Hi Josep, English is my first language. My point is that people need to be skilled in the use of language (their native language or a foreign language) to avoid incorrect knowledge being passed. Again, consider my example: "The bird came down from the sky." Forget about the duck. This sentence can mean ANY of the following: "The bluebird fluttered down." "The eagle swooped low." "The flamingo flapped down." "The seagull dove down." My point is that if one merely speaks in generalities, without clear language, miscommunication happens. This is not always intentional on the part of the speaker. Another example: "My boss is a big man." Does the speaker mean his boss is very TALL? Or that he is STRONG? Or that he is FAT? Or that he is HONORABLE? We don't know, because the ambiguous word "big" was chosen. When a speaker has a clear picture, he often forgets that the listener does NOT. We ASSUME that the listener will see what we see. But we need to take special care that we are clear: "My boss is overweight." That is clear. "My boss is built like a linebacker." That is clear. "My boss looks like a bodybuilder." That is clear. My point is that language only conveys correct knowledge if we are intentionally clear with our word choice. And that requires care and skill in the language spoken.

Here is a simple example: "The bird came down from the sky." Someone (Person A) may say this as the picture in his own mind is a bluebird fluttering its wings and landing on a green lawn. The LISTENER (Person B) may hear these words from Person A and picture a duck who has been shot, plummeting down into a pond, dead. BOTH of these mental pictures match the words "The bird came down from thy sky"! But clearly, a large communication problem has happened! It is always best to pair verbal language with observation, visual support ,or lots of questions and answers (e.g., "Tell me what you think I said, but use different words.")

We most certainly get knowledge without language. That is how babies learn. And we learn much in life through observation. Of course, our minds are opening up "language files" to describe what we observe. But we don't need them in order to understand. A simple version might trying to check the oil while a car is running. I remember the first time I did this. The car died. I put the cap back on and started the car. It was fine. Without language, I LEARNED that taking the cap off when the car was running caused it to die. However, much knowledge is conveyed through language. Language exists, essentially, for the purpose of mind reading. Person A has a mental picture or sensory memory and wants to get that picture/sensation into the brain of Person B. We use language, then, to transfer "images" between minds. Without language, the bulk of learning would have to be first-hand observation. With language, we can transfer learning VICARIOUSLY. That is, I observed or imagined something and can share MY experience with you, as if it were your own experience. This is a major support for taking the time to learn one's language (or a foreign language) WELL -- to be skilled in it. For wherever language leaves room for ambiguity, the images between minds become different. Arguments -- even wars -- start because of unclear language. [cont. below]

Silence.... ........................................................ It is the language of knowledge, e.g: Ramana Maharshi, he was in silence for 12 years. People from many countries came to him to clear their doubts, and he answered all without speaking anything. Another example is Budha

Erik is a bit of a philosopher but still needs some "cognitive" philosophy tools. if you read this, don't take it personal. i am not trying to put you down, just telling that it is a bit more complicated, or easier when you got the tools. example: if my knowledge of english is a bit ok, "to come down" , the bird means it took the action, if shot it would heve "fall down". probably, you may use this correctly in english, but you are using language ambiguosly, so your message is not apt to express a "knowledge", but a subjective perception. about the questioner.....you are not very clever.... no use in asking this or else. indians have enough philosophical heritage, so it is surprising you dont have even a small idea about this. sorry.