Futher clarification about a word not referring to a thing!

[Guest guest]

Re: Question about a word not referring to a thing

Posted by: " dan330033 " dan330033 dan330033

Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:50 am (PST)

>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.

Hi Dan,

 

Thanks for the response! I can easily see that a " word " is simply a sound

that is assigned meaning to via memory. For example, if someone were to say

" tondemo nai " or " kuchibiru " to the vast majority of people it would have " no

meaning " to them. But to me, since I speak a little bit of Japanese, they would

mean/elicit a response of " never happen " and " lips " respectively. So, given that

the " sounds " refer to or evoke certain responses in me, I adorn them with a

particular meaning that would ( I assume) be pretty much in accord with the

speaker's understanding too. Others who don't speak Japanese still bring their

own meaning to those same words/sounds but they don't " match up " , so to speak,

with speaker's understanding and usage of them perhaps resulting in a " huh "

experience on the part of the one who doesn't speak Japanese.

 

What it appears I am missing (?) is that the sound/word (spoken, typed, or

written) *TV* points to or refers to the actual *thing* I turn on and watch at

night. Now I also realize there are no permanent objects as " things " that exist

separately since there are no boundaries and no permanancy. Yet doesn't the word

TV still " refer to " that " idiot box " on which movements and sounds appear and I

spend money on every month to watch?

 

I also realize that the word/sound " phone " and its " meaning " is context

dependent. It could refer to the thing you dial and talk on. Or it could be

used as a " verb " meaning to call someone.

 

Just color me puzzled!

 

Michael

 

 

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Adamson " <adamson wrote:

>

> Re: Question about a word not referring to a thing

> Posted by: " dan330033 " dan330033 dan330033

> Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:50 am (PST)

> >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.

> Hi Dan,

>

> Thanks for the response! I can easily see that a " word " is

simply a sound that is assigned meaning to via memory. For example, if

someone were to say " tondemo nai " or " kuchibiru " to the vast majority

of people it would have " no meaning " to them. But to me, since I speak

a little bit of Japanese, they would mean/elicit a response of " never

happen " and " lips " respectively. So, given that the " sounds " refer to

or evoke certain responses in me, I adorn them with a particular

meaning that would ( I assume) be pretty much in accord with the

speaker's understanding too. Others who don't speak Japanese still

bring their own meaning to those same words/sounds but they don't

" match up " , so to speak, with speaker's understanding and usage of

them perhaps resulting in a " huh " experience on the part of the one

who doesn't speak Japanese.

>

> What it appears I am missing (?) is that the sound/word (spoken,

typed, or written) *TV* points to or refers to the actual *thing* I

turn on and watch at night. Now I also realize there are no permanent

objects as " things " that exist separately since there are no

boundaries and no permanancy. Yet doesn't the word TV still " refer to "

that " idiot box " on which movements and sounds appear and I spend

money on every month to watch?

>

> I also realize that the word/sound " phone " and its " meaning "

is context dependent. It could refer to the thing you dial and talk

on. Or it could be used as a " verb " meaning to call someone.

>

> Just color me puzzled!

>

> Michael

>

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Adamson " <adamson wrote:

>

> Re: Question about a word not referring to a thing

> Posted by: " dan330033 " dan330033 dan330033

> Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:50 am (PST)

> >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.

> Hi Dan,

>

> Thanks for the response! I can easily see that a " word " is

simply a sound that is assigned meaning to via memory. For example, if

someone were to say " tondemo nai " or " kuchibiru " to the vast majority

of people it would have " no meaning " to them. But to me, since I speak

a little bit of Japanese, they would mean/elicit a response of " never

happen " and " lips " respectively. So, given that the " sounds " refer to

or evoke certain responses in me, I adorn them with a particular

meaning that would ( I assume) be pretty much in accord with the

speaker's understanding too. Others who don't speak Japanese still

bring their own meaning to those same words/sounds but they don't

" match up " , so to speak, with speaker's understanding and usage of

them perhaps resulting in a " huh " experience on the part of the one

who doesn't speak Japanese.

>

> What it appears I am missing (?) is that the sound/word (spoken,

typed, or written) *TV* points to or refers to the actual *thing* I

turn on and watch at night. Now I also realize there are no permanent

objects as " things " that exist separately since there are no

boundaries and no permanancy. Yet doesn't the word TV still " refer to "

that " idiot box " on which movements and sounds appear and I spend

money on every month to watch?

>

> I also realize that the word/sound " phone " and its " meaning "

is context dependent. It could refer to the thing you dial and talk

on. Or it could be used as a " verb " meaning to call someone.

>

> Just color me puzzled!

>

> Michael

 

Hi Michael -

 

It's an interesting topic, and a difficult one.

 

Your words point to this:

 

There is a gestalt of movement, sensation, memory, image, and word.

 

Through that gestalt, a construct is formulated which appears as an

existing thing. That existing thing isn't really an existing thing,

but seems to be because the back and forth movement of sense and

memory is so " tight " that the images appear as if static (unless

investigated deeply on a momentary basis).

 

But if investigated deeply, the image breaks down ( " in the moment " )

and one sees that movement and memory are interacting with sensing

microsecond to microsecond to produce the images and impressions of

things existing. This " tightness " is useful in terms of survival,

languaging, and day to day life. But it's not actual.

 

Here is where the impression of word referring to thing outside of the

word breaks down.

 

There is a " gestalt " kind of knowing that isn't dependent on words,

and isn't governed by words, yet is used to give words meaning.

 

It is this gestalt knowing that doesn't refer to something outside.

So the usual perceptual process in which a being uses words and

thoughts to capture events and experiences outside of the words and

thoughts isn't what is going on.

 

Just the gestalt is going on - the whole action -- and movement, word,

thing, event, sensing, knowing, speaking, acting, are aspects of this

action (the doing of non-doing). The action has no referent. Yet it

gives the apparent meanings to words and ideas as representations and

things as perceived objects which a creature with subjectivity

experiences.

 

-- D.