Linguistic Handymen: F/T position available

This language does not work for me. It is neither efficient nor effective. It obscures,  it reduces. It parallels the temporal with the universal, seeking to handily 'equate' them.

Quantifying destroys.

The process of reduction eliminates essence--truth, beauty, passion, heat, intricacies, universes--to ones and zeros, to x's and y's, to necessarily empty, inherently meaningless abstractions, where we (foolishly) seek and expect to find meaning.

We want a shortcut. We want to pass our knowledge along, our 'experience' on, our learning from joy and pain--and language is our preferred (default?) vehicle for that.  But it doesn't work because it can't work.  Letters, characters, strokes are meaningless. Signs do not 'signify'... they don't do anything.

We cannot circumvent the process of learning by experience. Well-meaning, sound advice, while 'successful' at preventing or causing behaviours, does not increase understanding.  If I successfully 'argue' you into action or inaction, your 'understanding' has not been increased... you've merely (literally) 'taken my word' for it, but the experiential 'lesson' has not been learned.

We are not meant to be able to put these into words 'effectively' because it sidesteps the purpose for existence--ultimately a trial-and-error process. And while taking another scientist's results into account can save both time and resources, if the researcher has no 'fundamental understanding' of the basic processes through  personal observation, he/she is in fact limiting usable data and ultimately prone to basic errors further into the complex processes,  where mistakes are far more costly.

This is why reading books can't make even the dent that hands-on experience can.  You can read a fact 50 times, but seeing it in action just ONCE can prove more to you in a lasting way. I'm not about to list the countless examples that qualify for that statement, but I shouldn't really need to.

While language can reinforce the concepts behind what we learn, words alone will never teach us anything.

EVER.

So what are our other options? Patches? Quick-fixes? 

I have some ideas, but I can't express them yet--or at least, I cannot put them into words.

"Nonsense, Syllables! Fa la la lie lie whop bom a loo wop, and get thee hence!"

The nonsense syllables are trying to tell us something.

More than that, I suspect we not only listen to them more closely than we do 'real' words, but we also find meaning in them.

Think about it: the end of "the Boxer," by Paul Simon. 

"Lie la lie

Lie la lie lie, lie la lie

Lie la lie

Lie la lie lie, lie la lie, la-la-la-la lie."

(And no, it's not about fibbing.)

Go on, listen to the song. You hear it if you're listening, and what's more: you feel it if you're listening. It's air.  It's life. It's triumph. Defeat. Acceptance. Resolution. It can be different, even seemingly opposing, things at the same time. But it's PASSIONATE, above all. Strong, resilient, confident by sound. It 'defines itself'; the syllables themselves have no 'inherent' or socially-labelled meaning on their own. 

Genius.

Listening exercise number two:

the 'Lullaby' theme from Rosemary's Baby, composed by Krzystof Komeda, sung by Mia Farrow.

...granted, it may take you a few minutes to track this one down, but it's WELL worth it. (I'm excusing you for not already OWNing this film due to some temporary cash-flow problem or a shortage of the film's availability in the format of your choosing.)

The song has no lyrics apart from the "La la la la"s. But go ahead, take a listen. Tell me that sh*t ain't creepy! (And downright lovely, says I, if I Mei.) (i know, i know. bad pun)

Now of course I realise that the mere syllables "la la la" are not creepy. But even without the context of the film, I think it's arguable that most 'Western' ears would hear this and find it eerie, disconcerting, or something along those lines. Why? Well, that has to do with the instrumentation, the melody and phrasing, the tonality of the piece, etc. But why the nonsense syllables as opposed to straight-out lyrics (answer: because it would be absurd and easy to mock later on Mystery Science Theatre 3000)? Or why not just a violin or a cello or a flute playing the melodic line with similar phrasing patterns? 

Because the human element immediately brings us closer to it; our listening is engaged. We instinctively 'listen' differently (says me) to a voice singing nonsense syllables vs words, and even differently to nonsense syllables in a voice spilling a melody than we do a solo instrument embodying that same melodic line.

These non-words are everywhere! Christmas carols, folk music, spiritual chants, motets, rock and pop songs (we never would've gotten through the sixties without them)... (and I could just as well be referring to the 1660s as the 1960s).

I've not researched this at all; I'm only drawing on what I hear, what I see, and the things I know from my own studies in music on other topics. But this has been ticking at the back of my mind for quite some time.

It wanted out... Goo goo ga joob.