Guest guest Posted February 20, 2006 Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " methusalum " <methusalum@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " methusalum " <methusalum@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > One way to think about the nondual philosophy is as a bunch > > of > > > > > > pointers to the fact, the discovery that experience is > > *always* > > > > > > nondual. > > > > > > > > > > > > There are many ways to test this. For example, we like to > > think > > > > of > > > > > > the visual field as representing a small subset of what is > > > > > > really " out there. " Hence the widely believed dualism > > > > > between " what > > > > > > we see " and " what we don't see. " > > > > > > > > > > > > But your visual experience is not dualistic like this. > > There's > > > > > just > > > > > > no evidence to support such a distinction. > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you see an edge to the visual field? > > > > > > Do you see any border between the seen and the unseen? > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > In other words dualism is a way of thinking, > > > > > but is not actually experienced. > > > > > > > > > > That's a good point. > > > > > > > > > > Dualism is a way of interpreting experience. > > > > > Non-dualism is a non-interpreting. > > > > > > > > > > Which is to say that a " non-dual perspective " > > > > > is a misnomer. > > > > > > > > > > In the non-interpreting " way " of non-dualism > > > > > everything is water through a sieve. > > > > > > > > > > Nothing can be caught. > > > > > > > > > > Seeing it splash around can seem to happen. > > > > > > > > > > But is that actually *experience*? > > > > > > > > > > Well, it's just water through the sieve all > > > > > over again. > > > > > > > > > > It's like trying to nail down air. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would you say there is no distinction between blue and saline, > > > > because you cannot see the boundary? Or that the nouns > > themselves are > > > > meaningless? > > > > > > > > > > is there a distinction between blue and > > > saline... hmmm... well actually they aren't comparables. > > > Is there a difference between the number 10 and sex? > > > It is a meaningless question. > > > I *would* say there is a difference between 10 and 7, > > > or between having sex and taking a walk. Those are > > > comparables. > > > > > > As for nouns *themselves*?... What on earth is a noun > > > *itself*? Do you mean a noun totally out of context? > > > If that is what you mean, then for example to say > > > " wood " totally out of context is yes, meaningless. > > > > > > I find your questions rather odd. Are they related > > > to my post? [it was not me that spoke of boundaries, > > > BTW] > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > That's interesting. When you say blue and saline are not > comparable, > > do you mean that you cannot examine them and note similarities or > > differences? It would seem that we can distinguish between the two. > > Yet they are delivered with different senses. Blueness is seen > > through the eyes, and saline is a sensation of taste. Perhaps this > > is where the difficulty arrives. Should we say that because they > > arrive by different means one cannot compare them -- or that > because > > 10 is an abstraction of mathematical thought and sex is an activity > > that we cannot call these different? > > > > > > When I used the phrase " nouns themselves " ; I was referring to the > > nature of nouns to be names for things, actions or ideas > > *experienced*. If the experience did not happen, then why the name? > > > > Is it possible to name something that doesn't exist in the world or > > mind? > > > >>>> > > Comparable -- as I used the term -- means > " comparison is meaningful " . So, for example, > blue and brown are comparable in that one > can say, " Blue is cooler than brown " . But > the number 10 and sex are not comparables > because they cannot be meaningfully compared. > > > When I used the phrase " nouns themselves " ; I was referring to the > > nature of nouns to be names for things, actions or ideas > > *experienced*. If the experience did not happen, then why the name? > > > > Is it possible to name something that doesn't exist in the world or > > mind? > >>>> > > There is no basis for assuming there is some fundamental > relationship between language and reality. In particular, > a common confusion is to suppose that the meanings of words > are something that exists independently of the words themselves. > > As for naming something that doesn't exist, that one is > very easy. Consider the following poem by Lewis Carroll. > > Bill > > JABBERWOCKY > > `Twas brillig, and the slithy toves > Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: > All mimsy were the borogoves, > And the mome raths outgrabe. > > " Beware the Jabberwock, my son! > The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! > Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun > The frumious Bandersnatch! " > > He took his vorpal sword in hand: > Long time the manxome foe he sought -- > So rested he by the Tumtum tree, > And stood awhile in thought. > > And, as in uffish thought he stood, > The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame, > Came whiffling through the tulgey wood, > And burbled as it came! > > One, two! One, two! And through and through > The vorpal blade went snicker-snack! > He left it dead, and with its head > He went galumphing back. > > " And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? > Come to my arms, my beamish boy! > O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' > He chortled in his joy. > > `Twas brillig, and the slithy toves > Did gyre and gimble in the wabe; > All mimsy were the borogoves, > And the mome raths outgrabe > Why restrict the definition of terms to the physical. Let us review the original question: " Is it possible to name something that doesn't exist in the world or mind? " The Jabberwock is a great nonsense poem. Yet one thing remains, does the syntax of a sentence count for nothing? For instance the " the slithy toves, Did gyre and gimble in the wabe " , contains lot of words that we have missing definitions for; but is it nonsense to ask if a tove is an object, or an action or a modifier? What about gyre and gimble – are these not some form of action (of some unclear nature)? Could Lewis have written the poem without having some idea relating to these words, even if this idea was purely their position in an English sentence, and a desire to create a puzzle in the mind of the reader? Methusalum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2006 Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 Are you not communicating now, and would that not imply that dualism must be present now? Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Hi old Meth, > > I don't understand your question. Can you please explain it ? > > Werner > > > Nisargadatta , " methusalum " <methusalum@> > wrote: > > > > Thanks for the explanation, but did you mean " existed " ? > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Meth, > > > > > > Bill wasn't talking about the boundaries of some colours, he was > > > talking about dualism and non-dualism. And why does dualism > exists > > at > > > all ? Because it is needed for communication and that > > communication > > > or language allows only coarse shades to commune with words to > > others. > > > > > > But if you leave language and communication and be back in non- > > > dualism you can conceive all those numerous shades as before but > > you > > > cannot tell them to other people because the language won't allow > > it. > > > > > > To simplify it: There exists only non-dualism, dualism starts > when > > > there is a need for communication. > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " methusalum " <methusalum@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > One way to think about the nondual philosophy is as a bunch > > of > > > > > > pointers to the fact, the discovery that experience is > > *always* > > > > > > nondual. > > > > > > > > > > > > There are many ways to test this. For example, we like to > > > think > > > > of > > > > > > the visual field as representing a small subset of what is > > > > > > really " out there. " Hence the widely believed dualism > > > > > between " what > > > > > > we see " and " what we don't see. " > > > > > > > > > > > > But your visual experience is not dualistic like this. > > There's > > > > > just > > > > > > no evidence to support such a distinction. > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you see an edge to the visual field? > > > > > > Do you see any border between the seen and the unseen? > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > In other words dualism is a way of thinking, > > > > > but is not actually experienced. > > > > > > > > > > That's a good point. > > > > > > > > > > Dualism is a way of interpreting experience. > > > > > Non-dualism is a non-interpreting. > > > > > > > > > > Which is to say that a " non-dual perspective " > > > > > is a misnomer. > > > > > > > > > > In the non-interpreting " way " of non-dualism > > > > > everything is water through a sieve. > > > > > > > > > > Nothing can be caught. > > > > > > > > > > Seeing it splash around can seem to happen. > > > > > > > > > > But is that actually *experience*? > > > > > > > > > > Well, it's just water through the sieve all > > > > > over again. > > > > > > > > > > It's like trying to nail down air. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Therefore it is not possible to conceive the difference between > > > blue > > > > and saline -- as one cannot see them both nor a boundary > between > > > them. > > > > > > > > In fact it is not possible to talk of blue as it too passes > > > straight > > > > through the sieve. > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2006 Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 > Comparable -- as I used the term -- means > " comparison is meaningful " . So, for example, > blue and brown are comparable in that one > can say, " Blue is cooler than brown " . But > the number 10 and sex are not comparables > because they cannot be meaningfully compared. Bill, Is there such a thing as a comparison without meaning? If the comparison answers the question " Are they the same? " would that not make it of some use? When contemplating the number 10 would you check that you had a rubber, or are you familiar enough with the number to risk going without? Methusalum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 Surely, Meth, Thats what I meant. At the moment you start commnunicating, dualism is - no matter if with a real person or in an inner dialogue with an imagined person or with yourself. Werner Nisargadatta , " methusalum " <roderickjons wrote: > > Are you not communicating now, and would that not imply that dualism > must be present now? > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > wrote: > > > > Hi old Meth, > > > > I don't understand your question. Can you please explain it ? > > > > Werner > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " methusalum " <methusalum@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation, but did you mean " existed " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Meth, > > > > > > > > Bill wasn't talking about the boundaries of some colours, he > was > > > > talking about dualism and non-dualism. And why does dualism > > exists > > > at > > > > all ? Because it is needed for communication and that > > > communication > > > > or language allows only coarse shades to commune with words to > > > others. > > > > > > > > But if you leave language and communication and be back in non- > > > > dualism you can conceive all those numerous shades as before > but > > > you > > > > cannot tell them to other people because the language won't > allow > > > it. > > > > > > > > To simplify it: There exists only non-dualism, dualism starts > > when > > > > there is a need for communication. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " methusalum " <methusalum@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > One way to think about the nondual philosophy is as a > bunch > > > of > > > > > > > pointers to the fact, the discovery that experience is > > > *always* > > > > > > > nondual. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are many ways to test this. For example, we like > to > > > > think > > > > > of > > > > > > > the visual field as representing a small subset of what > is > > > > > > > really " out there. " Hence the widely believed dualism > > > > > > between " what > > > > > > > we see " and " what we don't see. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But your visual experience is not dualistic like this. > > > There's > > > > > > just > > > > > > > no evidence to support such a distinction. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you see an edge to the visual field? > > > > > > > Do you see any border between the seen and the unseen? > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > In other words dualism is a way of thinking, > > > > > > but is not actually experienced. > > > > > > > > > > > > That's a good point. > > > > > > > > > > > > Dualism is a way of interpreting experience. > > > > > > Non-dualism is a non-interpreting. > > > > > > > > > > > > Which is to say that a " non-dual perspective " > > > > > > is a misnomer. > > > > > > > > > > > > In the non-interpreting " way " of non-dualism > > > > > > everything is water through a sieve. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nothing can be caught. > > > > > > > > > > > > Seeing it splash around can seem to happen. > > > > > > > > > > > > But is that actually *experience*? > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, it's just water through the sieve all > > > > > > over again. > > > > > > > > > > > > It's like trying to nail down air. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Therefore it is not possible to conceive the difference > between > > > > blue > > > > > and saline -- as one cannot see them both nor a boundary > > between > > > > them. > > > > > > > > > > In fact it is not possible to talk of blue as it too passes > > > > straight > > > > > through the sieve. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 Nisargadatta , " methusalum " <methusalum wrote: > > > Comparable -- as I used the term -- means > > " comparison is meaningful " . So, for example, > > blue and brown are comparable in that one > > can say, " Blue is cooler than brown " . But > > the number 10 and sex are not comparables > > because they cannot be meaningfully compared. > > Bill, > > Is there such a thing as a comparison without meaning? If the > comparison answers the question " Are they the same? " would that not > make it of some use? When contemplating the number 10 would you check > that you had a rubber, or are you familiar enough with the number to > risk going without? > > > Methusalum > ~~~~~~~~ Let's back up a bit: What do you count as a nonsensical statement? [by a " statement " I mean a grammatically well-formed sentence.] What, in your view, is the relation of context to the meaning of a statement? Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 Do we split reality when wethink? Is what was once a universal whole now cut in two by your communicating to me? Or are you suggesting that nonduality is still the only thing that exists, but that you possess some (perhaps illusionary) characteristics of duality – would this not be a better description? Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Surely, Meth, > > Thats what I meant. > > At the moment you start commnunicating, dualism is - no matter if > with a real person or in an inner dialogue with an imagined person or > with yourself. > > Werner > > > Nisargadatta , " methusalum " <roderickjons@> > wrote: > > > > Are you not communicating now, and would that not imply that > dualism > > must be present now? > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi old Meth, > > > > > > I don't understand your question. Can you please explain it ? > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " methusalum " <methusalum@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation, but did you mean " existed " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Meth, > > > > > > > > > > Bill wasn't talking about the boundaries of some colours, he > > was > > > > > talking about dualism and non-dualism. And why does dualism > > > exists > > > > at > > > > > all ? Because it is needed for communication and that > > > > communication > > > > > or language allows only coarse shades to commune with words > to > > > > others. > > > > > > > > > > But if you leave language and communication and be back in > non- > > > > > dualism you can conceive all those numerous shades as before > > but > > > > you > > > > > cannot tell them to other people because the language won't > > allow > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > To simplify it: There exists only non-dualism, dualism starts > > > when > > > > > there is a need for communication. > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " methusalum " > <methusalum@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " > <illusyn@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One way to think about the nondual philosophy is as a > > bunch > > > > of > > > > > > > > pointers to the fact, the discovery that experience is > > > > *always* > > > > > > > > nondual. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are many ways to test this. For example, we like > > to > > > > > think > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > the visual field as representing a small subset of what > > is > > > > > > > > really " out there. " Hence the widely believed dualism > > > > > > > between " what > > > > > > > > we see " and " what we don't see. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But your visual experience is not dualistic like this. > > > > There's > > > > > > > just > > > > > > > > no evidence to support such a distinction. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you see an edge to the visual field? > > > > > > > > Do you see any border between the seen and the unseen? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In other words dualism is a way of thinking, > > > > > > > but is not actually experienced. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's a good point. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dualism is a way of interpreting experience. > > > > > > > Non-dualism is a non-interpreting. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which is to say that a " non-dual perspective " > > > > > > > is a misnomer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the non-interpreting " way " of non-dualism > > > > > > > everything is water through a sieve. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nothing can be caught. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Seeing it splash around can seem to happen. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But is that actually *experience*? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, it's just water through the sieve all > > > > > > > over again. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's like trying to nail down air. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Therefore it is not possible to conceive the difference > > between > > > > > blue > > > > > > and saline -- as one cannot see them both nor a boundary > > > between > > > > > them. > > > > > > > > > > > > In fact it is not possible to talk of blue as it too passes > > > > > straight > > > > > > through the sieve. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " methusalum " <methusalum@> wrote: > > > > > Comparable -- as I used the term -- means > > > " comparison is meaningful " . So, for example, > > > blue and brown are comparable in that one > > > can say, " Blue is cooler than brown " . But > > > the number 10 and sex are not comparables > > > because they cannot be meaningfully compared. > > > > Bill, > > > > Is there such a thing as a comparison without meaning? If the > > comparison answers the question " Are they the same? " would that not > > make it of some use? When contemplating the number 10 would you check > > that you had a rubber, or are you familiar enough with the number to > > risk going without? > > > > > > Methusalum > > > ~~~~~~~~ > > Let's back up a bit: > > What do you count as a nonsensical statement? > [by a " statement " I mean a grammatically > well-formed sentence.] > > What, in your view, is the relation of context > to the meaning of a statement? > > Bill > Bill Okay let's back up. I don't see the connection between nonsensical statement and meaningless comparisons? Unless you wish to imply that you could have a meaningless comparison between one nonsensical statement and another – but this would still be something that you could compare with the question " Are they the same? " Or is this a reference to The Jabberwocky; a good example of the use of nonsensical words, but does it not cheat somewhat with the use of helping words (like " the " , " all " , etc) and the structure of the sentence helps even more. Perhaps we should say a statement written in a foreign language, and I better make sure it has a foreign script (such as Arabic) so that I cannot claim that I know what the letters are. This would (I assume) be grammatically correct and yet a nonsense to me. Yet then we strike the paradox that it would be both meaningful and nonsense. The context adds to the meaning. Feel free to hail back to an earlier email. I only cut this one down as it was become very long. Methusalum 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.