Introduction

Jon Hellevig
Articles, Lectures
and presentations

Publications
Book reviews
Blog
Contact

Legal Services in Russia
Business Administration
Outsourcing in Russia

Market Research in Russia
Accounting Services in Russia
Recruitment and HR services
in Russia

Corporate Trainings in Russia

Social Practices and
Interpretation of Feelings

Speech and Language
Speech vs. Language
Language - Interpretation of
Feelings

Evolution of Speech
Memory
Mind and Consciousness
A Study of Expressions and
Interpretations

Homeostasis
Language as Language
Practices

Meaning
Mental Processes
Materialism Reinterpreted -
New Dualism

Biological Paradigm
What is art!
Competitionism
Wittgenstein
Things
Perceptions
Competition
Competitive Method
Empiricism,
Intuition and a priori

Infinite Variances
Economics
Language-games
Logic
Mathematics
Truth
Law
Competitive Justice
Rule-by-Justice
Moral
Conceptual Method of Science
Words
Russia
European Union
Mottos and quotes

 
Words, Immaterial Perceptual Abstractions

The above considerations remind us that language, words and all the other hypothetical elements of language (morphemes, grammar, syntax, etc) are also nothing but perceptual abstractions - they do not exist; they are no things; they are no material entities. In this book, I point out - for some peculiar reason it seems that nobody has done that before me - that only things can exist, and what are things, they are substances that we must be able to identify in terms of mass and energy. We are taught already in basic physics that matter is to be defined as any kind of mass-energy that moves with velocities less than the velocity of light (whereas radiant energy moves at the velocity of light; Pauling General Chemistry, 2003: 1-3). This is also expressed by Einstein's famous equation E = mc2 (E standing for energy, m for mass and c the velocity of light). - It is about time that we recognize the principle of relativity also in social sciences. Language, words, and all the hypothetical linguistic particles do not manifest mass and energy and therefore they do not exist. And as they do not exist, then they cannot possibly display any kind of characteristic features either, nor may they be analyzed in any fashion without reference to contexts where they have been expressed. And therefore we have to stop doing social sciences on the analogy of natural sciences. Written texts and the abstract perceptions we form of speech expressions merely represent traces of interpretation of feelings that occur as momentary reflections in the mental processes of human beings.

In reference to the physical definitions of matter, I want to raise a hypothesis on how the immateriality of cognitive reflections could be explained. I remind that thoughts represent reflections of mental processes - or more correctly thoughts represent merely fleeting reflections of a potentially infinite variance of mental processes. Bearing this in mind, I would like to think that a physicist could in principle explain these cognitive reflections in terms of mass and energy. Most probably the physical explanation would point to such a gradual loss of energy on the border of the mental process - in relation to the particular infinitely small sub-process presently reflected in consciousness - that the resulting cognitive reflection could be considered immaterial.



Click here to download free PDF file



Click here to download free PDF file



Click here to download free PDF file



Click here to download free PDF file
© 2017 Jon Hellevig