Interview

[Guest guest]

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?

 

P: Excuse me, Lewis, there is an obvious element of academic bullshit

in the above. People do not come up with words first and then invent

uses, or things to fit the words. And no one is so naive as to believe

that when Toombs says " Nothing exist. " he is impuning the reality

of a word. And if a nurse tells me, " take a chair', I know that

doesn't mean take the chair home, or hit me with the chair. But

when someone says, " There is nothing but words, " I know this is

nothing but a bad meta4, because words are just units of

communication, and for communication to occur the symbol must

point to something beyond itself. Now, that when it comes to

philosophy and religion the symbol is often the mesage, is what needs to

be understood, and that doesn't mean' there is 'nothing but words'

when talking cats, dogs, and chairs.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote:

Hi Pete,

 

Lewis: 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?

 

 

P: Excuse me, Lewis, there is an obvious element of academic bullshit

in the above. People do not come up with words first and then invent

uses, or things to fit the words.

 

 

Lewis: That is your inference and interpretation of what was stated

for Dr. Theo's position. It was clearly stated Pete, that " words exist

simultaneously with all the meanings and sensations and perceptions,

experiences and uses attached to them. " A word is formed in relation

to other words with all the meanings and sensations and perceptions,

experiences and uses etc. attached to them. Words do not stand alone

unless one decides to have them so so. There is no linear formation

mentioned. Also most of the words in the lexicon that are used by most

folks are inherited not made by them and in the learning of them

through contextual experience various meanings and sensations and

perceptions, experiences and uses etc. Neologisms do not mount fast

in common language as they do in rapidly advancing disciplines such as

computer science or medical technology or popular slang. A word does

not float alone as a sound or graphic.

 

 

Pete: And no one is so naive as to believe that when Toombs says "

Nothing exist. " he is impuning the reality of a word.

 

 

Lewis: Pete you are stripping the word down, taking away what it is in

use and imagination and giving a beating to the pixels or sound waves.

That is not a word. You are stripping out the " spirit " of the word and

beating the appearing body.

 

I do not know what he means when he says that. What does Toombaru mean

when he says Nothing exists? Does he mean that an ultimate physical

reality doesn't exist? Does he mean that an ultimate spiritual

reality doesn't exist? Does he mean that an ultimate reality of any

kind doesn't exist? Does he mean that all is vapor? Dream stuff?

Illusion? that has no substance whatsoever. What does he mean? I do

not know.

 

To say the words " nothing exists " means " nothing exists " until

Toombaru's context is revealed or he decides to give a head's up to

those in dialogue with him. That is rare.

 

Now, anyone can say that. Nothing exists. What is the big deal, Pete?

Fuzzie says at one time he is being awareness, I Am, then he says he

is no one and in each case he is typing it all. Which is it? Does it

matter that he is " inconsistent " in the words typed with all the

possible stuff attached to those words, which no one knows anything

about, that is, is fuzzie " I Am " or " no one " or both or neither as

those concepts, words are variously understood or experienced? Is

fuzzie, " consistent " typing behavior selected out with words such as

" consistently types while saying seeming contradictory things

contradictory to his assertion of non one? Does it matter? One may

understand, not understand, believe or not believe one or the other,

both or neither. It depends. What is the final truth of it?

 

 

Pete: And if a nurse tells me, " take a chair', I know that doesn't

mean take the chair home, or hit me with the chair.

 

 

Lewis: Yes you know it because of the situation, the context, and all

the meanings and sensations and perceptions, experiences and uses

attached to them " that have been learned. Again, you are stripping

words down to sounds alone.

 

 

Pete: But when someone says, " There is nothing but words, " I know this

is nothing but a bad meta4, because words are just units of

communication, and for communication to occur the symbol must

point to something beyond itself.

 

 

Lewis: You have not understood what was said since your conception of

a word and Dr. Theo's is very different. A word is not an empty symbol

or sign that stands alone and then something is mechanically attached

to the sound or symbol to represent it. This conception of a word

allows the point to be missed entirely. Try to remember the commnets

made some time ago on how a person who never saw a chair before learns

what the word chair means. Try " seeing " more subtly how a word is formed.

 

 

 

Pete: Now, that when it comes to philosophy and religion the symbol is

often the mesage, is what needs to be understood, and that doesn't

mean' there is 'nothing but words' when talking cats, dogs, and chairs.

 

 

Lewis: I will leave it you to understand in a different way how a word

is formed from other words by necessity and how phenomenal objects are

formed and integrated with word formation. It is not a linear

dualistic process and there is no necessity for or consideration of

the concepts of the factuality of existence and nonexistence. Also

symbols do not " mean " by themselves alone and neither does any

" message. " These do not stand alone. They are always used in

dialogical relationships with other symbols and messages in various

and changing contexts.