Thought Experiment: English Prime? Language, Reason, and Reality.

Originally posted by LiveForever8
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

The word "bed" looks like a bed...

I would love to see you lie down and get comfy in a word!!

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Of course, the I, or the observer, is the seer of the scene. What the I sees, however, is not to be confused with what is. What appears to be may not be at all. And what appears to bees may not be at all.

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

Of course, the I, or the observer, is the seer of the scene. What the I sees, however, is not to be confused with what is. What appears to be may not be at all.

What appears is not real but without it the real could not know itself. The light appears to divide it so it can be knowing.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


So are you denying knowing to the blind? There are other means of perceived knowing, surely, such as touch, smell, and sound. However, senses do not provide us with knowing, but rather belief. Color is an illusion, we can only see certain wavelengths of it. Sound is an illusion, we can only interpret certain wavelengths of it. Touch is an illusion, as we rely on our nerves to relay the information regarding something's temperature, texture, and physical state. Our senses help us to make sense of our surroundings, but they are by no means to be mistaken as absolute truth, as they can very easily fail us.

The only thing that we can know to be is our own minds. Everything else is belief and acceptance. Things can either be, or they can appear to be. Unless we can verify their being, we can only assume that they appear to be.

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

So are you denying knowing to the blind? There are other means of perceived knowing, surely, such as touch, smell, and sound.

Noise is an appearance, thought is an appearance, a sensation is an appearance

However, senses do not provide us with knowing, but rather belief. Color is an illusion, we can only see certain wavelengths of it. Sound is an illusion, we can only interpret certain wavelengths of it. Touch is an illusion, as we rely on our nerves to relay the information regarding something's temperature, texture, and physical state. Our senses help us to make sense of our surroundings, but they are by no means to be mistaken as absolute truth, as they can very easily fail us.

As I said the appearance is not real. The appearance is the light that divides the real so it can know itself.

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
The only thing that we can know to be is our own minds. Everything else is belief and acceptance. Things can either be, or they can appear to be. Unless we can verify their being, we can only assume that they appear to be.

All that appears to exist just appears to exist.
There is nothing separate to what you are as far as you will ever know.
Know thyself.

'Know thyself' is not advice - it is all that is happening eternally.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Well then, sir, it appears that we agree. However, I'm not sure that knowing thyself is a possibility as it is vastly different from knowing one exists.

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

Well then, sir, it appears that we agree. However, I'm not sure that knowing thyself is a possibility as it is vastly different from knowing one exists.

What you are appears to exist but it is made of nothing.
When no thingness is found, true peace and contentment will be where you dwell - from there you can watch the play of light - the moving existence is seen by the stillness.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Why peace and contentment? Is peace, or does it appear to be? Stillness is impossible.

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

Why peace and contentment? Is peace, or does it appear to be? Stillness is impossible.

Stillness is ever present - but it gets overlooked. It is the only stability (the rock, the anchor, the father - many names have been given but it is the un-namable - no word can point to it) that all religions speak of - when found one rests in peace - it is sanctuary.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


But things only appear to have stillness; all matter vibrates, though at different speeds.

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy

"E[nglish]-Prime is the use of English without any form of "is" or "being."

The gist of this is, I suppose, to see the world more objectively by speaking more objectively. Instead of saying, "the grass is green," one would say, "the grass appears green to me," which is a much more scientifically accurate statement. Instead of "being" a human, one would appear human to him or herself.

Thinking like this in the long term would be pretty weird, but from a philosophical standpoint it's perhaps the most immaculate way to think.

I found this to be true both on a personal and professional level.
The main objective in communication is to transfer thought from your mind's eye to another being's mind's eye.
Humans mainly use speech to encrypt their thoughts. And if speech is an encryption of thought then writing is an encryption of speech(at least that's how it seems to me ). Many times when we communicate, we choose absolutist vocabulary to designed to influence another being's Will; even a benign statement like: "Steely Dan is the greatest rock band of all time!" Statements like that are essentially "ego propaganda". These words subconsciously say,"I am correct. You have no need to question, as my "ego self" guarantees the truth of my words."
But this approach often has the opposite effect. People immediately are defensive as they sense the assault on their Will. Often they will question and retort, "What about the Eagles, Bro?" To which I say, "You are an idiot. I hope you drop dead."
But I digress.
To be more effective at communication, you should phrase your opinions entirely from your own point of view. And somewhere in your statement, there should be a disclaimer admitting it may not always be true. This way you aren't being psychically fascist and the other person isn't automatically defensive toward your point of view.

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

But things only appear to have stillness; all matter vibrates, though at different speeds.

Things are of the appearance.
What are you? You are seeing the moving appearance.
It is not noticed by most but when you are sitting in a car and the car is travelling along the road it is not you that is moving in your experience - the road is moving, the trees by the roadside appear and disappear, everything passes but what you are doesn't move. You never move in your experience. Environments move but you stay right here and right now.

Hi DDD,

I recently Took up the challenge of no longer living by the book that controls how we see things. It tells people what the world is around them and they believe it. They flock to the book when they are in trouble. It helps them remember, and if they did not know what they were looking for, they were guaranteed to find it in this book. It would tell them and they would blindly believe.

After coming to terms with the fact that not everything in this book was true, and some of its text was included with the sole intention of deceiving those who blindly believe. This book casts more spells than the bible. More people live by this book than the bible, Everyone in the western world follows this book before they even go near a bible.

It's called..... The dictionary.

I decide to go back to this book to find the deceit and expose it. Then wrote this thread based on just one deceitful word, a prefix, namely "de-". www.abovetopsecret.com... kind of connected to the logic in the video in your post.

Words are tools we created to explore, explain, comunicate and understand the world around us. They are not truth. They are audio symbols/signs that convey a idea shared by two or more people, nothing more.

reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy


reply to post by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
The gist of this is, I suppose, to see the world more objectively by speaking more objectively. Instead of saying, "the grass is green," one would say, "the grass appears green to me," which is a much more scientifically accurate statement.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
It is 'grassing' or it is 'greening'.
What is it? It is not a thing - it is a happening

What is a "happening"? It is something that is "appearing".

The grass APPEARS green to me, is an accurate statement.

APPEARING - HAPPENING is the verb.

"grass" / "green" is what it appears to be by the one who is watching.


To you , it may not look like grass, nor may it look green. People see colors in different ways. To one person's eyes - depending on their eyesight it may look yellow or white (if it is just bright with sunlight on it).

------------------------------------

Just for fun, common things in E-prime

Common:

Roses are red;
Violets are blue,
Honey is sweet,
And so are you.

E-prime:

Roses look red;
Violets look blue,
Honey seems sweet,
And you do too.

Common:
I am a woman.

E-Prime:

I appear as a woman.
I classify myself as a female.
My body has the female anatomy. (To be very specific)

Common:

I am what I am

E-Prime:

I seem as I seem.
I live as I live.

Common:

It is what it is.


E-prime:

It seems as it seems.

reply to post by arpgme


There are no things - there is only ever what is happening presently.
Being is not a thing.
It is one.

Originally posted by arpgme
"grass" / "green" is what it appears to be by the one who is watching.

This assumes that there are two things. The one seeing the grass and the grass - is two. Really there is no one seeing grass.

It appears that there must be someone seeing the grass but experience is non dual. Experience is experience and life is not made out of things/objects - life consists of experience - it is made of experience.

Take this as an example - it is a discussion I had last night with a friend.
The radio was on and there was a track playing and I said Queen made some really good tunes - very powerful tracks. My friend said 'I have never really liked Queen' and then went on to tell me stuff about Freddie Mercury and his life. I tried to explain to my friend that music is an experience (a sensational experience) and has nothing to do with the singers history and said that this happens a lot - that instead of appreciating the noise of music or the message spoken people look at the singer or the speaker and tear them apart and in doing so they miss the point. I said that if he knew nothing of the singer then maybe he would actually enjoy the noise being heard and he insisted that he did not like Freddie Mercury (the person). My friend is lost in the idea of things so cannot hear the music. Knowledge of things removes the ability to hear right.
The noise is what music is, the feeling is the happening.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


I understand your point. I had a similar experience with my friend and a Chris Brown song.

Remember though, this is a form of 'language' of course it will not be able to express reality with 100% accurate. Since languages are based on concepts and put together to communicate ideas, it will always only serve to be a pointer to the truth/reality , but speaking in this many (English Prime) seems to be more expressive.

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

I understand your point. I had a similar experience with my friend and a Chris Brown song.

Remember though, this is a form of 'language' of course it will not be able to express reality with 100% accurate. Since languages are based on concepts and put together to communicate ideas, it will always only serve to be a pointer to the truth/reality , but speaking in this many (English Prime) seems to be more expressive.

Speaking in E prime assumes objects.
The assumption of objects is the first mistake. There is nothing separate - there are not two things (non duality is the truth). There is only what is happening.