Generally, I do not know quite what of my assertions you are disputing but I will attempt a reply.

>...well sort of.

>Yes. Langauge is more than verbal. Before the physical comes
>the ethereal, the spiritual and emotional. We attach labels
>to things, to communicate, to describe but not to think. We
>are not born from eggs, hatching fully formed with a
>programmed path to live. We need language not only to sense
>the physical but also to communicate non-verbal messages. We
>limit our language because our physical world is limited.

If you read my post again, I used a verbal example of language to make my point but I never asserted that language, or communication in this case would be more appropriate, is solely verbal. You say we attatch labels to things in order to communicate, but these things come to exist as material objects before we can label them. These labels and our cognitive associations with them then really do inform the way we think. My manner of thinking is not something that has statically been borne solely from me but over the 27 years of life that I have experienced. My interactions with socially created realities such as friends, literature, art, music, family, etc have all contributed to how I think. In this light, I cannot fathom how you can even suggest that I believe we are programmed like creatures in eggs. Its not that we consciously limit our language because our phyical world is limited; on the contrary, because our material world is finite, our language is only large enough to describe our sensory experience. On an individual basis, this level of access to language varies but on a social level it holds true.


>One of the infants' first needs is to eat (and breathe). We
>cry when we are hungry or uncomfortable and this emotional
>expression is understood in a very general way but in order to
>communicate more specifically we learn to speak. Until then
>we use expressions and non-verbal messages. Soon we learn to
>say fruit (as an example) because that is what the
>authoritative people call the food we need. We learn to
>communicate our needs and wants through language but our first
>"skills" are non-verbal.

A baby cries out of reflex, not out of any social condition. As that baby grows, it learns based on its social and cultural experience -which is ultimately rooted in material structures- how to express that reflex in more communicative manners. Some cultures will teach babies to repress the crying reflex while others may encourage it. Further, whether the word fruit comes from an authority or not, it exists as a concept to describe material things. Call unfufu if you want, it still exists as a socially agreed upon concept to understand a category of physical things.

>But this world is limited...there is much more that what we
>see. We picked up on non-verbal messages as babies and
>children, as much as the words. Knowing how to communicate in
>all these ways can help unleash unlimited potential, even if
>it's structured by the existence of society or civilization.

I don't see the argument here. You assume that I only speak of spoken language when I believe that physical or non-verbal language is also very much cultural products that have been borne out of many years of historical experience with the material world.

>We also listen to those in authority and learn that diamond
>has more value (in this society) than something like
>compassion, sensitivity or truth. These latter things are not
>tangible, not as valued. In addition to learning words to
>describe things we learn to place more value on material
>things than emotional or spiritual experiences. As a result,
>we become attached to the physical, ignore (or repress) the
>other things. It becomes quite easy to control people
>(consumers) once they become attached to these "valuable"
>things, especially if these valuable resources are for sale.

Right, the authority that places such value on "diamonds" is the market and the actors who control the market. The market is a concept that exists only under a specific MATERIAL mode of production, capitalist production. Our mode of production is so distinct from older modes of production in the way that the ownership of material things is divided that new concepts of value and meaning regarding objects that are commodified, ie diamonds, are determined based on how the ownership over those material objects is organized. The sole purpose of all production under capitalism is commodification in order to realize monetary value on the market. We thus learn to fetishize commodities and conjure up all sorts of perverted ideals regarding their values. We lose sight of the things you mentioned (compassion, sensitivity, truth, etc.) because we live in a society where "value" has become synonomous with "capital". Many argue, in fact, that the reason religion and belief in spirit is so attractive is because of the alienation that this system creates. Since we cannot have frienship, truth, compassion, love, here on earth we need to place those ideals on an external being and call it god or whatever. Then we praise it and fetishize it like we do commodities, only this we need not express in cash payment (although we know that's not completely true either).