1. An essay on the embryonic field of language
Clearly, the world is a messy place filled with many problems, many of which are both ordinary
and messy. As much as science would like us to believe that they know best which problems
are solvable and which are not, there appear to be many pressing problems that fall outside
the range of "modern science" that need to be solved. These are problems which cannot be
quantified under normal conditions. We use language to debate the messy problems, terrorism
and security, being relevant examples, but no one knows how the concepts and notions being
debated affects these problems in terms of reaching consensus and finding ultimate solutions.
"In developmental biology, a morphogenetic field is a group of cells able to respond to discrete,
localized biochemical signals leading to the development of specific morphological structures or
organs." No one has considered or studied human language, clearly a psychophysical organ of
human development, as a morphogenetic field. That is, as an embryonic field or group of cells
able to respond to discrete, localized, psychophysical symbols leading to the development of
language, ordinary propositions and other knowledge structures.
By embryonic, I mean to refer to a system, idea, or organization in a rudimentary stage with
potential for further development. Language begins in such a state and goes through several
stages of development. In the attached table, the Roman alphabet is distributed into cells. As
in biology, the spatial and temporal extent of this embryonic field of consciousness (in terms
of the possibilities of mutual understanding) is dynamic; every possible configuration in the
(synthesized) field is a collection of interacting cells out of which the words and concepts of a
particular language are selected. Modern words are good examples of such selections.
This table illustrates a morphogenetic field for the English language. The field is represented as
a field of information (about the processes in this domain) in binary notation where each bit (1 or
0) symbolizes the ratio or bias inherent in one of two alternatives. As one can readily see, just
as in nature, force arrives as a pair. The are four types of conditions each of them specified by
different ratios, as indicated.
Copyright © 2012 Ken Ewell, All Rights Reserved Page 1

2. An essay on the embryonic field of language
As you can see in this arrangement or syntax (a micro-syntax) each phoneme symbolizes a
unity: it is the unity of a process conditioned by random or arbitrary existence. When we read
a text or message, we are apprehending and absorbing the state of information (by way of
interpretation). This notation is commonly used to quantify information. In "Steps to an Ecology
of Mind", (1973, p.378) Bateson writes "the quantity of information is conventionally expressed
as the log to base 2 of the improbability of the actual event ... Probability, being a ratio between
quantities which have similar dimensions, is itself of zero dimensions." Bateson's definition of
information is "a difference which makes a difference".
This table, based upon Adi's theory, demonstrates how such a difference "information" is a
ratio encoded by symbols of the phonetic alphabet. In accordance with Count Korzybski's
dictum "the map is not the territory" the phonetic alphabet symbolizes the operational and
informational differences entered on the map we call language. That is, these differences
are the things that get on to that map: the differences in invariant and elementary processes
distributed under arbitrary and randomly selected conditions of existence.
As a group, the cells within a given morphogenetic field are constrained — i.e., cells in
an English language field will become English words, those in a German language field
will become German words. The range of expressions that may be realized is a matter
of "ontogenetic trajectory" that is further constrained by what may be called morphogenetic
types of processes, conditions and semantic rules influencing and regulating their
configurations. In general, the developmental domain intrinsically and synthetically concerns
human nature and synergetics. Importantly, the specific cellular programming of individual
cells in a field is highly configurable and flexible. This is reflected in the fact that most symbols
appear to be polysemous.
So what? Such a new model of language would deserve further study of it implications in order
to determine what problems it may solve. Other than this model, there is no (unified) way of
modeling the language of problems, no uniform way of quantifying the text and the testimony,
no standard way of modeling the judgment or the application of discretion --because the
modeling of "concepts," "notions" or "intuitions" (transmitted, communicated and interpreted via
language) has been considered to be non-scientific.
Thomas Jefferson wrote: “I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society
but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their
control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their
discretion.” So we are clearly in need of a model for more wholesome discretion, under which
the people can expect leaders to exercise their control.
There are two ways of defining analysis and synthesis as basic scientific methods of approach:
as a compositional concept and as a procedural concept, respectively. We incorporated both
concepts into a model (readware) specifically useful to “investigate” or “study” the language
of problems that are deemed to be salient, relevant, expressed with free speech and openly
debated within the context of public laws and languages in and out of public and private
institutions.
The procedural concept here is the more fundamental and operational. This part of our model
has been developed into a computational algorithm for text analysis. We used it to automate
testing and verification of the theory of cognition we were developing. We found many private
and commercial uses for it. More importantly, this is a kind of doctrinal function that can be
mentally mastered and used in meta-cognitive exercises --thinking, or moreover analyzing,
Copyright © 2012 Ken Ewell, All Rights Reserved Page 2

3. An essay on the embryonic field of language
mental processes (i.e. analyzing one's own judgment, decision processes). As a compositional
concept, analysis is defined as the procedure by which we break down an intellectual or
substantial whole into parts or components. Synthesis is defined as the opposite procedure: to
combine separate elements or components in order to form a coherent whole.
Until we (Tom Adi and I) developed this model of synthesis for text analysis, AI researchers
and logicians have been limited in their investigations and developments by purely reductionist
and materialistic approaches to speech as a whole. By this I mean only to say that these
researchers studied "language" as a "reduction" to the parts of speech. They then study
how the individual parts are (relative) parts (arguments) of other (independent) parts
(representations, propositions, assertions, etc.) This instead of beginning with the purpose of
this psychophysical organ. What is the purpose of language --what is its end? Is it a means to
mutual understanding? I fear that sense of language has been lost to many.
As a means of written composition, the efficacy of an alphabet is well-regarded by nearly
everyone. We introduce our children to language using the alphabet, yet, no one thinks of the
alphabet and spelling lessons as a synthesis of the embryonic state of language and cognition,
even though, the procedural concept is the more fundamental and operational than the
compositional one. Almost everyone, in fact, accepts things as they are seen by "experts" (i.e.
as compositional speech). An alphabet is just a way of representing the syllables of speech.
Every person must ask the questions of their own self. Everyone knows speech can be reduced
to parts --to nouns and verbs, etc. What is it that is synthesized out of the plastic and highly
chaotic speech of individual actors? It is neither noun nor verb. Do you know what it is?
Can you tell? What is it supposed to be?
Attention was drawn long ago to the big difference between understanding the objects and
processes of the external world and understanding human actions and words. This Marxist and
materialistic dialectic has given us the world we live in today. The emphasis on this difference
has exasperated our own life and times such that rather than closing the distance between
reality and representation, --politicians together with bankers (with the full and ready support
of the social, psychological and behavioral sciences) have succeeded in widening the distance
between reality and representation to extraordinary lengths.
Attention has been paid to understanding the behavior of human beings. To understand what
they do researchers take into consideration the motives of people and the discrepancy between
what they say and what they mean. "Allowances" are made (usually both prescriptive and
exclusive) for the difficulties of detecting true motivation. In addition, evolutionary notions of
competition have taken hold of every day in the life of the individual. We are thrown into a world
and told to compete in a field as it is, with things the way are, and; we are oft reminded of the
implicit social contracts to which we must subscribe; --whenever it is convenient to those in
power.
Granted that one of the stumbling blocks, perhaps the largest, to mutual understanding is
the great diversity of individuals. Each of us contains a whole world in a specially ordered
biophysical universe. This world is our own particular world and the order is the order that
unfolds in the conduct of our own individual life. Yet the outcome of our (individual) actions are
collective (for which we are inseparably responsible). In the spirit of Alfred North Whitehead,
every one of our actions demand that the universe as a whole, with all it natural laws and
putative (physical) forces, conforms to them.
Copyright © 2012 Ken Ewell, All Rights Reserved Page 3

4. An essay on the embryonic field of language
Little or no attention has been given to such putative influences on individual actions and
interactions.
Understanding may be further complicated by the subjective ways we perceive each others
station or standing, by our tendency to fit this perception into certain accepted and evolved
social standards that tend to ignore the unique contributions and endogenous capital of
individuals. The individuality of people's experience and frame of reference also makes mutual
understanding more difficult. One might be tempted to chalk this up to the complexity of
modern life in a specialized world of resources and opportunities, until one is reminded that the
Sophist Gorgias once remarked that in the process of being perceived and expressed in words,
an object of thought disintegrates into a huge number of elements of thought and thus loses its
integrity: complete mutual understanding is therefore, in principle, impossible. Most but not all
scientists I have met stand by this sophist principle today.
In almost all contexts of "modern communication" irrespective of which aspects a person
reveals of him or herself, their own words belie the nature of the formal (objective) and
interpersonal relationships of such projections (of intentions, motivations conveyed with their
language) to passive objects and processes (activated) in the external world. People (perhaps
by preferring intrigues) may ponder, guess and gossip about the actions, intentions and
motivations of others, while ignoring (taking for granted) natural relationships to passive objects
and processes (that unfold in life). By "passive" I mean to imply that it is within the disposition
of many people to be accepting of, or allowing what happens or what others do, without active
response or resistance. I am aware that there may be many that have this disposition without
ever examining the "real" objectives, objects, processes and the underlying natural forces or
influences at work in their own lives.
Yet, it is my claim, that insight into such passive objects and processes and their relations
are necessary to consciousness (mutual awareness) and that such insight has been proven
to be sufficient to interpretation and understanding (having the capacity to augment and
organize knowledge). There are elementary processes, natural laws and objective conditions of
engagement and boundary to be understood, for example.
One often hears and reads complaints about difficulties of communication between children and
parents, between epochs and between cultures, between the healthy and the sick, particularly
those who are mentally ill. From the content of what he or she is told a person absorbs only as
much as they are able to understand. One could say that the degree of mutual understanding
between people depends to a great extent on their cultural level or worldly sophistication, but
that would also beg a solution to the unsophisticated among us and any others that are to be
excluded. No, it is not possible.
Mutual understanding, if it is to arise at all, must well-up from the primordial depths of darkness
and not those found in the deep folds of the cerebellum, but from those passed down through
the ancient heritage of our mutual ecosystem;-- the awareness of which reveals to a sapient
actor the power of their own intuition and insight into the passive objects and processes of the
external world. I say let us increase this power; raise the energy level by gaining access to even
greater powers of insight.
The history of culture offers numerous examples of how the power of genius increases through
absorbing the meaning and tendency of the epoch, through tackling and solving the problems
raised by the logic of life. Tom Adi and I want to put the framework and methods we have
Copyright © 2012 Ken Ewell, All Rights Reserved Page 4

5. An essay on the embryonic field of language
developed to work solving the problems raised by the poorly understood currents of life with an
objective to increase the level of mutual understanding and insight into the nature of humanity.
Which of you will join with us in developing understanding and a framework with which to find
solutions to today's problems?
-Ken Ewell
June 30, 2012
Gainesville Florida
Copyright © 2012 Ken Ewell, All Rights Reserved Page 5