(no subject)

[novapsyche]

I just had a "duh" moment in the shower.

So, it's obvious that, in English, a statement can be written that seems to contradict itself utterly:

This statement is false.

However, can such an happenstance occur in symbolic language? That is, can a symbol, in and of itself, falsify itself?

This train of thought led me to the reinforced belief that I need to learn Chinese, Japanese, or some other language that is written in glyphs instead of words.

Because, of course, symbols reference a different part of the brain than an alphabetical language would.

Again, this is all "duh", but I've only thought of my own poetic thoughts as existing in English. I'm an audiophile: I hear my thoughts instead of see them; and of course I hear my thoughts in English! My poetry, both to author and reader, is meant to be understood by only certain parts of the brain. But there is more that can be referenced.

I think I intuitively struck upon this several years ago, when I started writing poetry much more seriously: I started focusing on what imagistic language would do. I only heard and saw the word on the page, but readers would give me feedback on exactly how the image(s) worked for them. In a way, I utilized my readers as translators of my own work.

It would be neat for me to actually learn a glyph language, so that I may actually think and directly communicate in symbols, instead of transliterating through the written word.

Comments

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Of course, it depends on the symbols you choose. One way to express the above statement symbolically is

P ∩ ⌐P

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

But that is still a string, a phrase. I mean, can a symbol itself falsify itself? I think a symbol is what it is. Things can be associated with that symbol, and it can accumulate connotations.

But, for example, does the universal "not-sign" ever mean "not-not" (that is, "do [X]")? "Don't don't smoke" would be expressed with a circle without a strike. Otherwise, it would require that the symbol encompass another version of itself, which would be a different symbol altogether.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

In other words, can there be a single symbol which conveys the entire sentence? Sure, but i don't know that it would happen as a consequence of natural written or verbal conversation. I suspect it would have to be specially constructed... which would satisfy the thought experiment but not as fulfilling as finding a symbol which conveys it sort of by accident.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

Well, I'm trying to come down to an axiom of poetry (of which there are precious few!). This axiom would be: symbols are. Or, symbols are always on (true).

This does not necessarily mean that symbols always evoke, however.

I want this to mean: A symbol is always truer than the word(s) used to describe it. I don't think I can say that, though.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Images form meaning on many levels and highly iconographic languages like hieroglyphic forms often created translation problems because the meaning of a symbol varied entirely based on the context it was used in.

So a symbol of a bird would be used for flight/movement but just as easily represent ideas/a higher perspective, so it contextually has both concrete and abstract meanings.