What is Language?
What is the meta-definition of language? Does every language create its own meta-base? How exactly? By using the language itself. Where does this lead us? To a point as simple as the definition of a "literature-base." Together, these become the knowledge base.
We use language to label anything and record everything.
This is a plain and meta-definition of language. The idea behind it is subjective. It is a basic truth about the basics: it is subjective, not objective. It is not an elective idea to teach languages as mere subjects in schools and grades. Education is what is at stake, because the use of language can leave objective traces.
Everything is part of a language—and therefore, language again. Because of this, we do not have to explain how language moves from a meta-base to a literature-base, and finally to a knowledge base. It is the role of the subjective foot-mark and footprint that leads to a known impression.
For example, the subjective reason we use language to communicate is to understand what we are talking about and to identify the difference. This is absolute language.
Communication is not about the difference between good and bad, but about defining what is good and what is bad through labels and records.
One might then guess the objective use of language: it is not even communication, but miscommunication. The intent is not to challenge this using a reverse analogy.
In practice, language can become a tool to achieve objective ideas when people treat everything as a record and anything as a label—using personal notes to find no difference by virtue of language. In this state, there is no difference between good and bad. This is not a language or a subjective idea, but the path that leads us to objective traces.
#EvenSplitPress