Help Me With This Basic Question Regarding Reality, Please.

Is there any part of reality that cannot be described in words?

I don't mean "described efficiently", because it is obvious that some types of reality will require a lot of explanation (after all, one picture is worth a thousand words, so they say.)

But is there some part of reality that cannot be labeled, or somehow described with arbitrary precision by spoken and written word?

If it is true that all of reality can be described by language, is it possible that reality and language are the same thing?

TIA.

can you describe music to a deaf man?
can you describe vision to a blind?

are each amd everyones reality one and the same?

reality is definite to it self albeit not necessarily to the above

reply to post by Axial Leader

All of reality can be explained. That is why we invented language, to describe everything around us, physical, emotional, etc. However, if some aliens came to Earth with technology we haven't seen before, we would be at a loss to use the right words to explain it, but, that doesn't make it any less real.

Have you heard the phrase "One's perception is one's reality."? Well that says to me that reality is indefinite. How can you describe something indefinite?

Describe color. How do i know your red, is my red.. Or your blue, my blue.

In Mexican shamanism, there is a duality of the human known as the "tonal" and the "nagual". The "tonal" is, in essence, the ego. It is ones awareness of the position of themselves in the grand scheme, and the worldview.

The "nagual", however, is not able to be described. It must just be known. To use another persons words:

What, then, is the nagual? The nagual is the part of us which we do not deal with at all. The nagual is the part of us for which there is no description – no words, no names, no feelings, no knowledge. The nagual is not experience or intuition or consciousness. Those terms and everything else you may care to say are only items on the island of the tonal. The nagual, on the other hand, is only effect. The tonal begins at birth and ends at death, but the nagual never ends. The nagual has no limit. I’ve said that the nagual is where power hovers; that was only a way of alluding to it. By reasons of its effect, perhaps the nagual can be best understood in terms of power.

It is not mind, it is not soul, it is not the thoughts of men, it is not a state of grace or Heaven or pure intellect, or psyche, or energy, or vital force, or immortality, or life principle, or the Supreme Being, the Almighty, God – all of these are items on the island of the tonal. The tonal is, as I’ve already said, everything we think the world is composed of, including God, of course. In that sense, what we think of as God has no more importance other than being a part of the tonal of our time.

The nagual is at the service of the warrior. It can be witnessed, but it cannot be talked about. The nagual is there, surrounding the island of the tonal. There, where power hovers. We sense, from the moment we are born, that there are two parts to us. At the time of birth, and for a while after, we are all nagual. We sense, then, that in order to function we need a counterpart to what we have. The tonal is missing and that gives us, from the very beginning, a feeling of incompleteness. Then the tonal starts to develop and it becomes utterly important to our functioning, so important that it opaques the shine of the nagual, it overwhelms it. From the moment we become all tonal we do nothing else but to increment that old feeling of incompleteness which accompanies us from the moment of our birth, and which tells us constantly that there is another part to give us completeness

essential-knowledge.net...

To that i would add that, as users of our languages, we tend to destroy the value of words. Take "love" for example. When you say "I LOVE steak!", does that not then leave the term, "I love my children" as being somewhat meaningless?

Political hyperbole is a prime example. Political hyperbole has begun to ruin our language, making it so full of double meaning and innuendo. It has done what street slang has been unable to do: completely befuddle the language at all levels.

Words are produced as a series of sound vibrations, the nature of reality can be observed as a series of resonances or frequencies.

Good answers.

I ask this because I am reading Chris Langan's paper, "A New Reality Theory", available here:

www.megafoundation.org...

Chris Langan is supposedly the smartest person on earth. He seems like a cool guy.

But I think your answers sort of invalidate a large part of his theory (which says that "reality" is purely a type of "language".)

So thanks for your answers and clarity of thought. Cheers!

Is there any part of reality that cannot be described in words?

Yes.

But is there some part of reality that cannot be labeled, or somehow described with arbitrary precision by spoken and written word?

Yes.

If it is true that all of reality can be described by language, is it possible that reality and language are the same thing?

No... for there are as many realities as there are beings able to create them, no two realities are the same, there is no single reality nor a global one we can all agree on. Reality does not exist for it is merely a word to describe where your attention or focus is at using your five senses and as said will differentiate from being to being, place to place and space to space.

If you want a well detailed and articulate account of a 'different' reality, then watch/ listen to this video from 6.38... some things you just can't put into words... 'home' springs to mind, where words and language aren't even used...

reply to post by Axial Leader



56 pages is a very easy to handle read. Having read the abstract, I think this is a paper i will wade through. He uses some overly technical wording, and it will take a clear head and solid concentration to wade through, if the rest of the paper is like the abstract.

But, if you find that paper interesting you might find Ingo Swann's info on cognitive and memory transducers, as well as the perceptive processes of the brain and mind. Very, very interesting read. Quite a bit more than 56 pages, though:

www.scribd.com...

I have read a LOT of stuff in my life. The above compendium might be the best investment of time and concentration I have ever made.

Maybe a cop out, but I have always subscribed to the thought that perception is far more important than reality. Therefore it follows that reality would be a matter of personal interpretation for each individual as the experience presents itself. Your question is an exceptionally positive and introspective exercise. I appreciate the thread.

Originally posted by Axial Leader
Is there any part of reality that cannot be described in words?

I don't mean "described efficiently", because it is obvious that some types of reality will require a lot of explanation (after all, one picture is worth a thousand words, so they say.)

But is there some part of reality that cannot be labeled, or somehow described with arbitrary precision by spoken and written word?

If it is true that all of reality can be described by language, is it possible that reality and language are the same thing?

TIA.

There is, but I can't describe it to you.

Originally posted by samstone11
Maybe a cop out, but I have always subscribed to the thought that perception is far more important than reality. Therefore it follows that reality would be a matter of personal interpretation for each individual as the experience presents itself. Your question is an exceptionally positive and introspective exercise. I appreciate the thread.

Without an immutable sub-structure (which is what reality is) in existence to enable the development of intellect (which is what perception is), there would be no such thing as perception. So, how could perception be more important than reality? It's more important to you, perhaps, but that's a very egocentric way of seeing things.

reply to post by Axial Leader


The real question is can any part of reality be described by words. Our language is based on our perceptions, so to each of us each word means something different. Sorry to play the semantics card here, but IMO we can never honestly convey what we see or experience to another and have the meaning stay the same.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
In Mexican shamanism, there is a duality of the human known as the "tonal" and the "nagual". The "tonal" is, in essence, the ego. It is ones awareness of the position of themselves in the grand scheme, and the worldview.

The "nagual", however, is not able to be described. It must just be known. To use another persons words:

What, then, is the nagual? The nagual is the part of us which we do not deal with at all. The nagual is the part of us for which there is no description – no words, no names, no feelings, no knowledge. The nagual is not experience or intuition or consciousness. Those terms and everything else you may care to say are only items on the island of the tonal. The nagual, on the other hand, is only effect. The tonal begins at birth and ends at death, but the nagual never ends. The nagual has no limit. I’ve said that the nagual is where power hovers; that was only a way of alluding to it. By reasons of its effect, perhaps the nagual can be best understood in terms of power.

It is not mind, it is not soul, it is not the thoughts of men, it is not a state of grace or Heaven or pure intellect, or psyche, or energy, or vital force, or immortality, or life principle, or the Supreme Being, the Almighty, God – all of these are items on the island of the tonal. The tonal is, as I’ve already said, everything we think the world is composed of, including God, of course. In that sense, what we think of as God has no more importance other than being a part of the tonal of our time.

The nagual is at the service of the warrior. It can be witnessed, but it cannot be talked about. The nagual is there, surrounding the island of the tonal. There, where power hovers. We sense, from the moment we are born, that there are two parts to us. At the time of birth, and for a while after, we are all nagual. We sense, then, that in order to function we need a counterpart to what we have. The tonal is missing and that gives us, from the very beginning, a feeling of incompleteness. Then the tonal starts to develop and it becomes utterly important to our functioning, so important that it opaques the shine of the nagual, it overwhelms it. From the moment we become all tonal we do nothing else but to increment that old feeling of incompleteness which accompanies us from the moment of our birth, and which tells us constantly that there is another part to give us completeness

essential-knowledge.net...

This seems to suggest the visceral level of instinct. The purely DNA-driven primitive survival response.

reply to post by NorEaster


I cannot possibly hope to shed any light on this. I am more of a "jack of all trades" with religion/spirituality. I like to sample a bit of everything, searching for the commonality that underlies it. I could discuss that subject for hours.

Regarding yoru response, it would seem that you cannot classify the nagual based on our human perception and syntax. It is a part of us that exists, it would seem, more as a basic awareness or perceptive capability.

But one thing that seems very certain is that it is not related to DNA in any way. Consciousness and genes are not really related. Consciousness exists before us and after us. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed.

our languages are trying to describe a reality that we know next to nothing about...all is illusion...how much of the electromagnetic spectrum can we perceive with our five senses?,very little,the visible wavelength...we are trying to read in the dark,we have theories and guesses,we dont really know...two hundred years ago the leading thinkers and scientists said that rocks cant fall out of the sky and if you said they did you were ridiculed,there were actually people thrown out of scientific academies for saying so...and...whatta ya know,they were wrong...math is probably a better language than words for trying to understand and describe reality,but this kind of mathematics goes over most peoples heads... including my own...

The infinite Presence that dwells in the finite animate. Defies any possible attribute to anything finite. The instant anyone attempts to do so, that Presence is contaminated as Its shadow translates from infinite to finite. The same reason why all religious texts appear ridiculous and illogical. Infinite cannot exist as finite anymore than can a thimble hold all the waters of all the oceans on earth. Defies means to describe.

Reality is what we can each see, hear, smell, feel and taste and agree upon. Actuality is something else.

reply to post by tkwasny


especially when you consider the fact that we may only exist as shadows of the fourth dimensional beings that we actually are...