Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Copyright Rodger Ricketts, 2016. Chapter from book, The Buddha’s Radical Psychology: Explorations.
All rights reserved.
Protected by international copyright conventions. No part of this chapter may be reproduced in any
manner whatsoever,or stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, without express permission of
the Author-publisher, except in case of brief quotations with due acknowledgement.
“We live our lives in this shared virtual world […] The doorway into this virtual
world was opened to us alone by the evolution of language.”
~Terrence William Deacon1
“The language production mechanism ‘takes a web of thoughts and outputs them
in form of words spoken one at a time, without a conscious effort or formal
instruction, and is deployed without awareness of its underlying logic’”
~Steven Pinker2
Most linguists agree with the idea that language influences the way we
think and see the world and maybe it completely determines such process. In
fact, the influence is profound. Furthermore, the relationship between
language and worldview is reciprocal. In other words, language both influences
and is itself influenced by how we conceptualize the world. To illustrate, as we
have already seen, certain languages lack words for concepts that are part of
the standard vocabulary in other languages. Also, what we perceive when we
look out onto our world, and reflect about our self, does not reflect some
inherent truth; it reflects only the effects of our sense organs, cognitive
apparatus and our culture. In fact, even how we think about such foundational
concepts as space and time is influenced by the relativity of language. While all
cultures draw on spatial metaphors to represent the concept of time, such as
clocks, calendars, and time lines, cross-cultural studies reveal differences in
how languages map time onto space.
In her study, Lera Boroditsky summarized:
“How people conceptualize time appears to depend on how the languages
they speak tend to talk about time—the current linguistic context, what
language is being spoken, and also the particular metaphors being used to talk
about time in the moment. Further, people who conceptualize space differently
also conceptualize time differently, suggesting that people co-opt
representations of the physical world/space in order to mentally represent more
abstract or intangible entities. Taken all together, these findings show that
conceptions of even such fundamental domains as time differ dramatically
across cultures and groups; the results reveal some of the mechanisms through
which languages and cultures help construct basic notions of time.” 8
The influence of language over thought patterns is deeply pervasive, affecting
even basic concepts as space and time.
Deduced opposites
immortality no birth
conditioned unconditioned
The Buddha’s psychology asserts that the conventional way of constructing and
representing the world is deeply embedded in both one’s culture and language.
In other words, people are influenced to see, think, and feel through everyday
expressions of language and we are also subtly conditioned by the traditions
and history of our primary social group. Early on, linguistic conventions are
necessary to establish the ground rules for communication, which represented
an impelling evolutionary need. People have the need to communicate with
each other and the structure of the language must be functional to this
necessity. To this end, everyday speech delineates a mutually sanctioned world
of separate objects and categories because our underlying cognitive structures
have been ‘infused’ by the impressions of language, a shared medium that
allows us to inhabit a ‘shared virtual world.’
The first words that an infant learns are normally simple nouns with repeatable
sylables, such as ‘puppy’, ‘papa’, or ‘mama’. However, as the number of
concepts and sounds in a child’s repertoire increases, language becomes
progressively abstract. As we grow from infancy to maturity and develop our
capacity for language and critical evaluation, we naturally categorize
experiences into classes that share certain characteristics, for example: Animal,
vegetable, mineral. The game of 21 questions nicely illustrates this process. As
we gain experience, and this continues through all phases of our active mental
life, we both place experiences into already defined categories, such as: Animal:
dog or cat, breed; and create new categories where we don’t find the existing
ones convenient. Each of these classes, and there is an exacting logical science
for classification, is a level of abstraction. As the class of objects grows, new
subclasses, more abstract formulations, occur. Carried far enough and we
have, as in the field of natural history, the story of life on this planet and an
array of scientific subjects, an encyclopedia of species, and specializations that
fill a catalog.
Over the course of a lifetime, this shared world of linguistic concepts becomes
deeply engrained in our thought and speech patterns. Indeed, these concepts
are unavoidable when we learn to speak and live as members of a specific
culture. Of these concepts, perhaps the most elaborate and deeply engrained
psychological category is our concept of the self, which evolves and is defined
dependent and in relation to a complex web of other concepts. Since language
provides the vast majority of these concepts to us, one can easily agree that in
large part our sense of self reflects our particular cultural inheritance, the
shared reality that we tacitly agree upon with others.
Our concept of the self arises from a perceived division between subject
and object, which contains yet further divisions within itself. On the one hand,
there is the self as agent, the subjective I who performs various actions in the
moment. On the other hand, there is another view of the self, the objectified
‘me’, as an enduring entity with a particular set of personality traits which we
evaluate and judge according to cultural norms. This split becomes evident
when people say things such as “I am a very intelligent person”. Such an
expression is only coherent if we accept a split between our self in the moment,
and a deeper, more permanent and reflective self. At this point it is significant
to remember that the human brain is a rather creative storyteller that uses
language to organize the world of conscious experience, thereby efficiently
making sense of the otherwise overwhelming volume of perceptual
information processed by the nervous system. Building stories to describe the
world of concepts around us, it means at the same time defining ourselves, an
idea referred to the “narrative self”.9 Let’s put it more simply: as we gain
mastery of our native language, we begin to use words to tell stories, and in
these stories, we create what we call ourselves. This ongoing and reflective
personal narrative constructs the fiction of a time-bound, continuous self. The
great drawback to the structure imposed by language is that our words
emphasize the separateness of things at the expense of perceiving the unity of
experience.
For the Buddha the central snare of language is that we become confined
in the misconception of the identifications of the self which are encouraged from
the grammatical use of agent and object. Once we establish the intentional ‘I’ as
part of our lexicon, I-related thoughts enter our inner dialogue of mental chatter.
We select the ‘I’ thoughts that build and maintain a story about ourselves that
we are willing to accept; we are all creative writers in the service of the self. As a
result, our reality is filtered through the selective and often self-serving vision of
our subjective I lens. Engrossed and compelled as we are in our stories and our
I, me, and mine, which are founded on dualism, we cannot comprehend the
actuality of existence, which in turn leads to our state of suffering. We now turn
to the question of how to transcend this unhappy state.
Bibliography
2. Pinker, S. (1994). The Language Instinct. New York: William Morrow and
Company.
4. Senghas, A., Kita, S., & Özyürek, A. (2004). Children creating core properties
of language: Evidence from an emerging sign language in Nicaragua. Science,
305(5691), 1779-1782.
8. Boroditsky, L. (2011). How languages construct time. Space, time and number
in the brain: Searching for the foundations of mathematical thought, 333-341.