The Metaphysics of Language

reply to post by Itisnowagain

Contemplating 'being' is not contemplating a word - it is all about realizing what I am..

Is "being" not a word?

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

Contemplating 'being' is not contemplating a word - it is all about realizing what I am..

Is "being" not a word?

It seems it is to you.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


The Ouroboros strikes again. I see words as labels. For me an "image" should project many words however the mind can be conditioned to project an image with a single word.
Its sort of like a big compartmentalized pyramid where the people who understand this behavior have more influence over overs.
Having the language fragmented as much as it is makes it very easy to be an "illusionist" of sorts and attract attention.

reply to post by TheomExperience


Ouroboros - now that is a word!

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

To be or not to be?

'Being' is existence existing - what is that?

It's called "word salad".

Have you ever heard of non conceptual awareness?

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
Have you ever heard of non conceptual awareness?

Is this it?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

everything we call supernatural or are superstitious towards are words and words and words, nothing besides. Anti-climactic? Maybe.

Is there not power in words? This very computer your using is the consequence of word-things: symbols, algorithms, ordered in particular way so as to this computer work.

Words have the power to CREATE - to EFFECT. What someone says to another person has the power to AFFECT that powers inner being. They may seem like little, arbitrary perhaps...but they're powerful little buggers.

In the end, we follow humans more creative than we: artists, creators and masters of expression: another's language. Interpreter vs. the Reader. Teacher vs. Student.

That's just the way it is - Bruce Hornsby.

Our genes - packages determining our physical bodies, core personality. Our environment, inclining us this way or that way. And in between these two massive determinants, is something we describe as a free will. It exists, but it is smaller than we usually imagine.

Depressing? Not in the least. How can “truth” be depressing?

I appreciate this sentiment. The truth is not depressing. Make of it what you will. Orient yourself to facts however you want. You can allow yourself to live happily or miserably, depending on the choice you make.


You're a good writer LesMiserables.

reply to post by 1littlewolf


People make too much of the adjectives we use to describe ourselves. "I" refers to myself, my identity. "Am" refers to a state, a condition. "Gay" refers to a specific condition - homosexuality.

We wouldn't be able to communicate without this mode of expression. Do people make too much of it? Yes, but it hasn't nothing to do with the language part, but with ignorance, conformity, and simple non-thinking.

I'm 5'7, which is short by North American standards. It's a descriptor for my physical body. I have hazel eyes: a descriptor for the color of my iris. People need to put these descriptors into their proper contexts. Height, Skin color, sexual orientation, gender, religion, nationality, culture, language are all rather superficial differentiators. They DO exist, and they ARE relevant, but in a hierarchy of priority, they follow behind "human".

reply to post by Itisnowagain

Have you ever heard of non conceptual awareness?

It sounds like you've conceptualized non conceptual awareness. How is that possible? How is non-conceptual awareness conceptual?

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


I think I pretty much got your gist... I just got carried away in my own separate thing, that had a few key words in common..... sorry about that.

But even that I find interesting- in view of the subject matter.

There is this gymnastic that kids who are raised bilingual develop with their minds, that make it easier for them to learn other languages after- I've seen it in my own kids... I think I developed it too, because when I was very young, I had to translate for my retarded sister, who could not talk in a way others could understand, and furthermore, had her own very special view of the world that went with her expressions.

The 'thing" is the ability to perceive and operate within a framework of reality and self that has no words.
When based in this axe, it is easy to flip from one world view (values, ideals, associations) to another, from one language to another. It is a flexibility of mind that I think opens the doors to wider creativity with mental objects, and as a result, in the physical world.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


Conceptual self awareness can conceptualize anything. Even non-conceptual awareness.

Non-conceptual awareness is also referred to as "embodied self awareness". It's the difference between "feeling" yourself, and "thinking". These are two utterly opposite, disparate, ontological states. Feeling yourself feels like a process - what Carl Rogers went on about. In this state, there is no "pre-conceptualizing" going on; we live in the subjective emotional present - which, paradoxically, as I started a thread about - is achieved only through the medium of losing yourself in something else. This is the vantage point of Buddhism - the continuous "now" (what it'snowagain seems obsessed with). But as I like to think, the vantage point of embodied self awareness is only one - it's contrasted by conceptual self awareness; BOTH have their worth and validity; both have a larger metaphysical worth, warranting equal respect from the conceptually oriented mind.

Conceptual self awareness helps us assess the value of things. And value assessment is how we live good lives; how were able to help others live good lives. If you leave embodied self awareness to itself, evolutionary instincts pop in and out and as the 1960s showed us, crime will skyrocket, evils will ensue, and people will refuse taking responsibility for their actions.

Life is all about livin in the balance between these two states.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

Have you ever heard of non conceptual awareness?

It sounds like you've conceptualized non conceptual awareness.

It may sound that way to you.
The question still stands - have you heard the term 'non conceptual awareness'?

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
What is “being” but a word? What is contemplating “being” but thinking about a word?

This is the opening questions of your thread. If you are at all serious about what you ask, then I would like to take the opportunity to introduce you to the term 'non conceptual awareness' (if you have not heard of it before) - it might lead to finding that 'being' is more than just a word.

Originally posted by TheomExperience

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
Have you ever heard of non conceptual awareness?

Is this it?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

No.

Originally posted by Astrocyte
reply to post by LesMisanthrope

 

Conceptual self awareness can conceptualize anything. Even non-conceptual awareness.

Non-conceptual awareness is also referred to as "embodied self awareness". It's the difference between "feeling" yourself, and "thinking". These are two utterly opposite, disparate, ontological states. Feeling yourself feels like a process - what Carl Rogers went on about. In this state, there is no "pre-conceptualizing" going on; we live in the subjective emotional present - which, paradoxically, as I started a thread about - is achieved only through the medium of losing yourself in something else. This is the vantage point of Buddhism - the continuous "now" (what it'snowagain seems obsessed with). But as I like to think, the vantage point of embodied self awareness is only one - it's contrasted by conceptual self awareness; BOTH have their worth and validity; both have a larger metaphysical worth, warranting equal respect from the conceptually oriented mind.

Conceptual self awareness helps us assess the value of things. And value assessment is how we live good lives; how were able to help others live good lives. If you leave embodied self awareness to itself, evolutionary instincts pop in and out and as the 1960s showed us, crime will skyrocket, evils will ensue, and people will refuse taking responsibility for their actions.

Life is all about livin in the balance between these two states.

You've been able to put into words effectively what I have tried in the past to express and was not very successful.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


I've heard the term expressed before yes.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


I found this to be quite interesting.
kiloby.com...

reply to post by Astrocyte


Nicely explained.

Yes there is an apparent chasm between intuition based and intellectual based conceptualism. However, I would argue that both intuition and intellect are one in the same. I also don't think there is a such thing as non-conceptual or conceptual awareness. I don't think there is a such thing as "awareness" either.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
I don't think there is a such thing as "awareness" either.

Awareness is not a thing.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Awareness is a noun.

noun |noun|
nounGrammar
a word (other than a pronoun) used to identify any of a class of people, places, or things ( common noun ), or to name a particular one of these ( proper noun ).

If it is not a thing, quit calling it one.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


Non conceptual awareness is not a thing - see the words 'non conceptual', it is a clue.