encoded notions

The word, in the end, is the only system of encoding thoughts.
Neal Stephenson

Spoken and written language are constrained by the one-dimensionality of the construct of a sentence. Our mouths can make but one sound at a time, so our writings and our minds feel constrained to this physical limitation.

There are times when we have moments of parallelity, where the mind processes more than one item in the active foreground. Most times this does not happen with words, but concepts, abstractions, and calculations. Language trains the mind to flow like water from a pipe instead of like ripples on a pond. Words help to shape the mind, but they do not govern it completely.

There is a construct which can be used to route around this linearity of language: the metaphor. Metaphors are speech tokens and phrases that represent more than what is uttered. They carry weight, associations, connections, memories, subtexts, and implications. They are linked to a collective body of common knowledge. In this regard, they are multi-dimensional words. Metaphors are as close to a mind-to-mind connection as words can allow.

In Computer Science there is a distinction between varying types of programming languages: low-level vs. high-level languages.

LLL, like assembler and machine language, translate the symbols and tokens of the code directly into CPU instructions. There is no ambiguity, since to program in LLL require the programmer to verbosely detail the operation of the program being written. Because of this severe need for detail, these types of programs are difficult and time-consuming to create. In contrast, HLL abstract away much of the nitty-gritty need for detail, and provide a more powerful interface to the system. Tokens and syntax in the code allow for programs to be written with far less code, and less time.

Words and metaphors are like this. Words are the atomic units that lie at the heart of spoken and written communication. Given enough words, one can convey anything that their mind can construct, though sometimes this expression is frustrating and difficult to perform. In the translation from thoughts into words, there is a loss of precision and meaning that cannot be avoided.

Metaphors are more forgiving, allowing you to transmit volumes of information without condensing it into the forced form of sentences. With metaphors, however, one must let go of the thought that they have control of how the metaphors are interpreted by the recipient. The listener must derive the meaning of your words for themselves.

To gain meaning and subtext, one must relinquish specificity.

In the end, however, a stream of methphors is still composed of words, and retains aspects of its one-dimensionality.

A true system of mind-to-mind communication would require that the brain be allowed to wander and express itself in other media besides aurally, like the bubble from Signal to Noise.