"It's Only Words...

...but words are all I have to take your heart away."  So goes the Bee Gees song.  But is language really all we have?  In the 20th century a number of thinkers considered that language was the only thing that separated humanity from the animals.  However, since that time we have taught apes sign language.  And we have studied the natural language of many animals, including prairie dogs (Really, prairie dogs? Yep. Just check this out).

But whether animals have language or not, the question remains: is language what makes us think?  If we didn't have language, would we be able to communicate?  Could we warn, "A flood is coming" if we didn't have words?

Certainly Stan Brakhage doesn't think so.  He created many abstract shorts in order to communicate without language, or without normal narrative.

Of course, the question remains as to whether Stan communicates anything.

But we don't have to go as far as abstract to reach for communication without words.  We don't need words to understand this film by Buster Keaton:

On the other hand, we can say that to take language away from a world built with language is disingenuous. Without language, there couldn't be a police force, nor need for a fence, nor buildings to run around-- let alone movie cameras or actors.  To make that world built on language and make it silent doesn't mean that language isn't involved.

A recent film, Tree of Life, uses many metaphorical images to communicate it's theme of Grace and Nature. But without understanding the ideas of Grace and Nature (and perhaps having those specific terms defined for us) the visual metaphors don't make any sense.

Perhaps without language our society wouldn't be as complex as it is.  But without language can we really say that we have no thought at all?  Or is language only necessary for communication?  Is there really thought without communicating with others?  Just because most of our thoughts are derived from the internet, does that mean that there is not thought without the internet?  Given the fact that we live in a world filled with language, can we even answer this question?

Or is language just one tool of communication?  Are pictures really the same as language?  But don't they still communicate?  Without any language, without ever having language, doesn't this picture communicate something?:

And what about people who don't share the same language?  Can't they communicate with each other without understanding a single comprehensible word?  What about non-verbal communication, some of which is universal?  A smile always means the same thing, although there are a variety of smiles.  Again, this isn't as complex as language can give, but isn't it communication?

One last thing:  Do words communicate more than we know?  Our word for "compassion" comes from the Latin, but because of the inclusion of the word "passion" communicates strong feeling, not objectivity, although the word doesn't necessarily communicate a concept that includes deep feeling.  Wouldn't we get a different meaning from the Greek word for "compassion", splakchna?  It comes from a Greek word which originally meant "bowels".  It also implies a deep feeling, but perhaps a different kind of deep feeling?

Just how deeply does language effect our thinking?  Do English-only speakers think differently than Chinese-only thinkers, simply because different languages are involved?  If so, how could they communicate, even with a translator?  Wouldn't that mean that an interpreter would have to be more than a translator of words, but of culture and of values-- the meaning of the terms in a different mindset, not just a one-for-one meaning?

What is Religion?

One of the most interesting turns in religion in the last few decades is committed religious people rejecting "religion".  They will say "I have a relationship, not religion" or "religion is man seeking God, Christianity is God seeking man." or "I'm not religious, I'm spiritual."  Aren't they redefining what religion is?  Isn't religion any of thousands of ways to connect with or appease a god or spirit world?  What actually is religion?

Perhaps some think that religion relates only to ritual, the repeating of certain words or actions on a regular basis to appease the spirit world.  Certainly primitive religion is pure ritual with stories to explain the meaning of the actions. Perhaps that is what they are rejecting.  But isn't life filled with positive ritual?  We brush our teeth every day, we go to bed at the same time, we have little habits with our significant other.  Since our lives our filled with ritual, doesn't it seem natural that our religious life is filled with ritual?  Even the least ritualistic have rituals they enact. Those who speak in tongues, often repeat the same sound phrases.  Those who pray often repeat the same words.  Those who sing new songs also sing the old ones.  Is it possible to escape ritual in religion?  But in this way, ritual isn't a very significant concept in religion because ritual is a normal part of life.

Religion can also be seen as action without intent.  Religious people often have a problem with saying they believe one thing but their actions show another.  So perhaps these religious people are rejecting hypocrisy.  To a certain degree, however, hypocrisy is simply lack of awareness.  We all state a reason for one action, but our actions show we are doing it for another.  Or our actions have mixed motivations.  Hypocrisy is a part of life because we are often unaware of our own motivations-- a careful analysis from the outside might show more clearly why we do something rather than internal consideration.  If hypocrisy is a part of life, then hypocrisy is a part of religion, as it is in our family, in our marriages and in our workplace.

Some would reject "organized" religion, or spirituality with a hierarchy, separations of insiders and outsiders, corporate worship, and group dynamics.  They consider their spirituality to be personal, and not shared with anyone else.  But I wonder about the separation between "spiritual" and "religious" on this basis.  If a person reads a holy book daily and interacts with the spirit world regularly, and allows such interactions to effect one's life, isn't that a "religious" person?

The very idea of religion is difficult to pin down.  Although most people consider religion to have to do with a  god or gods, many "religions" are closer to philosophies, like many forms of Buddhism.  Most religions have an authority that they depend on, but many religious people are guided by their own personal spirituality without a holy book or leader.  Religion usually includes the belief of unseen personal spirits, but many religions hold these spirits to be insignificant for their daily life.  In the end, what is the core of religion?  What does a religion actually consist of?  When we define "religion" we usually can find a religion that is an exception to that definition.

In a sense, this question relates to a question about words in general.  A word like "religion" is messy, as clear as the ocean, as distinct as a fuzzy photo. In some contexts, it has a clear meaning, but if the context is vague, then the meaning of the word is vague.  I think we need to remember that words aren't scalpels, but chameleons.