The majority of your philosophy was learned by the time you were seven years old. As you passed through your teenage years and young adulthood in your twenties, you had another period of influence. After this, most people are set in their ways until they are middle aged, around 40 or 50. As they mature, they reconsider past beliefs and make changes for the future if necessary.

This philosophy controls everything you do in your life. It is your destiny and determines how everything will turn out in the end.

Where does philosophy originate?

Culture Influences Philosophy

The nationality of the country you were raised in affects your philosophy. People have different styles of life depending on whether they are American, Indian, Iranian, Japanese, Mexican or any other nationality.

People have different beliefs according to how they were taught. What is natural and good for one culture, offends other cultures and is considered odd.

Think about what opinions are inherited from your upbringing in your culture.

The Culture of Family Life

As you are grew up, your parents, and other relatives influenced the way you think. If you oppose your family’s philosophy now, your relatives may judge you and think something is wrong with you.

The culture of your family usually reflects the majority of your country, however if your family migrated from another country they might hold onto some of their original country’s beliefs and have a different philosophy from the country they currently reside in.

The contrast between the two cultures can lead to conflict and mental stress, when you try to compromise and work out problems.

Think about the situations with your family and how it influences your philosophy.

Your Schooling

The purpose of the school system to educate and make good citizens. When you attend school you will be taught to follow the rules of the school system. These rules are the school system’s philosophy.

When you take a history class, the teacher will probably tell you more information about the country you live in, and less information about other countries. Also, depending on whether it is a public school, christian school or a special school for delinquents, there will be a different philosophy. Each school has their own set of rules to follow.

Your Social Influences

When you socialize and make friends, your friends usually have the same interests and beliefs about their philosophy of life. Everytime you get together, you confirm your philossphy without conscious knowledge of it.

If you change your group of friends, you will lean towards the philosophy of your new friends.

Although you might not be fully aware of your philosophy because it is locked in your subconscious mind, you follow it anyway without thinking about it. You should take time to seriously consider why you think this way, where your beliefs originated and is this best for you.

If you ask a business leader they will tell you that no, it is not a waste of time. Others will say that philosophy is only a waste of time if it hangs you up. In other words if it prevents you from doing something or makes you hesitate when you shouldn’t then that can be an issue. Do you do something or do you just sit there and think about it.

Actually, you should be doing some of both. So is there really a contradiction between thinking and doing? Again, many people say that there is not a contradiction in philosophy between doing something or thinking about it. If you think about what you are doing and consider all the options and why you are making these decisions and choosing these options then the chances of you coming to a better decision are much greater.

Those people who do not think or think in a linear fashion are apt to come up with bad decisions more often. I certainly hope this article is of interest and that is has propelled thought. The goal is simple; to help you in your quest to be the best in 2007. I thank you for reading my many articles on diverse subjects, which interest you.

Philosophy is the contemplation of the fundamental nature of knowledge, morality, existence, and the universe as a whole. You may wonder why you would want to get involved with philosophy. Simply put, it’s not as hard as you may think, and you are probably interested in it even if you have not realized.

Firstly, you may be intimidated by philosophy because of the complex ideas it addresses. Additionally, philosophy texts can be deep and hard to understand at first. However, philosophy does not require credentials or expertise. Anyone can philosophize. Life experience is enough to qualify you to philosophize. You do not need to go to school or get a degree. Unlike technical fields such as being a doctor or electrician, philosophy addresses human issues using general human reason. You can pick up a philosophy book from the bookstore and start reading it today.

Though you may wonder if philosophy will interest you, if you think about it you probably already are interested in it. This is because philosophy addresses those questions about which we all wonder. For example, most of us have asked, “what is the meaning of life?” Most of us have asked, “what happens when we die?” Most of us have asked, “can we really know anything?” Philosophy simply consists of asking and attempting to answer questions such as those.

In a way, you could be a philosopher by simply sitting in your home by yourself and asking and attempting to answer philosophical questions. Of course, you would be better off by reading philosophical texts and by discussing philosophy with others. The best way to do that is to go to the bookstore or library and find some nice philosophical books.

The trick is to find books that are written for general readers and not for people with specific knowledge. For example, you probably wouldn’t want to get a college textbook for an advanced class, as such a book would assume that you have already read and studied certain works. Instead you will want to look for an “introduction to philosophy” book or just look for a book with pure philosophy, such as those written by philosophers such as Nietzsche, Hume, Kant, Plato, and Descartes.

Another great option is to use the internet. Using the internet, you can find many free online texts, including many about philosophy. Even better, you can find many free message boards and discussion forums. You can join these forums and talk to other interested people about philosophy.

May be we are getting nearer to the end that we are in observance of the confluence of many things that we customarily are used to think and believe never to come too close to each other or never to cross each other’s path till eternity. Then philosophy was a pure mental exercise psychology likewise, but limited to human behavior and where it comes from and what brought it about. The time has come now that where we can see and observe every human behavior or almost all human behavior with a corresponding physical and chemical activity within the brain physiology and other parts of our human body. How long ago was that we thought we could relate and map human behavior to a chemical and physiological brain make up and activity? Nonetheless, however hard knowing the knower is, we are making big leaps in shortening the gap between what was simply a metaphysical exercise and what was a quantifiable and qualify able material objective reality. As to who went right and who went wrong though very much dependent on who one asks the question , to an independent and objective observer it comes along clearly that both gave a lot of ground and they sure will give more till they have exhausted all of their individual standing. Will that be? Or will that not be?

However long the time and distance, it seems every bit what we have learned and are learning about us and ever thing else to date suggests that what has begun from a singularity of a sort to terminate in a singularity of a sort. Not ruling out the singularity of time space and matter as suggested by the Big bang theory, but adding to it a singularity of form and essence. As we (the universe and what is in it and it) are creations of information that preceded us we might simply end up being information that outlasts us. After all what we seem to gather is information that made us, that is governing our very essence and that is leading us in to our end and begging. So information we seek, information we gather and information we pass and I invite you to stay on as I embark on the journey of gathering synthesizing and disseminating information about all and us in particular once again and more.

As we are constructs of information we in turn gather, compile, multiplex and decompile to fit our needs and be compatible with the dynamic and ever evolving environment we often find ourselves in. In as much as what comes in to us by way of information affects our inner mechanics and chemistry it seems rather obvious that what we give out as pieces of information will have a similar effect on the receiving end to whom the information is of need to accomplish a task or fit a circumstance. Fitting a circumstance in a life’s time entails finding life in a time segment, in a condition and place and the information compatible to make the right decisions and actions to enhance and sustain it. As every life form gathers information it as well learns and inherits from its predecessors who are endowed with knowledge by inheritance, experience and learning. Experience seems to teach that we curriculurize and compartmentalize information delivery and receipt in synthesis with our physiological stage of development that those who are old enough and knowledgeable are of importance in the determination and arrangement of information to be dissipated till such time deemed unnecessary by reach of a physiological developmental stage and meeting the corresponding intellectual and psychological prerequisites. As we are physical constructs of information and our physical body is nourished and sculpted by the constant feed of information we receive and our physical construction as well reverse feeds our information processing and output quality and efficiency. These and many more points which I would be getting in to are made clear to me from the initial chapter of the book.

My conclusions and insights as well may not concur 100% with that of the Author’s that is because it is not my intent to summarize nor criticize, but take the outline and jot some the few thoughts that came to mind as I read it. As the amount of information we are able to access increased exponentially, it has become a common worry that we are becoming somewhat disconnected from our immediate social and physical environment and more of individuals than social beings and the author as well elaborates on that very eloquently.

It is though a couple of slanted angle views that struck my vision and carried my thoughts that I wanted to share here. One of them being the relationship between depth and width of vision as governed by the law of optics; that is the narrowing of the field of vision often is a precondition to magnification or magnification of a small item or being without exception narrows or eliminates peripheral vision and if not totally eliminated it is often lost as a background noise without due consideration. Such is the capability and purpose of our modern day gadgets and instruments from the television to the computer, from the internet to the telephone to make as reach and touch what was otherwise impossible. As our reach from all over the county to all over the state, nation and the Glob of like minded people becomes an instantaneity, are we breaking down to getting ever more divergent to our individual beats or are we getting convergent and getting to a common Global beat and rhythm? These increase in distance and scope of our reach has in fact made us people of specialties where generalities could not carry one across any river and our interdependence by that much stronger and important if we are to cross oceans and continents to accomplish a task and fulfill our needs. Social intelligence as such is the awareness and acknowledgment of a fundamental truth that no individual is an island in itself or her/himself. That from the minutest of beings and non beings in our Universe are endowed with an important task for us to be and do when and if it falls within the grand universal scheme and could only harm has when it is out of synch with this grand scheme, and in its struggle to find its rightful place if we happen to be the grand obstacle that it had to overcome. It is only recently that we are coming to the understanding of such an integrated interdependent Globe and Universe and we still have a long ways to traverse to come to a complete understanding of an integrated grand universal and global reality.

A thing is not real only if it is real in its consequences, but if and only if a common reference is established by all of us or most of us and com to a common understanding of what it is and establish an agreement to that effect otherwise both the imagined and the real one has biological consequences, the real one to all while the imaginary to the only one who imagined it. Luck of a common reference would render the imaginations and ideas remain realities of the individual minds (imaginations) until such time they are seen from a common established common reference vantage which is often the very essence and intent of a universal being. When two items or individuals are asynchronous one of them or both seems more than likely out of sync with this grand universal essence and being that often leads to sickness or death.

Our inner self and outer self and anything else’s constantly and permanently browses its environment not only to synchronize itself with every other of our and its kind, but also establishes a common reference for affinity and common understanding. Why are particular sound wave lengths with particular pitch and amplitude, tones and overtones appealing to all of humanity and other are not? Is it may be we are all attuned to a common inner and outer audible and non rhythm’s tones and overtones? If so what could be its fundamental tones wavelength, amplitude and pitch that is being amplified when we are attuned to music that is at the root of our pleasure and displeasure? We know in our efforts to synchronize and amplify we move with the beat of the drum, tone of the piano wind instrument or string what of our inner parts dance do our instruments of music follow? It seems we create music in by a dance and vibration of some delicate parts of our inner mind only to reinforce and amplify that common inner vibration where ever it occurs and whatever it is.

It is elaborated clearly and at length how we humans are capable of emotional mapping of each other’s state of mind and there is no wonder what we humans and everything else have an exact copy of our parts( not organs or body parts, but elements that constitute us) independently of time, space and condition. As our biological and physiological similarities increase so does what constitutes us. That who are in them are as well in us as clones or mirror images in a sort of a worm whole without the effect of time and space , what happens to them then becomes what happens to us in the degree of the cloned entities in us and them. These are rather the source of our empathy and sympathy with others and them with us. It is worth it here to mention why the effects of modern communication machines like telephones ,televisions the internet and the rest of them all are deemed isolating despite the fact that they have, can and will takes us to greater distances and greater number of people in lesser time may be it is because that they don’t have emotions that we can map in to our brains for the mere fact that the amount of what is in them and us in common pales in comparison to what we have in live people and others near us. In many words and a single sentence distance and time have direct bearing on the amount of common entities inherited and acquired that exist amongst people and other living and none living things having a direct effect on the degree of each other’s emotional mapping.

A review of “The Making of a Philosopher.” - By Colin McGinn

It is quite a transition from the solitary reality of reading , study , contemplation, thinking and research with an end product of lose, revelation and discovery to the practical social world of often one plus one is two. It is often the search for enlightenment and discovery that leads us to the pinnacles of total ignorance and unsolvable mystery than the practice of what has been proved working. It seems philosophically and practically right to assume and expect the road to enlightenment and discovery only leads to a cascaded sequence of knowledge and ignorance, light and darkness, revelation, discovery and lose. With these expectations and more I often raise a book to read, listen to an audio or watch a scene despite the customary practice of listening to authority on a subject matter and accepting the practice of a professional. It seems and it is more than likely true that authority and professionalism that is not held to account even by the likes of me often go ashtray and may lead us on the path to nowhere.

Let it be known from the outset that I have no intention or interest to defy authority or denigrate professionalism neither do I claim any myself of professionalism or authority on the subject matter the author is celebrated and acknowledged for; yet still I feel I needed to say a word or two here and there on some of the more controversial points raised and some others I feel had some kind of circular reasoning and shadowy logical argument. It is clear and it is very much an established fact that philosophy encompassed the totality of what has thus far been known, is being known and will ever be known, what has been, what is and what will ever be; it is therefore inherently susceptible to vast variances in interpretation and understanding amongst those who made it their profession and practice. I have not read any of the professor’s works thus my knowledge of his philosophical outlook and the entirety of his work is very limited and I beg an apology for, and I promise to hunt and read them all. I wouldn’t call my review a critic of his book nor is it an acclaim, it is rather a preliminary inquisition in an effort to make sense of the essence and being of some of the fundamental issues of philosophy in the book as briefly as it is stated.

As it is clear that the book is not about philosophical issues or philosophy, but a biography of a philosopher and his making, it goes without saying that issues of philosophical importance and significance has populated its pages. It is as well clear that the philosopher has gone through the cascaded mountains of enlightenment and ignorance before he has reached his current pinnacle that I refuse to hold him to his earlier held points of views, but only to those he seems to have held on or has discovered. I feel it is incumbent upon me than bother with generalities of the book to come to the specific points and facts and arguments on which I find my misunderstandings and needed explanations and at other times, on what my possible other alternative views are based. I have often read biographies and almost always found that as much as the story is about a recent existence or a relatively recent reality, the story is often told from the early beginnings to the recent standing and reality.

As it is often difficult to build top to bottom we are almost always abruptly taken to a beginning in time and brought forward to a position and reality of the time of narration; May be backtracking step by step is simply incompatible with the general movement and growth of things in nature that the natural order of things are such that they move and develop in a uni-directional manner necessitating an instantaneous time travel to the beginnings of things and all, and then follow them from there along the path of time. In a way, maybe we simply are used to and have adapted to the logical and sequential incremental path of development or simply we are wired in the ways the rest of the Universe is wired, that we can only comprehend everything in a past to present to the future sequence that in all our narrations we often begin at the past beginnings of things and come to the present and forecast the future. It is no surprise therefore that we are taken to the early humble beginnings of the life of the professor in the earlier chapters of his book. Although it lays the basic foundations of his earlier formative ages quests and drives that led him to his later year philosophical adventures and per suite, I find no issues of philosophical significance beyond the normal and common early age inquisitions, search of direction and lose that we all pass through as a developmental stage in physical and spiritual life. It is though a break away from the most traditional ways of telling a biography that it is a story of the development of philosophy in a life of a person than it is a story of a person’s development in philosophy. In that sense there seems an inversion of tradition and a new approach and admirable as all new approaches and breakthroughs are.

That said, I somewhat find it troubling when the philosopher states “Thus it feels as if you are in a bar in New York talking to your friends, but actually you are stuck in a Vat somewhere in Cleveland hallucinating all these, What the scientists are doing is producing a mere simulation of the ordinary physical world-a virtual world of pure sense data.” I can always understand and feel it is not hard to either comprehend or visualize or even relate to an objective existence and reality engendering an objective data, yet further still an objective data engendering an extension of or over extension of an objective reality, but fail short of comprehending the possibility of a virtual reality produced pure sense data. I could be wrong and I stand corrected if I am, or could be excused for may be my naiveté or being un informed, but how could it be possible to produce a simulation of an objective reality of a pure sense data? Doesn’t Simulation by its very definition presuppose an objective data of the objective reality simulated? Would it be safe to assume that all the data about any objective reality are always or almost always incomplete, because reality is affected and effected by infinite and dynamic variables? Though the philosopher seems to agree that simulations are based on an objective data of the simulated, he fails to address the difference of the simulation to the simulated and misses the missing data of the simulated from the simulation due to the impossibility of finding all the data for all the variables and if found and known the impossibility of duplicating or in modern scientific terminology cloning it and them.

Then in his continuing statement he leaves me with a sort of philosophical penumbra when he states “If we can reproduce those signals (i.e. signals that comes to our senses from objective realities) without the aid of actual physical objects, then we can simulate experiences of objects without bothering with reality.” One fundamental fact of simulation to me is that it happens in a controlled environment i.e. known and possibly in finite variables and reality on the other hand is a phenomenon in a dynamic infinite variable environment. Pre supposing that The “If” is not possible, but best possible and there lies a difference between the possible and best possible, there for while knowledge based on existing reality by extension and deduction is possible, but not on no reality at all as suggested. If nothing else the data that reaches our senses are pieces of information at the least material representations of a reality in action or are about a material objective reality. I felt it might be very appropriate to quote some important recent scientific revelations that were published on one of the most recognized publications in the scientific communities, The Scientific American of Nov, 2006 Issue , that I felt is supportive of what I have questioned above.” Observing another person experiencing emotion can trigger a cognitive elaboration of that sensory information, which ultimately results in a logical conclusion about what the other is feeling.

It may also, however, result in direct mapping of the sensory information in to the motor structures that would produce the experience of that emotion in the observer.” It seems it is safe to assume and conclude that the human self in its hard form (i.e. the self not about the self) is a result of generations of common experience the information of which is encoded in our genes and the proteins that preceded our birth, our parents and may even that of our grandparents in the configurations of the pieces of information upon which our initial predecessors were built on. In a way at one level, beyond the basics of what we know today there could possibly be a match of some basic entities of all humans that matches independently of time, distance and condition? We only know what we know and leave what we don’t to the beautiful future to unravel it as it is endowed with that power. Whatever, the explanation given or remains, one thing seems rather clear here and that is the human brain acts and perceives the future and acts now only based on some past or present material common or individual experiences; that makes Now and about Now and what we do a three way union of then, now and the future, the future is what is in our mind what is and what was are what are objective realities out in the real world whether we are aware of them or not. What we do has its intent in the future and what we base our actions are from yester and our actions now. “Our common sense beliefs are not as rationally impregnable as we fondly supposed before we inquired in to their foundations.”

The quote above seems to suggest that our beliefs precede our inquiry in to the basis of their foundations, in a way like the information about ourselves precedes our selves so some of our beliefs may be passed on to us from our predecessors we might even take them for granted, yet their luck of seeming impregnability with rational at their initial inception, however short handed the rational seems at the time and condition is an impregnable rational on itself.

In the book “Happiness”, by Richard Layard, he states that the increasing wealth of western countries does not lead to a corresponding increase of happiness among its citizen and neither around the world. And hence it is important that nations should be governed on the basis of what will make people happy, instead of what will make them rich.

And it sounds convincingly true in the context in todays’ world. Why people wants to be rich ? That seems to be like a very simple question, with an obvious answer of ” to fulfil the requirements”. But will those fulfillments really make you Happy at the end of the day?

We make choices, and thats a very humane thing to do. But, more important is about taking decisions that would do good and make us happy. Now if we try to define the term ” Happiness “, we can never come out with a conclusive definition or relate a physical description for that.

Things that would make you happy would not necessarily make others feel the same, in the same situation like yours.

Did we ponder on what makes this difference?

Frederick Keonig points out that ” We tend to forget that happiness doesn’t come as a result of something we don’t have but rather of recognizing and appreciating what we do have”.
Simple and crispy answer for the whole ambiguity on defining the Happiness or to ponder upon the difference.

This just tells us that, we needn’t be a definition hunter for everything that we find intriguing, and Happiness as a matter of fact is the most intriguing of all. But, we do sometimes forget to acknowledge that. We fail to see, that we could be happy with what we have, and with the choices that we have to pave in ways for further more such avenues. But, as soon as we start defining the term ‘Happiness’, we try to limit our happiness. We forget to recognize the things we have at this moment. Instead of valuing it with what could be done next, we try to monetize the whole issue.

We fail to see the things we have, and instead start fantasizing on the things we don’t. Fantasizing could be an debatable word here, but the important point is we start comparing our failures with the success of others.

We tend to forget success doesn’t necessitate about monetizing every aspects of life. This makes other beautiful things of life look like an irrelevant entity. The moment we monetize our success or failures alike, it is simple like that of opening a pandora box. A box, full of surprises and further choices to be made.

In his book “Paradox of Choice”, Barry Schwartz tells us that, we need to understand why more choices lead to less happiness and our continuous actions of figuring out what to do about it. Well, the reason is simple. Each new choices adds up more to the probability of choosing a bad choice. And this gives us more risks of missing out an even better choice.

It is important to note that all the quotes in the following article are from a book by Steven Pinker “on the language instinct” and should be credited as such and for any demerits mistakes, misrepresentations or misquotes the full responsibility is mine.

“Finally since language is the product of a well engineered biological instinct, we shall see that it is not the nutty barrel of monkeys that entertainer-columnists make it out to be.” I looked at languages and communications between human beings and it rather seemed that language emerged out of the need to give and take to and from the other. As the number of the items and the number of the individuals that needed to take and give increases and the paths the items to be given and taken increases, there arose the need to sophisticate the language in manners and ways to transverse the same distance and through the same intricate paths.

As evolutionarily as evolution itself at each stage and at every encounter consciously and rationally coined and agreed on. As such it seems rather a conscious act than it is a biological instinct. The ability to generate a sound of frequencies, pitches, wavelengths and amplitudes of the known ranges, sings and gestures and the need to communicate may be smart biological engineering, but language itself is a conscious effort of the use of these capabilities.

“The conception of language as a kind of instinct was first articulated in 1871 by Darwin himself. In THE DESCENT OF MAN he had to contend with language because of its confinement to humans seemed to present a challenge to his theory.” It is rather the reference to the confinement of language to humans that throw me a little off balance and made me look at the issue from a different angle. It would be rather a bit naive it seems that other animals do not communicate African killer bees when touched spreading the new and run to kill with hurray specific to a war cry and dispatch in a kamikaze army of fighters. Or the Hyenas cry of summons for a mill upon finding a Caracas of a kill. Or the love songs of different birds and insects and flies, have no language may be a little far fetched. May be rudimentary yet language enough with its own rules and specificity of usage as grammar is to us to communicate an event, a need from and a need to dependent on the level of social and mental development relative to that of ours (humans).

“As no child has an instinctive tendency to brew, bake or write. More over no philologist now supposes that any language has been deliberately invented” It is important to bear in mind that our eyes may have been exposed to light days after we were born at about seven days, but were we exposed to sound after or before we were born? Could we have been hearing sound and particularly conversations of our mothers and any and every one that she had conversed with after our ears and all our bodily audio mechanism were formed? Is it possible that our ears got exposed to audio sound and audio conversation ahead of videos communication? We might have been susceptible to audio sound than we are of visible light even while we were in our mother’s wombs. Having said that would it be then possible that children are more inclined to verbalize more efficiently than may show the “instinctive” tendency to cook or bake and brew, for they are visually acquired learning processes and skills.

Lastly what we rule out as instinctive may not be as instinctive as we believe it to be. It was a day after I had jotted down this note that I met a PhD. from Ghana on the bus home from an outing who teaches English in one of the US high schools and ask him how he was able to teach as a foreigner with such a heavy wall cracking accent children their own native language, The answer was not so complicated to him as it sounded to me. He simply told me it is the rules of the language that I teach, without the rules they might communicate, but they might as well communicate with a sign which would have been inept to explain and recognize the cultural, social, economic and technical sophistication of the past, present and the future. The implications are clear that I need no further explanations. Every trained body tends to execute what he or she is trained to do as instinctively as instinctive response can be, while others that are not so trained will have to think and think twice before acting on the same issue, act, or an activity.

Are instinctive responses that need no rationalization because their truth has been established in the mind of the actor that rationalizing would be unimportant and the response is clear and uncompromisingly predetermined while a conscious responses is pretty dynamic, flexible and variable dependent? A conscious act that is repeated and repeated over many a times becomes an act that is acted on without being thought about as though it is ingrained in the genes of the actor. After all what is ingrained in our genes are repetitious resistive and adaptive acts forced upon them, you and us by the needs and demands of our surrounding or environment.

When do we begin to react and be stimulated by sound? Would that have something to do for children’s instinctive tendency to “deliberately create language?” Verbalize prior to visualize.

“Therefore a language cannot be a repertoire of responses: the brain must contain a recipe of program that can build an unlimited set of sentences out of a finite list of words.” If I may say that seems suggestive that language is learned and gradually developed out of the needs to and from than it is a deliberate invention devoid of need. While deliberate invention predates need and use, language does not seem to predate use and need but to fulfill it. There does not seem that there is a chicken and egg argument here, but an A to B straight-line relationship.

“And Chomsky’s arguments about the nature of the language faculty are based on technical analysis of word and sentence structure, often couched in abstruse formalisms.” Language is a result of a need to give and take to the other, self, and from as such it is a result of a constant negotiation and agreement which has to be kept and observed, and to that end it has to be told and retold, read and re-read to generations. It is to me this repetitious propagation of the agreements reached and the negotiations conducted that what Chomsky referred to as abstruse formalist couching. If that is he wouldn’t have been far from the truth I see in my untrained layman’s views.

“The great majority of sentences were grammatical, especially in working class speech, with higher percentage of grammatical sentences in working-class speech. The higher percentage of ungrammatical sentences was found in the proceedings of learned academic conferences.” The recognition of the existence of a language difference between those that are learned and not may be in order considering the sentences made about Plato walking Among Macedonian herdsmen as far as language is concerned. “There are Stone Age societies, but there is no such thing as Stone Age language. When it comes to linguistic form, Plato walks with the Macedonian swineherd, Confucius with the headhunter savages of Assam.”

Thou it is clear from the outset that language carries a badge of class distinction the psychology that contributed to the grammatical discrepancy between the workingman and the academic will not pass without grabbing a due attention and beg for an explanation. Technicality and logicality, adherence and experiment, instinct and rational, seem to be in conflict at or at least at odds here than it is enlightenment and ignorance or wealth and poverty that are on opposing sides of the presumed or real issue. The working man is engaged in a rigorous repetitive work in his day-to-day activity, for him mistakes are costly that could throw him in to the darkness that he is not prepared to deal with, his sphere and peripheral vision may be is limited to the known and long been established, contrary to the academic who is in constant search and who is an adventurer in the wilderness of the unknown in search of answers and new findings, whose sphere is not limited to what is known and established, and is often in constant touch with new and the unknown and yet to be established. He is not more technical, but logical, and grammar is not logical than it is technical, it is by enlarge to be learned than it is to be deduced or rationalized. Is it any wonder then that our work and the environment we find ourselves in manifests itself in many ways including in our grammatical usage?

“Necessity being the mother of invention, language could have been invented by resourceful people a number of times long ago; —– Universal grammar would simply reflect the Universal limitations on human information processing. All languages words for “water” and “foot” because all people need to refer to water and feet. No language has word a million syllables long for no person would have the time to say it. It is the word and the essence of invention of a language that is of importance and may be worth the energy and discussion time here. It is rather a similar and like the ongoing discussion between evolution and creation, natural language seems to evolve over time in response to the human development and the division of labor that the complexity and enormity of human development brought about. It might have been helped and enhanced by the deep need to complain, but complaints would have done much in a society devoid of division of labor, in which case the complainer and the complaint addressee would be the same.

Division of labor did not only help develop language it indeed helped develop languages with in languages, sub cultures within cultures, like the technical terminologies of the medical doctor to the engineer, the pharmacist to the lawyer and other variances the convergence of languages in divergence of technical languages as specializations continue to divide and subdivide disciplines in to sub-disciplines in direct proportion to our growth in number.The point here is to note that as our journey forward in the universe in our forward developmental path the path seems to narrow like a light that projects forward and in for the depth we gain we give in width. Unlike the inventions language need coinage and convention and agreement, often inventions are real objective existences that need no conventional agreement but introduction of its reality and convincing of its reality, its naming may be conventional, but its reality an alterable fact that makes the naming a language and the creation an invention. I see a clear dichotomy between the two. As much as language as a creation of human ingenuity,it evolved over time that enables it to shape and reshape instantaneously in response to dynamic needs of society and propagate generating acceptance.

The Act of Giving is something we all possess! We can smile at a stranger and that is our gift to them. When we dig inside the web of personalities, giving gives us a sense of empowerment and satisfaction.

When you receive a gift you feel special in a good way, you feel like your important. That truly is a wonderful gift to give anyone.

* When was the last time you smiled at a stranger?

* When was the last time you gave yourself a gift?

* When was the last time you did something nice with no thought of what you would get back?

One gift I know I have in my possession is Knowledge and knowledge can lead to power. Every person I share with I am giving them the gift of my knowledge, do I have to share………no……….do I want to………yes I do.

His philosophy focuses on a company, continually making improvements in product and service quality; by manufacturing, and service processes, driven by the leadership top management.
# He believes in mission statements; where YOU say it, YOU do what you preach. Empower them, the employees; the people are your lifeblood in a company and an organization.

Educate or train them, when at work, they need the tools of the trade.

# Yes, almost all profit focused organizations want to increase their sales, by increasing product output. However, YOU must never lose sight of the quality factors as customers are the determinants of your company’s survivability in the market it is functioning in.
# In the work process, a step in the production of an item for consumption can be skipped! Yet the quality of the product is left high. (Inspection for Quality Controlling purposes. A company’s responsibility for quality)

This would speed up the production process and save on cost of production with less time is wasted; meaning the length of time machinery has to work. (Cycle Time)

Employee morale improves, as they do not have to fear redoing what was done earlier.
# As a business focuses on establishing itself in a competitive market environment, the sales numbers depend on customers. (Business decisions must not be made purely on the basis of cost.)

This is a fact, the wealthier a customer, the less price sensitive he or she is when involved in a purchase situation.

However, a company can prove to consumers, when the quality of a product or service is worth the high price being paid for. Customer advocates, are more effective than many other advertising techniques. (Quality on Production )

# After the initial success, which boosts a company’s business’s profitability and survivability, the newly established company must keep improving. (Continually Improving)
# As the company progresses in business activities, training keeps the employees confident, motivated and updated with changes to a production or service process.
# More procedures are used to handle tasks then (After the company is established.) The need for cross functionality between departments and specialization in job skills and fields of work. Training is essential to employee work quality.