Originally posted by twhiteheadEdit: "And I disagree that the word 'landscape' is what enables me to understand the concept, or observe it. It is only the word I use when trying to communicate that concept to you."
And I disagree that the word 'landscape' is what enables me to understand the concept, or observe it. It is only the word I use when trying to communicate that concept to you. I can observe a landscape and enjoy its beauty without having a word to describe it, and without knowing a single word of English. I do not need to define it, and the phenomena does not need to be defined to exist.
Interesting!
At first your senses establish the capture of the phenomenon that, thanks to our consensus alone, we are calling "landscape": this is the reason why you cannot name your landscape capture "soup", you are forced to define it solely as "landscape". Now, the word "landscape" enables you to talk to me about this phenomenon: what way other than the word "landscape" and its synonyms have you at your disposal in order to communicate to me the factual landscape you sensed?
Finally, if your mapping/ notion "landscape" was not a reality in the World 3, how could I ever understand the factual territory that you mapped by means of the notion "landscape"?
Edit: "I can observe a landscape and enjoy its beauty without having a word to describe it, and without knowing a single word of English."
Of course you can, and over here I see at least two variations: you either speak another language and you use the analogous to the notion "landscape" word in your language; or you are a new born baby and you enjoy the beauty without having the slightest clue of what exactly you are enjoying;
Edit: "I do not need to define it, and the phenomena does not need to be defined to exist."
By which means do you know that the landscape is a landscape if you are unable to define it and unable to verify (firstly for your own convenience) that you actually see a "landscape" instead of an "aeroplane"? In fact, we invented the notion "landscape" in order to define a specific observer amongst many. Whatever you are unable to define is simply undefined -and methinks you cannot communicate to me the exchangeable and finite packet of the physical information of whatever remains undefined.
Another take: how would you ever now that you have indeed a capture of a landscape if you ignored what a landscape is? And which way the factual "landscape" would be existent to you if you had not your notion "landscape" well established, and thus fully existent, in the World 3?
😵
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleI am still confused as to what you mean by 'define'. You are not making any sense in my understanding of the word.
At first your senses establish the capture of the phenomenon that, thanks to our consensus alone, we are calling "landscape": this is the reason why you cannot name your landscape capture "soup", you are forced to define it solely as "landscape".
Now, the word "landscape" enables you to talk to me about this phenomenon: what way other than the word "landscape" and its synonyms have you at your disposal in order to communicate to me the factual landscape you sensed?
I could describe it, I could paint it, photograph it or even send you a mental image by telepathy 🙂
Of course you can, and over here I see at least two variations: you either speak another language and you use the analogous to the notion "landscape" word in your language; or you are a new born baby and you enjoy the beauty without having the slightest clue of what exactly you are enjoying;
I am not convinced that lack of language makes you ignorant. I believe my cat is just as capable of enjoying landscapes as I am and a young child that cant yet understand language may still 'know' what he is enjoying when he looks at a landscape.
By which means do you know that the landscape is a landscape if you are unable to define it and unable to verify (firstly for your own convenience) that you actually see a "landscape" instead of an "aeroplane"? In fact, we invented the notion "landscape" in order to define a specific observer amongst many. Whatever you are unable to define is simply undefined -and methinks you cannot communicate to me the exchangeable and finite packet of the physical information of whatever remains undefined.
Another take: how would you ever now that you have indeed a capture of a landscape if you ignored what a landscape is? And which way the factual "landscape" would be existent to you if you had not your notion "landscape" well established, and thus fully existent, in the World 3?
😵
Now you are loosing me again. Although words are useful, they are not essential for either understanding the world around us, nor for communication.
And equally, not everything we observe needs to be defined. We can describe it each time we wish to communicate it. Even something as simple as 'the full moon' is a description not a defined word. Yet you seem to be claiming that I must create a word a and define it before I can communicate the concept of a full moon or even fully understand it myself.
Originally posted by black beetleYou are making yourself out to be to important.
All phenomena get meaning solely when they are defined. And all phenomena are defined by Us. It’s only Us. If I push the definition of Self aiming to include all of "creation" inside it, and if I push the Real to infinity, all I am doing is that I just created my own theology. How could ever this theology, or any other, be something else but merely an idea born out of the human mind alone?
Nothing Holy
😵
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadEdit: "I could describe it, I could paint it, photograph it or even send you a mental image by telepathy."
I am still confused as to what you mean by 'define'. You are not making any sense in my understanding of the word.
[b]Now, the word "landscape" enables you to talk to me about this phenomenon: what way other than the word "landscape" and its synonyms have you at your disposal in order to communicate to me the factual landscape you sensed?
I could ...[text shortened]... communicate the concept of a full moon or even fully understand it myself.[/b]
Such a description of yours would be still a definition according to your own mapping of the factual landscape; your painting would be still another map of the factual landscape as you grasped it solely thanks to your senses and according to your notion "landscape"; and you would be unable to photo the factual landscape without having establish earlier in full the existence of the definition "landscape" in the World 3, because you would be unable to distinguish the observer landscape from the other observers of the environment.
However a mental image transmitted from you to me by telepathy would be the sharpest zen I ever encountered, so I would bow to you recognizing in full the force of your skilful means🙂
Edit: "I am not convinced that lack of language makes you ignorant. I believe my cat is just as capable of enjoying landscapes as I am and a young child that cant yet understand language may still 'know' what he is enjoying when he looks at a landscape."
Methinks the richer my language gets, the smarter I am getting, because in fact "language" (notions, definitions and thus the meaning I attribute) is my sole way to map the territory.
And I don't know if your cat is indeed just as capable of "enjoying landscapes" as you are, because I ignore what exactly your cat senses when I sense the landscape. For, how and by which means do you know that your cat enjoys for sure "landscapes" as much as you do? How did you communicate with your cat and you became aware of the fact that your cat is just as capable of enjoying landscapes as you are?
Also, I don't know what exactly a new born baby "enjoys" when it looks at a "landscape" due to the fact that, for one, I don't know if it sees exactly what I see and, for two, I don't know if the modification/ state of its mind during this hypothetical event is identical to the modification/ state of my mind.
Edit: "Now you are loosing me again. Although words are useful, they are not essential for either understanding the world around us, nor for communication.
And equally, not everything we observe needs to be defined. We can describe it each time we wish to communicate it. Even something as simple as 'the full moon' is a description not a defined word. Yet you seem to be claiming that I must create a word a and define it before I can communicate the concept of a full moon or even fully understand it myself."
But any description is equivalent to the mapping of a factual territory! I argue that if I have not a map well established I would be both unable to recognize the factual territory and unable to communicate to you this very observer I observe
😵
Originally posted by KellyJayI argue that my self is the sole means I have at my disposal in order to interact with the environment and in order to survive and to prosper. Therefore, I argue that my self is not merely too important, but really irreplaceable.
You are making yourself out to be to important.
Kelly
In addition I argue that my self is the sole bond between the environment, my inner world and my ideas -and furthermore I argue that my self lacks of inherent being, that my self is the sole agent that creates the reality the way I conceive it, and that there are as many realities as sentient beings
😵
Originally posted by TaomanI was just going through some old diaries, like from 10 years ago. And I found all this writing there. It sounded eerily similar to that post , some of it did🙂
When a reference is made to this "zero" or "emptiness, the prime significance is that we are at the last unable to define it, 'It' is neither One nor is 'It' zero, but strangely in a sense both, but that is not quite correct either.
But the essence of it is to cease defining anything ultimately (but it is of course ok relatively, for living purposes), to ce ...[text shortened]... ained.
Forgive my poor words, they are but a stumbling pointing.
Originally posted by black beetle"How could ever this theology, or any other, be something else but merely an idea born out of the human mind alone?"
All phenomena get meaning solely when they are defined. And all phenomena are defined by Us. It’s only Us. If I push the definition of Self aiming to include all of "creation" inside it, and if I push the Real to infinity, all I am doing is that I just created my own theology. How could ever this theology, or any other, be something else but merely an idea born out of the human mind alone?
Nothing Holy
😵
I can see how your theology is from out of your mind, but the other? What other? Any other? Some other?
Try having an idea born out of the mind of God and see what happens.
Originally posted by josephwWhats the difference between his mind and "God"?
[b]"How could ever this theology, or any other, be something else but merely an idea born out of the human mind alone?"
I can see how your theology is from out of your mind, but the other? What other? Any other? Some other?
Try having an idea born out of the mind of God and see what happens.[/b]
Originally posted by josephwAll the other theologies, my dear josephw, for in my opinion all theologies are just an invention of the human mind alone.
[b]"How could ever this theology, or any other, be something else but merely an idea born out of the human mind alone?"
I can see how your theology is from out of your mind, but the other? What other? Any other? Some other?
Try having an idea born out of the mind of God and see what happens.[/b]
First things first: kindly please define "god", then explain how a human being can be in touch with the entity you name "god" and how can it verify this contact, then demonstrate how a specific idea of that specific human being is not actually its idea but an idea of the entity you name "god", and then feel free to ask what would happen after that specific human being had indeed "an idea born out of God"
😵