Guest guest Posted July 12, 2006 Report Share Posted July 12, 2006 --- Adamson <adamson wrote: > > Hi, > > I'd like to get some clarity about a " word " not referring to a " thing. " > Here's my present understanding this matter. I can easily see that the word > " fire " isn't the actual " hot stuff " that burns; and the word " water " is not > the " wet stuff " you can drink, and so on. Yet it seems to me that the word > " fire " does point to, or refer to the " hot stuff " which is not a separate > *thing* or independently existing object, but is a process or aspect of the > functioning of *totality* for lack of a better word. > > Am I missing something? > > Thanks! > Michael > You discuss the matter in the absolute, but language is always context bound. Using the term " fire " in a particular sentence in a particular context can have a particular meaning to a particular person to whom it is spoken (!). So there might be a context in which the statement, " Care to start a fire? " has a certain particular effect on the person hearing it (he might, e.g. start a fire). There is no " essence " that is 'fire'. " Fire " is just a word that has utility in various circumstances. To think that the " real stuff " is something pointed to by the word is a misconception. The significance of the term " fire " , as I said, is always specific and context bound. There is *no such thing* as an " absolute meaning " of the word " fire " . If you feel totally deflated by this explanation, then you probably get it. There tends to be a fascination with " essences " and pure abstractions. Such talk, though, is never the context of real language use. Such talk is, as Wittgenstein so often said, language gone on a holiday. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2006 Report Share Posted July 12, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Adamson " <adamson wrote: > > > Hi, > > I'd like to get some clarity about a " word " not referring to a " thing. " Here's my present understanding this matter. I can easily see that the word " fire " isn't the actual " hot stuff " that burns; and the word " water " is not the " wet stuff " you can drink, and so on. Yet it seems to me that the word " fire " does point to, or refer to the " hot stuff " which is not a separate *thing* or independently existing object, but is a process or aspect of the functioning of *totality* for lack of a better word. > > Am I missing something? > > Thanks! > Michael > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2006 Report Share Posted July 12, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Adamson " <adamson wrote: > > > Hi, > > I'd like to get some clarity about a " word " not referring to a " thing. " Here's my present understanding this matter. I can easily see that the word " fire " isn't the actual " hot stuff " that burns; and the word " water " is not the " wet stuff " you can drink, and so on. Yet it seems to me that the word " fire " does point to, or refer to the " hot stuff " which is not a separate *thing* or independently existing object, but is a process or aspect of the functioning of *totality* for lack of a better word. > > Am I missing something? > > Thanks! > Michael Hi Michael - It seems as if words point to things outside of themselves. But they don't. We use them as if they do. One way to look at this is that a word spoken is a sound. That sound is actually unique and will never be repeated with exactly that tone ever again. A word being read is a unique experience. That moment of reading that word will never be repeated exactly that same way again. The idea of a word having meaning depends on things repeating. And this convention is useful. Just like it is useful to perceive a table as a static thing occupying space with certain qualities that are inherent to that table, which remain with and as that table. Nothing really is repeating. Yet we use patterns of meaning that are based on that concept. Our brain is ordered accordingly. Our memory system is ordered accordingly, and our language system is part of that same way of patterning. If one grasps the nonrepeating nature of experience, that understanding is necessarily immediate and has no time involved. Time is formulated based on contrast and comparison, using the assumption of repeatability. To understand the limits of that assumption, one simply is as is, now. -- D. 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.