While on the topic of language, as recently brought up by Nick, I have spent some time reflecting on how it shapes our perception of the very concepts it attempts to describe. For one, consider the title of this blog. While we claim to be advocating evolved thought, are we really making any headway in doing so? Or, as the skeptics would likely prefer, are we just cloaking our feeble attempts with a hubristic title? If a change is in order, what should it entail? I invite comments from our readers on this particular linguistic dilemma.

On a more general note, improper use of language, whether intentional or not, can easily bias commonly held beliefs. This is, of course, an age old debating technique, especially in the context of controversial issues. Now I'm sure there are vast volumes of literature on the subject which I am yet to read but here is one amusing anecdote:

A few blocks from my apartment in Cambridge is the headquarters of a small high-tech firm named 'Predictive Networks'. At first glance, one would falsely assume, as I did, that they develop technology that responds retroactively to some phenomenon. In academic circles, the concept of a predictive network or the 'predictor' in a neural network has a well-defined meaning.

However, a cursory look at the website of the company reveals that they, in fact, make devices that snoop on people's TV watching habits! One can only hazard a guess as to what they proceed to use this information for.

Furthermore, and sadly, a quick web search of the phrase 'predictive network' yields an interminable slew of links to the business-related activities of this firm and its various cronies in the cable TV industry. One has to go to the third page of results to find something that even remotely approaches what a predictive network actually is. For the more curious reader, a good introductory reference on the subject can be found here:

http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~nd/surprise_96/journal/vol4/cs11/report.html

In any case, enjoy your respective evenings.

This latest missive from me comes shortly after my successful romp through history, modernity and chaos. Or: just a pretentious way of saying I recently took a trip to the US. Though I spent but just over a week south of the 49th, mine eyes were indeed opened.

Opened to the preponderance of language that permeates in Boston and New York.

Mine ears were opened to the idioms and dialects of "Valley Girl," "Frat Boy" and every other conceivable form of human species.

Prashant was "shocked" to hear me quickly pick up the language of the Bostonian mass transit system, quaintly called the "T" by locals. When I merely uttered, "Let's T it," the look of dismay on his face clearly showed that I had fully assimilated some semblence of local slang.

Likewise, after a few short days in New York, I quickly talked about riding the 6 uptown to the Met, and taking the 7 express to Main Street. To the uninitiated, this language may seem foreign, but makes perfect sense to those in the know.

All of this verbal spewage was sparked in part by an article I read in the New York Times Magazine (Sunday August 15) here: Mouthfuls, by William Grimes. (Viewing this piece requires FREE registration to the New York Times...and if you aren't already subscribed, do so now!)

Language is an important concept; it allows us to communicate the describable and attempt to decipher the indescribable. How many times have you floundered for a certain word, reduced to flubbering your tongue? How many times have you erased or crossed out a certain word because it's just not "right"?

Yet at the same time, language involves two of the most important senses we possess: sight and hearing. One unit of language has to be represented in both media; visually and aurally. Without one, the other is merely a whisper in the wind, merely the organization of curiously shaped objects.

Next time you read something, stop, take a step back, and marvel at the wonder that is language. The first step towards evolved thought is to recognize the power of language.

Class dismissed!