Amanda's Emerson on Language

Here are some of my thoughts on Emerson's "Language" and the relationship between language, literature, and nature.

1. First, I want to bring up the metaphor the both Emerson and Becker repeat throughout their essays: "Parts of speech are metaphors because the whole of nature is a metaphor of the human mind." I'm not going to pretend to understand what this means, because I've been thinking about it, and I can't quite grasp the understanding of it. However, I do think that Becker gives some good insights on p. 323-325. Perhaps we can discuss this during class, especially when Gregory Bateson rephrases the metaphor: "contextual shaping is only another term for grammar" (p. 325). I have some other thoughts that relate to this metaphor, but I still don't think that I fully understand the metaphor.
   
2. Emerson says, "Nature is the vehicle of thought" (p. 31). He also says, "Every appearance in nature corresponds to some state of the mind, and that state of the mind can only be described by presenting that natural appearance as its picture" (p. 32). When he says this, it seems that the human mind is a metaphor for nature (which is why I'm a little confused). However, I do like the fact that he points out that we use many things in nature to express our states of mind (an angry man as a lion, a lamb represents innocence, etc). This is a small part of the relationship between language and nature.
   
3. Emerson talks about throwing a stone in a stream and watching the ripples that wave out from the rock. His discussion reminded me of the class discussions that we have had about ripples that are similar to this -- the ripples of knowledge that we gain by studying literature and coming to different understandings as well as the circumference of truth that poets like to use, where the truth is in the center and the words revolve around the truth. The words that we use represent nature and the literature that the words make create an experience that is similar to an experience that we may have in nature. This is how I see part of the relationship between language, literature, and nature.
   
4. Emerson's discussion on p. 32-33 about the habits of plants and animals reminded me of some of our scriptures. Emerson says, "the habit of a plant, the organs, or work, or noise of an insect, applied to the illustration of a fact in intellectual philosophy, or in any way associated to human nature, affects us in the most lively and agreeable manner" (p. 32-33). His discussion reminded me a little of Alma 32, where Alma compares the word to a seed. The habits of a seed, the act of a seed taking root in the soil and growing into something good, is compared to the nature of humans -- if we let something take seed in our heart, it will take root and grow into something good. In the case of the word that Alma is talking about, if we take the word of God and let it take root in our hearts, it will grow into a testimony. I think that we can also apply this analogy to any good word -- the words of the poets, the words of the scriptures, the words of good literature -- if we let it take root in our hearts, if we read it slowly and understand it, understanding can grow and turn into something good, something sweet.
5. I like Emerson's discussion of the relation between pure language, or poetry, and language that has been corrupt by corrupt men. He says, "As we go back in history, language becomes more picturesque . . . when it is all poetry; or all spiritual facts are represented by natural symbols" (p. 33). When language is in its purest form, or the language of the angels. In a way, when we create poetry, we are in a sense using symbols to represent nature -- whether we represent the nature in the natural world around us or whether we represent the nature that is the metaphor of the human mind. Becker says, "is there not artistic and philosophical creation at the level of sentences, a play of figures and lexical classes" (p. 326). There is something akin to the creation of nature when we create our own poetry and use the language of the angels to represent the human mind. In a later paragraph, Emerson says, "The corruption of man is followed by the corruption of language" (p. 33). I think that Emerson may be trying to tell us that the closer we are to nature, the more we can communicate about man's character without loss. This, to me, is another piece of the relationship between language and literature.