I have found that our subconscious, default-mode, world-view results from the values we internalize from our culture/language in our formative years. Using inherently-communicative/meaningful vocal sounds to signify things, as we do wnen we use words, informs us, subliminally, of the effects-on-us, the meanings of, the things which we name. If we would change our collective behavior, we should change our collective world view. Recreating language is the way to do this. When we use a word to refer to a thing, we are doing much more than neutrally pointing to something: we are, more importantly, informing ourselves subconsciously of the effect/meaning of the thing. What could the basic meaning of a thing be other than its affect on us? Please see more of my writings on this issue at <www.conknet.com/~mmagnus>. Go to "papers hosted at this site" from the site map and click on my name, Joseph Gilbert. My email address is, <joeg4us@adelphia.net>.

Well, Samuel Huntington would agree in that his theory is that culture is at the root of international conflict. But, luckily, not too many political scientists pay much attention to him anymore because his theory's pretty weak, and he's a little kooky anyway.

As far as interpersonal conflict, I would disagree with that as well. While I might agree that the effect of language on cognition is enormous, I think this is something that we can overcome once we recognize the effect that language has on our perceptions. The easiest way to do so is to learn another language. Doing that will force you to have a heightened awareness about the real meaning of the ideas you're expressing. Interpersonal conflict is much more complex than that, and occurs more often between people who come from the same culture and speak the same language than between people who do not--because, of course, people simply have more opportunity to interact with people who speak their own language and who share their culture, and thus have more opportunity for conflict. When discussing the ideas that we attach to objects or ideas, which transcends language, you're talking more about phenomenological distinctions, I believe (if anything from my phenomenology course as an undergrad stuck with me--I could be way off classifying this as a matter for phenomenology), and those things might not really be rooted in culture.