UnbornTao

What would an experience of having no language be like? That's quite the contemplation. It's a fascinating question - and not a simplistic one at all. Without the context of language, there couldn't even be symbol, or the possibility that noise represents something other than the sound itself. It points - that's the point. Whether it references a fact or a truth is secondary. If we're aware of something, then we've already made a distinction in our experience. Terms like "paradox," "gravity," or "unicorn" all point to something we're aware of, even if abstract or unreal - something comes to mind in relation to the word. It might be something objective, abstract, invented, false - whatever - but it is a distinction, even if the term is "nothing." Language is supposed to represent something through something that isn't the medium itself. You read sandía and, if you don't speak Spanish, you have no idea what it represents, but you know that something is being communicated. Even though the term is unknown, the context of language is still operative. Not sure what specific point I'm trying to get across here. I'll need to keep investigating this - these are just provisional thoughts. So, what must be created for a sound, a bodily movement, or a squiggle to represent something it's not?

the what? @Xonas Pitfall That was quite the explanation and story. Thanks.

I'd move this thread to the Intellectual subforum, surprisingly.

It sounds like you are thinking of it as something perceived - like a state. But interpretation doesn't apply to the realization itself; it's a direct consciousness of your nature. Like being aware your body is breathing - no mind required. If someone is being authentic (which isn't guaranteed), there's no doubt about what they became conscious of. It's a function of the consciousness itself, not conviction or other mental activity. If it is, they're most likely fooling themselves. The mind does try to capture and make sense of it, but it can't. From what I can tell, "pure" breakthroughs are rare. People tend to interpret them through their so-called knowledge and mess them up in their minds. But there's a difference between the expression or memory of realization, and the actual consciousness of it. There also seem to be degrees, like glimpses, full-blown awakenings, and everything in between. I once had a small insight into who I am, where I made a distinction between the self I've always taken myself to be, and what we might call being. I recognized that who I am is not my self. But the memory is vague and I eventually "lost" the insight. Go figure. (By the way, that wasn't an enlightenment.) But where would the mind place its attention to "remember" the realization? On your experience: perception, mood, reactions, feelings, knowledge, beliefs. And you'll talk about these. When Ramana spoke, he wasn't recalling an experience or state - he was speaking from direct consciousness of being and existence. Of course, there's no way to verify claims of this nature, except by realizing them firsthand - hence "direct." I imagine awakened people struggle to convey that kind of consciousness. But that's what language is for. They'll probably fail miserably, but the attempt is made. Or so the theory goes (maybe.)

@Xonas Pitfall Yes, being open is incredibly useful (See? Value ). Some people fear that investigating this might undermine their sense of value - but why? As you said, the only implication is understanding it. What you do with that understanding is entirely up to you. I agree with your claim that value is relational. Reaching a conclusion doesn't go far enough, though. Bring to mind Newton: he didn't just think about gravity but personally encountered the principle itself. He had insight. Meaning, value, and worth seem to be the core categories here, while the others might be secondary forms of those three -- though I'm not entirely sure. The differences may be subtle, but suggesting that every element in your comparison list is exactly the same thing isn't quite accurate. Different words are used for a reason. And different doesn’t necessarily mean separate.

Yeah, you could say there's you and there's your self - a more sober way to think about it. Eventually, we reach a point where we have to admit that we don't really know what either of those are -- unless you do grasp it, though that's not very common. The chatting is fun, though. Ramana would slap us in the face. It's a misnomer. Experience is indirect, whereas awakening is direct... but what does direct even mean here? It isn't an interpretation or perception, nor is it mediated by mind activity. Interpretation comes after the fact, so to speak. It is inconceivable and yet true, from what I've been told. Bringing up authentic individuals, such as Ramana, probably the "best" teacher, is useful because it points to a real case and possibility - although an incredibly rare one. Pedestrians like us, on the other hand, love to talk! Yeah, the very existence of self is what the existential loneliness is based on. Maybe your nature is Nothing, absolutely. It is, Now, and is Consciousness itself. But hoopla like this means nothing unless it comes from a direct realization -- which it isn't in this case. We don't even know it's true. Maybe we are clouds, or a pencil. What do we make of that? I could speculate more but it'd be better to just "awaken" already. I mean, we are going to die relatively soon, so better get busy with that.

Neither is direct; perhaps a better word would be personal, since both seem to be personally experienced - they just aren't of the same "kind." Your memory of a punch doesn't physically hurt you - a punch does. However, what you do in relation to the memory could hurt you! Which is to say, your mental activity - ideations. Not sure where this is going. Mu! is actually the best answer. Why not? Don't confuse our failure to grasp it with the impossibility of doing so. We can have a memory of/memorize something ("what was experienced") and experience the having of the memory. Anyway, it might be the case that we didn't really know what was experienced in the first place. We come back to what experience is, now. I brought up 'memory' to make a point about concept. If you are conscious of that, that's awesome. Is your experience like that, though? I suspect we both currently have a pretty solid sense of self - the one somewhere behind our eyes reading this - as well as think that is what we are.

Seems like we'd need to look into the function of language and distinction, quite advanced stuff. I could contribute a few questions to get the ball rolling, the main one being- what is language? It still points to a notion, albeit an abstract one, that occurs in your perceptive experience. Contrast that word with "watermelon" or "Santa Claus" and different associations arise. Why is that? I might say more but need some time to think about it.

Could be. We can see that the matter is a bitch. I guess we need some enlightenment experiences.

Maybe you could create a newsletter on Substack, Medium, or your own website.

We take ourselves for granted and often attach negative associations to these kinds of belief systems. In our minds the idea of being existentially alone is unbearable and depressing. Yet we likely misunderstand such matters on a deep level. Beyond speculative efforts, we are likely ignorant of what the self (and the other) is. Grasping the nature of these should be the aim here. Once that is clear for you, there's no longer any need to play with beliefs, because you've directly realized whatever is true regarding the matter. Here’s a new possibility: Even though, for you and me, it's currently just a cute little saying, it might help open our minds to some real contemplation.

Hello there, we meet again.

@Xonas Pitfall Nice, thanks for such a detailed response. I liked your examples on the list above, they're quite illuminating and can serve as an intellectual exercise to get a better handle on this. Beyond that, what is your experience of value? I'm not even sure what we're looking into anymore. A few things have come up: value, meaning, worth. Anyway... Value shows up as a relationship, doesn’t it? We might recognize that objects themselves don’t possess inherent worth--so, as you say, it’s assigned by the self doing the relating. Could it be a charged, self-referential interpretation based on one’s agenda--hence an activity? By the way, the way I see it, an explanation isn’t really the point here, but rather the act of questioning itself and the possibility of insight. It seems we often resist exploring these things because we fear it will erode or undermine our sense of value, but it doesn’t have to. We could keep enjoying the same things, only now we’d be recognizing what worth and value are in and of themselves.

The exercise was meant to show that memory, a form of concept, is different in kind from the lived experience that the memory is supposed to refer to. Notice, for example, that memory itself tends to be incredibly biased and subjective. In fact, it often is a complete misrepresentation of whatever was experienced, in part because we weren't paying much attention to what really happened but were more concerned with subjective matters and personal machinations. How does that differ from experience? Representing an experience is what the word is for. Perhaps it doesn't have to be about something objective, but terms like "confusion", "abstract", "ability," or "paradox" still point to some kind of experience, something that we notice to be different from what it is not. And it could be just a thought. If there's a word for it, it is representing something we're aware of. We could leave the investigation of language for another time, though. New thread needed, come on people.

If you're conscious of that (not a small if), then it sounds like a solid realization.

Hey, most of us (humanity, that is) probably don’t really know what this thing called direct consciousness is, even if the idea points us in a certain direction. So maybe we should start there.

It seems like something has to be deemed important first before it can be cared for.

Christian versus atheist:

I don't think evading them is necessary; it's about learning to recognize a notion for what it is. If a concept is a mental representation of something--usually an experience--then it is non-objective. We can experience a concept, but that is not the same as the concept itself. Refer to the definitions above: experience means personally going through an event. A concept, on the other hand, is inferred and, in a sense, invented, whereas experience occurs as a phenomenon or fact, seemingly independent of our notions. Contrast a memory of something with your actual experience of it. Stand up now, then sit down. Compare your memory of standing up with the experience itself as it unfolds.

Thanks for the reply. Even though we obviously deem certain things more important than others, I'm not sure we necessarily have to compare or contrast them for them to have value. We could assess an object as important at one point, be done with it, and then stop applying value to it. What would an opposite to that thing be in such a case? It sounds like you are actually considering importance to be something objective, despite some of your claims above. For example, what is the value of an object dependent on? That may be the case, although it fails to get at the core of what value or importance actually is. Perhaps we could proceed by saying that value is a specific kind of relationship--what that relationship consists of remains to be seen. Coming up with an exercise or two would help us ground the investigation.

A phenomenon is what happened as it was experienced. Yes, it is still interpreted and is likely automatically filtered through our network of conclusions, preferences, and so on. I'm not sure what you mean by "particular or general phenomenon." The point is to see the difference between what we think happened--our mental activity around the event--and what we actually experienced as the event. As for the question: "And when we refer to the particular phenomenon could something else that were not identical to it have replaced it without us knowing?" I'd need some clarity on that. In the meantime, I'd add that we often struggle to separate the event itself from what we mentally add to it. We're beginning to see now just how pervasive conceptualization really is.