Telepathy, inter-species communication and language
I was on the train a couple weeks ago, and sat next to a woman with a small dog in a dog-carrier bag. She let him poke his head out and I pet him a bit and played with him. And I had this realization about communicating.
I was trying to convey something to him, some sentence of some sort, maybe about his cuteness, or telling him that the train, though maybe a scary place, would not last long, and he'd be home soon. Something.
i realized that I was going about this attempt at telepathic communication all wrong. I was trying to use it as 1:1 analogue of regular language. But language is very much about deceit, and I was trying to manufacture somethign to say, trying to muscle it across to this dog. Earnest and well-meaning as I was, the effort was not going to bear fruit.
I thought about Derrick Jensen's account of his time spent with Cleve Backster and that the yogurt was very sensitive to respond to real emotion, but not forced emotion. I suspect the dog was the same way. What i was trying to convey was not real emotion, was not legitimate in the deepest sense, but busy-work. It was me not being comfortable in beingness and wanting to fill that void with something, so as not to face the simple co-existence of two beings.
Soresnon talks about affect-talk, that is, truth-talk, which conveys emotions and other truths in a very fundamental, and also, when necessary, nuanced way. That, I think, is what telepathy is about. It's conveying that basic truth.
That's why I now suspect that when people talk about Zerzan's critique of language, and ask how it we'll function without language, how we'll say without words the things we convey now, they're missing the point. I was, too- no judgment passed. The point is, when we live in a context in which spoken words aren't so central, when we don't have the sort of infrastructure we have now that depends on logos, we will live in a much more direct way, and our truths will not need to be spoken to be understood.
And all of this I think is another element to the idea that language is for comveying falsehood, not truth.
(As an aside, I don't think language has no place- I suspect it does and probably has for a long time, and it can be damn beautiful. I'm just trying to explore the sort of situations that are deeper than words).
I was trying to convey something to him, some sentence of some sort, maybe about his cuteness, or telling him that the train, though maybe a scary place, would not last long, and he'd be home soon. Something.
i realized that I was going about this attempt at telepathic communication all wrong. I was trying to use it as 1:1 analogue of regular language. But language is very much about deceit, and I was trying to manufacture somethign to say, trying to muscle it across to this dog. Earnest and well-meaning as I was, the effort was not going to bear fruit.
I thought about Derrick Jensen's account of his time spent with Cleve Backster and that the yogurt was very sensitive to respond to real emotion, but not forced emotion. I suspect the dog was the same way. What i was trying to convey was not real emotion, was not legitimate in the deepest sense, but busy-work. It was me not being comfortable in beingness and wanting to fill that void with something, so as not to face the simple co-existence of two beings.
Soresnon talks about affect-talk, that is, truth-talk, which conveys emotions and other truths in a very fundamental, and also, when necessary, nuanced way. That, I think, is what telepathy is about. It's conveying that basic truth.
That's why I now suspect that when people talk about Zerzan's critique of language, and ask how it we'll function without language, how we'll say without words the things we convey now, they're missing the point. I was, too- no judgment passed. The point is, when we live in a context in which spoken words aren't so central, when we don't have the sort of infrastructure we have now that depends on logos, we will live in a much more direct way, and our truths will not need to be spoken to be understood.
And all of this I think is another element to the idea that language is for comveying falsehood, not truth.
(As an aside, I don't think language has no place- I suspect it does and probably has for a long time, and it can be damn beautiful. I'm just trying to explore the sort of situations that are deeper than words).
posted by Archangel at 9:18 PM
10 Comments:
Years and years and years ago, I read a book entitled _The Secret Life of Plants_. I believe it was Backster who was mentioned in the book as having hooked up plants to lie detectors. I remember being fascinated by it.
I think there is something to non-language communication. Especially with animals. I have had many situations (one just the other day), where someone tells me in advance that their cat/dog/whatever hates strangers and will either growl at me, ignore me, or whatever. Inevitably, the animal is taken with me right away, and the owner is perplexed. There has only been one time when the owner's prediction was correct, and in that case, the cat in question was seriously disturbed.
I think it has to do with my love of animals and identification with them, much more so than with humans. It's not something I force. It's just how I am. I mentioned in a previous blog post that in my mind, I equate the word "human" with "pain," and the word "animal" with "friend." Yeah, you could read A LOT into that! :-)
Anyway, at any dinner or gathering, I'm usually found with the family pet on my lap, and I'd rather spend the evening stroking the cat or petting the dog than talking to the humans.
I think it's just that I'm real and authentic. Animals can tell.
Hi Marcy!
I think they can definitely tell authenticity. I think we (civilized) humans often like to believe we're so smart, but so many others in the web of life have much to teach us if we pay attention.
And yeah, I think that title is Backster. Maybe I'll get around to it one day.
Animals and little children tend to love me. I can even get wild animals to walk up to me somtimes.
I don't like plants, though and they can tell.
In fact I seriously considered becoming a vegetarian because I hate plants so much.
Hah- that's a vegetarian punchline slogan!
For real, for real, Ted, or are you just alluding to that?
No animals love me. Seriously. Just be calm. Exude calm energy. be still. They will approach you.
There are only so many things to be said. Basically you are saying you love them. You are fascinated by and interested in them. You are in awe.
So they get curious.
i feel that if we can raise our awareness to these deeper truths we can communicate using any words in any order and it will still all make perfect sense in our mind for that moment...if that makes sense ha
Hey Ted
I didn't doubt that animals love you- I was asking more about the 'going veg because you hate plants' part.
In any event, I agree- they can sense love and awe and often do get curious.
anonymous,
I think I know whta you mean, and I suspect you're right. Because, you know, the words are just markers, and underneath is the basic message, which I think can be grasped, regardless of the sound aesthetic of the word.
plants are ok i just hate gardening.
talking to animals is the only sane form of communication these days... its intimate honest immediate fulfilling.
true indeed, amigo
Post a Comment
<< Home