Miévillians discussion
This topic is about
Embassytown
Embassytown Discussion
>
SECTION 2: Part One: Income
I think the Hosts are more isolated and vulnerable or fragile when communicating with other species. They are completely dependent on the Ambassadors for speaking with others, Some humans can understand their speech but cannot respond. The Hosts think on entirely different plane of existence that very few humans comprehend.I've been thinking that the Host's cut/turn mode of speech is like what goes on when I translate from english to another language in my head. Not all that sure that it relates to anything....yet anyway.
Annie wrote: "I think the Hosts are more isolated and vulnerable or fragile when communicating with other species. They are completely dependent on the Ambassadors for speaking with others, Some humans can under..."I agree. Not only are they unable to communicate with anyone else besides their own species and Ambassadors, they theoretically could very easily be deceived and tricked if the humans/humanoids wanted it to be so as the Hosts are unable to lie and thus interpret what others said as the truth unless it's crystal clear otherwise. Had their planet not been basically in the middle of space nowhere, or if their planet had something extremely valuable besides the biotechnology, they would have probably been reduced to nothing by those who can lie easily.
Annie wrote: "I've been thinking that the Host's cut/turn mode of speech is like what goes on when I translate from english to another language in my head. "
Are you saying that you imagine the translation both in English and another language at the same time? Because that sounds really fascinating, unless I'm completely misunderstanding you here.
Yes, when learning languages I think two languages at once maybe milli seconds apart. Eventually, with fluency, my thoughts are in the same language that I speak.
Annie wrote: "Yes, when learning languages I think two languages at once maybe milli seconds apart. Eventually, with fluency, my thoughts are in the same language that I speak."Annie, that's actually really fascinating. I can barely even imagine the ability to think almost simultaneously in two different languages. When I'm learning a language, I think in bits and pieces in both, but sequentially, not simultaneously.
"...delve into the Language of the Ariekei."Ahem: you know Avice would object to you calling the Hosts, "Ariekei"...
"How can they be sentient and not have symbolic language?" asks Scile.
I find Scile to be at best annoying, and at his worst really vile, yet he does continually ask good questions. Come to think of it, not at all unlike quite a few academics I've known. This is one of his good points. I don't think CM ever really answers the question: he wants each of his readers to come to their own conclusions. I personally think it's highly unlikely that you could ever have high intelligence without symbolism (possibly some low grade of sentience, though). You need symbols to graduate from concrete to abstract thought. Still, if it's possible, it's pretty reasonable to expect that such a species would be as un-understandable ("derstandable"?) as the Hosts.
I have trouble with the concept that there "needs to be a mind behind the words for the Hosts to understand speech". That presupposes that the Hosts have some way to detect sapience in creatures/objects that they are otherwise unable to communicate with. If you know that a creature is sentient, you should be able to devise a way to communicate something. In any case, I think Ehrsul does have a mind: CM calls the autom's software "turing ware", and I think she would certainly pass the Turing test. So perhaps the Hosts really just refuse to listen to anything that isn't biological.
I've only ever learned one language other than English, and learned it much the way I learned English, so there never was an issue of translation in the learning process. I learned to translate between English and German after actually learning to read and speak German.
Derek wrote: ""...delve into the Language of the Ariekei."Ahem: you know Avice would object to you calling the Hosts, "Ariekei"..."
To paraphrase Scile's colleagues, they are the Hosts only to Avice, not to us. But, honestly, I remember as the book progresses and all the craziness starts to happen, I noticed how CM switches from 'the Hosts' to 'the Ariekei' in their description, as the roles that each group play in the dynamics of Embassytown/Hosts relationships begin to alter.
"I personally think it's highly unlikely that you could ever have high intelligence without symbolism (possibly some low grade of sentience, though). You need symbols to graduate from concrete to abstract thought."
I'm with you on that. It seems that ability to think beyond the concrete would be essential to the development of higher-order thinking species - at least that's what it appears to be when we look at human development from early childhood to adolescence and finally to adulthood.
But then just the fact that the Hosts went out of their way to create similes and examples that they would be able to use in the future to express themselves was fascinating and baffling at the same time. How can they think of a simile to express somethign they need to say without apparently being able to conceive of something that does not already exist in the Language? It's like there is a hidden desire/capacity for abstract thought that is hidden deep down inside, beneath the constraints of the Language.
As for Ehrsul - it does seem to me that she has a mind; she surely is acting like she does. And here I think it all comes to the definition of mind that different people use. Clearly, Scile thought of her as nothing but machinery, and so he uses the knowledge that the Hosts can only understand something in their language as long as there is a mind behind it to subtly insult Ehrsul in front of Avice, as otherwise Ehrsul has perfect grasp of the Language - thus he reduces her once more to the status of the machine and not a thinking alive friend that Avice treats her as.
There may be something about it, however. CM notes that the Hosts are able to listen to the recorded Language - and so if they only listen to biological things it means that they are somehow able to discern over the recording that it is a biological creature saying the words.
Maybe what we think of as a mind when it comes to Ehrsul is just an imitation of such in a near-perfect way? Which, again, would just lead to the definition of what the mind is, and whether machines acting as if they have one actually do have it or whether they just mastered the deception of acting as though they have it. All this makes me think back to reading Silently and Very Fast by Catherynne M. Valente - a book that touched upon the question of mind and humanity in machines.
Nataliya wrote: "Clearly, Scile thought of her as nothing but machinery"I have wondered how much of this is a recapitulation of how human societies have consistently rated some minorites as not-people. Even Avice, willing to call Ehrsul her friend, does not seem willing (at this point) to consider her a "person". Silently and Very Fast is almost the opposite. Nobody doubts for a moment that Elefsis is an autonomous thinking being: and consequently most people are terrified of it.
Nataliya wrote: "Clearly, Scile thought of her as nothing but machinery"
I agree with Scile on this point. I picked up the reference to turingware earlier today, interesting (to me) I missed it the first time I read the book. So is CM questioning, or possibly poking fun at the concept of the turing test?
On the other hand Hosts don't apparently recognise sentience in humans until they exhibit a twinned identity of form and mind. Would it be going out on a limb to wonder if one of the themes in Embassy is questioning the prevalent weltanschauung on the nature of consciousness?
Reflecting on the earlier use of German references - is it possible the idea for Language (two connected sounds) has its roots in the use of agglutination in that (and other) languages?
I agree with Scile on this point. I picked up the reference to turingware earlier today, interesting (to me) I missed it the first time I read the book. So is CM questioning, or possibly poking fun at the concept of the turing test?
On the other hand Hosts don't apparently recognise sentience in humans until they exhibit a twinned identity of form and mind. Would it be going out on a limb to wonder if one of the themes in Embassy is questioning the prevalent weltanschauung on the nature of consciousness?
Reflecting on the earlier use of German references - is it possible the idea for Language (two connected sounds) has its roots in the use of agglutination in that (and other) languages?
Graeme wrote: "Nataliya wrote: "Clearly, Scile thought of her as nothing but machinery"I agree with Scile on this point. I picked up the reference to turingware earlier today, interesting (to me) I missed it th..."
I missed the turingware reference as well on my first read, and on my second read until now - when I read it, I had this little voice in the back of my head telling me that it's significant, but I just did not grasp why until this discussion.
Nice integration of German with 'weltanschauung' here! And yes, in a way I think it definitely can question our worldview by presenting us with the creatures, in order to even try to understand whom we need to really make our minds go to the uncomfortable places outside of our way of viewing the world.
It seems that the rigidity of their thinking so circumscribed by their Language norms prevents the Hosts from realizing that there are life forms different than those they are accustomed to (the twinned minds that you refer to). Lack of symbolism --> deficiency of imagination --> lack of ability to better understand the unknown?
Derek wrote: " In any case, I think Ehrsul does have a mind: CM calls the autom's software "turing ware", and I think she would certainly pass the Turing test."
From what I understand, Turing test is to determine resemblance to humanity and not actual mind itself - easy to look at it this way since the only intelligent minds we are familiar with outside of our imaginations are those of humans. Ehrsul's behavior definitely resembles that of humans - but does that mean that she has a mind of her (its?) own?
It's interesting to look at Scile's treatment of Ehrsul as an analogy to how minorities are treated, as you;re suggesting. There are actually other minorities in Embassytown - and Avice does mention that they are the ones not invited to the Staff parties and such. But Ehrsul - she is in that transition zone of people viewing her as something in between a tool (like the rest of the automa are) and a living creature. I can easily think of the examples in history when such transition in thinking was becoming necessary for the mainstream.
Graeme wrote: " So is CM questioning, or possibly poking fun at the concept of the turing test?"No, I don't think so. He calls it turingware specifically to say "this is software that passes the Turing test". Without at any point actually saying that that is sufficient to make the autom a "person" :)
"Reflecting on the earlier use of German references - is it possible the idea for Language (two connected sounds) has its roots in the use of agglutination in that (and other) languages?"
Sorry, I do understand a bit about agglutination but I thought no Indo-European language was agglutinative, but that's really too deep a question for me! [wikipedia says Persian and Armenian are considered, by some, agglutinative - but no others]
Nataliya wrote: "From what I understand, Turing test is to determine resemblance to humanity and not actual mind itself..."
No, this is my field of expertise. The point of the Turing test is that if you can't tell the difference, any distinction you make between "human" and "machine" is artificial. You must treat any entity that passes the Turing test as a person, because its mind is, in no real way, different from any entity you already recognize as a person. It doesn't say that such an entity does have a mind, but that you cannot possibly say that it doesn't. Now, this is a test devised by somebody who could spend hours writing equations to prove simularity is not the same as identity...
Anyway, Turing's hypothesis was that if an entity could pass his test, it had to be considered "human", but that doesn't mean that entities incapable of passing the test should not be considered intelligent, or even "persons".
@ Derek - thanks for the explanation of the Turing test. I think I was missing some of its subtleties. I guess I got stuck at the idea that we tend to equate mind and personhood; and while Ehrsul does appear to be a person to the reader Scile calls her actually having a mind into question, also approaching it from the mind=person angle, thus suggesting that she has neither. From your explanation, it seems that there's much more subtlety to this test and its interpretation than I was aware of.As for agglutination - I thought that German and even in a way English are to a slight degree agglutinative, even if not as much as many other languages. I'm only an amateur when it comes to linguistics, however.
I think I failed a kind of turing test with last posting :-p
Ok, when I read 'turingware' I interpreted CM's use of the term as ironic, particularly as ineffective on Hosts.
So much of the story seems to hinge on the idea that intentionality (the existence of mind or consciousness) is an essential pre-requisite for communicating with Hosts. Is CM simply using this as a device to set up an exploration of linguistic ideas? Is he alluding to something else?
The reason I am interested in this aspect of Embassytown is because on first reading I couldn't join the dots on Host psychology (lack of symbolic thinking for example). I was left wondering if I'd missed a clue somewhere.
Ok, when I read 'turingware' I interpreted CM's use of the term as ironic, particularly as ineffective on Hosts.
So much of the story seems to hinge on the idea that intentionality (the existence of mind or consciousness) is an essential pre-requisite for communicating with Hosts. Is CM simply using this as a device to set up an exploration of linguistic ideas? Is he alluding to something else?
The reason I am interested in this aspect of Embassytown is because on first reading I couldn't join the dots on Host psychology (lack of symbolic thinking for example). I was left wondering if I'd missed a clue somewhere.
63 CM quotes a "philosopher" on this page, without a citation. This is the full sentence from one translation:"At the same time the human voice can apprehend itself as the sounding of the soul itself, as the sound which the inner life has in its own nature for the expression of itself, an expression which it regulates directly."
From Hegel's "Lectures on Aesthetics: Part 3":
http://www.marxists.org/reference/arc...
@ Ian - thanks for the link. Given CM's background, so fitting that the link is to marxists. org!@ Graeme - I cannot 'join the dots' on the Host psychology either, but as I finish this reread I hope things will become clearer.
Nataliya wrote: "@ Ian - thanks for the link. Given CM's background, so fitting that the link is to marxists.org"Haha. Mieville is the pathway to Marx, and Marx is the pathway to Hegel.
Ian wrote: "63 CM quotes a "philosopher" on this page, without a citation. This is the full sentence from one translation:"Yay! One of the great benefits of GR group reads: there's always someone who'll recognize such a reference. References like that must be hard for authors - not citing the origin seems like plagiarism, but what would be the odds that anybody of the time could possibly remember who first said it?
Similarly, I'm reading Century Rain right now, and have been infuriated by many anachronisms, but I asked my wife a few minutes ago "Do you think they'll still be capitalizing 'Velcro' in 300 years?" But if you don't capitalize Velcro now you risk legal action from the manufacturer for damaging their trademark.
Derek wrote: "Similarly, I'm reading Century Rain right now, and have been infuriated by many anachronisms, but I asked my wife a few minutes ago "Do you think they'll still be capitalizing 'Velcro' in 300 years?"At least it's not "Velcro (R)" ;)
I'm just catching up on what a fascinating discussion you've had. Thanks everybody.Can I respond to some of the questions Nataliya raised about the Language of the Hosts.
I wonder whether semiotics might help to understand what CM is saying about their Language.
Please forgive me if I don't explain this correctly or adequately.
Let's use the word "dog" as an example.
The word is a sign or a signifier, and it signifies what society knows to be a dog. The social understanding of the concept relies on convention. But a "dog" could mean a whole lot of different types of dog, which are all within the convention. These "dogs" are all within the scope of the "signified".
The words are therefore signs or vessels that carry meaning that is influenced by society and convention.
If I say dog, however, I might be thinking of my dog Charlie, who is small and white, while you might think of your dog, Wilbur, who is big and black.
Our language is flexible enough to accommodate this personalisation of the signified.
Contrast this with how the Language of the Hosts operates.
The word for them is a funnel or a referent to the original thought.
This thought occurs within the mind of a Host.
Host-on-Host communication is therefore, presumably, much closer to unadorned or unmediated thoughts communicating through funnels.
For some reason, their thought still needs a word or a referent, possibly as an alert to another Host that it is trying to communicate or externalise a thought that might otherwise have remained private.
[Query whether Hosts have privacy, or does everything just spill out?]
Anyway, if a Host "said" dog, its thought might actually be small, white Charlie dog, and the funnel or referent would ensure that we saw and understood small, white Charlie dog, consistently with the thought.
The meaning or signification of the word wouldn't be as social or conventional. It would be more specific to the "speaker" or "thinker".
In a way, perhaps, the speaker determines the signification, rather than society or convention.
The receiving Host sees the speaker's "dog" rather than imagining their own "dog".
This means that the thought of a dog doesn't have to be conventionalised in a word. As a result, we have thought to thought communication. Not personal thought-social word-conventional signification-personal thought.
We leapfrog the social and conventional, and go straight from thought to thought.
Hence, the Hosts' "speech is thought".
It is this process that must lie behind the fascination with lies.
Subject to whether Hosts have privacy from each other (at least when they choose to communicate), the transparency of the thought dictates total sincerity, therefore an inability to lie.
Perhaps this is also why they're fascinated with similes. A simile requires one thing to mean or imply another.
A simile therefore requires social convention to imply meaning into the words of a speaker that a listener can infer.
The listener no longer hears the original thought. They detect the content of the simile.
When we have a thought, we implicitly verbalise it. In fact, our ability to think and imagine is constrained by our ability to find a word for what we are "thinking". If there is no word, perhaps there can be no thought.
Similarly, the Hosts can't think of a concept without Language (whether this means only words isn't clear).
Certainly, they can't conceive of falsity.
This raises the issue of what they can imagine:
"What imaginaries any of them could conjure at all must be misty and trapped in their heads."
How can they think without words?
Are they just taking "snapshots" of the real?
Can they entertain abstract thought?
How does an abstract thought get our of their head to the head of another Host?
Ian wrote: "Host-on-Host communication is therefore, presumably, much closer to unadorned or unmediated thoughts communicating through funnels."That certainly sounds right. Avice comments that they've found no true telepaths but have encounted races so empathic they might as well be telepaths, and seems to be saying that Language is at least similar to that.
"[Query whether Hosts have privacy, or does everything just spill out?]>"
Consider Avice's comment about the use of augmens to translate Language. “Get them, when you hear a Host speak you get a whole eyeful or earful of nonsense. Hello slash query is all well? parenthesis enquiry after suitability of timing slash insinuations of warmness sixty percent insinuations of belief that interlocutor has topic to be discussed forty percent blah blah.” Now, of course, she says she's lying, and I can't quite figure what she's lying about, but the suggestion is that if "everything" doesn't spill out, certainly a huge amount does.
"How can they think without words?"
My feeling would be that that's impossible. But then, this is definitely the literature of the impossible...
"A simile requires one thing to mean or imply another.... Can they entertain abstract thought?"
I hope this isn't venturing into spoiler territory, but - not yet. I think it has been suggested that their need for a concrete Simile like Avice is because they are trying to venture into the abstract, but they're just feeling their way. At this point, a simile can only "imply" something else. Once you make it "mean" something else, you're venturing into metaphor. And now, I know I have to stop...
My hypothesis might explain why just saying their words sounds like noise to the Hosts. If we said "welcome" to them in the Language, perhaps our thought does not communicate the concept of welcome, only the desire to physically say welcome in the Language. They are not able to see the thought behind the referrer. The same would apply to a recording or a mechanical reproduction of their Language.
Ian wrote: "The same would apply to a recording or a mechanical reproduction of their Language."Except that they do understand recordings of their Language; CM mentions it in one of the early chapters. I guess if there was a thought behind the words once, the thought does not disappear even in a recording?
There's a discussion of this on pages 61-63. If I've understood it correctly, it says that "repeatedly the Arieki ignored it [our voxwear] again...When their machines spoke, the Hosts heard only empty barks...it needs a mind behind it." There might be a difference between a recording and a reproduction, but I couldn't find it quickly. I think it would blow the funnel theory out of the water.
Yes, the machine-produced sounds of Language (including, if we believe Scile, Ehrsul) have no meaning for the Hosts. But the recorded speech of the Ambassadors or other 'sentient' as far as the Hosts are concerned creatures does.As for capability of abstract thought - I cannot imagine how it's possible without symbolic language, but as Derek said, they are trying to venture into that territory with the similes and ultimately the lies. It's like there's that innate dormant capacity that just needs to be awakened...
I'm treading waters carefully in this discussion because, just like Derek, I'm afraid of inadvertently revealing spoilers.
I won't post any more on this issue in this thread. I'll wait until I catch up.
Just want to mention that Nataliya is right about the recordings.
I'm trying my best to catch up with the threads. Has anybody mentioned anything specifically about semiotics, Saussure, Foucault, or Derrida yet?Here's an idea of what the people mentioned above tend to be on about: http://users.aber.ac.uk/dgc/Documents...
Do have a look, since I think it ties up rather nicely with what I've been reading in the novel so far. :)
My guess is that CM probably dipped into semiotic theory quite extensively when conceptualizing this novel.
Ah, aplogies to Ian. I see he has mentioned semiotics in a post above. Still, the link is interesting too.Oh and do scroll down in that link I posted to the S/s image! Look familiar?? Heh.
Traveller wrote: "I'm trying my best to catch up with the threads. Has anybody mentioned anything specifically about semiotics, Saussure, Foucault, or Derrida yet?"I haven't mentioned semiotics anywhere in the discussion, though I did in my review, because I might have to actually explain myself :-) I know it's involved, but I don't understand enough of semiotics to actually talk about it (strange, since I've never actually let that stop me on other subjects...)
And, yes, the image caught my eye immediately - it makes complete sense from CM's hints, and what Ian has posted that Miéville is using that notation very specifically to show the Signifier/signified relationship. If I'm understanding correctly: "one may argue counter-intuitively that the signified is determined by the signifier rather than vice versa" is suggesting exactly the difference between our use of language (the 'intuitive' relationship) and the Ariekei's.
But what's with the bit about Marxists at the bottom of that paragraph? Do you have to be a Marxist to understand semiotics? No wonder CM has nailed it so well!
Marxism talks about base and superstructure, and implicitly places base on the bottom of a notional equation, even though it influences or determines the top line of the equation.The semiotic equation is structured the other way around.
The base is supposed to determine the superstructure and culture, to the extent that we can't have a web culture, until we have developed computers.
Marxism was potentially threatened by the attempt to put language "on top of" the base, because it was perceived as non-material.
How could the material base be determined by immaterial language? What were the philosophical implications for dialectical materialism.
One of the linguists quotes even tries to define a sign as material, to overcome this challenge.
You might know that the debate was resolved by a paper on linguistics by Stalin, which effectively said that language can transcend culture and class differences.
It was a very backward step in Soviet linguistics, but nobody was game enough to speak out.
This is a very loose paraphrase of what he was saying. It's a while since I read it and I might be wrong.
I'm going to be honest and admit that I haven't read any of the Embassytown reviews in detail yet, even though I may have pushed the "like" button because your reviews looked good from a quick scan of them. Was saving a closer reading of the reviews for once I was done with the novel. (Still reading, but getting there) Just saying that in case you wondered why I wasn't picking up stuff from your reviews, so i hope no offense was taken anywhere..
Ian wrote: "You might know that the debate was resolved by a paper on linguistics by Stalin, which effectively said that language can transcend culture and class differences."Stalin was also Soviet linguistic authority? Somehow I'm not that surprised, actually.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/arc..."...while it differs in principle from the superstructure, language does not differ from instruments of production, from machines, let us say, which are as indifferent to classes as is language and may, like it, equally serve a capitalist system and a socialist system.
Further, the superstructure is the product of one epoch, the epoch in which the given economic base exists and operates. The superstructure is therefore short-lived; it is eliminated and disappears with the elimination and disappearance of the given base.
Language, on the contrary, is the product of a whole number of epochs, in the course of which it takes shape, is enriched, develops and is smoothened.
A language therefore lives immeasurably longer than any base or any superstructure.
This in fact explains why the rise and elimination not only of one base and its superstructure, but of several bases and their corresponding superstructures, have not led in history to the elimination of a given language, to the elimination of its structure and the rise of a new language with a new stock of words and a new grammatical system.
The superstructure is not directly connected with production, with man's productive activity. It is connected with production only indirectly, through the economy, through the base. The superstructure therefore reflects changes in the level of development of the productive forces not immediately and not directly, but only after changes in the base, through the prism of the changes wrought in the base by the changes in production. This means that the sphere of action of the superstructure is narrow and restricted.
Language, on the contrary, is connected with man's productive activity directly, and not only with man's productive activity, but with all his other activity in all his spheres of work, from production to the base, and from the base to the superstructure. For this reason language reflects changes in production immediately and directly, without waiting for changes in the base. For this reason the sphere of action of language, which embraces all fields of man's activity, is far broader and more comprehensive than the sphere of action of the superstructure. More, it is practically unlimited.
It is this that primarily explains why language, or rather its vocabulary, is in a state of almost constant change. The continuous development of industry and agriculture, of trade and transport, of technology and science, demands that language should replenish its vocabulary with new words and expressions needed for their functioning. And language, directly reflecting these needs, does replenish its vocabulary with new words, and perfects its grammatical system.
Hence:
a) A Marxist cannot regard language as a superstructure on the base;
b) To confuse language and superstructure is to commit a serious error...."
c) Linguists who disagree have a choice: a noose or a pistol.
Traveller wrote: "Here's an idea of what the people mentioned above tend to be on about: http://users.aber.ac.uk/dgc/Documents...Do have a look, since I think it ties up rather nicely with what I've been reading in the novel so far. :)"
Thanks for the link, Trav! I'll be making my way through this text in the next few weeks. My experience with semiotics has been very superficial so far, so I will remedy that!
-------------
@ Ian: I love the quote at the beginning of Stalin's article: "I am not a linguistic expert and, of course, cannot fully satisfy the request of the comrades. As to Marxism in linguistics, as in other social sciences, this is something directly in my field." Basically - 'no, I'm not an expert but let me tell you what you all SHOULD think'.
Ian wrote: "c) Linguists who disagree have a choice: a noose or a pistol."
So that implies they had a choice to disagree! (Nobody says they had to be happy with the choice ;)
To quote Stalin here, "Marxism does not recognize sudden explosions in the development of languages, the sudden death of an existing language and the sudden erection of a new language."
Very different from (view spoiler).
And then Comrade Stalin goes on to bring very political implications to linguistics - and to those who dared to disagree with the Party language approach by equating dissent and sabotage (which would be very much punishable)! Politics and language can clearly be very connected:
"To give one example: the so-called "Baku Course" (lectures delivered by N. Y. Marr in Baku), which the author himself had rejected and forbidden to be republished, was republished nevertheless by order of this leading caste (Comrade Meshchaninov calls them "disciples" of N. Y. Marr) and included without any reservations in the list of text-books recommended to students. This means that the students were deceived a rejected "Course" being suggested to them as a sound textbook. If I were not convinced of the integrity of Comrade Meshchaninov and the other linguistic leaders, I would say that such conduct is tantamount to sabotage."
Thanks for the link, Ian! It was quite interesting.
Thanks, Nataliya.I think there is a sense in which CM is saying that the Aeikei have to throw off the shackles of their language in order to be free.
Perhaps there language limited them to the functional and deprived them of the opportunity to imagine and explore and go beyond boundaries.
P.S. I assume it was obvious that I added para (c).
Ian wrote: "Thanks, Nataliya.I think there is a sense in which CM is saying that the Aeikei have to throw off the shackles of their language in order to be free."
Yes! Very much so. Nicely phrased, Ian!
Ian wrote: "P.S. I assume it was obvious that I added para (c)."
Yes again. It was obvious and yet very much in line with the accepted Stalinist policies. Therefore from now on I will just consider it the official Party line (which it pretty much was; on the other hand, I think pistol may have been the only choice).
Traveller wrote: "I'm going to be honest and admit that I haven't read any of the Embassytown reviews in detail..."No worries. I was commenting more on the fact that I'd had the nerve to mention semiotics when I reviewed the book but not in discussion.
Thanks for the detail on Marxism and semiotics Ian.
I've spent years trying to avoid having to do any deep thinking about anything other than physics in my reading. And then along comes Miéville... Next thing I know, I'll be tackling Proust.
Derek wrote: "I've spent years trying to avoid having to do any deep thinking about anything other than physics in my reading. And then along comes Miéville... Next thing I know, I'll be tackling Proust."There's a real risk, Derek. I went from maths to Marx to Joyce to Proust.
Derek wrote: "And then along comes Miéville... Next thing I know, I'll be tackling Proust. "You just described my reading plan!
Ian's given me an out. I can start with Joyce... (I did Marx as a teenager).
Derek wrote: "Ian's given me an out. I can start with Joyce... (I did Marx as a teenager)."Well, you seem to have been a pretty cool teenager. Seriously.
Oh, heavens, I'm just a piker. I was just theoretically interested - my wife was actually a member of a Marxist-Leninist commune (years before I met her).
Ian wrote: "I think there is a sense in which CM is saying that the Aeikei have to throw off the shackles of their language in order to be free."Interesting, but hadn't quite got there when I read this section. In my mind, I saw them perhaps like whales - capable of a language we'll never comprehend. Intelligent, but how intelligent? Then, CM blew my mind with the whole "mind behind it" lecture. Then, in quick succession, I glimpsed it from their perspective ... They perceived us the same. Ignoring us as non-sentient until we connected with a thought.
Was it possible that we, as humans, were fettered with our symbolic language? Never able to connect clearly one to another (the dog example of semiotics) and I imagined the Arekei pitying us. Until they found out we could lie, then I think it turned to envy. And, again, my mind was overwhelmed with CM's philosophical musings.
Now, here I am with all these wonderful discussions points (and I haven't thought about semiotics since college), and I'm enraptured again. You say "throw off the shackles" of their language, and yes, it seems so clear.
And I think maybe CM's saying that we need to be careful, too, not to shackle our minds with our style language, our symbols that carry inaccurate meaning, like "boys don't do that" - going back to the earlier gender discussion I'm just now reading. Do their similes exist to paint us a metaphor of action?
Wonderful comments, Allen.
Allen wrote: "Was it possible that we, as humans, were fettered with our symbolic language? Never able to connect clearly one to another (the dog example of semiotics) and I imagined the Arekei pitying us."Absolutely. In a later thread I mention the Tower of Babel myth - which specifically casts our (diverse) language as a fetter on communication. A language that cannot be misinterpreted is both a hindrance and an advantage. No tears caused merely by misunderstandings but the Ariekei are also clearly limited by their literality.
A number of Science Fiction authors have tackled something like this via telepathy - and Ian has pointed out elsewhere how Language is at least similar to telepathy. It's often given that telepaths can't lie to each other (as with the Hosts), but also that being open to another persons thoughts would likely be terrifying. If you knew exactly how somebody else thought - as the Ariekei do everytime someone opens their mouths - how could you ever be comfortable with them?
Derek wrote: " If you knew exactly how somebody else thought - as the Ariekei do everytime someone opens their mouths - how could you ever be comfortable with them?"Well, this only applies in a society that has the capability to lie. Because only in such society - such as ours - we expect its members to mask their true feelings and choose politeness over sincerity. We are the society that internalizes the idea that 'if you cannot say something nice then don't say anything at all!'. We know there's only one acceptable answer to the eternal question, 'Does this make me look fat?'
So our discomfort with the idea of always knowing someone else's thoughts comes from the expectations that their true thoughts would be fundamentally different from what is expressed. The Ariekei would not have such a problem because they say what they mean/think without the expectation of altering the truth. If you are raised without the expectation of 'softening' the truth, you'd be comfortable around people who always say what they mean since that's what you'd expect.
Nataliya wrote: "So our discomfort with the idea of always knowing someone else's thoughts comes from the expectations that their true thoughts would be fundamentally different from what is expressed. The Ariekei would not have such a problem because they say what they mean/think without the expectation of altering the truth."It always fascinated me that CM positioned this language issue in a diplomatic environment, not just because there was an intersection of cultures and languages, but because the other connotation of the word "diplomatic" is that you would take heed of people's sensitivities.
Ian wrote: "It always fascinated me that CM positioned this language issue in a diplomatic environment, not just because there was an intersection of cultures and languages, but because the other connotation of the word "diplomatic" is that you would take heed of people's sensitivities."You are right, of course. What I thought was interesting is also the stereotype that diplomacy involves a lot of if not outright lies then at least half-truths - for various reasons.
Allen wrote: "Was it possible that we, as humans, were fettered with our symbolic language? Never able to connect clearly one to another (the dog example of semiotics) and I imagined the Arekei pitying us. Until they found out we could lie, then I think it turned to envy. And, again, my mind was overwhelmed with CM's philosophical musings."
I think that must have been what was going through Scile's mind when he (view spoiler)
Nataliya wrote: "Derek wrote: " If you knew exactly how somebody else thought... how could you ever be comfortable with them?"Well, this only applies in a society that has the capability to lie."
What? You mean you'd be happy to know those clothes make you look fat? I don't think so. I really doubt anybody is going to be happy knowing how everybody else feels about them. At best, we will learn to conform to other's expectations: perhaps a recipe for peace, but not for happiness.
Derek wrote: "What? You mean you'd be happy to know those clothes make you look fat? I don't think so. I really doubt anybody is going to be happy knowing how everybody else feels about them. At best, we will learn to conform to other's expectations: perhaps a recipe for peace, but not for happiness."I'd be unhappy because the answer I learned to expect is a firm 'no'. Reassurance is probably the biggest reason for even asking this question since we are trained to not expect a blunt unpleasant answer. So when the answer to the 'fat' question is 'yes', we are learned to accept it as rudeness instead of a true answer to the question we asked. Have we been raised in a society akin to that of the Ariekei, we would have expected to hear the truth, which in that case would not be perceived as rude or offensive but just true. When you expect nothing but the truth you should not be expecting feel-good lies. It's the expectations set by the society that chose politeness - and to be polite you need to be making small lies if necessary.
As we are not on Arieka, I'd be upset when told 'yes' to the 'fat' question, of course.
Miévillians
Books mentioned in this topic
Century Rain (other topics)Silently and Very Fast (other topics)
Silently and Very Fast (other topics)
This section, told in the alternating "Formerly" and "Latterday" segments, focuses on the anticipation of the arrival of the new Ambassador, the first in a long tie to come from outside of Embassytown, as well as expanding on the Language of the Hosts through Scile's interest (or can you say obsession?) in it. In the meantime, the appearance of the new Ambassador, EzRa, feels strange and ominous.The end of this section is the end of exposition and the beginning of the plot stream that, as I remember vividly from my first read-through, took me on a turn of events I really did not see coming.
--------
For me, this section is really fascinating because this is where we really delve into the Language of the Ariekei. The whole idea of the Language is difficult for me to wrap my head around.
For the Hosts, the entire Language is a thought, a concrete reality, without any way to perceive things that aren’t there.What do you think about the language that needs to create physically existing similes to be able express - even to conceive of - any new idea, a language that precludes its speakers from essentially using imagination, grounds them in the prison of concrete reality? Can you imagine a civilization, a culture emerging from a system of world perception that does not leave much room for abstract thinking? ---
This section also provides a deeper look into the nature of Embassytown bureaucracy and power structure, with the Ambassadors - two people that are supposed to become one (the idea so ingrained into the worldview of the locals that they are unable to perceive them as being separate in any way and view suggestions of such as rude and gauche) and the appointees of Bremen (Wyatt), the establishment that seems to regulate/quarantine Embassytowners by restricting their ability to leave their 'little ghetto'. We get a glimpse of the world built of favor and intrigue, with Avice having fallen out of abovementioned favor and Scile appearing to rise to some importance.
-------
Other bits that I find interesting in this section:
- Ehrsul, Avice's autom friend; the constant hints at her possible important albeit unclear role in this society; the not-so-subtle jab at her by Scile when he notes that the Hosts don't understand her - since we know there needs to be a mind behind the words for the Hosts to understand speech;
- The Festival of Lies, the huge point in the novel. The fascination of the Hosts with the ability to lie, their aspiration to say that something is not true. Is that a hint of evolution of imagination or is it quite sad that a society based on truth is so fascinated with being able to speak untruth?
- Prehensile genitalia. Yes, CM did that. Thanks for the mental picture. I'm a gynecologist; now I will have nightmares.
- The widening gap between Avice and Scile stemming from his obsession with everything Ariekei and her attempts at distancing herself from the place where she grew up: