Guest guest Posted June 28, 2005 Report Share Posted June 28, 2005 The mind is the language is speaks, thinks. There is no " learning " nor " thinking " nor " choice " for these are just thoughts, words, the mind. But the mind does not know this. So if the mind thinks it can learn Then let it learn this Language called NOW To comically Realize that it is ME. Because everything is MY dream so there is no other. -- NOW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2006 Report Share Posted January 4, 2006 On Jan 3, 2006, at 10:20 AM, clydegrossman wrote: > NonDualPhil , " billrishel " <illieusion@h...> > wrote: > > I understand that words have no set meaning and that any meaning is > provisional and by mutual agreement. I think the issue here is not > the confusion of " reification " (concretizing the abstract), but > attachment; i.e., believing that there is a predefined definition > or `mapping' of word to thing. > > Does this apply to the word " model " ? (I'm still seeking an 'out' >>>>> > > If I read you aright, then when you say " attachment " (in this > special context) you mean " believing that there is a predefined > definition or `mapping' of word to thing. " > > Such an attachment (or belief) would constitute a *presumption* > that " there is a predefined definition or `mapping' of word to > thing. " > > If the " issue here " is that you have such a belief, and that I > (obviously) don't, then yes, that would explain our different > points of view. > > But consider, if someone walks in and say, " Hello! " to you, > what does the word " hello " map to in that case? One might > be tempted to say that it maps to their sentiment upon seeing > you. But that doesn't really work, because their sentiment > upon seeing you is conveyed by much more than the word " hello " , > e.g. intonation, body language, etc. > > So, what does " hello " map to in such a case? > > I think that a fundamental confusion for a whole lot of people > (trans: most everybody:) is the presumption that language is > somehow fundamentally *real*, that words correspond to *realities*. > The root of this kind of erroneous thinking (which I know I > haven't *proven*, here, to be erroneous) is that for " most people " > language pervades experience for them. [it gets a little more > complicated than that... so this is a simplification.] > > > Bill > > > Overview: I think we fundamentally agree that words have no set > meaning and that language can be a " trap " . > > You write, " If I read you aright " , but not quite. > > You wrote, " Such an attachment (or belief) would constitute a > *presumption* that " there is a predefined definition or `mapping' of > word to thing. " " And then you wonder if I have such a belief. But I > wrote that " I understand that words have no set meaning and that any > meaning is provisional and by mutual agreement. " So (if that is the > case), it would not be the case that I have such a belief. > > Regarding " Hello " , it's meaning is derived within the circumstances > of the moment; i.e., there is a provisional meaning. That there are > other levels of communication and interaction is part of the > circumstances of the moment. > > Would not the same reasoning (of " Hello " ) apply to the word " model " > which we may, by the circumstances of the moment, mutually agree > means " this " or " that " ? > > Regarding the nature of language, I would posit that language is no > more or less real than . . . well, than any other thing I do > agree that some (I don't know if it is many or most.) people believe > language is more real than . . . well, than other things. > > clyde > > p.s: Thank you for the stimulating discussion. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2006 Report Share Posted January 4, 2006 Aaah. Semantics 101: " The map is not the territory. " I love semantics! Have you ever tried writing in e-prime? It IS very frustrating, I tell you!! " Silver " Nisargadatta , Pete S <pedsie4@e...> wrote: > > > On Jan 3, 2006, at 10:20 AM, clydegrossman wrote: > > > NonDualPhil , " billrishel " <illieusion@h...> > > wrote: > > > > I understand that words have no set meaning and that any meaning is > > provisional and by mutual agreement. I think the issue here is not > > the confusion of " reification " (concretizing the abstract), but > > attachment; i.e., believing that there is a predefined definition > > or `mapping' of word to thing. > > > > Does this apply to the word " model " ? (I'm still seeking an 'out' > >>>>> > > > > If I read you aright, then when you say " attachment " (in this > > special context) you mean " believing that there is a predefined > > definition or `mapping' of word to thing. " > > > > Such an attachment (or belief) would constitute a *presumption* > > that " there is a predefined definition or `mapping' of word to > > thing. " > > > > If the " issue here " is that you have such a belief, and that I > > (obviously) don't, then yes, that would explain our different > > points of view. > > > > But consider, if someone walks in and say, " Hello! " to you, > > what does the word " hello " map to in that case? One might > > be tempted to say that it maps to their sentiment upon seeing > > you. But that doesn't really work, because their sentiment > > upon seeing you is conveyed by much more than the word " hello " , > > e.g. intonation, body language, etc. > > > > So, what does " hello " map to in such a case? > > > > I think that a fundamental confusion for a whole lot of people > > (trans: most everybody:) is the presumption that language is > > somehow fundamentally *real*, that words correspond to *realities*. > > The root of this kind of erroneous thinking (which I know I > > haven't *proven*, here, to be erroneous) is that for " most people " > > language pervades experience for them. [it gets a little more > > complicated than that... so this is a simplification.] > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > Overview: I think we fundamentally agree that words have no set > > meaning and that language can be a " trap " . > > > > You write, " If I read you aright " , but not quite. > > > > You wrote, " Such an attachment (or belief) would constitute a > > *presumption* that " there is a predefined definition or `mapping' of > > word to thing. " " And then you wonder if I have such a belief. But I > > wrote that " I understand that words have no set meaning and that any > > meaning is provisional and by mutual agreement. " So (if that is the > > case), it would not be the case that I have such a belief. > > > > Regarding " Hello " , it's meaning is derived within the circumstances > > of the moment; i.e., there is a provisional meaning. That there are > > other levels of communication and interaction is part of the > > circumstances of the moment. > > > > Would not the same reasoning (of " Hello " ) apply to the word " model " > > which we may, by the circumstances of the moment, mutually agree > > means " this " or " that " ? > > > > Regarding the nature of language, I would posit that language is no > > more or less real than . . . well, than any other thing I do > > agree that some (I don't know if it is many or most.) people believe > > language is more real than . . . well, than other things. > > > > clyde > > > > p.s: Thank you for the stimulating discussion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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.