Guest guest Posted May 15, 2005 Report Share Posted May 15, 2005 Sorry Pete, Where do words come from? How are they Known? Who Knows? Who listens? Who understands? Any answer you answer is just an affirmation of the predicament that you, 'Pete' is 'in'. Now if Pete can understand That, Pete will find a way out of 'his dilemma'. a. P: Sorry Anita, You can't play chess with checkers moves. Until you learn the chess rules I will ignore your attempts to play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2005 Report Share Posted May 15, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > Sorry Pete, > > Where do words come from? How are they Known? Who Knows? > Who listens? Who understands? > > Any answer you answer is just an affirmation of the predicament that you, > 'Pete' is 'in'. > > Now if Pete can understand That, Pete will find a way out of 'his dilemma'. > > a. > P: Sorry Anita, > You can't play chess with checkers moves. > Until you learn the chess rules I will > ignore your attempts to play. Childish response. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2005 Report Share Posted May 15, 2005 - Pedsie2 nisargadatta Sunday, May 15, 2005 11:57 AM Interview Sorry Pete, Where do words come from? How are they Known? Who Knows? Who listens? Who understands? Any answer you answer is just an affirmation of the predicament that you, 'Pete' is 'in'. Now if Pete can understand That, Pete will find a way out of 'his dilemma'. a. P: Sorry Anita, You can't play chess with checkers moves. Until you learn the chess rules I will ignore your attempts to play. Right-O-, Apples and oranges, eh? Still fruit ..... still games ... anita p.s. first chess game I ever played, I won against a 'master'. Way too boring with rules. Your move or not. enjoy your day, later Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2005 Report Share Posted May 16, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: Hi Pete, L:Yes, his name is interesting isn't it considering what he says.... It does not seem that Dr. Theo is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Both the baby and the bath water remain. He is not dismissing language or language products and the effects generated in their use. He is simply saying there is no thing beyond words. This does not mean words are pointless. They point to other words and and this feature is used to do things within the realities created with those words. Physical reality and the phenomena within that reality is created with words. Ultimate realities, realities seen to underly other realities, are also created with words. When the words end, what is? Lewis Hi Lewis. P: Yes, it could be as you said that his intention was not to toss the baby out. I'd have to read the book to know for sure, and I have no desire to do so. The problem here is that even if that is not his aim, a partial, or casual reading could give that impression. Anyway, to say there are no things beyond words, is one of those meta4, that if taken literally, could lead people to conclude words float in nothingness, and are the only existent, which would be ridiculous, and lead to " Toomburanism: " The absurd belief that there is no one to read words, but words are typed and send ad nauseum. Hi Pete, Yes it could be taken as a metaphor and not literally and vice versa. They also can be disregarded and seen as non-sense. It is possible that the words can be seen as saying that there is nothing but words floating in nothingness. Anything can be done to those words and they can be taken in as many ways as one imagines.... However, the latter conclusion about words floating in nothingness would indicate a gross misunderstanding of Dr. Theo's thesis. Such a conclusion indicates an inference and assumption about, a desire for, a belief in, or an attachment to " somethingness " over " nothingness " and this works to alter, interpret Dr. Theo's point that " no thing " lies beyond words to mean that " words float in nothingness, and are the only existent, which would be ridiculous. " In the English lexicon these words can both exist simultaneously with all the meanings and sensations and perceptions, experiences and uses attached to them. For example, chair is a word. Is there something beyond the word chair that the word refers to? What is beyond the word chair? There is one experiential possibility. And that is to give an explantion or description in words in anyway imagined, individually and socially (common, practical, scientific, literary, etc,) which leads to infinite progress of descriptions in words and or use of the word to do things (like sitting down, or bashing someone with it, or changing a lightbulb or shutting a door (the conventional truth in Buddhist terms). This Dr. Theo's point. Words pointing to more words with the use of imagination that creates meanings, experiences, perceptions and sensations and uses. You can assume the various meanings and uses of the chair and use it and experience as it goes. A chair is not always a chair as it is defined in the formal lexicon. It is indexical and it is used, experienced as the context requires. How is it concluded that words float in nothingness? And Dr. Theo does not speak about what occurs with the end of words for how could it be spoken about? It is left open. Speaking about what is beyond words is imagination at work striving to express the inexpressible, to experience the mysterious, to explore the unknown, to create new realities from the findings, to play, to learn, or to do the opposite standing at the gate of silence in order to doubt, to deny, to avoid, to bury one's imagination in the sand, to become stupid, to harass, to jeer, to confuse, to oppose or to do whatever...... This has been done for tens of thousands of years and will continue for it is what is done in all the ways it is done. Dr. Theo would say that believing the imaginings made to be other than what they are, imaginings based in various lexicons and used for this ot that, is an indication of the presence of DECA with consequences easily experienced and observed. Below are the relevant parts of the Dr. Theo interview concerning nihilism, perceptions, sensations and so on. Lewis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Kumaraswami: You are denying existence by saying that all is imagined. Are you a nihilist and is this not nihilism in linguistic garb? Dr. Theo: No, Kumaraswami that is your inference from and your understanding of the word imagination and its relation to your religious lexicon that includes reality and illusion, snake and rope,Absolute and Maya. That is your concern with the Absolute being said to be imagined. Imagination, as I use the word, has nothing to with factuality. Imagining means to form in the mind a notion or idea, a mental image, to conceive of something. This has nothing to do with positing non-existence. As far as the lexicon goes think of it this way: Affirmation and negation of words do not make words exist or not exist. These are merely word treatments. For example, the word non-existence is the negation of the word existence. And by definition the word existence negates the word non-existence. Both words remain side by side. Both are. Affirming or denying either, both or neither over another is treating words and nothing more. Believing one word to exist and the other not is a symptom of DECA. Existence and non-existence are only words pointing to other words. Kumaraswami: And what of perceptions and sensations of the body and experience of matter? Are these imagined? Can you really say that it is all imagined? If a car hits the body there is great pain experienced and visible physical damage to both the body and the car. Can you pass through a concrete wall? Are these all imagined? Dr. Theo: Yes. What you have asked is an imagining. All is imagined. As long as words and all that is attached and chained to words are incorporated in any form, implicity or explicity, imagination operates. It cannot be avoided. So the very question you ask is based on your assumptions and conceptualization of a physical reality that is experienced through perceptions and sensations. All of these are word compositions and descriptions trying to explain other word compositions and descriptions. None of this denies nor affirms what is imagined. The description and report of a car accident or an attempt to pass through a concrete wall is simply a description and it may be described in as many different ways as imagined. Some would say there is no wall or body and that that is an illusion hard seen through. Others will say, " Damn right it is wall. Just try, to run through it and you will meet reality. " A physicist studying quantum phenomena will provide a different imagining, saying at the quantum level there is no solidity. It makes no difference what the imagining is. They are all possible and each is used as it goes. It is all words arranged to convey sense and meaning and to order these meanings to frame, form and describe experiences and memories, thoughts and so on. Both the sense and belief that there is some thing beyond words is the core of DECA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.