|
Mind
Feb 5, 2013 2:07:06 GMT -5
Post by silver on Feb 5, 2013 2:07:06 GMT -5
I prefer the preconceived idea that what we are is 'before' words rather than 'beyond' them.
That way I know where Reality stops and the Dream starts. Ok trf, please indulge me in use of a metaphor here in reply. To say that Reality is prior-to words relies on the word "Reality". If I start talking to someone who's never seen snow and tell them all about it, even show them pictures, the word "snow" will still have no experience to correlate with. I'm not trying to start a debate with you on the definition of Reality" ... just trying to point up that telling someone who has no reference for the word that "Reality is prior to words" will fail to convey the intended meaning. I mean, if it didn't, then there would be none of this obfuscation tha Tzu' mentioned in reply to Enigma because we could just shout this out from the rooftops and be done with it. I have no dog in this fight, no bone to pick, no dog without a bone, no blahblah, I just wanted to say that this reminds me of a part of a movie that is so awesome, I just wanted to remininsce wit ya>>> In the movie Mask, where the guy is teaching the blind girl about what clouds are like and what billowy means. I just loved that.
|
|
|
Mind
Feb 5, 2013 3:48:17 GMT -5
Post by andrew on Feb 5, 2013 3:48:17 GMT -5
Sounds to me like he won't proclaim what we are because it's beyond words. Well, it sounds that way to someone attached to that belief, but.. if it's beyond words, why is there the discussion? the statement, " what we are is beyond expression by words", sets limitations on our 'are-ness', which.. if accepted as true, negates all descriptions that refer to what we 'are'.. It is my understanding, that what we are can be described with words, and.. too often, it's just more convenient to say 'words don't work', than to 'work with words'.. it adds another level of mysticism to claim what we are is 'beyond words', surrendering to a belief that keeps mystics, sages, and gurus in business.. Be well.. I see value in some situations in saying that 'what we are' is beyond words, but I really do get your point here.
|
|
|
Mind
Feb 5, 2013 3:49:12 GMT -5
Post by andrew on Feb 5, 2013 3:49:12 GMT -5
Well, it sounds that way to someone attached to that belief, but.. if it's beyond words, why is there the discussion? the statement, " what we are is beyond expression by words", sets limitations on our 'are-ness', which.. if accepted as true, negates all descriptions that refer to what we 'are'.. It is my understanding, that what we are can be described with words, and.. too often, it's just more convenient to say 'words don't work', than to 'work with words'.. it adds another level of mysticism to claim what we are is 'beyond words', surrendering to a belief that keeps mystics, sages, and gurus in business.. The great fear by religions, mystics, sages, and gurus is that people will realize how brilliantly simple all of this is.. that people will realize the power of their own realization, to just look and pay attention, and notice what is seen when the mind is still.. so simple that they don't need to pretend that they don't exist, to be peaceful.. or that they don't need to pretend "it's ALL an illusion" to be happy.. or, that they don't need to pretend they are living in a dream.. we are parts of a collective whole, creating a synergy/spirituality that is greater than the sum of those parts.. Be well.. I prefer the preconceived idea that what we are is 'before' words rather than 'beyond' them. That way I know where Reality stops and the Dream starts. Do you consider it important for you to know that?
|
|
|
Mind
Feb 5, 2013 6:41:30 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Feb 5, 2013 6:41:30 GMT -5
Greetings.. Gentle Tzu', I'm interested in your understanding of my reply.. I understand you to have conveyed your conclusion that I have an attachment to the deeply held belief that what we are is beyond expression by words. I deny having expressed a belief in the failure of language to describe what we are and offer the following by way of explanation. Yes, the universal solvent. There are dozens of such nouns that refer to phenomenon like water or snow or fire or pain that are so imbued with clarity that the deduction of the label for the common experience of the phenomenon from a simple description of the qualities of the experience is not only possible but unmistakable. And then there are phenomenon that are just as cardinal, just as clarified, but so elusive, so ethereal, that they completely defy description without the use of nouns, such as the taste of honey or the scent of a rose or the sound of one clear tone of a bell. There’s another set of phenomenon so elemental (and here is where use of the Qualia model would actually be useful), such as the name for the color red, that there is no way but to resort to the noun to convey the experience. Even if it weren’t for the ethereal and the elemental, most attempts to communicate with language involve semantic aggregation such as building a fire with wood or pouring water into a glass or driving a car in the snow. Here we literally compound the unreality of the symbolic and create these structures that take for granted the substitution of the projection for the actual. Most phenomena flat-out can’t be described by simply enumerating the qualities of the experience. Even in the case of the unmistakable there is the inescapable baseline fact that words are nothing more than an abstraction. They are the aggregation of symbols that have no intrinsic meaning. The meaning is only created by association of the mind processing them with previously experienced phenomena. That meaning created in the mind is not the phenomenon itself, just a shadow of it. The word for “water” won’t get anyone wet, nor the word for “ice” anyone cold nor will the word “fire” cause anyone a painful burn. Not only is language limited and limiting, but the bald fact is that it is a complete failure … nothing more than the firelight in Plato’s cave. The failure of language to describe what we are isn’t an idea. The failure of language to describe what we are is an experience. In the final analysis you can’t rely on nouns, the codification of *what is* by common experience, because all experience is subjective. My experience is not your experience and yours is private and belongs to noone else. Every pair of eyes ever to have walked this Earth saw it from a slightly different perspective. As such, descriptions of experience are ever only approximations, the errors of which are propagated along into the language they are projected onto in the form of nouns. For some nouns, like “snow”, which are just convenient shorthand for a brief list of semantic elements, and most of them qualities (cold, white, crystalline precipitation) the error in question is so slight as to be imperceptible. For other nouns, such as “mind” or “self”, the polysemantic hamster wheel is of infinite radius. === Language fails yet again … the word “no” is as it ever is, simply the indication of negation. Any inference beyond that is a phantom projection from the inferring mind. you say you won't 'proclaim what we are', but at the close of the sentence, you proclaim that 'we are' beyond expression by words This has a simple direct answer but the implied paradox makes for a good segue. The direct answer is, as enigma noted, that there is no contradiction. By expressing that there is no expression of what we are I don’t express what we are but instead state the impossibility of such expression by negation. Now rational, thinking mind can have some fun chasing it’s tail here for sure: I proclaim that what we are is beyond expression by words. Then what words have I expressed to proclaim what we are? … on one hand I deny that this is possible, on the other hand in order to deny that it is possible to state what we are I have to state what we are. Words are a symbolic abstraction produced by the rational, reasoning, thinking mind which seems prone to such paradox when attempting to state what we are, and why this is so is related to the primary topic here: what we are is not rational, reasoning, thinking mind.
As I said, the failure of language is not a belief it is an experience.
=====
Tzu’,
If you state:
I am ______
Or
We are _____
You attach a word or a phrase, a concept, to your being. You reduce what you are to that phrase or concept.
Since you believe that what we are is expressible in words, I look forward to exploring further these concepts that you have attached to your being.
…. with sincere respect kind sirFirst, thanks for the discussion, it feels open/aware.. I am beginning to sense where we might be perceiving differently.. it feels like when you say 'describe', you are understanding what i understand as 'define'.. the words, phrases, and descriptions do not 'define' me/we/us.. they describe enough attributes that it is 'possible' to compare similar experiences and complete the process of communication.. Of course "the menu is not the meal", but if i order salmon and it's not on the menu, is it the restaurant's fault for not fulfilling my expectations, or is it my fault for not 'reading the menu' to understand what could be reasonably expected? I AM my mind, but that is not ALL that I AM.. mind is unfairly denigrated for it less desirable qualities, but.. all of everything you /me/we/they experience is played through the common medium of mind.. in the absence of mind, what is the alternative? Mind is the common medium that links us as an interconnected wholeness, it is the tool that allows us to learn different languages for communicating across cultural differences.. it is the tool that reasons the philosophies that some rely upon to denigrate the tool of it s creation.. Do you experience that you are separate from mind, or it from you? Be well?
|
|
|
Mind
Feb 5, 2013 15:21:55 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Feb 5, 2013 15:21:55 GMT -5
Sounds to me like he won't proclaim what we are because it's beyond words. Well, it sounds that way to someone attached to that belief, but.. if it's beyond words, why is there the discussion? the statement, " what we are is beyond expression by words", sets limitations on our 'are-ness', which.. if accepted as true, negates all descriptions that refer to what we 'are'.. It is my understanding, that what we are can be described with words, and.. too often, it's just more convenient to say 'words don't work', than to 'work with words'.. it adds another level of mysticism to claim what we are is 'beyond words', surrendering to a belief that keeps mystics, sages, and gurus in business.. The great fear by religions, mystics, sages, and gurus is that people will realize how brilliantly simple all of this is.. that people will realize the power of their own realization, to just look and pay attention, and notice what is seen when the mind is still.. so simple that they don't need to pretend that they don't exist, to be peaceful.. or that they don't need to pretend "it's ALL an illusion" to be happy.. or, that they don't need to pretend they are living in a dream.. we are parts of a collective whole, creating a synergy/spirituality that is greater than the sum of those parts.. Be well.. I'm not saying anything about whether Laughter is right or wrong, just saying your idea about it being a debate tactic doesn't seem to be right. I see no contradiction in what he said.
|
|
|
Mind
Feb 5, 2013 15:23:42 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Feb 5, 2013 15:23:42 GMT -5
Well, it sounds that way to someone attached to that belief, but.. if it's beyond words, why is there the discussion? the statement, " what we are is beyond expression by words", sets limitations on our 'are-ness', which.. if accepted as true, negates all descriptions that refer to what we 'are'.. It is my understanding, that what we are can be described with words, and.. too often, it's just more convenient to say 'words don't work', than to 'work with words'.. it adds another level of mysticism to claim what we are is 'beyond words', surrendering to a belief that keeps mystics, sages, and gurus in business.. The great fear by religions, mystics, sages, and gurus is that people will realize how brilliantly simple all of this is.. that people will realize the power of their own realization, to just look and pay attention, and notice what is seen when the mind is still.. so simple that they don't need to pretend that they don't exist, to be peaceful.. or that they don't need to pretend "it's ALL an illusion" to be happy.. or, that they don't need to pretend they are living in a dream.. we are parts of a collective whole, creating a synergy/spirituality that is greater than the sum of those parts.. Be well.. I prefer the preconceived idea that what we are is 'before' words rather than 'beyond' them. That way I know where Reality stops and the Dream starts. Yeah, seems more correcter to me too.
|
|
|
Mind
Feb 5, 2013 20:09:45 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Feb 5, 2013 20:09:45 GMT -5
Greetings.. Well, it sounds that way to someone attached to that belief, but.. if it's beyond words, why is there the discussion? the statement, " what we are is beyond expression by words", sets limitations on our 'are-ness', which.. if accepted as true, negates all descriptions that refer to what we 'are'.. It is my understanding, that what we are can be described with words, and.. too often, it's just more convenient to say 'words don't work', than to 'work with words'.. it adds another level of mysticism to claim what we are is 'beyond words', surrendering to a belief that keeps mystics, sages, and gurus in business.. The great fear by religions, mystics, sages, and gurus is that people will realize how brilliantly simple all of this is.. that people will realize the power of their own realization, to just look and pay attention, and notice what is seen when the mind is still.. so simple that they don't need to pretend that they don't exist, to be peaceful.. or that they don't need to pretend "it's ALL an illusion" to be happy.. or, that they don't need to pretend they are living in a dream.. we are parts of a collective whole, creating a synergy/spirituality that is greater than the sum of those parts.. Be well.. I'm not saying anything about whether Laughter is right or wrong, just saying your idea about it being a debate tactic doesn't seem to be right. I see no contradiction in what he said.You'll have to be more specific, the quote you referenced doesn't reflect the point you seem to be trying to make.. Be well..
|
|
|
Mind
Feb 5, 2013 21:25:03 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Feb 5, 2013 21:25:03 GMT -5
Greetings.. I'm not saying anything about whether Laughter is right or wrong, just saying your idea about it being a debate tactic doesn't seem to be right. I see no contradiction in what he said. You'll have to be more specific, the quote you referenced doesn't reflect the point you seem to be trying to make.. Be well.. You don't remember calling Laughter's comments a debate tactic?
|
|
|
Mind
Feb 5, 2013 22:10:37 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Feb 5, 2013 22:10:37 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. You'll have to be more specific, the quote you referenced doesn't reflect the point you seem to be trying to make.. Be well.. You don't remember calling Laughter's comments a debate tactic? I know exactly what i posted.. i am asking you to be specific, to show exactly where i "called Laughter's comments a debate tactic".. so far, you have twisted and misrepresented what i actually posted, so.. please, show me where i "called Laughter's comments a debate tactic".. Be well..
|
|
|
Mind
Feb 6, 2013 1:05:30 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Feb 6, 2013 1:05:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Mind
Feb 6, 2013 6:29:04 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Feb 6, 2013 6:29:04 GMT -5
Greetings.. The sentence quoted, and the reference to "literary and debate tactic", not tactics, plural, is confined to that one sentence beginning with the bolded "Then".. as i pointed out, the tactic is to say what you won't say, then say it.. your post implies the i called Laughter's "comments", plural, debate and literary tactics, which i did not.. i am enjoying the discussion with Laughter, and was pointing out that he said he wouldn't do something, then did it.. you however, paint the one comment as if it applies to all of Laughter's comments, a tactic you are quite skilled at, misrepresenting people's posts.. you are "missing" nothing, you know exactly what you are doing.. Be well..
|
|
|
Mind
Feb 6, 2013 15:32:07 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Feb 6, 2013 15:32:07 GMT -5
Greetings.. The sentence quoted, and the reference to "literary and debate tactic", not tactics, plural, is confined to that one sentence beginning with the bolded "Then".. as i pointed out, the tactic is to say what you won't say, then say it.. your post implies the i called Laughter's "comments", plural, debate and literary tactics, which i did not.. i am enjoying the discussion with Laughter, and was pointing out that he said he wouldn't do something, then did it.. you however, paint the one comment as if it applies to all of Laughter's comments, a tactic you are quite skilled at, misrepresenting people's posts.. you are "missing" nothing, you know exactly what you are doing.. Be well.. You can't be serious. I said you called it called a tactic and referred only to the comments in question. One of your tactics is to repeat something over and over, like the idea that I distort what you say, until it starts to sound like the truth, at least to you. When I show you that I didn't distort anything, you have to distort my words to make it appear that I did. Now that that's over with, we can get back to addressing the comments I made about your assumption of 'tactic'. Sounds to me like he won't proclaim what we are because it's beyond words. That's not the same as proclaiming what we are.
|
|
|
Mind
Feb 6, 2013 19:48:31 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Feb 6, 2013 19:48:31 GMT -5
Kind and gentle Tzu', First, thanks for the discussion, it feels open/aware You're welcome Tzu' I am beginning to sense where we might be perceiving differently.. it feels like when you say 'describe', you are understanding what i understand as 'define'.. the words, phrases, and descriptions do not 'define' me/we/us.. they describe enough attributes that it is 'possible' to compare similar experiences and complete the process of communication..
Of course "the menu is not the meal", but if i order salmon and it's not on the menu, is it the restaurant's fault for not fulfilling my expectations, or is it my fault for not 'reading the menu' to understand what could be reasonably expected?Do you consider your description or any other description of what we are to be complete? mind is unfairly denigrated for it less desirable qualities Do you find that I've done that in our conversation? I AM my mind, but that is not ALL that I AM.. mind is unfairly denigrated for it less desirable qualities, but.. all of everything you /me/we/they experience is played through the common medium of mind.. in the absence of mind, what is the alternative? Mind is the common medium that links us as an interconnected wholeness, it is the tool that allows us to learn different languages for communicating across cultural differences.. it is the tool that reasons the philosophies that some rely upon to denigrate the tool of it s creation..
Do you experience that you are separate from mind, or it from you? I can't answer yes or no to your question. To stop my reply there would essentially be a dodge, so I'll first explain why I can't and then, at the very end of this reply I give you a different, one-sentence answer that you might perceive as a non-answer. I know this much: that what I took myself to be for the most part of my life was a mistake based on identifying with a complex structure of content including history, internal narrative and various material objects. At this point, it seems fair enough to remind you that I've already covered this ground with you in my last reply: For some nouns, like “snow”, which are just convenient shorthand for a brief list of semantic elements, and most of them qualities (cold, white, crystalline precipitation) the error in question is so slight as to be imperceptible. For other nouns, such as “mind” or “self”, the polysemantic hamster wheel is of infinite radius. That there are not-two is a pointer. The pointer doesn't mean that if I identify some object that I see as seperate from myself, and stop seeing it as such, then I'm not-two. This is simply integration by mind, whatever definition for the word you want to use. The fact is, that one central part of this false structure of identity that I refer to, the one that collapsed on first inspection, is referred to as "mind", but with a different definition that you've offered in the context of this thread. You've defined mind as a particular aggregate: I understand that this mind-body organism experiences information from sensory input, and I do not limit sensory input to the five physical senses That Mind is the naturally existent and inherent medium upon and through which all of the experience of existence is made known.. further, that any form of communication requires the natural functions of Mind to complete the conveyance of words, ideas, concepts, and experiences from one being to another, or.. between multiple beings and the cooperative expansion of their collective Mind, even if the collective reference relates to even two or three beings cooperating in a way that achieves more than could be achieved individually. Mind allows for isolated ‘parts’ of its wholeness to experience privacy as different ‘unique patterns’ of the same essence, like the unique snowflakes that are all the same essence of water. In this way, ‘that which is’ senses and perceives its existence in the same medium, mind, as the ‘isolated parts’ of itself experiences their freely interactive experiences with other ‘parts’, and with the part’s inherent awareness of itself as ‘that which is’, too.. a functional equality, as necessary to be true to your own experience of ‘You’.
What is brilliant about this relationship between the collective Whole (‘that which is’) and the unique individually functioning ‘parts’ of itself (which ‘is’, too), is the common medium of mind, where part and whole interact and ‘feel’ their inherent relationship through experiencing each other’s perceptions of existing. Your writing either states or at least seems to me to implicate certain ideas that I flirted with at one point in time or another. The idea that there is really only "One Mind" expressing itself as individuated unique perspectives is one that initially opened me up to investigate the nature of the false conceptual structure I had mis-identified with --- I've seen that idea of "One Mind" since to be a similiar conceptual structure. It's one that I refer to as the "spiritual speculation". It's been my experience that dropping the conceptualization of the here and now is, for want of a better inaccurate description, the way to be that here and now. Your description of "Mind" embodies a model. Any model obscures what is. In my experience that obscuration occurs at: the intersection of perception and belief A paradox seems to emerge when we try to use words, which are abstractions, tools of distinction, labeling and conceptualizing, to express what it is that we "see as not-two" (<-- the quotes are an admission of the ultimate inaccuracy of that phrase). Here's an example of that: Mind is infinite and isolated at the same time Just as I witnessed the collapse of the "material assumption" looking with nothing more than rational mind, when I look at the "spiritual speculation" free from identification with or through the filter of conceptual structure, I see that it is as equally not true. Unlike the collapse of the material assumption, however, the spiritual speculation isn't something that I see as false either, neither is it something that I'm indecisive on or have made a specific decision not to make up my mind about. I just see it for what it is. A speculation, a thought, a concept. I am not seperate from your "Mind" but neither am I your "Mind" or some aggregation of your "Mind" with anything else. As I admitted up front, obviously, this is no answer ... at least not a "yes or no" answer. .... with sincere respect.
|
|
|
Mind
Feb 6, 2013 20:21:46 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Feb 6, 2013 20:21:46 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. The sentence quoted, and the reference to "literary and debate tactic", not tactics, plural, is confined to that one sentence beginning with the bolded "Then".. as i pointed out, the tactic is to say what you won't say, then say it.. your post implies the i called Laughter's "comments", plural, debate and literary tactics, which i did not.. i am enjoying the discussion with Laughter, and was pointing out that he said he wouldn't do something, then did it.. you however, paint the one comment as if it applies to all of Laughter's comments, a tactic you are quite skilled at, misrepresenting people's posts.. you are "missing" nothing, you know exactly what you are doing.. Be well.. You can't be serious. I said you called it called a tactic and referred only to the comments in question. One of your tactics is to repeat something over and over, like the idea that I distort what you say, until it starts to sound like the truth, at least to you. When I show you that I didn't distort anything, you have to distort my words to make it appear that I did.
Now that that's over with, we can get back to addressing the comments I made about your assumption of 'tactic'. Sounds to me like he won't proclaim what we are because it's beyond words. That's not the same as proclaiming what we are.
I am serious, and you are doing it again.. i referenced 'one sentence' of Laughter's, and still you use the term 'comments', plural, as if i said that his comments, in general' were a 'tactic', which is not true or accurate.. you simply take no responsibility for your own 'tactics, then your try to create the illusion that those that see you for what you actually are, are at fault.. now, that we've cleared that up, we can address your misunderstanding about the actual issue, apart from tactics with tactics.. By proclaiming, "what we are is beyond words", there is a belief and a limitation, an attachment to the concept that 'we' are beyond the ability of words to describe 'what we are'.. and, i am saying that that is using 'words' to describe 'what we are', that we are 'beyond words'.. if this is too difficult for you to grasp, just say so.. Laughter did proclaim 'what we are', regardless of how it 'seems' to you.. By stating that 'what we are is beyond words', it creates separation between we/us and 'words', where there is no separation.. while it may seem, to some people, that what we are cannot be described with words, it seems that others understand that what we are can be described.. now, i am open to anyone that can demonstrate how it is that 'we' cannot be described with words, i continue to look and pay attention.. and, i am always eager to revise my understandings, when it can be demonstrated that those understandings are in error.. Be well..
|
|
|
Mind
Feb 6, 2013 21:08:25 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Feb 6, 2013 21:08:25 GMT -5
Greetings.. You can't be serious. I said you called it called a tactic and referred only to the comments in question. One of your tactics is to repeat something over and over, like the idea that I distort what you say, until it starts to sound like the truth, at least to you. When I show you that I didn't distort anything, you have to distort my words to make it appear that I did.
Now that that's over with, we can get back to addressing the comments I made about your assumption of 'tactic'. Sounds to me like he won't proclaim what we are because it's beyond words. That's not the same as proclaiming what we are.
I am serious, and you are doing it again.. i referenced 'one sentence' of Laughter's, and still you use the term 'comments', plural, as if i said that his comments, in general' were a 'tactic', which is not true or accurate.. you simply take no responsibility for your own 'tactics, then your try to create the illusion that those that see you for what you actually are, are at fault.. now, that we've cleared that up, we can address your misunderstanding about the actual issue, apart from tactics with tactics.. What Laughter said is "I won't make the mistake of proclaiming what we are, but I'll repeat what I've heard that does ring true: it is both sufficient and only possible to continually add to the endless enumeration of what we are not, as what we are is beyond expression by words." Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=misc&thread=2587&page=14#101138#ixzz2KArZzNzJYou insist this is a 'comment', while I choose to call them 'comments'. (Gee I don't really know. Is it a single comment or multiple comments?) Apparently this is the basis for all of your condescension about me twisting words over and over. Possibly, Andrew finally fired his word lawyers and you found you could retain them fer cheap. In any case, is this your best attempt to sincerely engage in open conversation?[/quote] I could try to discuss this comment (or these comments), but given the difficulty we're having with singular and plural, I have to ask myself........Whys?
|
|