1. Introduction:
“In the song of whales
Contains a lot of complex information
Human beings
Put into words what is on your mind
Just express about half of it
But the whales in the sea
Maybe they can see what their think
One hundred percent directly to the other
One hundred percent
Communicate directly”
Humanity regards language as the most significant achievement and the very foundation of the development of human civilisation; it also provides the most fundamental conditions for the functioning of human society. Consequently, language — as a capacity that comes very close to being an innate human necessity — has become the primary means by which we, as independent individuals, come to understand the world. At the same time, each of us as individuals must devote a considerable amount of time to language learning and training in early life, whether through environmental influences or specific language-learning methods.
2. Critical Thinking:
Therefore, as a form of tool, language undoubtedly plays a crucial and indispensable role in the diverse development of human exploration, as it establishes the fundamental channels for human communication and interaction in accordance with the criteria of an objective tool.
It is perhaps for this reason that people are able to immerse themselves in the mutual understanding afforded by a shared language; that is, by communicating through a language accepted by both parties, they are able to convey their actions, motivations and thoughts. To the best of our knowledge, in almost all instances of subjective expression — be it through speech, images, symbols, text, movement or rhythm — these forms of expression can serve as referential means of communication.
Whilst acknowledging the greatness of human language, I am also contemplating whether it has achieved true accuracy in the transmission of information. In other words, how can we ensure that people accurately and fully understand what the other party is expressing, including genuine feelings, emotions or subjective sentiments? Furthermore, I am considering the contrast between human language and the linguistic tools possessed by other living beings within a worldview that extends beyond humanity.
Let me attempt a brief speculation on this specific process of information transmission through language: If a person expresses a particular emotion or the feelings arising from a specific experience using the language and its conventions of the moment, and the other party is able to convey and receive that content through text (such as written or spoken communication on social media) or through a combination of spoken language, tone of voice, facial expressions and body language (in face-to-face interactions or video calls), the recipient will still, once this process is complete, be able to understand and empathise only through their own prior experiences.
In other words, if the content expressed by one party relates to a shared experience between the two, and provided there is a common linguistic framework, the recipient’s understanding of and empathy towards the sender’s message will inevitably be greater than in the former scenario.
(Original communication concept diagram 01)
However, it is well known that it is precisely because different personal experiences continually shape each individual’s distinct character and diverse personality traits that we lack both the capacity and the ethical justification to compel anyone to undergo specific or additional experiences solely for the purpose of understanding another person’s subjective expression. Given this foundation of empathy based on shared experiences, might there be superior or alternative methods of information transmission capable of raising the efficiency of human communication and expression to a higher level? Furthermore, could such a method serve as a new standard, a new channel, or a mode of existence that transcends or moves beyond the fundamental meaning of language?
3. Directions for Insight and Imagination:
Considering language in conjunction with the senses, as, to a certain extent, the senses remain the primary means by which language is currently transmitted and received. I define human language as an objective tool, one that can be aided and supplemented by the human senses.
However, the five basic human senses, as the most fundamental receptors through which humans perceive the external world, serve as the primary channels for the exchange between the subjective and the objective. Therefore, language and the senses can, to a certain extent, be defined as ‘cognition’ and ‘perception’; ‘cognition’ is undoubtedly the understanding that humans generate by combining their perceptions and interpretations of the objective world with the feedback they receive. Language, on the other hand, has been created as an objective standard; through ‘perception’, humans engage in learning that is objectively guided and thereby generate ‘cognition’.
Consequently, humans regard this objective language, to a certain extent, as the fundamental understanding underpinning the structure of society, or as a kind of ‘cognitive’ standard, and use this shared ‘cognitive’ standard to communicate and interact to a certain degree.
Returning to the most fundamental perspective of human senses, could there exist a ‘perceptual’ language that transcends ‘cognitive’ language? Could there be a form of information transmission or empathy based on the most essential ‘perception’ as its fundamental channel? Or, indeed, is it possible to transcend basic human senses to create a more independent means of information transmission?
(Original communication concept diagram 02)
4. Conclusion:
Everything seems rather abstract and without a firm foundation, yet, to a certain extent, reflection on the meaning of language still holds forward-looking value, as it appears that, at this level of contemplation, we have freed ourselves from the intellectual constraints and habitual logic imposed by the present era.
Perhaps in the future, we will be able to achieve this level of information exchange and empathetic communication with ease through material foundations and technological applications; yet, when considering solely the current directions and trends arising from language-based communication and social interaction, I cannot help but begin to reflect on the question of necessity. This is because, to a certain extent, I believe that the current trends in language and interaction within human society have entered a state of ‘involution’, with developments largely driven by the constraints of inertia.
Of course, whether it concerns the potential for breakthroughs in ‘cognitive’ language or the possibilities for exploring ‘perceptual’ language, both are rooted in reflections on how current linguistic tools and the context of human communication might enable deeper communication and understanding amongst future generations. It seems we lack the capacity to anticipate and challenge the demands and further practical issues this may raise. For instance, whilst ‘perceptual’ language might enable us to achieve cross-species communication — since we would not need to understand the specific linguistic foundations of each other’s species — we would not need to force one party to learn the other’s linguistic system or create a third language to perceive the state and information the other wishes to convey.
Alternatively, the last sanctuary of privacy within humanity’s own subjective world might no longer be hidden or secure. Nevertheless, I believe that both the direction of these insights and the emergence of such questions regarding possibility offer valuable and more diverse perspectives for reflection.
*The ownership of the project and the information belongs to the individual only for communication and sharing. Do not copy or use it for commercial purposes.