View Full Version : The Agreement

Vision of a Crow
11-16-2013, 04:34 AM
Hello everyone. I am new to the site and have already finished my first book. Oddly enough my book in some ways deals with the philosophy of language. The theory in my book revolves around the concept of a left and right side to existence.

Language lies to the right.

Now this is my theory. The right side revolves around the concept of agreement. When two people are having a conversation, in essence all we are doing is making noises.

Language is the bridge between two individuals. The only reason those noises have relevance is because both participants in the conversation agree that the noises have relevance.

Without that agreement the noises would simply be noises.

And then there is the concept of body language. The same rules apply. I can conceive with a fellow member of the species due the agreement that being human engenders. The same rule applies for any other species.

Takes a deep breath. That was the first thing that i said other than hello.


11-16-2013, 04:01 PM

I do have a general question for you, though.

Language is the bridge between two individuals. The only reason those noises have relevance is because both participants in the conversation agree that the noises have relevance.

Without that agreement the noises would simply be noises.

This seems to me to be a fairly straightforward observation regarding the work language does. Does your theory have some attributes that distinguish it from what others have postulated?

We do have several folks who participate in this forum who are trained in linguistics -- perhaps they will stop by and give us their thoughts.

11-16-2013, 04:33 PM
Welcome from me too!

I can conceive with a fellow member of the species due the agreement that being human engenders. The same rule applies for any other species.

That's the basis of the biological species concept. I'm intrigued how this all ties together.

Vision of a Crow
11-17-2013, 11:47 PM
My theory in regards to the left and right sides of awareness is completely subjective. The left side is silent, and therefore can only be experienced, not talked about.

There was some quote where someone said... writing is nothing to be ashamed of, just remember to wash your hands afterwards. I wish i remembered whose quote that is.

My belief is that the world is a conversation with many participants. Language and communication is therefore paramount in my methodology.

The story the world holds is that the left side is silent and the right side is noisy. I have observed the world for myself, and oddly enough the environment is generally quiet, while people are generally noisy and have a lot to say.

My concept of left and right is subjective, as i have said. My body is the right side, the environment the left. The world is a very big place, filled with many people. There are many conversations; many right sides.

In regards to my own being i have 39 years of accumulated experience in my being. It has been some conversation. The words you read now are the right side in that sense. My body and my experience being the left.

I propose that the right side operates through agreement. My physical being itself is a form of dialogue. My appearance, my body, and the way i carry myself is a form of communication.

I cannot say for certain, but my theory therefore continues to the concept that i must have agreed to be human. I try to shower once or twice every week. I wash my hands once in awhile. Please do not think poorly of me.

So that is where language and the agreement come into play. I simply believe that the ongoing conversation we are having encompasses far more than words.


11-18-2013, 08:24 PM
What are the left side and the right side? Current neuroscience suggests that the left side and the right sides of the brain do not divide duties as much as we thought.

11-18-2013, 08:42 PM

I'm thinking I would want to avoid the use of "left" and "right" in this context, as the terms bring too much "outside the discussion" baggage to the discussion.

Vision of a Crow
11-19-2013, 05:37 AM
I adopted the concept of left and right from the work of Carlos Castaneda.

In human cognition the concepts not as evident. If you have ever been observed by a crow you will notice that their eyes are not forward focused as those of a human being.

They will look at you with one eye, then turn their head to observe you with the other eye.

You could also describe left and right as the long and the short side. The long side is my thirty-nine years. The short side the words i type.

When you pass by a tree and make the noise 'tree' in reference to it the sound is simply a sound. The actual tree is the eternity of endless detail with its leaves and branches.

You could refer to the left and right as down and up. When we point down all seven billion of us point to the same center. When you point up you point in seven billion different directions.

Perhaps the eyes of a human being can operate in a similar fashion with training. Objectively there is no left or right, and the concepts long and short, and up and down, are subjective as well.


T Robinson
11-19-2013, 06:12 AM
As I am not familiar with Castenada, I cannot address those issues. However, I am not clear as to the elements of your philosophy. For example, if vision is one analogue, you have the predator prey difference. Most predator animals have forward focusing. Most prey have eyes spaced apart for greater peripheral vision to search for predators.

Non-verbal elements are also a critical component of communication in personal interactions, I agree. As a previous poster indicated, there are several people with backgrounds in linguistics, who have studied the theory of communication. They may interject, but for myself, I would like to make sure I am understanding your point.

Feedback is essential in any communication loop. My feedback to you is that what I think you are saying is that all communication is subject to interpretive factors that are present in all situations. Further, that if we understand the elements of those criteria, we can achieve greater understanding and less chance of misinterpretation.

For example, it was once said that America and the UK were two countries, divided by a common language. One of the first things I ask a manuscript client is if they want UK or US spellings. Lorry/truck; bonnet/hood and many others. The point being is that the "label" changes in most languages, but the item remains the same. As long as the observer/communicant realizes they are the same object, there is no problem.

Enough feedback. Please advise if I understand your point. If not, try again. Thanks.

Vision of a Crow
11-20-2013, 01:08 AM
Thank you for your feedback.

What you are saying about language is correct of course. Different cultures will use different words to refer to the same thing. I am a Canadian myself. When i was in Australia they found our ROOTS CANADA t-shirts very amusing, the word ROOT in Australian relation to sexual intercourse.

I agree with you completely. I am not saying that the language is meaningless. When i say clock, what i am referring to is the timepiece on the wall.

My theory revolves mostly around language, but what holds true in one medium can be applied to other mediums as well.

Money, (more accurately wealth and value), is what i consider to be the dream of humanity. The same concept you refer to in regards to language can be applied to currency as well.

Money represents the skill of those employed as well as material goods, just like the words we use represent physical objects or concepts.

Ultimately our true wealth is knowledge and physical resources. If you think what is of value are the bills in your wallet you are mistaken.

The same holds true for language. It is the bridge between individuals, wrought through agreement. One must keep in mind that what is of value is the tree itself, as opposed to the words we use.

I know it is a vague line, but i consider it important.