Re: "I am" my reason
Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 5:29 am
Ah I see, and thank you :) I like yours too. Gets you thinking.
Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment
http://theabsolute.net/phpBB/
I make do with the tools I am given... Whether or not these things affect my expression is irrelevant as I could not have communicated my thoughts to you without them.Blair wrote: You are using the English language, the internet and a specific forum to state you are defined by yourself?
Given by whom? your ancestors, mine or perhaps both.alice144 wrote:I make do with the tools I am given...
both is just fine.blair wrote:Given by whom? your ancestors, mine or perhaps both.
It's not possible to be 'excessively clear', it's either clear or unclear. Unless you are a woman, in which case you might be given to idiotic hyperbole like my neighbor who I recently heard say that the barbeque was "extremely, very very hot"alice144 wrote:To be excessively clear,
Are you sure about that, or are you just going along with your brainwashed idea that everyone is equal?alice144 wrote: we are both equally handicapped by inanimates.
So you are arguing that your thoughts are your own, and outside the realm of language, but you are putting them into language in order to be understood that your thoughts are not shaped or expressed in the form of language?alice144 wrote: I'm not interested in how my thoughts may or may not be shaped by language, that's outside the sphere of my original argument,
That's very gracious of you to acknowledge.alice144 wrote:both is just fine.
No. Nothing you've ever thought is out of the language sphere as you were immersed in from conception, unless you were an accident, in such a case a little later.alice144 wrote:No, I'm a plant. :)
To be excessively clear, we are both equally handicapped by inanimates. I'm not interested in how my thoughts may or may not be shaped by language, that's outside the sphere of my original argument, although the meaning of words under the present day lexicon isn't entirely irrelevant insofar as applying definitions. I'm more interested in subject-object relations within the interpersonal sphere; how you and others understand me versus how I understand myself.
both is just fine.blair wrote:Given by whom? your ancestors, mine or perhaps both.
Language is abstraction; shared imagination. Whether pictorial or otherwise. Language is everything you've ever been exposed to. Upon conception, your parents likely began planning your life, this is an example of how you are not solely but largely a function of it.alice144 wrote:Who says that I think in terms of language? I've always thought those passages in novels where the character's thoughts were italicized, and then something is written as if he were having those thoughts in his head were a bit contrived, anyhow. I'm fairly certain that my thought-process is primarily non-verbal. Perhaps this is only true for me, and not true for others, who do think in terms of sentences. But sentences suck. Language is so limiting. Better to think with pictures and symbols instead.
I'm not saying that being an native English speaker hasn't affected those mental symbols somewhat. Certainly it has, to a degree. But "immersion" is not a term I would use to describe my relationship with language. It's simply a tool to get things done, i.e. to take what I think, and let you know about it too.
I don't reference anything. I speak only for myself, as far as it is possible. My point is this; all human progress is imaginary, it is memory. Imagination is language, and memory is a reciprocal of it. Your experiences were facilitated by language, as you understand them through it and they were caused by it. The world that has been created around us -> you -> you -> you..alice144 wrote:That's such a broad definition of language. :) If we narrow "language" down to just what you are reading on your screen, and ignore other factors which might influence communication such as tone of voice, facial expressions, etc. my argument makes so much more sense.
Saying "a person is a sum of his or her experiences" seems to me an entirely different discussion than "my thoughts are influenced by the structure of the language which I speak". Related, but different.
No. Are you referencing something?
This is where you lose me. :/as you understand them through it and they were caused by it.
me! me! me!-> you -> you -> you..
I completely appreciate what you are saying about certain feelings being inexpressible through words. I'm perhaps not being clear enough. I'm thinking of the implications of ordered society on the mind; from city structure, nomenclature, schooling, etc. Everything is very connected to language because of human abilities. Especially storage and memory. We learn and grow as an individual and as a colony over millenia. This is what i mean by you are a function of language. It isn't everything, but it seems to be most of what we are.alice144 wrote:deaf to nondualism! deaf to nondualism!
Some of the people who I talk to have very little imagination in their language. You can also speak almost entirely in terms of cliches and stock-phrases, as Mike Leigh so kindly demonstrated to us in his first feature film, Bleak Moments.
Making a statement such as "imagination is language" presupposes that your language is in fact meaningful, which in many cases, I posit, it is not. That's like, the language in a good novel, or on some of the posts on GF. That is unlike most of the meaningless drivel that comes out of my mouth on a day-to-day basis.
This is where you lose me. :/as you understand them through it and they were caused by it.
I'm not sure that I understand everything through the lens of language. That seems to be really narrowing my possibilities for experience, doesn't it? What about this evening, when I was driving somewhere, and even though I didn't know where to go, intuition finally led me to chose a parking spot only a block away from my destination? What does that have to do with language? Even now describing it I'm having such a hard time finding more than a handful of words which are sort of synonyms with "intuition"; none of them are really helpful. I can close my eyes and remember how it looked and how it felt, but if I tell you about it, that's just not the same.
me! me! me!-> you -> you -> you..
Thinking is the only tool we have while sentient. We do know our sentience ends. We do not know if our thinking ends when our sentience ends.mv: Language is the greatest tool we have, and it begins with fire and shan't end. Know what i mean?
This suggests that there is 'something' working behind the 'scenes' of your sentient awareness, does it not? And that whatever that something is, 'you' are present, albeit not consciously.alice: intuition finally led me to chose a parking spot only a block away from my destination? What does that have to do with language? Even now describing it I'm having such a hard time finding more than a handful of words which are sort of synonyms with "intuition"; none of them are really helpful. I can close my eyes and remember how it looked and how it felt, but if I tell you about it, that's just not the same.
Well, the people I spend time gravitate towards a more concrete expression. So I'm having a little bit of trouble particularly with the way you use words, because I feel like you are more abstract thinker. Also, I'm being kind of argumentative.moving always wrote:I'm perhaps not being clear enough.
I've always felt that most of us always realized that these stories were inadequate. I think we hold onto the the (better) internal inner structure despite of the external structure. So, "the point" is the internal experience, and not whatever we said about it.Denis Mahar wrote:Then the story forms a set of rules to live by.
The rules break down and the story gets adjusted.
My argument is that I cannot describe this part of myself. It's unreachable. All descriptions are fundamentally inadequate. My presence there, is not languaged, because my identity is not languaged. Language is just something I have learned, because it's useful to me. Language is my right hand. Metaphor is a more direct way to reach the subconscious because it appeals to emotions or symbols, which seem to exist in the subconsicous. However, emotions, symbols /= language. See even the words emotions/symbols are fundamentally inadequate, because what are emotions/symbols after all? I know what I experience, but I can't describe it. I can, however, manipulate our shared language with reasonable skill, much like working a math problem, or fixing the wires on the back of my family's stereo.moving always wrote:This something that is working behind the scenes cannot be known empirically; however, it can be languaged poetically or metaphorically in concert with reason. And this languaging of the invisible logical and metaphorical realm is where Meaning is known.
Everything you've written here is symbolic. Language is a big equation and relates to nature more closely than we think, i think.alice144 wrote:Well, the people I spend time gravitate towards a more concrete expression. So I'm having a little bit of trouble particularly with the way you use words, because I feel like you are more abstract thinker. Also, I'm being kind of argumentative.moving always wrote:I'm perhaps not being clear enough.
I wonder if our differing attitudes towards language stem from from an "against" versus "within" attitude towards society. A lot of my energies over the years have gone into fighting "bad external influences", or in maintaining my independence, while you seem more at peace with those around you. I'll agree that most arguments are really stupid -- held. Still, I can't accept a philosophy where all of us are really one when many of the people I live and work with see life as a zero-sum game.
I've always felt that most of us always realized that these stories were inadequate. I think we hold onto the the (better) internal inner structure despite of the external structure. So, "the point" is the internal experience, and not whatever we said about it.Denis Mahar wrote:Then the story forms a set of rules to live by.
The rules break down and the story gets adjusted.
My argument is that I cannot describe this part of myself. It's unreachable. All descriptions are fundamentally inadequate. My presence there, is not languaged, because my identity is not languaged. Language is just something I have learned, because it's useful to me. Language is my right hand. Metaphor is a more direct way to reach the subconscious because it appeals to emotions or symbols, which seem to exist in the subconsicous. However, emotions, symbols /= language. See even the words emotions/symbols are fundamentally inadequate, because what are emotions/symbols after all? I know what I experience, but I can't describe it. I can, however, manipulate our shared language with reasonable skill, much like working a math problem, or fixing the wires on the back of my family's stereo.moving always wrote:This something that is working behind the scenes cannot be known empirically; however, it can be languaged poetically or metaphorically in concert with reason. And this languaging of the invisible logical and metaphorical realm is where Meaning is known.
But you are describing very well, in that you are pointing to something within yourself which I have long recognized in myself.alice wrote:My argument is that I cannot describe this part of myself. It's unreachable. All descriptions are fundamentally inadequate. My presence there, is not languaged, because my identity is not languaged. Language is just something I have learned, because it's useful to me. Language is my right hand. Metaphor is a more direct way to reach the subconscious because it appeals to emotions or symbols, which seem to exist in the subconscious.
INTUITIONcousinbasil wrote:But you are describing very well, in that you are pointing to something within yourself which I have long recognized in myself.alice wrote:My argument is that I cannot describe this part of myself. It's unreachable. All descriptions are fundamentally inadequate. My presence there, is not languaged, because my identity is not languaged. Language is just something I have learned, because it's useful to me. Language is my right hand. Metaphor is a more direct way to reach the subconscious because it appeals to emotions or symbols, which seem to exist in the subconscious.
The building blocks of thought appear to be ideas that are in some sense more primal than language. I often think Jung's archetypes are these building blocks, though not specifically the ones he described. I tend to agree with the classic Jungian view that these archetypes are unlimited in number.
In other words, alice, your presence that is not languaged is that which your languaged self is built upon.
I say these building blocks are in some sense more primal in that they can exist without words, but words could not exist without them. Words come into play when more than one mind is involved. But art often evokes these archetypes in entirely nonverbal ways. But words can cause one to be conscious of this or that archetype or combination of archetypes. The combination may be common, in which case the combination might have it own name or word associated with it.
I find, in my experience.So, "the point" is the internal experience, and not whatever we said about it.
my direct experience of you is you are standing in a no.Still, I can't accept a philosophy where all of us are really one when many of the people I live and work with see life as a zero-sum game.
And I say I have a direct experience of that being the case.I can't accept a philosophy where all of us are really one
I love argumentative! All expansion stems from the willingness to assert one's view. Not on another, but as one's individual truth. An impersonal approach rather than a personal one.Alice: Well, the people I spend time gravitate towards a more concrete expression. So I'm having a little bit of trouble particularly with the way you use words, because I feel like you are more abstract thinker. Also, I'm being kind of argumentative.
Your insight seems a sound one. I am 60 years old and expended very little energy fighting "bad external energies" in those 60 years. I value independence highly, both from a worldly perspective and as the only way a person can hope to go "within", not as an attitude towards society, but as an attitude against society. Allow me to clarify - not against the souls who attach themselves to the idea of society, but to the concept itself.I wonder if our differing attitudes towards language stem from from an "against" versus "within" attitude towards society. A lot of my energies over the years have gone into fighting "bad external influences", or in maintaining my independence, while you seem more at peace with those around you.
And you are wise to hold this view when looking at people from the viewpoint of being social beings. At the source of everything of your sentient intellectual interpretation, however, do you not encounter the silence of One, of A = A? I understand that you cannot enter this world, no one can, but can you not see that at the root of everyone's struggle to assert their ego of physical and psychological survival, there is a realm that both gives rise to these struggles and yet, remains untouched of these struggles?I will agree that most arguments are really stupid -- held. Still, I can't accept a philosophy where all of us are really one when many of the people I live and work with see life as a zero-sum game.
Some words, I think can more directly relate to mental symbols, while others are less useful. "Yes" and "no" are two of the more useful ones although perhaps quite ambiguous as well.Dennis wrote: my direct experience of you is you are standing in a no.
That sounds nice. I definitely agree that our world would be more peaceful if people were more attuned to their own (real) needs.moving always wrote:And being awake to A = A, they walk unaffected by the thoughts of others who believe that A = B, B = C, etc.
Yes, but how much of our "selves" is truly languaged? Judging from the difficultly I exhibit in converting thoughts in feelings into a form that others might understand, I would guess not very much at all. Perhaps even none of it.cousin basil wrote:In other words, alice, your presence that is not languaged is that which your languaged self is built upon.
Yes, sometimes words can refer directly to one of your "archetypes", but when you take that word in itself, out of context, its meaning is ambiguous. Generally I find that for what I think/feel/experience it's difficult to find an expression which will be suitably precise. Or at least I used to; I've become more resigned in my old age. :(cousin basil wrote:But words can cause one to be conscious of this or that archetype or combination of archetypes.
I've always felt that words had more to do with maintaining a certain level of intimacy (or, usually, distance) between two people. They're not really so useful for communicating, especially if you're trying to be subtle. The "archetypes" are the experience, the words are about interpersonal exchange, which is essentially meaningless.cousin basil wrote:but words could not exist without them.
Well yes,I don't know if I'm as immediately judgmental as you claim, Dennis. Often I don't know how I feel about things. My "yeses" are more like, "I thinks" or "probablies" or "most likelies" or "the pieces of the puzzle fit together seeming to show an image that looks something like this..." But then, of course, I don't in fact say this to myself. It's more a feeling-color-tone. I only bother to language my thoughts if there is someone else there who needs access to my thinking process.