Can anyone make precis of the following paragraph?

[kandwal]

Simultaneously, we live in symbols and reality. Reality is never symbolic but symbols are always shadows of realities. Sometimes symbols illustrate our psychic energy and sometimes psychic energy innovates them. Any how, symbols express the vast and unknown cosmos of the human mind. So, language is the living symbol of mental perception of certain culture.

 

[kandwal]

i am desperately waiting for the reply.

 

[5jj]

i am desperately waiting for the reply.

Welcome to the forum, kandwal.

Please do not bump your post with comment like that after only 17 minutes. The people who respond here are volunteers who drop in when they have free time. It is not uncommon to wait for a couple of hours for a response.

There is also the point that it is not clear what you want us to do. You have asked for a precis of a fairly dense paragraph of only 55 words. Why do you want a precis?

 

[konungursvia]

Mind you, I like the paragraph. Who wrote it?

 

[Rover_KE]

I am desperately waiting for the reply.

Always capitalize 'I' and the first word of every sentence.

Your desperation makes me think you have a homework deadline approaching, and we don't do students' homework.

Rover

 

[BobK]

:up: Or, in answer to your question, 'Yes - you can. Or, if you can't, your teacher needs to know about that inability.' ;-)

b

 

[BobK]

Mind you, I like the paragraph. Who wrote it?

Really? It strikes me as pretentious psychobabble, written by someone who is not comfortable with English. Anyhow is one word, and the last phrase either needs an added 'a' or it needs to be rewritten with a view to conveying information. ;-) On that last point, maybe he's a follower of Edward de Bono, who once suggested that intentional obscurity was a good way of getting attention.

b

 

[konungursvia]

Yes, really. I have a hard time explaining Continental philosophy to Anglo-Americans, because they don't believe in any kind of mind-body dichotomy. In fact we are not experiencing the world directly, but are rather like fish in tanks looking beyond into the air and out the apartment window into traffic we don't fathom so well. The water is our cultural baggage and collective imagination, and it's nearly impossible to filter it out of perception. That's why it's practical to view the epistemology of the social sciences as being entirely distinct form the natural sciences. Dilthey and Weber explained it beautifully. But I've never met any English speakers who won't scoff and turn up their noses at the mere idea that not everything can be practically reduced to physics / mechanics / chemistry / other natural sciences.