This is a wonderful addition to Substack, V.E. You've paired intellectual ambition with curiosity. I loved it.
You're circling something interesting: the tension between signal and noise. Language depends on a shared framework, and when that framework fractures or differs, we risk projecting meaning to fill the gaps.
I approach language differently. Rather than a process of decoding signals, I see language as something negotiated. Communication is less code-breaking and more a transaction shaped by factors like culture, history, and fluency. I recently allegorized this thinking in a short story titled "The Ghost in the Grammar."
I'll stop there. I would love to catch your thoughts. Thank you for bringing this sort of thinking to Substack.
I first conceived this article to reconcile my own tendency to perceive and analyze patterns vs. my skepticism towards overt mysticism: when I first shared my previous article (The Divine Fingerprints), the responses I got was either "be careful with using gematria, that's dangerously close to occultism," or recommendations to New Age spirituality articles (which use similar symbolic language intertwined with scientific jargons, but found was less grounded in truthful tradition or logical rigor).
I agree that language is much more flexible that perhaps hinted at in my article. People have different communication styles and preference, and when we converse, we often need to adapt to each other's unique wavelengths. Nuance are indeed influence by culture, and that's how we get language drift.
Still, I think there's a great difference between paraphrasing something vs. redefining the meaning of the words as one sees fit without respecting the original intent of the language.
I think language is a great concept to explore further. "The Ghost in the Grammar" is an awesome title.
Thanks for the encouragement. It means a lot to me.
To be honest, I don't actually read a lot of philosophy, since my background is analytical chemistry & research.
I did used to subscribe to R.C. Sproul's Ligonier Ministry, and if I'm not mistaken he was a philosophy major.
When it comes to linguistical approach, my framework for it comes from reading & writing poetry, and learning about rhetorical devices and storytelling techniques.
Overall, I think my thinking is less influenced by any particular schools of thoughts and more about synthesizing facts and ideas I come across from here and there.
This gave me so much to sit with. I especially appreciated the distinction between using symbols as grammar vs. using them as mirrors. That line felt like a mirror in itself—challenging and clarifying. It reminded me how easily we can project our preferences onto sacred things, mistaking our desires for divine direction. Thank you for the nuance and depth in this—it doesn’t dismiss mystery, but it anchors it in humility.
Hey! Your post caught my eye on my homepage and I just wanted to send some support your way. Whenever you have a moment I’d be grateful if you could check out my latest newsletter. I’m always happy to support and lift each other up!
I've looked some of your article topics, and they seem interesting.
I have a bit experience in finance, and I've certainly heard big names like Warren Buffet and J.P. Morgan thrown around. But since I don't live in the States, I don't really have the context that have made them big. Can't wait to learn more.
This is a wonderful addition to Substack, V.E. You've paired intellectual ambition with curiosity. I loved it.
You're circling something interesting: the tension between signal and noise. Language depends on a shared framework, and when that framework fractures or differs, we risk projecting meaning to fill the gaps.
I approach language differently. Rather than a process of decoding signals, I see language as something negotiated. Communication is less code-breaking and more a transaction shaped by factors like culture, history, and fluency. I recently allegorized this thinking in a short story titled "The Ghost in the Grammar."
I'll stop there. I would love to catch your thoughts. Thank you for bringing this sort of thinking to Substack.
Thank you so much for the thoughtful comment.
I first conceived this article to reconcile my own tendency to perceive and analyze patterns vs. my skepticism towards overt mysticism: when I first shared my previous article (The Divine Fingerprints), the responses I got was either "be careful with using gematria, that's dangerously close to occultism," or recommendations to New Age spirituality articles (which use similar symbolic language intertwined with scientific jargons, but found was less grounded in truthful tradition or logical rigor).
I agree that language is much more flexible that perhaps hinted at in my article. People have different communication styles and preference, and when we converse, we often need to adapt to each other's unique wavelengths. Nuance are indeed influence by culture, and that's how we get language drift.
Still, I think there's a great difference between paraphrasing something vs. redefining the meaning of the words as one sees fit without respecting the original intent of the language.
I think language is a great concept to explore further. "The Ghost in the Grammar" is an awesome title.
Excellent. Thank you again, V.E. I look forward to reading your article next.
Is your thinking influenced by any of the staple names in philosophy's linguistic turn? Derrida, Wittgenstein, et al.?
Thanks for the encouragement. It means a lot to me.
To be honest, I don't actually read a lot of philosophy, since my background is analytical chemistry & research.
I did used to subscribe to R.C. Sproul's Ligonier Ministry, and if I'm not mistaken he was a philosophy major.
When it comes to linguistical approach, my framework for it comes from reading & writing poetry, and learning about rhetorical devices and storytelling techniques.
Overall, I think my thinking is less influenced by any particular schools of thoughts and more about synthesizing facts and ideas I come across from here and there.
This gave me so much to sit with. I especially appreciated the distinction between using symbols as grammar vs. using them as mirrors. That line felt like a mirror in itself—challenging and clarifying. It reminded me how easily we can project our preferences onto sacred things, mistaking our desires for divine direction. Thank you for the nuance and depth in this—it doesn’t dismiss mystery, but it anchors it in humility.
Hey! Your post caught my eye on my homepage and I just wanted to send some support your way. Whenever you have a moment I’d be grateful if you could check out my latest newsletter. I’m always happy to support and lift each other up!
Thank you for visiting!
I've looked some of your article topics, and they seem interesting.
I have a bit experience in finance, and I've certainly heard big names like Warren Buffet and J.P. Morgan thrown around. But since I don't live in the States, I don't really have the context that have made them big. Can't wait to learn more.
Thank you!!! This comment really made my morning to read. I'm glad you liked and found something new from each article. Thanks again