits either their own mind or the textual intuition. Playing by literacy rules a text must infer x. Yet this incalculable for an original oral text. The only way to understand is in light of its historic foundation. Philology may point to an oral framework but the translation synchronically follows its literary genius not another culture’s. Oral features flow to their death in literacy. Phonology is incongruent with the oral factor. Even the syntactical layer is imperfect. 

An enduring push for pragmatics helps better convey the orality. Socio-linguistic meaning heightens the oral periphery. The signification and contextual layer are imperative for proper transmission. As it provides intent and factorial basis to the literate monopoly. The text does not necessitate clarity. Especially when its plain reading is syntactically problematic and metaphorically emboldened. The is a deeper factor intentioned and marked. Looking at literacy alone will not avail the issue. It is the easy way out to translate literally. Yet the wrong way to do so. The text is primed for interpretation. The wisdom compilation  methodologically promotes a narrational cohesiveness. The surface reading is an incompetent reading. The pragmatics incorporates the myriad of variables into the totality of the law. The narration that follows promises to give colour to a bleak picture. It lights up the statement into a portrait.