wCHAP.25a

(9/16/98)

CHAPTER XXV - A

A UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE AND THE SCIENCE OF RELIGION

However, this chapter has another point to raise beyond their works. That question is, What if all people could speak to and be understood by each other? Wouldn't this vastly improve the quality of everyone's life and greatly increase the likelihood of attaining every positive goal for which we yearn? If we had a universal language the foregoing could be achieved if every person knew only two languages. Although this issue has been discussed for hundreds of years we have not moved significantly toward its resolution. Once, Latin was the lingua universalis of the educated, elite of the Western world, but it was gradually displaced by national tongues. However, out of the need to be more widely understood, French became popular in diplomatic circles. Later, German became important in the area of science. Now, English is the leading tongue throughout the world. Russian will eventually become significant as will Chinese, Japanese, and Spanish. Only a universal, non-national language will allow a large body of knowledge to remain easily available to all people in spite of shifts in the centers of power. Of course as computer programs are developed to automatically translate written and spoken language this becomes less important.

Should an artificial language be created? It's possible that by accident and through thousands of years of experience modern languages are the best that a language can be. However, it seems more likely to me that a whole different approach might be taken to creating a language that makes the best use possible of the human brain. Perhaps through use of intellect and empirical study, a vastly superior language could be developed. I think the matter deserves to be given some study.

However, there are others who take an opposite point of view to the ideas of an invented language. Below are words from a linguist critical of the above suggested goal[1].

"Is it possible to have a world language? ...a few facts must be obvious. Any world language must be a living language... Efforts to devise universal languages which could be adopted without prejudice and learned without trouble -- languages like Esperanto -- represent a noble intent combined with an essential ignorance of what language is and how it works."

Does the above quote go to the heart of the matter? I hope not. It seems that there would be many advantages in adopting a scientifically developed language. First, an artificial language might encounter less resistance to its adoption due to nationalistic feelings. Also, it would not need to change as centers of power shift.

Also, it can start from the beginning. It can thus avoid all the complexities, weaknesses, and mistakes of any present language. Though of course, it will benefit by all that has produced present languages. According to modern scientists of language the spoken word is basically irrelevant to thinking since people think in terms of non-language symbols. However, it's not clear to me that these scientists have in fact yet mastered all their theories. What is the relationship between words and thoughts? If people think in terms of images -- holistic entities -- what role do words perform in creating those images?

If one's language is in any way involved in their thinking it would seem desirable that a language be devised to enhance thinking. If a new language were to be developed, perhaps, it could be assembled by a group of experts[2]. A Foundation employing anthropologists, psychologists, linguists, and many others might be set up. Their aim might be to develop a language which makes as much use of the brain as possible, recognizes the individual as having supreme value, and encourages the creation of a Wise Community. This foundation might be financed by private contributions (including funds from other foundations) and organized by some outstanding university. (One that is to the humanities what the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton is to the physical sciences.) It could keep the world posted on its progress, problems, solutions, etc. It could request help from other groups when it ran into a very difficult problem and utilize their findings where possible. It could tackle the problem over a period of years and present what it came up with to the world not as the answer, and something which must be accepted, but merely as what it was, a work of great potential importance to the world.

If this language turned out to be satisfactory, it should than be accepted by all teaching groups (associated with CPASRs -- Centers for the Practical Application of the Science of Religion) as a second language up to college level and thereafter exclusively. The Knowledge Bank (see Chapter XIX), a computer bank for universal use, might use it exclusively. Also, all international meetings associated with a Science of Religion or a Religion of Wisdom might use it. Although, it could be used as necessary at local group meetings, all important records should be kept in it.

"Earth's inhabitants speak some 6,000 different languages. But within the next century, 90 percent or more of that linguistic diversity -- all but 250 to 600 languages -- will probably disappear, says Michael E. Krauss, director of the University of Alaska's Native Language Center in Fairbanks."[3]

RESPONSE: It would seem obvious that everything possible should be done to document all aspects of each of these languages. Every language must have some important truth to teach about language. But when we get to the next level, then an important question is raised. Should special efforts be undertaken to ensure that as many of these languages as possible be saved along with the cultures that use them? Should every culture be preserved? What is our goal? Cultural relativity says each culture is of equal merit. Each is worthy of preservation.

I raise a different question. How can each existing culture be transformed into a Wise Community made up of Wise Persons. This is the only worthy goal.