UGK, Bernadette Roberts and Suzanne Segal

[berlake]

Just a thought - and an ill-formed one at that - but there is something "correct" in certain corrections of the use of language. Of course the pedantic kind can easily be about attempts by the mind to ratify its apparent position of being "right" in order to maintain its identity. But I think you are on to something when you allude to "intuitive language."

Language is a relative construct which corresponds to an apparently self-existent and, to some extent, clearly delineated field of experience which we call the world (or the universe, by extension). To that end, it is very well adapted to its purpose. Language is not entirely abstract, since it requires a kind of infusion in the experience it describes. One cannot say the word "day" without having had the experience of day (which exists as contradistinct from night as an experience).

Since the word "day" is the mutually accepted linguistic referent in English for the immediacy of the experience of daytime, it has become "correct" to call it so, and consequently "incorrect" to call it "night." To assert a correction of the use of language by someone who called day night or vice versa would not necessarily be to assert the superiority of one mentally constructed illusion over another, but would merely be an attempt at clarifying meaning for the purpose of communication; and communication remains essential within the field of dualistic consciousness, regardless of its ultimate irrelevance within the "Whole."

So... Language remains both entirely intuitive and also relatively formal and governed by certain rules; only these rules are not arbitrary as they are defined by the very fabric of our experience. I suppose it is similar to the way pure maths - which is an entirely conceptual field within our consciousness - describes certain phenomena in a way which seems to correspond perfectly with the external, observable actuality of the phenomena. This is surely a sign that there is no real way of separating the language of description from what is being described. However, it seems entirely possible to be "incorrect" in our description.

There. If you read carefully, you may identify the precise moment I disappeared up my own rectum... Feel free to follow me!

PS - That's the last time I attempt a post like this from my phone, especially at this hour!

Sent from my GT-I9505 using proboards

[frustratedwanter]

Dude!
(A perhaps antiquated phrase in the u.s.a, don't know how it plays anywhere else.)
On the off chance you are responding to my last post.
Whatever I am talking about just isn't as complicated as whatever you are talking about strikes me!
There was some idea that I had some intuitive sense of what is the right way of speaking.
That idea is total nonsense.
"I" learned certain rules of how words should be put together.
These acquired rules saw words put together in a way outside of their particular box.
(Not uncommon to this particular set of "rules")
The "acquired rules" had to express a certain discomfort with words not put together in exactly the way the "acquired rules" believed they should be put together.
This particular "person" here,
which in this case is nothing more than an acquired and accepted set of rules governing this "person's" particular english...............

Jesus!
If I was an english major I could put it all together so perfectly!

this set of rules over here was greatly pleased to receive assurance from one ("I" choose to believe!) more cognizant of the rules which I apparently did learn at some time.

I have to stop now before my head explodes.

I think a truly intuitive speech would not involve the possibility of an exploding head.

"I hear the question, I see the answer appear."

Maybe it's true that the truth cannot be expressed in words.
I can't seem to express whatever it is I'm trying to express.
(Without the whole "head exploding" thing)
And the most I can say is.......
Sometimes I think I may be on to something.

P.S. Rectum thing.
Where the sun don't shine.
Maybe it's just a recognition that we don't know what's going on.
Put in the pejorative because we think we should.

I know that thought.

Sun ain't shinin' now.
Time for bed.

[berlake]

Frustratedwanter: I was replying to your post; just can't seem to quote other posts properly on my phone...

Dude is fine with me - I say it all the time. I don't speak anything like I sound when I write! Imagine that!

I think I understand what you're saying, and what I was trying to say - in an admittedly dense way - is that I agree that language is intuitive. I also agree that often we feel the need to "correct" someone's use of language when our "self" feels the discomfort of having the established rules contravened. I have done this very thing, hence my embarrassment... They are not necessarily mutually exclusive observations.

But I was trying to point out the idea that this is not always the motive for feeling the need to "correct" someone's use of language and that there is something inherently "incorruptible" about the rules of language when we admit that language applies only to the dualistic field which we use it to share ideas and information about. It is interwoven with our experience of the world in a way which means it is not something wholly abstract.

Where language let's us down is where it attempts to describe a field beyond its scope (the non-relative or "non-dual," if you like), or when it is used "incorrectly." The latter leads to confusion, while the former just fails in its efforts.

Ludwig Wittgenstein (whose work I absolutely am NOT claiming to understand fully (or even partially!)) Said something like "whereof one can speak, one must speak clearly; all else must be passed over in silence."

This is not a direct translation and is likely a clumsy bit of paraphrasing on my part, but I believe he was trying to say that language and our relationship with the apparently external universe of objects define each other to some extent, and, beyond this, language descends into the realm of nonsense.

You're right, though: I am complicating things. I actually enjoy that feeling of my head being about to explode; it reminds me that my mind is limited and that one day its borders may be breached and it may be totally overwhelmed; at which point, it will surrender in utter defeat :-) There's a longing in that exhaustion...



Sent from my GT-I9505 using proboards

[frustratedwanter]

Oct 31, 2013 21:39:23 GMT -5 berlake said:

There. If you read carefully, you may identify the precise moment I disappeared up my own rectum... Feel free to follow me!

Just wanted to return to the "rectum" thing.
Because that particular statement is such a huge part of my own experience.
(It's possible there should be " " around "my" or "my own" or something. Trying to SHOW that I ("I") have some sort of understanding that there is no I or that I have any understanding at all really becomes a pain in the butt. Putting on airs. Let's just use the language that we have and misunderstand if it pleases us.)
Anthony deMello has a bit about "I'm an ass! You're an ass!"
That view seems to be 360 degrees of forgiveness and acceptance.
Compare it to "You're an ass! I am not!" or
"I'm an ass! You are not!
The basic premise of this person here is that "I am an ass!"
To such an extent that I want to delete everything I have posted here.
A skittish cat that buries it's scat.
Going back, reading the posts, I don't know why the person wants to bury it's scat.
"I am an ass!" is such an incredibly strong "personal" view.
The actual ass-ness exposed is so incredibly small.....
That COULD be the "not ass" talking.
360 degrees of forgiveness.
I know that this "I" over here shows no mercy.
I can see that many "I"s are the same.
360 degrees of forgiveness.
In the end I think everyone of our "I"s just wants a little mercy.
I have to stop now.

[berlake]

Nov 1, 2013 21:17:50 GMT -5 frustratedwanter said:

Oct 31, 2013 21:39:23 GMT -5 berlake said:

There. If you read carefully, you may identify the precise moment I disappeared up my own rectum... Feel free to follow me!

Just wanted to return to the "rectum" thing.
Because that particular statement is such a huge part of my own experience.
(It's possible there should be " " around "my" or "my own" or something. Trying to SHOW that I ("I") have some sort of understanding that there is no I or that I have any understanding at all really becomes a pain in the butt. Putting on airs. Let's just use the language that we have and misunderstand if it pleases us.)
Anthony deMello has a bit about "I'm an ass! You're an ass!"
That view seems to be 360 degrees of forgiveness and acceptance.
Compare it to "You're an ass! I am not!" or
"I'm an ass! You are not!
The basic premise of this person here is that "I am an ass!"
To such an extent that I want to delete everything I have posted here.
A skittish cat that buries it's scat.
Going back, reading the posts, I don't know why the person wants to bury it's scat.
"I am an ass!" is such an incredibly strong "personal" view.
The actual ass-ness exposed is so incredibly small.....
That COULD be the "not ass" talking.
360 degrees of forgiveness.
I know that this "I" over here shows no mercy.
I can see that many "I"s are the same.
360 degrees of forgiveness.
In the end I think everyone of our "I"s just wants a little mercy.
I have to stop now.

Well, we are remarkably alike, then; and it would seem you and I agree that we share this likeness with many, many other people... That mercy you speak of seems to be in short supply and high demand, it's true, and we are not accustomed to being merciful with "ourselves" (yes, let's stick to conventional language when referring to our particular point of reference - I agree anything else is "putting on airs" at times).


But in my opinion and my experience, this is just another expression of our terror of the ultimate unknown: the lack of any mental or sensual certitude about anything at all. And this fear - to my mind, at least - is the only "evil" there is, for it chokes the mercy and the love right out of us; a mercy and love which are entirely natural and are indeed inherent to our Truth. It is easy and tempting to damn our "I"s, as you put it, because we are able to perceive the confusion, damage, limitation and pain caused to others which is inherent in being an individual. It makes the "I am an ass" position very seductive (I would use much stronger language to describe myself!).

But if one is able to find a way to overcome the paradox of acceptance by loving the things that make up the individual - the physical and psychological traits associated with being you alone and not some other you - then one finds that shame, guilt and blame all vanish, because there is no longer a judgement of those various "ass-like" qualities which belong to the individual; and this means we don't see others as asses; which in turn means that there is no longer an individual position to maintain; no longer an apparent entity judging the qualities which belong to the individual; no longer the "self" so damned and reviled by many an honest seeker. But this "self" has not dissolved because it has been condemned to die as a punishment for its evil ways: it is instead literally loved to death...

I honestly believe that true, total acceptance is also true, total surrender to what is, and also true, total redemption of not only the ass in all of us, but the ass in everyone else (god, there's nothing poetic about this whole "ass" thing!). After all, if there's no longer any resistance to anyone - especially oneself - how can there be any hatred (I of course don't mean acceptance of the bullish self which we create to avoid the "ass! in all of us - the poor, vulnerable, inadequate, limited self whom we try to escape from by asserting the will of a "better" self)? Could there not be a very genuine chance that something else could blossom fully and completely? Could it be love? Does anyone dare to really love themselves...?


These are just thoughts which your post prompted. Not sure I've ever really arrived at this conclusion fully until now, so thank you for such a wonderful opportunity!

B

[magnesio]

suzane seagal had a big tumour in the brain. ugk was in mental insanity. bernadette roberts did create a big fantasy out of her desire for experiencing God.