‘Gaia Language’ Challenged II
The e-mail discussion continued on the concerns for and against ‘the evolution of one Universal Language’. The response by Dyami Millarson has been very enlightening. We agree to disagree in discussion and thus an idea, a vision is on the table. But the real decision makers shall be the people of every society during the centuries to come.
The historical events of current communication on this subject is very important because it encourages ‘Think Tank’ understanding which extends past traditional mindsets. By coming out into public view with ‘Open Mind’ discussion, Dyami Millarson and I have given society something to think about in the years ahead. This discussion is not a debate, because there are no winners or losers in debates. Debates traditionally never work well, but calm discussions do work well, even when disagreement exists.
First I have tabled Dyami’s interesting e-mail, followed by my reply. Something for the reader to think about.
Allan Ivarsson 2018
PS. There is no such thing as perfect communication. Words are limiting. And all of our perceptions often need adjustment. I have been making adjustments to my perception and choice of words during my entire adult life.
1 Jul 2018
Dear Allan Ivarsson,
Thank you for your response and I appreciate your article which explains your position.
I do never talk about you as person in my previous article nor in my new article, because for me it is taboo to attack an individual and my intention is to be polite no matter what.
There is a lot of data you may not be aware of while I am aware of this and vice versa, but that is normal in any human interaction. I will never judge you nor myself for not knowing something; our human ignorance is immense, as Socrates acknowledged. If Socrates is right, how could I not have done my homework? And would Socrates not have thought that interaction is the right thing to do?
This is the link to my new article: https://operationxblog.wordpress.com/2018/07/01/may-speaking-the-same-language-perhaps-not-solve-confusion/
My new article is very IMPERFECT because my goal is not to persuade, but to investigate. If my new article were intended to be persuasive, it would fail its goal.
Two anonymous proofreaders read my new article before publication on my blog and they said it was unpersuasive, which was exactly how I wanted it to be and so I decided to publish it as such.
There are a few recurring themes in my article which characterise the structure.
I assume in my article that you want one universal language because you want to solve conflict and confusion. This is problematised in my article by various questions.
I understand the philosophical ideal of one universal language which promises to end conflict and confusion.
The one recurring factual and realistic problem is this: 1. confusion arises even in the same language, 2. conflict arises in monolingual societies, and therefore 3. one common language would neither solve conflict nor confusion.
My article is focused on investigating each of these points together with you, because they pose a serious problem to the thesis that a single language would bring about world peace of sorts.
I have nothing to lose by this investigation, because I am merely interested in the truth. I have written no persuasive article, because I have no strong opinion either way. I am merely sharing my questions with regards to your stated goal of one universal language as well as my observations from studying various languages. There is plenty of relevant data I can share and I could not share much of this in my current this due to lack of space and time, but there is a right time for everything and I am not intending to walk away from this investigation. I want to get to the bottom of this, because I am solely interested in making new philosophical discoveries. I find this an inspiring investigation which is already giving me plenty of new ideas.
I am thankful to learn from you through our interaction (interaction is really necessary, isn’t it?) that my first impression was not right that you wanted one world language to be forced on people. It was only a first impression, though, and it was not really relevant to my questions; I emphasised explicitly in my previous article it was merely an impression. Interestingly enough, this confusion arose even while we speak the same language.
Below I will also share some of my notes which I wrote for you and me as I had read your response article and commenced writing my own response to be published on the blog (it repeats what I say in the new article):
I have been genuinely confused about what you meant by “by whatever force necessary” and the most logical interpretation for me seemed that you meant “forcing people by whatever degree necessary to speak the language”.
As you can see, speaking the same language does not preclude confusion. It has now been demonstrated in a practical way.
Some readers may interpret the article as a call to action against linguistic diversity by whatever degree of force necessary, whereas others may take a less radical and more passive stance, either way, confusion has arisen.
Since being aware that there might be confusion, I did not say with absolute certainty in my previous article that force was implied, I was cautious and I only said it appeared that way and that it gave that impression.
Quote: “The article appears to be saying: Hey, why should we not force everyone, by whatever degree necessary, to speak one language because it is for the sake of freedom? This is the impression that the article gave me (…)” (with added emphasis).
However, my point was not whether or not my first impression was right; my point was that either way, whether or not deliberate force is deliberately implied, the suggestion of encouraging the evolution towards global monolingualism would, in all likelihood, lead to unprecented global conflict and confusion and breakdown of whatever potential unity.
Quote: “(…) my response was: Wait a minute, does such an idea not infringe on people’s freedom to speak their own language as they please? Would it not lead to tremendous conflict and oppression if people were told to stop speaking their own language because only one language can be an expression of freedom and all other languages are expressions of backwardness and are merely sources of conflict, confusion and breakdown of potential unity?”
As can be read, my quote is very moderate; I was confused and agnostic about whether force was deliberately implied by the article, but regardless, my cautionary insight in my previous article was that such a grand and ambitious project for global (!!!) monolingualism, like all well-intended projects for widespread monolingualism before it, could potentially lead to unprecented (!!!) human suffering, whether deliberately intended or not.
These relevant questions must be further discussed and investigated because your stated goal for global monolingualism, or at least one universal language, is to provide a solution to conflict, confusion and breakdown in potential unity. After all, if your stated goal were not humanitarian, these questions would not be relevant. Simultaneously, we must keep in mind the constraints of reality; not every aim is realistic nor attainable. So existing linguistic data and insights must be taken into account.
P.S. Republishing this e-mail is permitted and recommended.
The above letter was in response to my brief e-mail hereunder…
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018, 11:33 Allan Peter Ivarsson, <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Thank you for your e-mail. It is very much appreciated as it keeps me alert.
I have posted a response on my website…. https://allanivarsson.com/2018/06/30/gaia-language-challenged-by-disagreement/
This is my e-mail response to 1st July…
2 Jul 2018
First upfront, you have my highest respect. Like you I avoid attacking people. But I will challenge ideas. However if political leaders are supporting any form of ‘Totalitarianism’ I will openly speak against them. My entire philosophy is founded upon ahimsa (non-violence) as a method. But I do recognise that there are sadly times when people attack us physically that we must use whatever degree of force is necessary to stop them.
Words are limiting and a paragraph of ideas, is often interpreted in different ways by different people. There is no easy way to upgrade education and understanding. Society is now facing a high level of confusion in thinking, in every subject, in every country. The mess is so deep that it is encouraging volumes of conflict. I am getting old, I am near seventy and not always well. I write and publish books & website to encourage the young to think outside the square with open mind. It is not that easy to get people to think with open mind.
Interaction is the right thing to do, whilst we use ‘Emotional Intelligence’ as you & I are doing. Unfortunately a lot of people are overreactive. Socrates did us a great service encouraging an awakening of the mind, but sadly he paid the price of death penalty, enforced by religious people that closed their minds to his encouragement thinking. Not one of us can get it right all the time, that is why we need interaction, and why we must share information and understanding. I made more than my share of errors when I was young, but I have no regrets because those errors were linked to my ‘Quest for Truth’ and I learned more than most people learn in a lifetime.
You are right, conflict will still occur in a one language society, but at least the understanding of ideas is now open and on the table for everyone to share understanding. We cannot fix problems if we are not all understanding each other. We need one language to understand truth and false knowledge. We also need 100% ‘Freedom of Speech’. My encouragement by evolution process of one universal language does not promise to end conflict and confusion.
I have witnessed enough political conflict in English speaking countries, like Britain, America, Australia & Canada to reveal that conflict still prevails. But at least these countries can understand each other, with the potential on the table of establishing corrective action solutions. Unfortunately when other Nations speak other languages, we in different countries fail to understand each others problems. And that reality is not good. I believe people, homo sapiens, have much in common in intelligence and humanitarian thinking in every culture current and past history around the globe. But we do not have enough understanding of each other because we are blocked by different languages.
I don’t expect people will ever always feel comfortable giving up their native language. Which is why I encourage the evolution of a ‘Universal Mother Earth Language’ called ‘Gaia Language’. The use of English with a name change to Gaia evolving with added different language synonyms will expand the power of communication over a thousand years to one common understanding. As I indicated in my past records, English is no longer English. Except for experts in language, most people speaking English could not understand 13th Century English and do often struggle to understand all the words used in 16th Century Shakespeare Era. English is a composite of many other languages and it shall continue to evolve and change over the next millennium. It needs a ‘Mother Earth’ language name to encourage all Nations to contribute to its evolution.
People throughout history do invent, coin and choose words to express their ideas. Language is a product of societal expression. Language experts don’t create language they just interpret and translate what exists. It is the people generation after generation that evolve changes in language, adding and subtracting the use of words and changing the shades of meaning. This is a natural process of human nature.
I am very impressed by your open mind courage and by your enthusiasm to share understanding, ideas and disagreement. It is through exchange of ideas and disagreement using ‘Emotional Intelligence’ which can help society evolve into becoming a better wiser society.
Good wholesome visions are achievable, they are only slowed down or stopped by lack of comprehension or by fear of change. I reject revolution process, it has a history of forceful misuse. The best path for homos sapiens is to use ahimsa evolution process. All corrective actions must evolve. Some good decisions can be encouraged to evolve more rapidly in corrective action process, but the evolution of ‘Gaia Language’ is not one of those processes. It needs the natural process of commitment of the common people in every society to feel comfortable with sharing a common universal understanding.
I thank you for very good exchange of ideas and information, perhaps our interaction of thoughts will encourage others in history to come, to further explore the potential that is now on the table.
And I agree with you that it is appropriate and wise to publish our letters on our websites to encourage people to join the ‘Think Tank’ about the evolution of ‘One Universal Language’.
I should note that I have been a fan and supporter of Geert Wilders since I read his book “Marked For Death” in 2012 and I have followed his thinking when he visited Australia to encourage the establishment of the ‘Australian Liberty Alliance’ Party led by my communication friend Debbie Robinson, the President of the ALA. But the only reason I understand Geert Wilders thoughts and concerns is that he also writes and speaks English, even though he also uses his Native Dutch Language. We cannot stand by good people and their wisdom ideas if we do not understand their language.
We don’t have to always agree with each other, what is more important is that we use open mind and understand calmly different points of view.
My communication friend from Canada Dr. Elsa Schieder, sent me the following response to my website. Like Geert Wilders, we both support the release of Tommy Robinson from prison, who was unjustly gaoled by ‘Blasphemy Law’ in Britain, in much the same way as Paul Golding and Jayda Fransen were unjustly gaoled by anti-freedom of speech British Government.
Like you Dyami, Elsa & I are open on issues of serious public concern.
This is what we wrote to each other…
On 01/07/2018 Allan wrote:
Thank you Elsa, I don’t have a problem with the existence of local languages.
On 30/06/2018 9:46 PM, Elsa wrote:
One lingua franca makes sense to me – gaia language, or anyway an adequate language. I also like the existence of local languages.
English is a current lingua franca. In the Austro-Hungarian empire, it was German. In Israel, Hebrew was selected and taught (but in that case, the many languages people came with generally did not get passed down, notably Yiddish which has no home place but was the common language of millions of Jews).
It’s good to be able to talk to anyone.
End of brief email.
And thus for the moment Dyami, I close my comments. It is a privilege to have talked to you on e-mail.