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

into “Logic”.

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

importance.

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

feel/think/speak.

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

2

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

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

mouth”.

“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

4

“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.]

5

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

below:

The scheme works very well. Then why do we humans need

“speech”?

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

6

“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

telling characteristic