Most people have a wrong notion about Vedanta, because most commentaries give partial explanations not covering all aspects. Thus, their translations do not give a correct picture. I had spoken on this in many important forums. Specifically, I had presented a paper last year in a National Seminar to commemorate the Millennium of Ramanuja, the founder of Dwaita School, where I had shown that the different schools are not really different, but are different aspects of the same subject. Vedanta does not talk of “some sort of TRANS-individual, all-encompassing, divine-like Consciousness”. It declares both concepts of the Universal and the Individual Consciousness as valid and different aspects of the same thing – analog and digitized versions like the ocean and a bucket of ocean water. You had given a limited version, whereas I had used the totality.
Mind (मनः): It is called Manas. It has two variants based on the Universal (स्ववश्यस् मनः) and the Individual (हृदयाख्य मनः or सङ्कल्पात्मक मनः), which are analog and digitized versions respectively. The former is infinite (परममहत् परिमाण) and without numbers, whereas the latter is one and quantum (एक, अणु). We generally use the latter as mind. It is highly mobile – faster than light - though it can be brought to a standstill. For this reason, some American scientists proposed a Tachyon theory of mind. But after I showed their theory as self-contradictory, it is no longer discussed.
The materialists will dispute it by telling that there is no such thing as mind. It is only the neurons, nerve cells and nerve fibers, lecithins, proteids, etc. But what are these? Specific combinations of different atoms. Thus, according to them, motion of these matter leads to conscious functions in some yet unknown process. Motion means change of place over time. But this cannot explain different emotions generated in different persons by the same object. Other say that a person boarded a train to a certain city. We infer that he is going to that city or some place on the way to that place. From this, they infer that mind is co-emergent and co-terminus with motion of matter in the brain. But unless we know the mechanism of generation of different emotions, we cannot accept the above view.
We always give three different complementary interpretation to everything. Material interpretation (अधिभूत), energy interpretation (अधिदैव) and Conscious interpretation (अध्यात्म). In Conscious interpretation, mind is called Manas (मनः), which regulates the functioning of the sense organs (पञ्चभूतात्म धारकम्). In material interpretation, it is called Imagining Agency (सङ्कल्पात्मक मनः), as it tests an impulse with memory in a format “this or that” (इदं वा इदं वा) “it should be like this” (अस्येदं भवतु). In the energy interpretation, it is called the “Enlightening Agency” (चन्द्रमा – चन्दति दीप्यते), because unless mind is operating, the sensory agencies cannot function – the external impulses cannot be carried to the brain for processing.
Intelligence/Intellect (बुद्धि): It is the mixing agency of all sensory perceptions that leads to determinate knowledge (निश्चयात्मक). When we observe something; say, a rose; our eyes give us the perception of color only. Our sense of touch gives us the sense of form. Our sense of hearing, which can receive the sensations involving compression and rarefaction, gives us the spatial arrangement of petals and their intervals. Our sense of taste gives us the perception of freshness or dryness. Our sense of smell gives us the perception of fragrance. All these are mixed in our brain to give us a composite picture. The agency that gives us such composite picture is called Intelligence/Intellect (बुद्धि). All information has a source rate (complexity) that can be measured in bits per second (speed) and requires a transmission channel (mode – sensory channel) with a capacity equal to or greater than the source rate (intelligence or memory level). In perception, these are the intelligence level.
Self/Ego (अहङ्कार) & Self-Consciousness (अस्मिता): These are really not two different things, but two names of the same thing. For the different data structures that are received and to be mixed, we require a common code to bring it to a format “this (object) is like that (the concept)”. The Agency that provides the common code is called Self/Ego (अहङ्कार) and Self-Consciousness (अस्मिता). Since only here the synthesis of all perceptions through a common code takes place, it appears as the cognizer.
This cognition of self can be pure cognition or mixed cognition. The latter are of four types:
1) Externally induced ego: such as the feeling that “I am rich”, “I am poor”, etc.
2) Internally induced ego: such as the feeling that “I am fat”, “I am healthy”, etc.
3) Mentally induced ego: such as the feeling that “I am intelligent”, etc.
4) Mindless ego: such as the feeling that “I was asleep”, etc.
Of the above four, generally the last two are considered as Self or Ego. In the perception “this (object) is like that (the concept)”, one can describe “that” only if one has perceived it earlier.
Consciousness/Awareness (चित्त or महत्तत्व): Perception requires prior measurement of multiple aspects or fields and storing the result of measurement in a centralized system (memory) to be retrieved when needed. To understand a certain aspect, we just refer to the data bank and see whether it matches with any of the previous readings or not. The answer is either yes or no. Number is a perceived property of all substances by which we differentiate between similars. Hence they are most suited for describing messages concerning everything. Since the higher or lower numbers are perceived in a sequence of one at a time, it can be accumulated or reduced by one at each step making it equivalent to binary systems, such as yes/no. The repository of the data bank, which determines the response as yes/no relating to the concept, is called Consciousness/Awareness (चित्त). This reflects pure consciousness in a digitized form – a totality of different concepts, in a limited scale. For this reason, there is a limitation to our knowledge. Its analog form is the Absolute Consciousness or “TRANS-individual, all-encompassing, divine-like Consciousness” – (पुरुष).
Before we discuss: “Are the principles and rules of logic themselves knowledge or not”, it is necessary to precisely define “knowledge”, “truth” and “logic” to be clear in our minds about the exact content of our deliberation. This will eliminate doubts regarding “whether we do have genuine knowledge at all” and “in what sense can they be deemed ‘true’ or ‘false’?” These questions arise because if we consider “knowledge is justified true belief”, then we face a contradiction: logical validity is a property of inferential schemes and structures, whereas 'truth' and ‘rational belief” or ‘justification’ are properties of propositional content. To try and establish whether the principles of logic are themselves true or false would seem to imply an inconclusive ‘regressus ad infinitum’. This will also reply the question: “Are the principles and rules of logic themselves knowledge or not?”
KNOWLEDGE: When, due to some external or internal impulse, we remember something out of our past experience, the realization of such recalled concept (without its physical subject) is called “knowledge” (smritipoorvaanubhutaartha vishayam jnaanamuchyate).
TRUTH: Everything in the universe is ever being transformed in time. Such transformations follow a set pattern of six steps (shad bhava vikaaraah): from 1) being as cause (jaayate) to 2) becoming as effect (asti) to 3) growth due to accumulation of similar content (vardhate) to 4) transformation due to accumulation of harmonious content (viparinamate) to 5) transmutation due to accumulation of non-harmonious content (apakshiyate) to 6) change of content by disintegration and recombination (vinashyati). Observation of this universal pattern and its invariant description in time and space, is called “Truth” (sate hitam).
“LOGIC” is the instrument for eliminating doubt (vyabhichaarishankaa nivartaka). These can be of five types:
a) Based on the content of itself (Aatmaashraya).
b) Based on the content of its complement - if the other is established as true, this must also be true (anyonyaashraya).
c) Circular (chakrakah).
d) Self-contradictory (anavasthaa), and;
e) That which contradicts the very proposition that is advanced as proof (pramaana vaadhitaarthakah).
There is plenty of literature on this subject.
1) There is no difference between what I wrote and what you say now. We also differentiate between memory (smriti) and remembrance (smarana) from knowledge (jnaanam). My definition of knowledge focuses on the “SUB-class of ACCURATE memories”, when I say: “we remember something out of our past experience”. It is not everything from out of our past experience. It is “on the present rationally justified/warranted TRUE opinions about past, based on present ACCURATE representations (memories) referring to it”, when I say: “the realization of such recalled concept (without its physical subject)”. Knowledge is always about some subject with reference to an object. The realization is related to “the present rationally justified/warranted TRUE opinions about past”. The object is: “based on present ACCURATE representations (memories) referring to it”. Since memory is only data from past experience, there is some “mental representation”, but since memory is different from realization, “not every mental representation (or memory) constitutes/ carries/encodes knowledge”.
2. (a) When I say: “universal pattern and its invariant description in time and space”, “such observation must ACCURATELY ‘mirror’ or represent the relevant patterns”. It would be impossible to be invariant, yet not-accurate.
(b) We also differentiate between “'rational warranted-ness/justification”, which we call proof (pramaana – literally, instrument for realization) and “'truth (deemed to be a context-INdependent or ABSOLUTE property of propositional mental representations)”, which is Satyam - an “universal pattern and its invariant description” as different from the object proper.
3. We are talking about universal logic (tarka) and not “valid logic (pramaana) or invalid logic (viparyaasa)”. All types of logic are applied for eliminating doubt. Doubt arises when we notice contradictory characteristics in something, leading to a confusion “whether it is this or that” (idam vaa, idam vaa). We try to remove that doubt by applying logic. This logic can be valid logic due to proof based knowledge or invalid logic due to ignorance (avidyaa). Hence I had to cover all.
(a) True, “the absence of doubt can also lead to irrational states of mind (like fanaticism)” or even fantasy. But as I said above, all types of logic are applied for eliminating doubt. Even an invalid logic is “(SELF-)CRITICAL reasoning, carried on according to VALID (i.e., truth-preserving) inferential schemes”. Because, this “self-critical reasoning” is different for different persons according to their level of understanding of the same phenomenon or concept. Yet, everyone thinks that it is “VALID (i.e., truth-preserving) inferential schemes”. There is no standard yardstick here to judge whose reasoning is right and whose wrong. Mostly, it is a mixture of both. In an intellectual debate, we can eliminate the invalid part from the statement by relying on its truth content, which is universally invariant. But that is not applied in all cases. We have different types of logic (reasoning), as listed by me.
(b) “What if one doubts the instrument ITSELF”? As I had pointed out above, doubt arises when we find self-contradictory features – some pointing to one conclusion, while the other pointing to a different conclusion. Hence, self-contrariness is inherent in doubt. We try to remove that contradiction by using logical tools. These tools are based on standard principles based on their invariant nature. It is not that “we are not allowed to critically scrutinize them” – everyone is free to and do apply these “tools which are logical principles” and try to improve upon them. But the question is, can everyone apply these tools in a universally invariant method? The answer is a big NO, because everyone is not equally talented. Talent is inborn – though skill is acquired.
When you say: “Logic …. strives to promote *CORRECT* reasoning…”, you are talking of the ideal case (vaada) only, where the effort is directed at arriving at the truth by examining various alternatives. But sometimes logic is used to establish one’s own views (jalpa) or to falsify the opposite view (vitandaa) only, irrespective of the truth content in both cases. We must differentiate between logic (tarka) and proof (pramaana). Reality is determined by proof only, which can be direct perception (pratyaksha), inference (anumaanam), similarity (upamaanam) or self-realization (shabdah). Logic is not a determinant of reality by itself – it is a subsidiary or aid to proof - which considers different alternatives of a generally known subject to arrive at the reality or the concept behind its existence or functioning. This may or may not be the truth depending upon the intention and the level of understanding of the person applying logic.
Falsity (Chhala) is a much more widely encountered property. Though generally it is assumed that “no one would really be interested in setting such a bizarre goal like primarily, deliberately, and systematically arriving to FALSE propositions”, it is not always so, and it could arise from other reasons also. Also, it can arise from a misunderstanding of reality. There are five types of falsity. We can discuss about that separately.
Logic and knowledge are two subjective concepts (because the principles are applied individually and not universally – there is no fixed yardstick for either) and inherence or acquisition are objective concepts that become evident during the process of application of either logic or knowledge. Hence we must first define “logic” and “knowledge” and examine their process of application to find the answer.
Logic is the instrument for eliminating doubt. It is not a determinant of reality by itself – it is a subsidiary or aid to proof - which considers different alternatives of a generally known subject to arrive at the reality or the concept behind its existence or functioning. This may or may not be the truth depending upon the intention and the level of understanding of the person applying logic. While in ideal cases it is directed at finding reality, it can also be used exclusively to defend one’s position or demolish the opposition, irrespective of the truth content of either.
Knowledge begins when the mental process of identification ends. When, we receive some external or internal impulse, and compare it with our past experience stored in memory, and if the comparison matches our memory, the realization of such recalled concept (without its physical subject) is called “knowledge”. While the process takes place in time, the knowledge is time invariant, though it can be updated without destroying the earlier version.
Since the process takes place in time in a closed circuit, the outcome is momentary – the mental inertial process ceases after the knowledge. Then it is frozen in time. Hence, if one accepts rebirth, it explains why we do not have memory of the previous birth. The brain, which stored the result of measurement (comparison), does not exist. This shows that logic is a process and knowledge is the outcome. Whether such outcome is true or false depends upon several factors, which can be discussed separately. There are various methods to judge logical validity of a statement. These are universal and invariant in space and time – hence universal standards. It can be shown that the so-called “knowledge of the principles of logic” are not an inconclusive (and, thus, inconvenient) “regressus ad infinitum”. These principles and rules of logic do not constitute in themselves knowledge, but are subsidiary to knowledge.
The answer to the OP is: logic, like talent, is inherent based on the level of understanding of each person, though, like skill, it gets updated with experience.
In scientific method the word “empirical” refers to the use of working hypothesis that can be tested using observation and experiment. The term “empirical” is derived from the Greek word for experience, ἐμπειρία (empeiría). Now the question arises: experience of what? It must be based on some object that interacts with our senses through some means. There is nothing as non-material experience in science. Emotional and psychic experiences do not form part of modern science. Thus, while our experience may be correct or misleading, it cannot be uncertain. Once we know about something, our quest of that ceases. We may seek knowledge of some other thing – be willing to re-evaluate anything if there is sufficient credible evidence to do so. Even that is neither eternal nor uncertain.
Earlier, I had defined Knowledge as follows: When, due to some external or internal impulse, we remember something out of our past experience, the realization of such recalled concept (without its physical subject) is called “knowledge”. Thus, “empirical science aspire to be a type of activity that pursues knowledge” (context independent). If we have no previous experience about a subject, we cannot have knowledge about it in first perception. It is simply stored in our memory as indeterminate perception, subject to modification in future (context dependent or relative). If the outcome of perception (measurement by our sense organs) leads to a realization that is invariant in space and time, that is the “scientific knowledge”.
Heisenberg's “Uncertainty Relation” is grossly misunderstood. When Heisenberg proposed his conjecture in 1927, Earle Kennard independently derived a different formulation, which was later generalized by Howard Robertson as: σ(q)σ(p) ≥ h/4π. This inequality says that one cannot suppress quantum fluctuations of both position σ(q) and momentum σ(p) lower than a certain limit simultaneously. The fluctuation exists regardless of whether it is measured or not implying the existence of a universal field. The inequality does not say anything about what happens when a measurement is performed. Kennard’s formulation is therefore totally different from Heisenberg’s. However, because of the similarities in format and terminology of the two inequalities, most physicists have assumed that both formulations describe virtually the same phenomenon. Modern physicists actually use Kennard’s formulation in everyday research but mistakenly call it Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. “Spontaneous” creation and annihilation of virtual particles in vacuum is possible only in Kennard’s formulation and not in Heisenberg’s formulation, as otherwise it would violate conservation laws. If it were violated experimentally, the whole of quantum mechanics would break down.
Uncertainty is not a law of Nature. We can’t create a molecule from any combination of atoms as it has to follow certain “special conditions”. The conditions may be different like the restrictions on the initial perturbation sending the signal out or the second perturbation leading to the reception of the signal back for comparison because the inputs may be different like c+v and c-v or there may be other inhibiting factors like a threshold limit for interaction. These “special conditions” and external influences that regulate and influence all actions and are unique by themselves, and not the process of measurement, create uncertainty. As the universe evolves in time, its density fluctuates from the mean density within a certain range. Thus, the degree of uncertainty also changes over time. We will discuss this later. The disturbances arising out of the process of measurement are operational (technological) in nature and not existential for the particles. Hence it does not affect the particle, but only its description with reference to observation by others.
The phrase “hypothetical or uncertain knowledge” are blatantly self-contradictory?
Knowledge, i.e., to understand and/or solve something is to predict its behavior in a given situation, when such prediction matches observed behavior. Something makes meaning only if the description remains invariant under multiple perceptions or measurements under similar conditions through a proper measurement system. In communication, as in perception, it is the class or form that remains invariant as a concept. The sequence of sound in a word or signal ceases to exist, but the meaning remains as a concept. In Nature, same atoms (or numbers signifying objects) may combine differently to produce different objects. The concept arising out of each combination acquires a name (word, message) that remains invariant through all material changes and even when they cease to exist.
This also defines reality or Truth. Reality or Truth must be invariant under similar conditions at all times. The validity of a physical theory is judged by its correspondence to reality. In a mirage, what one sees is a visual misrepresentation caused by the differential air density due to temperature gradient. This is information, which appears as invalid knowledge (viparyaasa). All invariant information consistent with physical laws, i.e. effect of distance, angle, temperature, etc. is real. Its perception as such is valid knowledge (pramaa). Since the perception of mirage is not invariant from different distances, it is not real. This differentiates knowledge from non-knowledge. How one is supposed to choose between these two rival definitional proposals of knowledge and false knowledge? Sometimes, people ascribe the label “knowledge” to “things”. But objects or things can be subject of knowledge – not knowledge per se. We can have knowledge about something – but that something is not knowledge.
The inherent uncertainty induced by the environment necessitates error-correcting codes. This is done by introducing redundancy into the digital representation to protect against corruption (syntax error). Compilation of information (pool) is bound by physical rules and all combinations are not permitted (eigenvalues). Inside an atom, the number of neutrons cannot exceed a specific ratio. This is the difference of wakeful state from the dream state, where, in the absence of external stimuli, no such restrictions (compiler) apply to the stored information in memory. Hence valid source coding is necessary.
In the mechanism of perception, each sense organ perceives different kind of impulses related to the fundamental forces of Nature. Eyes see by comparing the electromagnetic field set up by the object with that of the electrons in our cornea, which is the unit. Thus, we cannot see in total darkness because there is nothing comparable to this unit. Tongue perceives when the object dissolves in the mouth, which is macro equivalent of the weak nuclear interaction. Nose perceives when the finer parts of an object are brought in close contact with the smell buds, which is macro equivalent of the strong nuclear interaction. Skin perceives when there is motion that is macro equivalent of the gravitational interaction. Individually the perception has no meaning. They become information and acquire meaning only when they are pooled in our memory.
In the perception “this (object) is like that (the concept)”, one can describe “that” only if one has perceived it earlier. Perception requires prior measurement of multiple aspects or fields and storing the result of measurement in a centralized system (memory) to be retrieved when needed. To understand a certain aspect, we just refer to the data bank and see whether it matches with any of the previous readings or not. The answer is either yes or no. This makes a binary system. Wrong – variant in time and space – concepts introduce the couple: knowledge and false knowledge.
One problem I find with most people and modern concepts is that, they prefer general remarks and avoid being precise. The correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world - true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs. This leaves many aspects and terms vague – you have pointed to some of them.
What is reality? We define reality as that which has: 1) physical existence that is perceptible through any of our sense organs (astitva) irrespective of the observer, time or space, 2) is knowable (jneyatwa), and 3) is describable in any language (abhidheyatwa). Anything that violates these conditions is unreal. For example, a mirage is unreal because it has no existence for all observers at all places. Is the above statement not the same as the correspondence theory with a more precise definition? And does it not cover more areas in general than the correspondence theory?
Truth is what is physically observable (sthitisiddha), with a central position based on which the structure is constructed (sahridaya), and has dimensional properties (sashareeree). The opposite is called Anrht. Does it not fulfil the conditions stipulated by the correspondence theory in a much more precise and better way?
As you can see, both reality and truth are not the same thing, but can they be separated? Knowledge is different from both. As you have pointed out, both reality and truth can exist without our knowledge. It is because the conditions for existence of reality and truth do not require our individual knowledge. And whether it exists or not when there is no observer is irrelevant, because it can never be known – knowledge requires a knower.
The definition of knowledge in Western Philosophy as pointed out by you, is too open ended. What is the yardstick for judging what is rational or justified or warranted or true or reliable? Can the content of someone’s opinion change reality or truth? Because of this open-endedness, such controversies like whether true propositions or vice versa will be known or unknown arise. Knowledge is a matter of perception away from the object of perception. Every objects ever evolves in time. But the knowledge about them is time invariant. It is frozen till it is updated. Perception or as you say: propositions that leads to knowledge, can be true (hetu) or false (hetwaabhaasa). Based on that, and not how you define knowledge, the acquired knowledge can be true or false. But as you have pointed out, in the absolute domain, knowledge (pramaa) cannot be false.
Your observation on the intellectual content or context of knowledge in Western philosophy is easy to harmonize. Once you accept that it is based on perception, the next question should be asked: which type of perception? Ocular perception gives information only of form. Tactile perception, auditory perception, smell and taste perception, all give partial information about some aspect of the object. These are mixed in the brain to get a composite picture. That is intelligence. Thus, you say: *knowledge* must involve an additional INTELLECTUAL processing of those sensory data, which forms OPINIONS ("perceptual beliefs-THAT...") upon them, presented in a REASONING format”. So, “Do logical rules and principles themselves constitute knowledge?” The answer is NO. The logical rules and principles are accessories or aid (avayava) to knowledge.
When I say: “All types of logic are applied for eliminating doubt”, it includes eliminating doubt on the validity of logic and/or proof itself – be these philosophical or otherwise. In fact that is the first question that must be answered before proceeding further. The answer is, if after applying the methods of logic, the predicted behavior matches the actual behavior in ALL cases for all people at all times, then we must accept those methods of logic as valid. There is no question of infinite regress here. There is nothing like “excessive doubting”. Then it will not be logic, but superstition.
(a) Everyone uses inferential schemes only when he/she thinks that it is valid in the specific context, irrespective of whether such inferences are valid or not in the universal context. Or, as you say: “the mere fact that someone THINKS he or she possesses knowledge does not necessarily imply that he or she really IS possessing genuine knowledge”. However, the difference between “specific context” and “universal context” must be remembered. As I have said earlier, logic is not a determinant of reality by itself – it is a subsidiary or aid to proof. All logic may or may not be the truth depending upon the intention and the level of understanding of the person applying logic. While in ideal cases it is directed at finding reality, it can also be used exclusively to defend one’s position or demolish the opposition, irrespective of the truth content of either.
(b) The word “here” in my statement is important. It was used with reference to “self-critical reasoning”. But this does not mean that there are no universal yard-sticks. We use a five step approach in this regard: 1) statement leading to a postulate (pakshasatwa), 2) corroborative evidence (sapakshasatwa), 3) proof that its opposite is not true (vipakshaasatwa), 4) universality of application (avadhitatwa) – if there are specific or limiting cases, they must be foretold, and finally, 5) all other existing theories or postulates in this regard are wrong (asatpratipakshitwa). After these tests, the theory cannot be wrong.
Is "reality" conformity to what is observable and perceivable? Yes. Is "truth" simply 'faithfulness'? Faithfulness is steadfastness, constancy, or allegiance; unswerving adherence to a person or thing or to the oath or promise by which a tie was contracted. Truth is faithfulness or invariance in the perception of physically observables, with a central position based on which the structure is constructed, and has dimensional properties. If the same reaction appears in our minds every time we observe or think about something, this faithfulness of perception is the truth. Does consciousness play a part in knowing? It is the only necessary invariant condition. Only conscious beings can know. What's known simply by "being conscious"? Whatever shows the characteristics of consciousness is "being conscious". The characteristics of consciousness are: 1) desire to get something that is not available, 2) its opposite - repulsion, 3) efforts to get one's desire/repulsion fulfilled by application of energy, 4) happiness, when the result of effort is harmonious to one's memory, 5) distress in the opposite case, and 7) knowledge of the reality of something that is used to plan the response.
There is a danger of being misled in this type of argument. A man is a living being. A tiger is a living being. A bird is a living being. Hence man = tiger = bird is valid only in a limited sense - of being alive. This statement cannot be generalized or extended to other areas. However, if we make man = A, tiger = B and bird = C, and then generalize the statement, we are surely trying to manipulate logic by misrepresentation. This is one reason for the present confusion.
All our feelings and emotions are the outcome of internal conscious functions called desire, which is the limitation on total availability. The form of emotions generated by desire is the mental condition “let it (something or state) be like that (something else)”. It has two variations. The first is internal thought. It has a form: “I will do like this” or “I should have this”. The other is related to others. It has a form: “He should do this” “He should have this”. Language is the transposition of one’s feelings or emotions or desires into another person or system’s mind/CPU using sequential sound or signals. This could be internal thought or expressed through sounds or signs.
Depending upon the geographical variations, the natural language becomes different. Thus, we have to choose a particular language as the “Object language” to study/communicate various fields/desires. The spoken language consists of two components: 1) the first component relates to basic features of the observed and 2) its deformations or transformations depending upon the requirement. These may be called as “Sentence Logic” and “Predicate Logic” respectively. While the basic features of such language logic do not change, in different contexts it may appear to convey different meanings, which necessitates giving different names for the same thing (synonym). Alternatively it may appear as the same in different situations, when it is indicated by a common name (thesaurus). The deformations are dealt with by prescribed formulae in grammar. When such grammar is used to talk about an object language, it is called a metalanguage. It is identical with and includes the object language.
When the language is compact and gives more emphasis to the contextual meaning over literal meaning, it is called a speech form (sentence). A formal language is a set of sentences generated by rules of formation from a vocabulary. When the language is harmoniously flowing and gives more emphasis to literal symmetry without losing the context, it is called literature.