language is not a concept, unless you're talking about the word "language" itself. but if you look at what the concept points to ("the thing itself"), language is not an invention but rather a function of the human brain. saying that adults introduce children to the concept of language is like saying birds introduce their young to the concept of feathers.

All the research shows that babies understand language and grasp it w3ay before they are able to make the language sounds with their mouths and voice boxes.

In other words, as soon as a baby starts hearing it's mother's voice in the womb it begins to sort it's brain through the symbols of language. Children who cannot yet communicate will try to nevertheless, and grow very frustrated that they cannot communicate what they want.

Children between age 1 and 3 can be taught American sign language and converse in it, because hand signs are easier for their bodies to do than the severely complex muscle movements needed for oral language. Once the children reach age 3-4 though, the brain switches gears and the sign language learned is lost, to be replaced by "proper" symbolic language.


Reading is fun.

I enjoy making other people feel miserable over MY use of MY time.

It's TIME that the foes of freedom fuck themselves.

fucking drama queens.

lol

I would REALLY enjoy a domesticated human with a buttplug tail and snap-on ears.

Foes of Freedom.

That is a good name for a band. imagine the audience that would show up for that shit.

In american, amped up meth-head gorillas are allowed to eat as many crunchy tacos as they can.

My band was named Antenna Fingers, at least it was until I gave away Rock Band 2 to the guys at Hate House.

Rock Band 2 was serious music that required skill. Not like those guys who just sit there, smiling and twisting random knobs.

or hitting play on their flash drives....

No shit. What happened to real music?

Rich boys with toys their mommies bought them happened.

RIP Skronk - welcome in the dance-a-teria types. :rolleyes:

I drew a picture of _slabo_ enjoying our thread.

hahahah! _Slavo_ cares not for time! What is time to a drone master? When compositions run into the hours-long.....

what about BULL OF HEAVEN?
http://www.bullofheaven.com/

These guys care not for time either! Some of their pieces are longer than 24 hours long!

Oh, I love me a three hour song, but my tastes are more inclined toward Year of the Lips.

Here's #%%$#% driving a bucket of popcorn down his gut, while replying to something that has nothing to do with time.

must spread time before it not existting. or something...

true masterwork

have you thought selling these at sotobies?

Not necessarily true, it is a chicken and egg kind of question. Language as we know it is taught, but some folks have suggests the infant mind is a blank slate. Personally, I feel that infants and children have thoughts and feelings which transcend language, which in fact are limited by language. The thoughts and experience of the pure mind is beyond any kind of language. There are not words to describe, convey, or explain these. Infants and children live in this realm, and we domesticate them into our reality, to communicate mutually our living dream. Kids forget the beauty of what they knew as they try their best to then learn what it is we think we know.

we still have thoughts bigger than language which is why we have poetry and music and art!

re: language-- read steve pinkert! awesome shit. "the language instinct" is pretty old now (20 years?) but the neuroscience backs it up. sapir-whorf is wrong, tabula rasa is wrong, the language police is wrong and kant was right! good shit. read pinkert-- it will blow your mind-- you'll have tremendous fun! guaranteed or your money back. scout's honor!

True indeed! We converge entirely on my point. Infants and young children having yet to be fully domesticated by the confines of language, syntax, and vocabulary, live only in the realm of thought and experience which we adults use art to explore. What is worse, we adults try our best to use language to describe art, knowing damn well it always falls short. Children I think know better. If anything, they only learn language to try to communicate their transcendental experience to us adults and share it with us, but alas, they learn as we already know that it is Pandora's Box, it is the Exile from the Garden, it is young Siddhartha leaving his father's palace..

the young siddhartha enthousiast by the samana's passing by in his village
the drive for adventure, the drive to go into the big world, the unknown

like the satellite king brought me into the modern world were humans found the higs boson and landed the second marsrover on mars

in the name of satellite king and the light of the future he shined upon us
his mighty infinitive a*beam

i like joseph campbell but no, thought was never limited by language in the first place. syntax doesn't do that. the notion that language shapes the parameters of thought is just a bad myth started by clueless anthropologists and perpetuated by cultural critics in need of employment. srsly, read pinkert--

or, in other words, while i see foucault's point here, the science shows chomsky got it right-- there is a human "nature", and action >>> language wars