Perception of language Print

Perception and awareness are beyond language. One can perceive, be aware of that perception, and have it be real, without the necessity of words. But words are not the only language. There’s visual language, the language of materiality, its reality, its system, its own internal communication. Similarly, the reality our consciousness is aware of inhabits its own language, particular to the paradigm of each consciousness. The understanding of its language depends in turn on other languages, which are in themselves incomplete because the sharing of it with another consciousness requires compromise, making it less than whole. The internal language of a mind on its own is the most coherent, complete situation of awareness. In its interaction with aspects outside the confines of its materiality of thought, thought becomes lesser in its shared reality. Thought in itself is whole, complete. As a word, thought is no longer a thought; it has become: a word, which includes the thought. Reality is the most whole when it is entirely controlled by one language only, by one system, one form of logic, one perception, one paradigm, and only that one truth. To be alone is to be whole. Alone, the entirety of one’s own language, one’s own truth, one’s own reality, unapologetically makes sense. Alone, everything is in place because one has absolute control over one’s own reality within the mind, control over one’s own logic. One is at peace, when alone, because existence is coherent, when alone. The only dependency is to the reality one perceives. An object’s reality is easier to incorporate into one’s own coherent system, one’s own interpretation, one’s own language – because there is no consciousness in object, no awareness or resistance to one’s imposed perception and interpretation. Arguably objects and nature do have perception – they certainly have language, a system and rules within themselves that we can merely hope to grasp with our own. But they do so rarely argue. Humans around other humans, however, share an incomplete learned cultural understanding, which overlaps enough to grant survival. During communication you might be spot on, from the truth of the one communicating, or you might be wrong, but nobody within the interaction knows, assuming an understanding and interpretation of what has been communicated, that is shared. Who would know if a piece of communication was misinterpreted, and its reaction in turn misinterpreted as well? One may not be as fluent in another person’s reality as one is in one’s own language but repeated similarities can be deduced, turn into perceived consistency within a context even between two realities. To decide whether one is right or not one must rely on one’s own awareness alone, one’s own truth decides on the hierarchies and measuring points of right or wrong. There’s little external truth to one’s own perceived existence that matters. Between two people communicating, two realities being shared, two languages mingling, confirmation of comprehension is near superfluous because an understanding would take place only within each person’s reality and truth. Whether that truth is the same as that of the other person cannot be concretely determined as the consequent situation is that the respective realities are separate and therefore entirely on their own. All one can strive and hope for in the sharing of realities is an overlap, a correlation large enough that both perceptions individually and for themselves manage to accept and make sense of what they were given, what they think was perceived and how, and that it is what they intended to give within their own understanding and truth. The whole is only that as a concept, a concept language has labeled, a label which groups together further labels of materiality. The mountain may not bow to the winds as what we understand to be a mountain under the label of a mountain. It may not be affected as a whole of its sums but the wind can certainly affect a part of the mountain. Here one must ask, isn’t a part of the mountain the mountain? Parts, which one labels in smaller compartments, separating them from its existence within the group of components that make up a mountain are both parts and also mountain. The wind may break loose a rock, and that rock is both a rock and also mountain. Every last molecule is the mountain, yet one does not perceive them as such as soon as the details are removed from the concept and label of the whole. A rock in itself has its own language, its own rules of reality and existence. But it is also as much a component, a stroke of a letter of the language of the mountain, inseparable like a noun, the concept of a noun, is inseparable from language. It is a thing in itself but part of another, within which it is no longer the thing of detail in the consciousness of the one perceiving its materiality. The mountain is its stones, its grass, and its flowers. Linguistic logic dictates a separation of realities from the labels of objects but as stones, flowers, grass upon the context of a mountain, they are also mountain. The label mountain, for its parts can, in turn, be affected by the wind, and as such the separation doesn’t diminish the detailed role and in fact identity that makes up the grouped whole, for it would not exist otherwise. Communication is the wind, which breaks the mountain. If you’re not confused, you haven’t been paying attention.

Print:Giclee on Fine Art Paper

Size:10 W x 10 H x 0.1 D in

Size with Frame:15.25 W x 15.25 H x 1.2 D in

Delivery Time:Typically 5-7 business days for domestic shipments, 10-14 business days for international shipments.