38
3 Gestalt
It is claimed that there are general rules governing the formation of meaningful sentences, and that these rules apply to all languages. There is evidence
that the grammars of all the major language groups grew out of them. These
general rules—dubbed universal grammar—are assumed to be innate, in the
same way as weaving a web is innate in spiders, and nest-building is in sparrows.
Chomsky’s ideas are widely accepted today—though they have met stiff
resistance on account of their obvious link with the nature-nurture debate,
where they fall on the side of nature. Chomsky’s ideas have merit if you consider language to be the way of channeling Gestalts through a pipeline of
communication: For if Gestalt processing is central to living creatures, then a
mechanism for converting it to linear form, and recreating Gestalts out of language, must be equally fundamental. Moreover, the function of transforming
Gestalt thoughts into a linear form is not restricted to language alone. Every
animal conceives of actions it wishes to carry out: The internal image of the
action is a Gestalt, and it must be translated into a program of successive arm
and leg movements to be carried out sequentially in time.
When a decision to act is converted in mind to a plan of action, this process
too has strict rules which conform to a grammar and syntax. After all, you
do not move your arms and legs pell-mell in any order, but in a disciplined,
regimented way. Studies have been made of how a person reaches to grasp a glass
of water, and it is found that the sequence of motions follows a stereotypical
pattern. Likewise, observations have been made of spiders weaving webs, and
birds building nests: The sequence of individual steps is methodical and follows
a conventional order.
Thus, Chomsky’s universal grammar is built atop a more general—more
universal—grammar which regulates the way of transforming Gestalt images
into action sequences. No animal could survive—or more correctly, no animal
could take advantage of the huge power of a Gestalt mind—if it were not able
to translate whole images of contemplated actions into an ordered series of
movements of its limbs. Humans have exploited this function, which exists in
all animal brains, and adapted it to the needs of communication.
The value of language is not limited to communication. Perceiving the world
in Gestalt wholes confers great power to animals, but also imposes limitations. A
Gestalt view brings you knowledge of a broad range of things in one glance, but
it lacks precision. When precision is needed, wide-ranging Gestalt information
is not suitable: What must be brought into the scope of your awareness are
specific items and the exact, explicit relationships between them. In order to
achieve that purpose, humans and other animals adapt Gestalt perception so
it focuses on small regions of the visual field.
3 Gestalt
It is claimed that there are general rules governing the formation of meaningful sentences, and that these rules apply to all languages. There is evidence
that the grammars of all the major language groups grew out of them. These
general rules—dubbed universal grammar—are assumed to be innate, in the
same way as weaving a web is innate in spiders, and nest-building is in sparrows.
Chomsky’s ideas are widely accepted today—though they have met stiff
resistance on account of their obvious link with the nature-nurture debate,
where they fall on the side of nature. Chomsky’s ideas have merit if you consider language to be the way of channeling Gestalts through a pipeline of
communication: For if Gestalt processing is central to living creatures, then a
mechanism for converting it to linear form, and recreating Gestalts out of language, must be equally fundamental. Moreover, the function of transforming
Gestalt thoughts into a linear form is not restricted to language alone. Every
animal conceives of actions it wishes to carry out: The internal image of the
action is a Gestalt, and it must be translated into a program of successive arm
and leg movements to be carried out sequentially in time.
When a decision to act is converted in mind to a plan of action, this process
too has strict rules which conform to a grammar and syntax. After all, you
do not move your arms and legs pell-mell in any order, but in a disciplined,
regimented way. Studies have been made of how a person reaches to grasp a glass
of water, and it is found that the sequence of motions follows a stereotypical
pattern. Likewise, observations have been made of spiders weaving webs, and
birds building nests: The sequence of individual steps is methodical and follows
a conventional order.
Thus, Chomsky’s universal grammar is built atop a more general—more
universal—grammar which regulates the way of transforming Gestalt images
into action sequences. No animal could survive—or more correctly, no animal
could take advantage of the huge power of a Gestalt mind—if it were not able
to translate whole images of contemplated actions into an ordered series of
movements of its limbs. Humans have exploited this function, which exists in
all animal brains, and adapted it to the needs of communication.
The value of language is not limited to communication. Perceiving the world
in Gestalt wholes confers great power to animals, but also imposes limitations. A
Gestalt view brings you knowledge of a broad range of things in one glance, but
it lacks precision. When precision is needed, wide-ranging Gestalt information
is not suitable: What must be brought into the scope of your awareness are
specific items and the exact, explicit relationships between them. In order to
achieve that purpose, humans and other animals adapt Gestalt perception so
it focuses on small regions of the visual field.