Sushi, I strongly disagree with your use of the word outline, my post is in paragraph form. Your notion of substance is rather vague, I profoundly doubt your ability to articulate exactly what kind of content would satisfy you. I'm disappointed, I expected more precision. lol j/k

Sushi, your exasperation is funny. I should say that the original post is a short excerpt from a single chapter in a more than three hundred page book I'm writing. My post lacks quite a lot of context. The use of terms may make minimal sense to someone who hasn't read what precedes, but I thought it might still get some analysis going.

Let's see if I can roughly clarify the basic idea. At first human language was blurbing until you had satisfied affect and rudimentary functional needs. Then human functioning became more technological and conceptually sophisticated. Though we don't have indisputable proof, this development of technical practice probably coincides with increased application of mathematical intuition in structural proportioning, measuring and counting. For the human mind, reality began transforming from an effect of animate entities and their wills, the prehistoric belief in spiritual essences as evinced by mythical narrative, to a world of disanimate objects, materialistic causality with a degree of inert subordination to human purpose. Humans attempted to express these new materialistic notions with natural language, which altered speech so that it became more precise, detailed description of the complex properties of objects rather than either blurbs, basic manners, crude labeling, statements of extremely simple causality, impressing the girls, or begging Zeus to spare you. Once writing became phonetic, a form of speech, the first literature was epic narrative, symbolic of a culture's values and steeped in ancient myth, Homer's Illiad is a good example. Eventually, meticulous reflections performed by increasingly philosophical authors advanced technicalizing common language into a specialized discourse, the first terminologically innovative and then academic discussions of the essential principles that make material objects and their behaviors predictable. This created a tension with spiritual traditions, and philosophers have perennially tried to harmonize concepts of matter and soul, ever since early antiquity, stretching language while seeking to make it work as an account of total reality, as a synthesis of technological, naturalistic, spiritual and ontological concepts.

If we can say how to do it, we can do it if we really want to, but we are constrained to the instinctual, unconscious, rational, fulfilling and not self-defeating, that's what I mean. We're not so good at the not self-defeating part.

Hopefully that makes more sense.

Without language and academic discourse there is no cumulative or deconstructive, rational history and we're in a dark age.

There's no point in inventing an A.I. that takes over humanity, we should optimize humanity instead. The irrationality induced freakouts of humans aren't any worse than an uncertainty induced freakout by a maxed-out A.I. Human enlightenment is better than any system of arbitrary, myopic, unrealistic rules to which A.I. can obligate the planet's future. I'm not kissing A.I.'s virtual butt as it munches the constitution and enslaves the species. lol

If you guys want to get a better idea of where I'm coming from, give my blog a read at medium.com/@enrique5043 or search Eric Wizenhizen to find my page. Hope its not obtrusive to promote, thought it might lead to some good discussion either at this site or mine. If you want to comment on any of my blog posts, go for it!

Trying to figure out from a historical angle how culture, scientific theory, technical language and natural language intersect. Got some ideas from a well-educated friend, but I don't have any background in linguistics to talk about it in the formal terminology, been developing my own philosophical terms. My current viewpoint probably comes from a mixture of Nietzsche, Jung, Chomsky, Saussure, and Darwinian theory of evolution. As far as the current paradigm, don't have any knowledge of that area.