Thoughts on The Roots of Lisp

Recently, I have taken a deep interest in Chinese. Yes, it is quite a different language, obviously. Mind that I still do not know a lot of linguistics, so the way and things I talk about language are unsophisticated. Nonetheless, from the get-go, Chinese is not a permutative language, at least not to the extent of “occidental” languages. Words are plain symbols, kind of, instead of a permutation of letters. The advantages of this is in an effectiveness of space: more can be said in a sheet of paper. A disadvantage is an ineffectiveness in memory; instead of storing a small subset of alphabetic letters to combine, all authentic symbols must be saved.

Just to be clear, we should not judge a human language by how effective or not it is; I am just noting differences. Instead, we should focus on how these languages provide a different model of thinking. And as for many languages, many ways of thinking, there are, as many manners of solving problems and recognize symmetries in reality there is.

Indeed, it is intriguing to observe how thinking in terms of lists, Lisp, provides a different yet elegant model of computation. Should we focus more on the semantics of language to drive authenticity in thinking and solving? Nahuatl is rhythmic, even poetic. German eases word coinage. Spanish is metric and consistent. And still, their limits are not enough. Human language has to be organic, and computer language must be too if it wants to evolve. Let us look, for instance, at the proposals of inclusive language, predominantly that of neutral genders.

We must break the boundaries of determinacy to grasp what is possible. To realize potentiality, and what the world ought to be. Only diversity may save us from stagnant paradigms of living and thought, from our sins, and progress toward a more inclusive and possible reality.

Graham, P. (2002). The roots of lisp.