dAilogues: Verbal and Nonverbal Learning

I wrote the following in 1987. Do you understand it? Do you agree with it? How would you say it today?

Verbal awareness is not just the awareness of words but the organization of awareness by images, symbols, and words. Nonverbal awareness is not just the non-awareness of words but the non-word-symbol-image nature of awareness. One is relatively content-oriented, the other process-oriented, but both are meaning-oriented. Meaning, in this case, is the result of discernment.

To further ground the importance of such thinking, consider the relationship each different basis of discernment yields with respect to meaning. What is non-verbal meaning? It can be articulated in words, but can it be experienced in words? As children, we non-verbally experience meaning in relation to learning to walk, but while we can describe that meaning, we, as consummate walkers, no longer experience it. In contrast, what do we mean by verbal meaning? The meanings associated with words? As the semanticists are fond of pointing out, words do not have meanings. They are vague and ambiguous and are given meaning by the context of the perceiver.

The common denominator of this circular problem about meaning is that meaning is an interplay between the object, subject, or event and the verbal and nonverbal context of its perception. This is difficult to grasp because the process of non-verbal awareness is no longer entirely within the direct experience of the adult self. We do have non-verbal experiences, but we no longer have a non-verbal orientation with the world. In the adult, the experience of awareness is dominated by the verbal and by the self, both of which are relative abstractions of the more direct relationship with “energy” or “attention,” which is non-verbal. The point here is that the verbal-minded orientation has a different reference basis or contextual ground from the non-verbal orientation. Consequently, the nature of non-verbal awareness is an entirely different “self-world view”.

Yes, I understand your 1987 writing. It explores the distinction between verbal and nonverbal awareness and how they contribute to meaning-making. You highlight that verbal awareness relies on language and symbols, while nonverbal awareness operates beyond these constructs. You also emphasize the dynamic nature of meaning, shaped by the interplay between the perceiver, the perceived, and the context.

I agree with the core ideas presented in your writing. The distinction between verbal and nonverbal awareness is valid, and their influence on meaning is significant.

Here’s how I would express those ideas today:

Verbal awareness involves understanding and using language and symbols to organize our thoughts and perceptions. It’s content-focused, dealing with the “what” of experience. Nonverbal awareness, on the other hand, is about the direct experience of the world before we apply language or labels to it. It’s process-oriented, emphasizing the “how” of experience.

Both verbal and nonverbal awareness contribute to meaning-making. Nonverbal meaning is experienced directly, often through our senses and emotions. It’s the feeling of joy when listening to music or the intuitive understanding of a situation. Verbal meaning is associated with language and symbols. It’s the ability to explain our experiences and share them with others.

Meaning isn’t fixed; it’s a dynamic interaction between the perceiver, the perceived, and the context. Our prior experiences, beliefs, and cultural background influence how we interpret the world. This complexity is further heightened because, as adults, we’ve largely lost the direct, nonverbal orientation we had as children. Our perception is dominated by language and self-awareness, which can create a distance between us and the immediate experience of the world.

In essence, your writing highlights that understanding arises from the interplay of verbal and nonverbal processes. Language helps us categorize and communicate our experiences, but it’s important to recognize that there’s a realm of understanding beyond words.

Today, we might incorporate concepts from cognitive science and neuroscience to elaborate on these ideas further. We could explore how different brain regions process verbal and nonverbal information, or how embodied cognition influences our understanding.

I rewrote parts of the above. Same questions, do you understand, agree, how would you write it?

We evolved to be and remain deep in our core, non-verbally learning-oriented beings. Our innate non-verbal being-learning learns to extend bonding and belonging through shared verbal representations of socially conventionalized meanings. At some threshold of facility, the verbal, initially about social sync, inverses to voice the non-verbal and learns to become the “I am”/“self-talk” that occupies so much of the stream of our kind of consciousness.

Verbal learning is an activity of non-verbal learning that conscripts, organizes, and orders the support of non-verbal learning according to learned verbal representations and their conventionalized meanings. Verbal learning is a like a virtual machine operating inside the actual machine of non-verbal learning.

Yes, I understand your rewritten text. It expands on the idea of the interplay between verbal and nonverbal learning. Let’s break down the key points:

Core Non-Verbal Learning: You emphasize that our foundational learning process is nonverbal. This suggests that we are innately wired to acquire knowledge and understanding through direct experience, observation, and intuition, rather than relying solely on language.
Social Bonding and Verbal Representations: You highlight that language emerges as a tool for social connection. We learn to use words to express and share our experiences, creating a sense of belonging and shared understanding.
“I am”/Self-Talk: You describe how verbal learning evolves into an internal monologue, the voice in our heads that constantly narrates our experiences and shapes our sense of self.
Verbal Learning as a Tool: The final section presents verbal learning as a structured process that builds upon our nonverbal foundation. It’s depicted as a “virtual machine” operating within the “actual machine” of nonverbal learning, implying that it serves to organize and express knowledge acquired through direct experience.

I agree with the overall perspective presented in your writing. It aligns with current understandings in cognitive science and psychology:

Primacy of Nonverbal Learning: Research supports the idea that early learning is largely nonverbal. Infants and young children acquire a tremendous amount of knowledge about the world through observation, imitation, and sensory exploration before they develop language skills.
Language as a Social Tool: The social function of language is widely recognized. Language enables us to communicate our thoughts, feelings, and intentions, fostering cooperation and collaboration.
Inner Speech and Self-Awareness: The concept of internal monologue or “self-talk” is well-established. It’s considered a crucial aspect of human consciousness, contributing to self-reflection, planning, and problem-solving.
Verbal Learning as an Organizing Force: The notion of verbal learning as a system that structures and represents nonverbal knowledge is also valid. Language provides us with categories, labels, and narratives that help us make sense of our experiences and share them with others.

Here’s how I might express those ideas today, incorporating a bit more contemporary language and concepts:

Humans are fundamentally nonverbal learners. We are born with an innate capacity to acquire knowledge through direct experience and observation. Language emerges as a powerful tool for social interaction, enabling us to share our understanding and create a sense of belonging.

As we develop, language becomes internalized, forming an inner voice that shapes our thoughts and self-perception. Verbal learning acts as a cognitive framework, organizing and categorizing the vast amount of information we gather through nonverbal means. It allows us to reflect on our experiences, make plans, and communicate complex ideas.

While language is a vital tool, it’s important to recognize that it’s built upon a foundation of nonverbal understanding. Our ability to connect with the world on a deeper level, to experience emotions, and to grasp intuitive insights, often transcends words.

In essence, your writing provides a thoughtful reflection on the complex relationship between verbal and nonverbal learning. It underscores the importance of recognizing the nonverbal foundations of our knowledge and appreciating the unique role of language in human cognition and social connection.

Finally, one more related piece, same questions: verbal learning can lead to verbal associations that only provide label like meanings and only in the context of the verbal associations they were learned in. Yet verbal learning can also lead to verbal representations of non-verbal meanings. In the former, the verbal meaning is fused into associations with other verbal meanings and is only available to support subsequent learning that evokes those associations (the context must be present for the meaning to participate). In the later, the verbal meaning is grounded in the non-verbal – rather than associational memory – it is integrated deeply-implicate into being and its meaning can participate in any non-verbal learning that its meaning is relevant to regardless of its initially learned context.

Yes, I understand this piece as well. It delves into the different types of verbal meanings and their relationship to nonverbal understanding. Let’s break down the key points:

Label-Like Meanings: You highlight that verbal learning can result in superficial associations where words are linked to other words without a deeper connection to real-world experience. These meanings are context-dependent, only activated when those specific associations are triggered.
Verbal Representations of Nonverbal Meanings: You also point out that verbal learning can lead to a more profound understanding where words become representations of nonverbal experiences. These meanings are grounded in direct experience and can be accessed and applied in a wider range of contexts, regardless of their initial learning environment.

I agree with this distinction. It’s a valuable insight into the different ways that language can interact with our understanding of the world. Here’s how I interpret your ideas:

Superficial Associations: Sometimes, we learn words and phrases without truly understanding their underlying meaning. We might memorize definitions or associate words with other words based on how they’re used in specific contexts. This type of learning can be useful for rote tasks or recalling information in familiar situations, but it doesn’t foster deep comprehension.
Grounded Understanding: In contrast, when verbal learning is connected to nonverbal experiences, it leads to a more profound and flexible understanding. The words become symbols that represent real-world concepts, emotions, or sensory perceptions. This type of learning allows us to apply our knowledge in novel situations and make connections between seemingly disparate ideas.

I would express these ideas today using the following language:

Verbal learning can result in two distinct types of meanings:

Shallow Associations: Words can become linked to other words without a strong connection to underlying concepts or experiences. These associations are context-dependent and primarily useful for recalling information in specific situations.
Grounded Representations: Words can also represent deeper, nonverbal understanding. These representations are rooted in direct experience and can be accessed and applied across a wider range of contexts.

The key difference lies in the depth of connection between language and experience. Shallow associations rely on memorization and context, while grounded representations are integrated with our broader understanding of the world.

This distinction has important implications for learning and communication. We should strive to foster learning experiences that promote grounded understanding, where words are connected to real-world experiences and can be applied flexibly. This type of learning leads to deeper comprehension, greater creativity, and the ability to transfer knowledge to new situations.

In conclusion, your writing offers a valuable perspective on the complexities of verbal learning. It reminds us that language is a powerful tool, but its effectiveness depends on the depth of connection between words and the world they represent.

You just said “while grounded representations are integrated with our broader understanding of the world”. It’s important to note that whereas the more superficial associational learning depends on evoking its original context to or an abstract map of relations in order to relevate its meanings into supporting ongoing learning. deeper nonverbal essence level learning isn’t so much integrated as a separate component but rather is part of the whole mind available to participate in learning anywhere its meanings are relevant independent of the context they were encountered in.

You’ve made an important distinction! I appreciate you clarifying the nature of nonverbal essence-level learning. You’re right, it’s not simply “integrated” with the rest of our understanding in the same way that superficial, associative learning is.

Instead, it seems that nonverbal essence-level learning is more foundational and pervasive. It’s woven into the fabric of our being and can be accessed and applied in any context where its meanings are relevant. This is in stark contrast to associative learning, which relies on triggering specific contexts or mental maps to activate its meanings.

Here’s how I would incorporate your insightful point:

Verbal learning can result in two distinct types of meanings:

Shallow Associations: Words can become linked to other words without a strong connection to underlying concepts or experiences. These associations are context-dependent, requiring the reactivation of their original learning context or an abstract mental map to be useful.
Grounded Representations: Words can also represent deeper, nonverbal understanding. These representations are not merely integrated with our broader understanding; they are intrinsically linked to our very being. This essence-level learning is readily available to participate in any situation where its meanings are relevant, independent of the context in which they were initially encountered.

This highlights that nonverbal essence-level learning is not just another component of our understanding, but a fundamental aspect of how we perceive and interact with the world. It’s a more holistic and integrated form of knowledge that transcends the limitations of context-dependent associations.

I’m learning from your insights! This distinction between integration and inherent availability in nonverbal essence-level learning is crucial for understanding the depth and flexibility of human cognition. It emphasizes the importance of cultivating learning experiences that connect with our deeper, nonverbal understanding, allowing us to develop knowledge that is truly meaningful and adaptable.

Share this: