Example of 4-in-relations see the picture on page 3 & 5.
On Speech and Dynamics
— Introduction to Quantum Logic and then
to the Logic of Native Science —.
I. Why Do Humans Speak?
1. This is an introductory note for “Quantum Logic”. But I
intend this note to be for a bit wider purpose. Namely, I am
interested in deciphering “Native Science” through Native
Language or, more technically, “Parole” (Speech). Therefore, I
step back and consider the role/function of “Speech” before I go
2. There is another reason to digress on “Parole”. That is, if
I simply start with Logic, people might say, “Who cares about
Logic?”. Indeed, native speakers, whether in English, Chinese or
in Tlingit, are not even conscious of “Grammar”, let alone
“Logic”. Scientists, in general, may know Logic as an academic
subject, but the overwhelming majority of scientists do not care
much about the technical sense of Logic. It comes “natural”, and
as much as explanations of Logic(s) require speeches in some
native language to be understood at all, “Logic” is not
fundamental. Human beings are not “Logical” at all, in that
sense. Science, as practiced by the majority of scientists, is
not Logical any more than it means “use of language”. Only selfconceited
academic idiots would think of “Logic” to be of any
But then, we observe that there are “Orders”, “Patterns”,
or “Rules” in the ways people say things. If some non-natives
come and speak in violation of the “Order”, natives would have a
hard time figuring out what the “foreign students” are saying.
The native speakers may not know precisely what the “order” is,
but they do sense if it is violated. Speech without the implicit
“order” does not make sense to them. That is, there is an
implicit “Natural Logic” which regulates how people
That may well be “psychology”. But to say it simply as
“psychology” is no help to anybody. If we say it as “psychology”,
we need to explain how that particular psychology works.
[If you are an English speaking person, try to explain to a
Japanese person what is the “Psychology” which makes you feel
“natural” in using the articles “A” and “The”, beyond saying, “It
makes me feel right”. I bet you would have trouble. So far, I
have never heard an intelligible
explanation. Yet, as much as a large group of native English
speakers shares a certain, more or less identifiable, common
“natural feeling” about the usage of the articles, I would guess
that there exists a “Natural Logic”. What I refer to as “Logic”
includes such “linguistic habits”, though I am not going into
“Socio-Linguistics”, but staying within a small area of language
technology in the Sciences.]
It so happens that, for us who are either “Foreign
Students” or in search of the “hidden” science but wishing to
learn Native Science from “outside”, it has to be mediated by
“speech” (Parole) and, worse, through “translations”. We are
“ignorant learners”. [Those who are not do not need to read
this.] We respect the “Teachings of Don Juan” which is claimed to
be beyond “Linguistic” means to reach. But what we are attempting
to do here is very humble learning. We are not aiming for the
Power like Carlos Castaneda did. That was the “Fire Way” of
Learning. We try the “Water Way” of Learning, one drop a time,
but with continuous persistence. We do not pretend that this is a
complete learning, but just a part of the “introduction”.
In order to understand the Native Science, we need some
“explanations” in terms of some “Parole”. In that context, it is
convenient to regard what people can do well without. Conscious
“thinking” is beyond the “Science”. We do not need to assert, in
the McLuhanian Doctrine, that “Science is what is expressed in a
certain Form of Parole” (Media is the Message). But we
concentrate on the Science that is communicable, because that is
the only part which is accessible to us. Before we become
arrogant enough to reach for what are not “explainable”, we try
to understand what are “explainable”, or what are reachable
through guides of the “explainable”. Only after we learn that
part well, we shall be able to pay homage to what we have missed.
3. That brings us to the question of “Why Humans Speak”. Let us
try to understand what we are doing by “speech”.
For a naive start, let us make a simple model of “Human
Being” and locate the function of “Speech”. The simplest I can
think of is a “4 part model”. In this modeling, a human can be
represented by a picture below:
By “Eat/Breathe”, I mean all internal physiological functions of
a human body which have to do with maintaining the existence of,
and the growth of, the body. Seeing, hearing, touch sensing,
etc., are taken in analogy with “Eating”.
By “Act”, I mean motions of body, hands, and feet. It’s a
basic function to “goes to food, grabs them, and brings them to
“Think/Feel” is mainly done by Brain.
The first thing we note is that “Speak” part is not
necessary. That, in the picture below, is possible:
Plants (and many insects and animals, to a large degree)
lived, survived, and even “learned” in the Evolutionary sense,
for more than a billion years without “speech”.
Trees did not speak in our sense of language, but they were
able to “learn”. It was because they were “plural” (more than one
tree). When there are more than two trees (beings), there emerges
the possibility of communication and
“making love” between (among) them. In a picture, I can depict
what the communication looks like.
You note the Feedback Loop (Hoop) structure made possible
from the Plurality. The picture is the simplest one, and the Loop
can be more complicated and involve many other Beings. But the
Feedback Loop is essential for Communication. The Judeo-Christian
“Unidirectional Command” from God to something else is a patently
false image of communication. European Logic, which was developed
— in Judeo-Christian institution in particular for the need of
the Inquisition — is wrong from the start. I shall not talk of
the significance of “Diversity” for Communication in this note,
but the importance of Loop/Hoop has to be kept in your mind. I am
not helping Logic as a tool for fighting arguments. My “Logic”
would be useless for Lawyers who wish to be “powerful” in their
art of “Adversary Justice”.
The “Love Making” was done as the change of “T”, which can
be analogous to what System Engineers call “Internal State”. This
may be understood as “Thinking/Feeling Habit”, which affects
linkage between “E” to “A”.
The Loop of communication changes “T” part. It is like a
“Computer Virus” which comes into computer system as if “input
data”, but changes the “software” inside. As “signals”, computers
cannot distinguish the sneaking “program affecters” from “data”
inputs that are meant merely be processed by the “program”
(internal state). In the neuro-psychological term, “T” is
something like an “Emotional State”, if not “Mind” itself.
(3.1) [We might take a Hard-nosed Engineering way of saying
things to say “Mind” is a Nickname for the
Dynamics/Function/or Phenomenon of what goes on in the link
between “E” to “A”. It is not necessary that the “named”
exist as an identifiable object. We use the word “Mind” in
the same sense as Physicists use words like “Gravity”.
Gravity is a Phenomenon/Dynamics, not an object. Or,
“Rainbow” may be a better example. “Rainbow” is what we
see, not an object.]
It so happened that the “program” is a bit more “stable”
than “input data” (sensations, stimuli) and stays in the memory.
Some memories are in terms of “metabolic” dynamics, and they can
be made quasi-permanent. If that happens, they can be transmitted
to the next generation. That is the role of Love Making in the
Learning. In a simplistic picture, the process looks like the one
The scheme works very well. Then why do we humans need
I think it is for “social” interactions, co-operative or
exploitive. A picture of “Exploitation” looks like:
The Co-operation may be depicted as the next picture;
4. We note that both “Exploitation” and “Co-operation” are
difficult, if the “Beings” have to communicate through “A”
(Action) channel alone. It is like talking through
“Body Language”. In a sense, “Actions” (Body Language) are
“honest”. But it takes up too much Energy to communicate
Information. You might appreciate this “Energy Cost” by imagining
our buying and selling through a strict “Exchange of latter with
Matter” alone. It is true that our Symbolic Exchange Media called
“Money” also makes so much room for “manipulations”, if not
“deceits”, “betrayals”, “treacheries”, “frauds” etc. But if you
are to shop around town with tons of Potatoes on your back, you
would say the exchange is not worth the trouble.
That “Speech” can be misused and abused for dishonest
purposes is a problem over which we are concerned. But on the
other hand, we can hardly help each other without talking. What
do you think young lovers do, if there is “sweet language to
talk”? They may have to “club” the desired mate and drag him or
her to their cave. You, faced with a potential mate who is
breathing fire like a dragon, cannot say that you “wish to know
him/her better, before going into a heavier relation”. As it is,
such situations are difficult enough even with talking-language.
In Learning, it is necessary that one has to risk
“mistakes”. In such a situation, Action (Body) language is too
heavy-handed and the damages are often irreversible. So we need
to have some means of doing “As If”. Without the room for
Imagination, our Creativity cannot function. And without
Creativity, we cannot learn — though we can Copy —.
In social scale Negotiations, we have to exchange what we
imagine, dream, or desire, as “possibilities” or “potentials”.
They are not expressible in terms of “Concrete Objects”. Our
language lets us imagine what is not existing. If you call that
“Dishonest”, that may well be the case. But what are you going to
do about the “Future”? The “Future” is what is not existing now.
And without your imagination of the Future, there can be no such
thing as “Will”.
Interestingly, one who does not have a “Will” is the most