Origins and
unity
Conceptual constructs
or inventions, like some other types of construction and invention, can
also be described as being discoveries of things, or of how to do
things/ways to do things that are at least to some degree based on
discoveries about ourselves/others/things/
Conceptual discoveries
are of ways to think and communicate, and may be made up of some
combination of what we know, believe and want. Some concepts are
sufficiently informed by (sufficiently the result of/made up of)
knowledge to be correct/useful for expressing the truth in themselves
or according to some criterion. Some are not sufficiently informed to
do so, due to having insufficient knowledge available and/or due to
misperceptions or false information (misinformation/
Because error or
misunderstanding can occur when we conceptualize is not a reason to
consistently doubt the usefulness of all concepts or any concept in
particular - it is a reason to study and to think around subjects, to
ask questions about meaning and to withhold decisions/judgments as far
as possible until there is sufficient evidence for us to be sure.
After many
discoveries, the steam engine was invented - following this people
discovered how it could be used, and further inventions and discoveries
ensued. Humans were not invented, they evolved, but from the beginning
of consciousness and culture, discovery and invention have taken part
in the creation of concepts. Consciousness means that we discover
(become conscious of) ourselves and our situation; and can in certain
respects invent ourselves, changing by a process of learning (using
concepts) and there by also changing our conditions in certain
respects.
The points here are: 1) Invention and discovery occur together in a process of development. Invention occurs as part of discovery and discovery occurs as part of invention; and discovery allows for/stimulates further invention and invention allows for/stimulates further discovery. 2) Probably because if this synchronicity, I would guess, 'discovery' and 'invention' sometimes overlap in meaning. We agree that we discover what is there and we discover what it does, but discovering what it is possible to do with it is also sometimes referred to as invention. In other words, when we do refer to something as an invention we should not then forget all the discovery that has gone into this.
Hence the point that I am getting to is that life evolves as part of
reality, responding to it, and developing to sense it. As consciousness
and culture develop (also as part of reality), this is also due to
sensing and responding to reality. [And there is a lot more to
reality than a few hundreds years of capitalism - or a few thousand -
depending on how you define it. There was a lot went on before and a
lot has been and is going on as well as.] Language and concepts have
generally been formed by sensing and responding to evidence and due
what is functional for expressing facts.
Some constructs may be false, and some less accurate/efficient for
knowing and relating the truth of the mater than others, or there may
be disagreements about meaning and further refinement may be needed.
But whatever concepts and language we have are produced by reality, are
real, interact with the rest of reality, are integral to our existing
conceptions and communications of reality, and to the extent that they
are inaccurate about reality they still take part in the ongoing
process of learning - about reality. In other words truth is the
touchstone.
Even the expression of an erroneous belief expresses the reality
of the erroneous belief, whether we recognize the belief as
erroneous or not. Although a belief may be false, when a person
expresses it as true, believing it to be true, [i.e. they inadvertently
lie] they are still telling the truth about what they believe. - Also,
expression of the belief generally makes it easier to identify the
error, so that learning about the truth can occur. - And when a person
expresses an erroneous belief as true, but believing it to be false
[i.e. they, to some degree, deliberately lie], there is still truth
there to be understood by someone sufficiently wise to the situation.
For example, that for some reason the person thinks that they have
to lie - however much this is denied.
Despite the desire
which we perhaps all feel sometimes to lie, I believe that concepts and
language together have fundamentally been formed by finding out
what works for understanding and telling the truth; for communicating
efficiently and accurately about existence and experience; for
describing and developing our life. Considering survival
imperatives it stands to reason - although a limited amount of
knowledge can be dangerous - that from the beginning, awareness of
reality gives an advantage overall. Along with this, language as a
means of discovering truth/reality by thought, expression, questions
and discussion, has developed as it has in human society because
humans are social animals.
Language arises for practical use. Centrally formative to human
language are its uses for nurturing, bonding, healing, cooperation for
survival and enhancement of living conditions, and for exploring
consciousness
as a joy in itself (aesthetic enjoyment), all of which
interrelate. Of course language has also had uses for deception and
what we might call abusive control. Deception may have originally
occurred as a shared device for tricking and evading predators or to
trick prey into being caught for instance, but interestingly this only
works because of the shared known basis of truth.
Deception used for oppressive dominance within or between groups (or as
part of a response to it) may also function in relation to some known
basis of truth, shared or not. Also there can be varying degrees of
awareness of being deceptive, down to zero, i.e. deception can occur
without deception being intended (mistakes). Consciousness of at least
some truth necessarily precedes a deliberate lie, but a deliberate lie
can be told in the context of being mistaken about/oblivious to the
wider truth. It may be (and I believe is) the case that some lack of
awareness always accompanies oppressive assertions of power over
others. Such behaviour, I would suggest is at least in part due to a
lack of understanding of the self, others and of a different way of
doing things. In the larger sense then it is a phase of learning
about the truth.
So I am not suggesting that no conceptual mistakes at all have occurred
during the making of language - which is an ongoing process; but that
the origins of concepts (being part of reality and a response to
reality), and the processes of learning about reality that are bound to
occur, have been sufficiently formative of the structure of language
that it provides for us to sort out and correct mistakes in itself and
in our ways of conceptualizing.
The word 'science' has come from a Latin word meaning 'know', the more
ancient root of which means 'cut, take apart' (discovery?) and
the word 'art' has the connotation 'know how' and the meaning of the
root is 'fit together' (invention/construction?). Science and
art have gradually diversified and become formalized in certain ways.
As a result there is a tendency to think of science and art in general
as separate from each other. This is a misconception or misrepresentation
of the truth which is detrimental to the comprehensive or holistic
understanding which is needed for a sufficient understanding of
particulars as well as the whole.
It is interesting to speculate about how much this separation may have
been caused by capitalism, perhaps due to specialization for profit
making industry and ideological/cultural control, and how much it is
just a danger of increasing realms of study and expertise. The result
has anyway been a certain amount of terminological alienation from each
other of cultural endeavors, and a separating out of human abilities
into different categories. Different fields of study actually often
merge into each other over large areas, interrelate, and require skills
that are generally thought of as scientific as well as those that are
generally thought of as artistic. Physicists at the fore front of
discovery are usually intuitive and imaginative. The most skilful
fiction writers often do very thorough research, and have strong
analytic powers.
False impressions of separation, and other factors, such as the
presence of types of hierarchy will of course have influence in
language - but none of this has had such a profound affect that we
cannot use our language to question these things. Our language serves
well for explanation of the abusive exploitation of capitalism; for
formulating our desires and for demonstrating the possibility of a
different type of social organization. The concept of morality in
itself does not prevent/interfere with or even threaten this, but is
simply part of it, giving us the reasons to work for revolution.