The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Language, Metaphysical Impossibility and Talbott

Here’s Tom Talbott from the second edition of The inescapable Love of God which he quoted on Fr Akimel’s blog;

My point in this post is to discuss Tom’s statement about an omnipotent Being instantaneously creating a language using person. First I’ll take a look at language and some aspects of how we learn language and some thoughts on what language means to us, and then explore how and if God could* instantaneously* create a language using person that would be sufficiently separated from God to be an individual.

I was reading a book by Gisela Krenglinger, Storied Revelations: Parables, Imagination and George MacDonald’s Christian Fiction, and at one point she quotes MacDonald quoting Carlyle in a section discussing metaphor:

This got me thinking more about language and brought to mind Tom Talbott’s thoughts above. I realized a certain wonder at language, how sounds and visual symbols are used to transmit thoughts ranging from the concrete and mundane to the exceptionally abstract or poetic. Thinking about language, I realized how deceptively simple it seems while actually being quite complex. This in turn made me think about how we actually learn language. Is the end result something that could be created instantaneously or is the process somehow important?

Let’s look at a simple word–“dog.” Our first exposure to the word was probably as an infant with a parent repeating the word while pointing out a toy, a picture or a living canine. After a series of repetitions, we learned to associate the spoken word “dog” with one of these, and hearing it repeated to identify another physical representation or actual dog, began to generalize the word to include similar looking creatures, pictures or toys. We also may have had increasing experiences with living dogs, some small some large, different colored dogs, some that bark and some that growl. We may have read picture books with stories about dogs or watched movies with dogs ("Old Yeller?). The possibilities of what the word “dog” referred to increased exponentially. In later years we may have heard the word “dog” used as a verb or as an affectionate greeting–“What’s up, dog?” There may have been an emotional connection with a family dog, perhaps with grief at it’s death. There may have been fear associated with dogs due to a dog-bite or attack. A Muslim child may have learned to see dogs as ritually unclean. Perhaps we read of dogs in the Bible licking Lazarus’s sores or outside the new Jerusalem. In any event, there are layers upon layers of association and meaning with even a simple word such as “dog” and these meanings are very individual. We may recognize what a word like “dog” refers to but the* meaning* for me and it’s associations is not the same as it is for you.

Take the word “cilantro” for instance. To me, it’s that green leafy stuff used in a lot of mexican dishes and salsas that I can take or leave. For my wife and daughters, it’s a nasty green herb that tastes like soap and should be avoided at all costs. :wink: Believe me, there’s definitely an emotional and physical association with cilantro for them.

We haven’t even looked at other words such as “father” and “mother” which will certainly have individual associations, meanings and memories. And what about “love?” How many different meanings that word has and how different the associations for each individual! I won’t belabor the point, but obviously words are not one to one representations and of course that’s what makes poetry interesting and communication so difficult at times.

So, if we wanted to “create” beings that use language “right out of the box”, how would we do it? In Perelandra, the second in C.S. Lewis’s space trilogy, the “Green Lady” (and presumably the “Green King”)–allegorical representations of a new Adam and Eve–are taught by apparent direct inspiration by Maleldil, the Perelandrian name for God. Imparting language in this fashion isn’t really “instantaneous” in the story, however. Having read the story many times before, the plausibility (or potentially* im*-plausibility of this) never registered with me. As an aside, I think it’s interesting that the protagonist in the first two books in Lewis’s “Space Trilogy” (and a secondary character in the third) is Elwin Ransom, a philologist.

From the wiki entry:

So, how might we create our being *de novo *with “language?” (With the assistance of an omnipotent God) It seems rather simple at first blush—why not “program” our creatures with images, feelings etc associated with various words or phrases? Simple!

Hold on a minute! Where do these associations, images etc. come from? The creatures have seen nothing, felt nothing, tasted nothing…they’ve experienced nothing!

Well, can’t God just implant the information from His knowledge?

Hmmmm……sounds reasonable until you think that if God implanted his knowledge of the word “tree” it would be more than all the minds in the world could hold. God’s knowledge of “tree” would include every tree that ever existed from seed/nut to death/ burning/ being made into furniture or rotting in a forest as well as every future tree, and every possible tree. Let’s not forget all the literary references to “tree” and emotional associations with trees (Liberty trees, lynching’s from a tree, “Hoap of a tree” :wink: …) It seems obvious that a human, or any finite mind, could not hold God’s knowledge of “tree”.

Perhaps, God could implant only a particular portion of his knowledge of “tree.” That might allow our creatures to communicate, but unless they could learn on their own, the idea of "tree’ would always be* God’s* idea. If everyone of our creatures had the same “data” implanted regarding “tree” and other words, then what makes them individuals, and perhaps more importantly, what separates them from their Creator? Even giving each creature a different portion or version of God’s knowledge doesn’t solve this dilemma.

Does Lewis’s description of Maleldil directly communing with the “Green Couple” in Perelandra solve this issue? Hmmm… Lewis does not describe this process in detail, but presenting images, ideas etc. directly into the mind of someone is pretty intrusive. The reduction in epistemic distance could be considered an elimination of “freedom” by free-will theists and I would agree as I see little difference between* Maleldil* “teaching” and “programming” in this scenario.

This is, I think, an extremely important point. If language (and the associations, emotions etc. associated with it) are “programmed” by God into his creatures, then the creatures themselves would be merely extensions of God without the individuality and capability for “independent action” that Talbott describes. I think this idea of creating* independent* creatures instantaneously who are “language using” may indeed be a “metaphysical impossibility.”

Thoughts? Any scenarios where you can see the capability of instantaneously creating a creature having language without the thoughts ideas etc being God’s ideas? I’ll tag [tag]Chrisguy90[/tag] who has an interest in philosophy and feel free to tag anyone else who might be interested in this. :wink:

This guy was trained in philosophy and especially the philosophy of language, but I’m not sure he has the time right now to get involved. But, I’ll tag him anyway [tag]DaveB[/tag]

Didn’t know that, Dave, excellent! :smiley:

I know you’re also a fan of Lewis’s space trilogy (at least That Hideous Strength) so you can let us know what you think of Lewis’s scenario. I’m really looking forward to your thoughts, Dave. (And I’ll tag that guy for sure the next time this comes up. :laughing: )

:sunglasses:

I’ll drop in later – just subscribing now.

Ditto Cindy. For the record, I lean in the direction of creaturely language needing progression of experience by the creatures plus rational action capability, although sublingual complexity can be achieved without that. This leads into some very interesting speculative theories about natural telepathy, too, explaining various mysterious instincts and capabilities animals have demonstrated singularly and in groups.

When I first read this I did a double take seeing the word “sublingual” which I’m used to seeing in a medical context meaning “under the tongue” such as sublingual salivary glands or administering a drug sublingually. I guess this is another example of the plasticity of language. :smiley:

I’d love to hear more about the telepathy you mentioned, Jason. I remember a thread awhile back regarding the communication of bees that might fit this though I really have no idea.

I was pondering telepathy in my thought experiment as a form of communication in creating beings that could communicate instantaneously. Initially it seemed like a pretty cool way to communicate—transferring images with associated emotions to another person, but I realized a couple of problems with this. First off, how irritating would it be to have someone start transmitting these images and emotions into your mind? Maybe you could “tune them out” but geez! I’m just sitting down to eat and my child starts sending pictures into my mind of the candy or toy they want? And in more serious situations, could we actually stand to feel the pain someone else has had? Maybe once or twice, but regularly? To actually*** feel ***it would probably make us less likely to be able to help them whether it’s physical or emotional pain. Finally, from the little I’ve read, language and the understanding of symbols carrying meaning that language entails is what has allowed abstract reasoning. With a purely telepathic means of communication, we would be inevitably limited in our level of thought to that of the higher animals. [tag]Daveb[/tag] might have something to contribute here… :wink:

Great topic, Steve :smiley:

It is a problem – developing language, I mean. I suppose God may have had some part in teaching at least the idea of language, because of the story about God walking with the man and the woman in the cool of the evening. Maybe that’s what Lewis was thinking of when he had his “Eve” communing in some way with God during the quiet parts of the day. When I listen to God, it’s like thoughts running past, like a breeze, through my mind. they’re not intrusive and I can easily ignore them, but they’re there if I choose to listen. So I do wonder whether that could be some of it. Maybe not language itself – if I write these things down, I do it in my own words. They don’t usually come with words, but they easily move into words. The words are not as pure, but then they’re my words that I’ve affixed the best I can – though not without help, I think. (I’m kind of feeling my way here, trying to talk about this.)

So, if God were to do something like this, in the quiet hours – to introduce Himself into the lives of the humans, into their minds and hearts, I don’t know that it would have to be an intrusive thing. The problem is though, that it’s not often one hears Him when one isn’t listening for Him. The man and the woman would either need quite a strong message at first, or they’d have to be given some reason to expect one. Maybe they did expect to hear from the spirit realm. That kind of seeking does seem somewhat built-in to us. Sometimes God DOES speak “loudly,” like when He asked me, “What if you’re wrong about that? What if the universalists are right, and what if they have very good answers to the questions you’re asking?” That time it was hard to miss, but it still wasn’t intrusive. I think God might have guided the humans with such nudges in the development of language. Whether He did or not, of course, or whether that would be necessary, to sort of plant the seed, I don’t know.

With the prophets, we’re always reading, “And the word of the Lord came to him . . .” Word is certainly an essential part of God. In fact, the Word was God, according to John. I wonder what that means? I understand that He’s talking about Jesus, but why call Him the Word? God is a communicator. He walked with A&E in the cool of the evening, communicating. He came to the prophets and communicated with them in strange, weird visions and in words.

All the things you say about language are true and fascinating, Steve. Children take advantage of eons of development of language, and then they add their own spin to things from their own experiences, understandings, misunderstandings, and so on. It’s not merely the development of an individual, but of an age, filled with people. I do think the organic growing-up of language is necessary. God speaks to us, but it is into our native tongues that we must translate these things before we ourselves can understand them, and certainly before we can share them with others. Language is our only significant interface (aside from touch) with other individuals. It’s HUGE. We take it for granted, think it simple and basic, but it’s not. Language is a highly complex system through which we relate to one another. It includes not just words, but also gestures, inflection, tone of voice, facial expressions, pauses, emphases, body language, not to mention behind-the-scenes inferences we expect to be understood, even the choices of words from amongst close synonyms.

I see the difficulty with supposing that God could/would suddenly complete a fully-programed human, and then call him self-determinant. It seems a contradiction in terms. Yet this is what we require of God when we ask why people are allowed to do such horrible things to one another, and why doesn’t He do something to stop this, if He’s good? We demand that programming. “Create GOOD people,” we say. But God creates people destined to be free, and such people must learn for themselves – how to survive, how to communicate, how to do good to one another. If He made us good, He could not make us free. I think the same goes for making us with a fully-formed language. It doesn’t mean anything until we’ve developed it ourselves. Then He comes and refines and purifies and makes the ugly beautiful, and the beautiful sublime.

Great post, Cindy. Lots of great insights there. :smiley:

I came across this interesting article online about robots learning their own “language” and communicating with each other.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-05/lingodroid-robots-are-learning-speak-creating-their-own-robot-langauge

^^ Ha! – to be listed under Things That Will Not End Well… :laughing:

Btw, what you were thinking of, about how terrible it would be to always be exposed to the pain of others via telepathy (or telempathy in that case I guess)?

That’s what God has to put up with by active omniscience. And eternally so. And not just our pain, but every time we sin at all in any way.

Jason said:

Good point, Jason! :smiley:
I do wonder about the “eternally so” bit. It makes sense, but when we leave our sins and are perfected, will we forget them or (which I think is more likely) look back on them and feel not shame but gratefulness to see how God worked in our lives to use them and remove them? It reminds me of what Cindy says about the verses in Joel, “And I will restore to you the years that the locust hath eaten…” I wonder if God will no longer feel pain from those sins etc., but see the glory in the role he put them to in bringing about perfection. Hmmm…maybe he doesn’t feel them as just pain even now, knowing the future?

I had a thread a while back on Passibility, here’s one of the quotes from an article I linked to. I like the reasoning here, but obviously there is room for disagreement.

"Contemporary theologians wrongly hold that the attribute of impassibility is ascribing something positive of God, that is, that He is static, lifeless and inert, and so completely devoid of passion. This the Fathers never countenanced. The Fathers were merely denying of God those passions that would imperil or impair those biblical attributes that were constitutive of His divine being. They wished to preserve the wholly otherness of God, as found in Scripture, and equally, also in accordance with Scripture, to profess and enrich, in keeping with His complete otherness, an understanding of His passionate love and perfect goodness. "
“Negatively, God is immutable in the sense that He does not change as do creatures, but He does not change for positive reasons as well. God’s immutability radically affirms and profoundly intensifies the absolute perfection and utter goodness of God, who, as Creator, is the one who truly lives and exists. Because God’s love is unchangeably perfect and so cannot diminish, He is then the eternally living God who is unreservedly dynamic in His goodness, love, and perfection. Similarly, while the divine attribute of impassibility primarily tells us what God is not, it does so for entirely positive reasons. God is impassible in that He does not undergo successive and fluctuating emotional states, nor can the created order alter Him in such a way so as to cause Him to suffer any modification or loss. Nor is God the possessor of negative and sinful passions as are human beings, with their susceptibility to fear, anxiety, dread, greed, lust, or unjust anger. For the Fathers, to deny that God is passible is to deny of Him all such passions that would debilitate or cripple Him as God. Almost all the early Fathers attributed impassibility to God in order to safeguard and enhance His utterly passionate love and all-consuming goodness, that is, the divine fervor and zealous resolve with which He pursues the well-being of His cherished people.”
Dave

The thread: Does God suffer?

Very interesting!!! My two pence worth is that it’s interesting that Chomsky has speculated that language is innate. Behind all of the different languages in the world there is an innate deep structure - that of the relationship between subject and predicate. Any stament in words always has within it a subject (something that is spoken of) and a predicate (something that is said about the subject. Chomsky speculates that this deep structure is innate - we are born with it which explains the rapidity with which children learn through imitation. His theory has been widely accepted and tested. Now we could say that this deep structure is what God gives us (I would); others may argue that this deep structure is the result of natural selection.

Much as I’d agree with this Dave I think ‘impassibility’ in Classical theism has sometimes been taken to the extreme of suggesting that God is not relational. I remember suggesting that it’s best understood in human terms regarding the Orthodox virtue of Dispassion – love is engaged but often needs to be detached in order to be useful and serve the needs of another.

Regarding Chomsky – I think his insights fit well with a person who was your Avatar for a bit – Martin Buber. He writes a lot about the Word being relational. The Word has always been about one subject reaching out towards another in I -Thou relationship.

Maybe you’re right Dick, re: impassibility and relation. But I think that in principle, the concept is a great comfort, for the reasons given in the article, and should not be overlooked because some have historically misinterpreted it.

Re: Chomsky, Piaget, et.al., the ‘structuralists’: there is something to say for them, though as a movement structuralism has had its heyday. But I read quite a bit of Piaget in school - his little book “Structuralism” and a seminal work with the intriguing title “Genetic Epistemology”, for instance - and I like his idea that the genetic component - the ‘deep structure’ - has to be stimulated by the environment in order to respond - I think the term he used was ‘equilibration’ - the structure is there innately, and will flower under the stimulus of community and relation. I do think that God is the source of that depth.

Perhaps some folks will think that the ‘innateness’ of the structure is a form of determinism? That because we have an innate propensity to understand in a certain way, a structure of categories, if you will, that are built in - that we are not ‘free’? Well we have other threads on that subject. :smiley:

As to the Augustinian theory of language - someone points at an object and says “Cat” to show us what a cat is - that theory is deficient on many grounds, but it is a huge subject. Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations actually uses Augustine’s theory as the launching pad into a more insightful theory, tied into his ‘language-game’ idea and the ‘weave of our life’ concept - very fascinating, rather difficult reading; not because it is technical, but because it forces us to ‘see’ things differently. Anyway, it is a good read.

God gives us the basic structures and then we are free to make of them what we will. Language is very creative but it can be used both to disclose and conceal truth for example

Hi Dave, :smiley:

I guess I do lean more to the “impassibility” side of things, especially if the “block universe model” (or something like it) is true. I think an Open Theist would have a harder time accepting impassibility. That being said, it’s always difficult to mentally grasp a transcendent and immanent, God, and it makes my head hurt. :laughing:

Good information about Chomsky, Dick! :smiley:
I did read the Wiki entry on language and it appears that Chomsky may be in the minority currently as a proponent of a “discontinuity theory” with a sudden implantation of language ability in humans via a mutation,

The majority hold to continuity based theories, i.e. gradual development of language ability:

Regardless of how the ability for language within us came about, a language needs the “subjects” and “predicates” you mentioned and we acquire those from the world around us and our experiences in it. Here is George MacDonald who sees the world created for exactly that purpose.

Actually Dave I find Dispassion comforting too :smiley: I just know it has been open to misapplication. Obviously it is part of negative theology mysticism to reach an understanding that our needs and appetites driven love is very different from Gods love for us, I am glad that the Orthodox have the equivalent virtue to be strive for in human beings so that they grow into the likeness of God for a pointer. I think this is a corrective for me to any abuses. :slight_smile:

Good one from Gmac Steve :smiley: Will have a ponder but I’m popping out now :smiley:

Hi Dave, :smiley:

Dave said:

Just had a look at Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy here:plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/ Some nice discussion of Wittgenstein and his language ideas. I think though that even with Wittgenstein’s more insightful, theory, the idea of the metaphysical impossibility of creating beings instantaneously who are “language-using” still holds.

I believe I agree with you, Steve. :smiley:

Also, btw, I was not mocking the Augustinian ‘this is a cat’ model of learning language. It’s a very common-sense approach. I hope I did not sound disrespectful. :blush: