Language as a sign of alienation

Just to be clear, I’m not personally claiming these views. I’m presenting the perspective of the American author John Zerzan, a philosopher and anarchist. Zerzan argues that human civilization was essentially a mistake, and he identifies time and language as the primary drivers behind humanity's alienation from nature.

"According to Lévy-Bruhl, Durkheim, and others, the main qualitative difference between a 'primitive mind' and our own is that in primitive people, there is no separation during the moment of experience; 'the savage mind totalizes,' as Lévi-Strauss put it. Consequently, we have long been taught that this primal unity was destined to fail—that alienation is an inherent part of being human, and that consciousness itself depends on it.
Just as objectified time was considered essential for consciousness—Hegel referred to this as 'necessary alienation'—nearly the same argument has been made regarding language, which is also a flawed assumption. Language can rightly be viewed as a fundamental ideology, perhaps representing a separation from the natural world just as profound as the emergence of independent time. And if timelessness dissolves the gap between spontaneity and consciousness, perhaps a state without language is equally necessary.
Adorno wrote in Minima Moralia: 'For happiness, as for truth: we do not have it, but we are in it.' This could be a perfect description of the human species before the arrival of time and language—before the divisions and distances that destroyed authenticity. Language is the core theme of this inquiry, examined in its most virulent form. Our Nietzschean fragment introduces his central perspective: 'words dilute and brutalize; words depersonalize; words strangely make the ordinary seem common.'

"In this sense, speaking in terms of structure, it is obvious that 'freedom of speech' does not exist; grammar acts as an invisible 'control of thought' within our unseen prison. Through language, we have already adapted ourselves to a world devoid of freedom.
Objectification—the tendency to perceive concepts as if they were perceived directly, and to treat concepts as if they were physical objects—is the foundation of both language and ideology. Language represents the objectification of one's own experiences, causing the mind to dismantle them into parts that can be manipulated like objects through the use of concepts. Horkheimer pointed out that ideology is shaped more by who people are—mentally constrained and entirely dependent on the connections offered to them—than by what they believe. In a statement that applies just as accurately to language as it does to ideology, he added that people experience everything solely within a conventional web of concepts.
It is often claimed that objectification is necessary for mental functioning; that by creating concepts—which, admittedly, can be confused with actual life relations and qualities—we manage to resolve almost unbearable states when one experience is compared to another.
Regarding this distancing from experience, Cassirer noted: 'It seems that physical reality diminishes in proportion to the growth of symbolic activity.' Representation and uniformity begin with language, reminding us of the Heideggerian claim that something extraordinarily important was lost along with the rise of civilization."

This is such an interesting topic. Sociolinguistics also suggests that language acts as a sort of mental prison. Still, trying to grasp a pre-linguistic state feels nearly impossible, unless you're perhaps looking into some pretty intense entheogens. 😁

I’m particularly drawn to the idea of timelessness serving as the bridge between pure spontaneity and conscious thought. I'd love to hear if anyone here knows a bit more about that concept.

Joseph Bailey41 said:This is such an interesting topic. Sociolinguistics also suggests that language acts as a sort of mental prison. Still, trying to grasp a pre-linguistic state feels nearly impossible, unless you're perhaps looking into some pretty intense entheogens. 😁

I’m particularly drawn to the idea of timelessness serving as the bridge between pure spontaneity and conscious thought. I'd love to hear if anyone here knows a bit more about that concept.

He talks about timelessness as a liberation from "clock time," which is obviously essential for a civilized society (before civilization, in that sense, time didn't really exist). He just adds that wordlessness—some sort of primal, direct form of communication—is also necessary.

"When I scan the news, listen to the radio, or overhear conversations in a coffee shop, I feel an increasing sense of revulsion—even disgust—at how repetitive our language has become. It’s always the same tired phrases, the same empty platitudes, and the same recycled metaphors being written and spoken. The worst part is when I catch myself doing it too, realizing that my own speech has fallen into those exact same patterns. These words have been used so many millions of times that they feel utterly worn out and neglected. Do they even hold any actual meaning anymore? Of course, the exchange of words still functions; people react to them, laugh, cry, change their political allegiances, or a waiter brings over your coffee. But that isn't the point. The real question is: Are these words still expressions of thought? Or are they merely functional vocalizations designed to nudge people back and forth because the etched grooves of habit are constantly being reinforced?" /.../
Words ought to be flawless, like polished marble or as pure as the tones in a Bachian partita, which reduces everything that is not itself into perfect silence."
(From "Night Train to Lisbon", P. Mercier)

It’s actually pretty interesting when you think about it; I’m going to toss in a few passages from a text I somehow managed to burn into my memory for some reason.

http://www.thenewyoga.org/Use%20and%20Abuse.pdf

Like awareness, language is no ‘thing’. For though IT finds expression in The ‘
spoken and written word, language as such is not itself any ‘object’. Nor do words themselves, as
‘signifiers’ merely denote or represent specific objects or ‘signifieds’. The meaning of language does
not lie in referring to things but in ‘deferring’ meaning. Thus even in The most seemingly commonplace of everyday verbal interactions between People
, and despite their apparent reference to
everyday things and events, we can never pin down ‘in’ words what it is that people are saying to one
another – as subjects - through their words, whatever these words seem to be referring to or ‘about’.
Even in just referring to and talking about ourselves we are effectively using this ‘subject’ word ‘I’ to
objectify ourselves – thus forever deferring expression of our silent, subjective awareness of self.

Language automatically bars and defers direct expression of the self, subject or ‘I’ that is speaking -
‘the speaking self’ – because the spoken self or “I” is one that is spoken about and thus constantly
objectified through language itself. It is because of this that the unspoken awareness or subjectivity of
the individual is forced to seek expression in other ways - not through what they say about themselves,
‘in’ words but through what the words they choose say about them. For as Freud well recognised, our
every choice of words can say more about us than we intend or mean to say through it.
In Lacan ’s linguistic reinterpretation of and ‘return’ to Freud, it is through language – something that
is not our private property but something shared with others - that we are prevented from directly
expressing ourselves, but bound, as if by an iron law, to constantly construct and reconstruct our sense
of self or subjectivity through our very acts of speech. In The very Act of speaking about ourselves using The Word that ara All shared social constructs
, we deny direct expression to the private self that
is doing the speaking.

Some people argue that the issue isn't actually the language itself, but rather the invention of writing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Al...us_the_Goddess

I'm not really one to sit down and pore over stuff like this, but I figured I'd share it here in case anyone else finds this whole debate interesting.

Maybe the internet’s actually more to blame than the letter itself?