Foundational academic problems caused by most fundamental failures of linguistics - help!

[DarrenTomlyn]

It's been over 10 years since I last posted here, and I was hoping this wouldn't be necessary at all. I have ALWAYS understood that the problems I've identified fundamentally exist as a matter of (for both cause and solution) academic linguistics. Unfortunately, no-one in academia seems to be interested in talking to me at all, anymore, so what am I supposed to do for academia itself?

This is quite simply, AS IMPORTANT AS IT GETS.

So, I have undertaken a( n) (amateur) self-study of English, (starting with computer-based role-playing games, but not ending there, by any means!), language in general and the greater context of its identity, in relation and comparison to how it is taught and described by academia, that has taken me over 20 years to finish, but I got there in the end - (it almost feels like an audit).

Although I have identified lots of symptoms within the entire stack of general current academic teaching and description involved, it's really the combination of two related, most fundamental, simple, easy to demonstrate, and obvious problems, that matter most of all for understanding just how badly academia has got everything wrong.

These problems are ENTIRELY of academia's own making, which, again, is why this is fundamentally a matter of linguistics.

There is a fundamental, obvious, difference and disconnect between what humanity knows and demonstrates in the languages it uses and what academia recognises, teaches and describes, that completely undermines EVERYTHING academia exists to do, is about and for.

The most fundamental problem that obviously demonstrates this, and then helps to cause all other issues, (that might exist due to academia trying to place everything in the same context as the act of studying it!), is that academia, demonstrably and obviously does not fully understand things, in general, as humanity does as a whole, that need to exist as the foundation of everything it recognises and understands.

Without a complete understanding here, it means that most of what academia needs to understand for itself, cannot truly exist at all, especially since the context needed for that to happen does not exist either, which is the next main problem, symptom/effect. The context needed, and the foundation it should be resting on - (no, not information itself) - therefore does not exist in academic descriptions and therefore the entire current stack is resting on a foundation that cannot support it, and the reason for its existence cannot therefore be truly understood. Indeed, the very nature of what this 'stack' is, is a problem.

I initially thought that fixing some of the symptoms I saw might be an issue, due to the rest of the current stack falling apart when that happened - which also happened when I came here to talk about such initial matters 10 years ago - but now I know and understand that this is a feature, not a bug...

So, the good news is that I have a replacement basic stack (in English) that fits and is consistent, up to and including language itself, ready to be built upon, properly, along with a lot of symptoms and solutions, (though not all - my study here is still incomplete), for English, (that might also help with other languages). Either way, how every language is taught and described will inherently need to be completely rebuilt.

Everything I have is extremely fundamental, simple and obvious, (which is why I'm so disappointed it took me so long to figure it all out), and to publish it without any academic input should not be in academia's interest, but if no one is interested in talking to me anymore (I was talking to Professor Neil Mercer of Cambridge University before he retired, and have since tried to talk to suitable people at local universities etc.), then what am I supposed to do? How much more does academia wish to fail?

So posting here is quite simply a matter of last resort, for academic input over the entire process of understanding and publishing what I have, before I do so of my own volition, completely independently of any and all academic input, and therefore the world shall know that academia has failed even itself. Completely.

Note I am not interested in general replies or questions etc. - all I want is to work WITH academia itself through this entire matter, which I expect to take quite a while. It will not take long for me to explain why it matters to anyone in such a position to help (especially in person).

 

[5jj]

I have just enjoyed the dubious pleasure of re-reading some of your earlier threads. I have to say that I agree with what Raymott wrote in one thread: "You could post one or two specific problems that you have, clearly and succinctly, with examples, and without extraneous narrative, and see whether anyone agrees with you."

I am not optimistic about your chances of getting much support. Vague claims unsupported by solid evidence do not encourage serious discussion.

 

[emsr2d2]

That's a very long post that told us precisely nothing about what you've actually figured out and done. The only thing I can work out is that you think that the whole method of teaching languages needs to be changed completely and started again using your unspecified method.

I have no idea what the solution to your problem is but I don't really think that ranting here, without making it clear what you're actually proposing and how you think users here can help you, is going to do much good. I recommend a cup of chamomile tea and perhaps a repost in a few hours/days when you're ready to be clearer about your method and about how exactly the users of this forum might be able to help.

 

[jutfrank]

The most fundamental problem that obviously demonstrates this is that academia, demonstrably and obviously does not fully understand things, in general, as humanity does as a whole, that need to exist as the foundation of everything it recognises and understands.

You've written a very long post there, but I think I've identified your thesis in the quote above. Is that right?

I'm happy to discuss this if you'd like to. Obviously, you'd have to lay your thesis out clearly first.

 

[DarrenTomlyn]

You've written a very long post there, but I think I've identified your thesis in the quote above. Is that right?

I'm happy to discuss this if you'd like to. Obviously, you'd have to lay your thesis out clearly first.

Yes, this is the most fundamental problem that causes everything else - a failure to understand things and the contexts they inherently provide, that are needed for everything else to exist.

Given that two people above didn't even seem to recognise that in what I wrote, it doesn't bode well for anything, really. (Note my previous posts were always on the right track, I just hadn't filled in the gaps properly in the right context, (and a couple of major realization I made in the past couple of years changed everything) - a mistake academia has made at an even more fundamental level - but, as always, the biggest mistakes I make are usually in regard to making too many assumptions, again - something I now recognise and understand far better.)

So, my main question of you is how could you help if I do share the foundation of what I have with you? (Bearing in mind that I have a lot more than just the foundation - I have the stack built upon and in relation to it.)

Again, the whole point about this, is that I'm an amateur that's made some really important realizations ('discoveries' maybe?) about what academia understands, describes and teaches at this time, (and possibly for a long time, in this regard, given how much has been deliberately crafted upon and within the mistakes it has made.)

 

[5jj]

if you could give us something concrete to go on, we might be able to discuss it usefully with you. How about telling us one of your important realizations/discoveries?

 

[emsr2d2]

So, my main question of you is how could you help if I do share the foundation of what I have with you?

You shouldn't be asking us how we can help. The only way this will work is if you share the foundation of what you have with us and clearly explain what help you need.

 

[jutfrank]

So, my main question of you is how could you help if I do share the foundation of what I have with you?

Well, I can offer my knowledge of what the history of philosophy has to say about your thoughts, and where you're making any philosophical errors. I can also advise you on which places in academia to look for both similar and opposing ideas, and I can offer my own thought and perspective on the subject, of which I have a considerable amount. I can also equip you with the academic terminology used to discuss matters such as this.

Again, the whole point about this, is that I'm an amateur that's made some really important realizations ('discoveries' maybe?) about what academia understands, describes and teaches at this time, (and possibly for a long time, in this regard, given how much has been deliberately crafted upon and within the mistakes it has made.)

I don't really know what you mean by 'academia'. Are you talking about semantics? Or philosophy?

Please tell us what you're actually talking about and please try to be as concise and clear as possible. Perhaps you could begin by providing a description of what you think a 'thing' is.

 

[DarrenTomlyn]

You shouldn't be asking us how we can help. The only way this will work is if you share the foundation of what you have with us and clearly explain what help you need.

I'm an AMATEUR finding problems with professional application. If you don't think it's right for me to WANT to try and talk to the professionals involved to help them with this, which also helps me, which then benefits everyone, then what do you expect? That (again, even as an amateur I FULLY recognise, understand and support that) there is a CLEAR AND OBVIOUS PATH within academia itself for such findings I have to take, OF COURSE I need direct academic help for that to happen!

If there is NO PART OF THE ACADEMIC SYSTEM for dealing with any and everything that has inherent use and application (and therefore any and all possible input ) BY amateurs, such as linguistics, then this is also a clear and obvious failure of academia itself.

What I want is to be able to talk to someone in academia DIRECTLY who can then help me (and academia) by taking what I have and push it through the academic process it (and academia) should want and need. Anyone who cannot help with that, is superfluous to me, for what should be obvious reasons.

 

[5jj]

Some of our members are academics, but they are unlikely to be able to help you unless you give some more precise idea of what you are talking about. So far you appear to have completely ignored such suggestions as:

I'm happy to discuss this if you'd like to. Obviously, you'd have to lay your thesis out clearly first.

if you could give us something concrete to go on, we might be able to discuss it usefully with you. How about telling us one of your important realizations/discoveries?

You shouldn't be asking us how we can help. The only way this will work is if you share the foundation of what you have with us and clearly explain what help you need.

Please tell us what you're actually talking about and please try to be as concise and clear as possible. Perhaps you could begin by providing a description of what you think a 'thing' is.

Jutfrank in particular has been pretty clear about his willingness to help, and has suggested some ways he might be able to help. Please give him, and the rest of us, something to work with.

 

[jutfrank]

I'm an AMATEUR finding problems with professional application.

Darren, what does this mean?! What 'professional application' are you talking about? How exactly are academics wrong? If you don't tell us, how can you expect us to help?

If you don't think it's right for me to WANT to try and talk to the professionals involved to help them with this, which also helps me, which then benefits everyone, then what do you expect?

Speaking for myself and probably the other members in this thread, I'll say that I am very willing to help you if you'll accept it. I strongly believe that untrained, non-academic deep thinkers like yourself need to be heard. But if you don't try to tell us, what can we do? Can you understand that we don't have too much more patience waiting for you to say something interesting? I personally am not willing to go back to an overly long thread from ten years ago to try glean from it what you might mean. State your thoughts in their latest form, please.

What I want is to be able to talk to someone in academia DIRECTLY who can then help me (and academia) by taking what I have and push it through the academic process it (and academia) should want and need. Anyone who cannot help with that, is superfluous to me, for what should be obvious reasons.

If you tell me what you mean, and if you have anything at all original to say, I'll inform academia and let them know that they're wrong. And if they don't listen to me, I'll give you some advice on how to express your ideas for yourself in a way that they do understand.

 

[DarrenTomlyn]

Well, I wrote basic fundamental problems up and sent it to jutfrank - maybe now someone else will understand what's really needed, like I said

EDIT: So how long does it take to read it?

EDIT2: jutfrank appears to really struggle with understanding why linguistics is the only context needed to understand such basic problems of not understanding language as it already exists, and is instead trying to add his own philosophical perspective and context to it, and then complain about that, which isn't necessary.

Also, if anyone else truly doesn't understand 'things' as humanity has already demonstrated, then they, just like academia, will struggle with everything else, since everything else is based on such a foundation. I am not here to have to completely teach the rules of English language...

 

[5jj]

Enough.

This is a forum for explanation and discussion, not negative rambles. I am closing this thread, and will close any others that do not get to the point quickly.

 

[emsr2d2]

Also, if anyone else truly doesn't understand 'things' as humanity has already demonstrated, then they, just like academia, will struggle with everything else, ...

I, for one, am happy to "struggle with everything else" since you have not clearly and succinctly (ideally in one sentence) explained to us what you mean by "things".

I am not here to have to completely teach the rules of English language...

There's no need to teach us the rules of the English language. Many of us are English teachers so we understand them already. We are here to teach learners those rules as they stand today.