23 Jun 10
6 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThis is of interest to me because of how I notice more and more frequently words I am familiar have disassociated themselves from concepts, or that I cannot find words to fit concepts (have been tentatively diagnosed with MS and dysphasia is a rare symptom, it's getting worse), and so I am forced sometimes to "take the scenic route" and talk about concepts in terms of other concepts at the expense of eloquence.
Similar to using words to describe words, we use concepts to define concepts. Where does it end? Or begin?
Assuming you're not asking how does language develop on a person to person basis in their childhood I'd assert we initially observe/sense or recall some stimuli and by 'construction' our brains converge (sometimes poorly) upon some meaningful way to accomodate this perception with our experiences/expectations, though in the process we will be recalling words with which to articulate it, stronger is the sequence of ideas and concepts induced along the way which naturally compel us to consider other concepts branching off from these. At some point we get round to saying what we mean (somehow).
24 Jun 10
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBefore those makings of the mind,
Similar to using words to describe words, we use concepts to define concepts. Where does it end? Or begin?
before all concepts, thoughts or words—
all that “about and about and about”—
just there is the beginning…
…and the ending, except
for “about and about and about”.
Or:
Observe the nature of the world,
the floating-by of phenomena;
observe the nature of your mind,
the floating-by of feelings and thoughts—
including all those “I” thoughts.
Just observe, without adding anything.
Behind or in between
those phenomena floating by
is just the expressive unseen ground.
Behind or in between
those thought-forms floating by
is just the unthought ground,
the active being-aware—
and that is “who you are”,
before you think anything about it all.
And when you think anything about it at all,
those thoughts are themselves
nothing more than phenomena from and of
the expressive unseen ground.
That is where it ends...and begins.
_____________________________________________________
These words are intended only as pointers, only as word-play prods (and a suggestion for testing, generally called “meditation” )—in any other sense they, too, would just be “about and about”.
24 Jun 10
Originally posted by vistesdClose.
Before those makings of the mind,
before all concepts, thoughts or words—
all that “about and about and about”—
just there is the beginning…
…and the ending, except
for “about and about and about”.
Or:
Observe the nature of the world,
the floating-by of phenomena;
observe the nature of your mind,
the floating-by of feelings and thoug ...[text shortened]... , generally called “meditation” )—in any other sense they, too, would just be “about and about”.
24 Jun 10
Originally posted by AgergYes, and I am am just wondering (aloud) upon what are these concepts based?
This is of interest to me because of how I notice more and more frequently words I am familiar have disassociated themselves from concepts, or that I cannot find words to fit concepts (have been tentatively diagnosed with MS and dysphasia is a rare symptom, it's getting worse), and so I am forced sometimes to "take the scenic route" and talk about concepts in ...[text shortened]... ts branching off from these. At some point we get round to saying what we mean (somehow).
24 Jun 10
3 edits
Originally posted by AgergThread 131332
This is of interest to me because of how I notice more and more frequently words I am familiar have disassociated themselves from concepts, or that I cannot find words to fit concepts (have been tentatively diagnosed with MS and dysphasia is a rare symptom, it's getting worse), and so I am forced sometimes to "take the scenic route" and talk about concepts in ts branching off from these. At some point we get round to saying what we mean (somehow).
24 Jun 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHPattern recognition is the source of all language. Hence, my Tarzan remark... First patterns in visual/sound and eventually evolving to complex patterns between word groups which form what we call concepts.
Yes, and I am am just wondering (aloud) upon what are these concepts based?
That's why abstract concepts are so hard to pin down.
24 Jun 10
Originally posted by PalynkaI don't know that I agree with your take on the source of language. However, what I am trying to get at is the dependency aspect of meaning. When we use a word to describe another word, there exists an ascendancy of sorts--- think of a reverse corruption from rock to pebble.
Pattern recognition is the source of all language. Hence, my Tarzan remark... First patterns in visual/sound and eventually evolving to complex patterns between word groups which form what we call concepts.
That's why abstract concepts are so hard to pin down.
While we can't deny a certain complexity has developed in English as a result of several factors, mostly technologically-inspired, it also cannot be denied that corruption has rendered concise conveyance of thought exponentially more troublesome.
That being said, it exposes the relational aspect of one concept's dependence upon another's--- and so on and so forth--- and tempts the mind to jump to either a conclusion or a conjecture that just as words are shadows of objects or concepts, these concepts are themselves shadows of a reality otherwise unknown.
24 Jun 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThis kind of disassociation between word and the idea its supposed to represent (and eventually leading into words defining words etc.) kind of bleeds into other aspects of social life as well.
I don't know that I agree with your take on the source of language. However, what I am trying to get at is the dependency aspect of meaning. When we use a word to describe another word, there exists an ascendancy of sorts--- think of a reverse corruption from rock to pebble.
While we can't deny a certain complexity has developed in English as a result ...[text shortened]... f objects or concepts, these concepts are themselves shadows of a reality otherwise unknown.
I like your outlining, we're constantly adding on and basing further concepts on past conditions where essentially the very value of the foundation is lost through all the ambiguous layering. And at times we get stuck in these (I like how you said) "shadows".
Where this relates to other aspects we can take current social structures. In a world where you work for money and jump through a lot of hoops for necessity that is detached from that very need- your occupation may or may no be directly pertinent to the continuance of life; the way you purchase goods and such is not a straight from land into your hand thing- we become stuck on these crutches of previous steps.
How many of us in the developed world can live directly in nature? Almost like we're out of touch with what was our essence and now we live through the byproducts.
24 Jun 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHa! 🙂 Hard to read between the lines of a one-word response—but, in our case, it can be done! (And you’re likely waiting to see me do it.)
Close.
Between that “close” and what I wrote there is, however, a yawning abyss—dualism versus non-dualism (as you well know!).
You fox… 😵
