Is mathematics invented or discovered ?

[Carl-Richard]

4 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

No matter how many times it's said, we continue to operate from within a world of language, and so we have a hard time stepping out of it and seeing its true influence.

Oh wow, it's almost like we're in a human body right now and we can't talk about the human body without being in a human body, so it shapes how we talk about it. Or like how we're in a community right now so it shapes how we talk about the community. Or we're conforming so it shapes how we talk about conformism. Self-reference is not deep.

[Human Mint]

4 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Telepathy would reduce our reliance on language and dissolve a lot of barriers of connection we face. Just as a little thought example

And that is to say language is a lesser degree of consciousness than telepathy. We use language because we are too dumb for telepathy

[UnbornTao]

9 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

And even within language itself - the words that are symbols do not have inherent meaning without context. 

I resonate with @UnbornTao here - language is really profound and has shaped us more than we can fully comprehend.

Even down to individuation. If we were a telepathic species the consequences of how we would be expressed as unique individuals would be so different due to the absence of language and its limits & rules. We are very isolated within our own little bubbles of awareness - language acts to attempt to breach that and facilitate intimacy. Telepathy would reduce our reliance on language and dissolve a lot of barriers of connection we face. Just as a little thought example  

Sure, though telepathy would still be based on this possibility.

For example, what form would telepathy take? Likely some sort of thought-form, which would be enabled by language - at least to a large degree, it seems to me. The very notion of conveying something wouldn't even occur without language.

[UnbornTao]

5 hours ago, Human Mint said:

In music when you compose a melody you try to play with a simple idea. Then you rotate it verticaly, horizontaly, you transpose it, you can stretch it, you can create two voices of it. You are playing with symethry, it is literally drawing if you write in musical notation. It is like geometry. 

Math is not different. 

What about language?

[Natasha Tori Maru]

2 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Sure, though telepathy would still be based on this possibility.

For example, what form would telepathy take? Likely some sort of thought-form, which would be enabled by language - at least to a large degree, it seems to me. The very notion of conveying something wouldn't even occur without language.

Images? And motion image memory?

If we go down this road.... We will need to define language and how loose or tight we want to be with it. Language is so embedded into us, I struggle to imagine how I might interpret someone's telepathy memory...

Is a clap language? 🤪

Edited Friday at 08:44 PM by Natasha Tori Maru

[UnbornTao]

5 hours ago, Human Mint said:

You are assuming people use language for expanding their consciousness. Laughable.

It does enable entire realities. You couldn't be communicating here and exchanging ideas without it.

And worse still, there couldn't be videos from Leo

We might ask: What is the purpose of language? and dwell on that. But then again, we don't really experience what language itself is, so by asking what its purpose is, we might be putting the cart before the horse.

Edited Friday at 08:47 PM by UnbornTao

[Natasha Tori Maru]

5 hours ago, Human Mint said:

And that is to say language is a lesser degree of consciousness than telepathy. We use language because we are too dumb for telepathy

By what metric is it better? You can write something down to be recalled or for some permanence. This requires language / text.

I do not imagine this could be done with telepathy. 

[Salvijus]

8 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

 

I do not imagine this could be done with telepathy. 

You could leave thought forms maybe. Some of these autistic telepathy kids know what you were feeling and thinking in a distant past aswell. 

Edited Friday at 08:56 PM by Salvijus

[Salvijus]

The right question to ask is not what language is but what communication is. Can you express something without words? Can you express something without anything just by your very existence? Actually without the use of symbols, body, thoughts you can express that you are love and I love you. Just by the process of existing, you're communicating that always via your vibration. It's synonyms with the I AM presence. That process of reverberation is the first universal language and those are your first words.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God . " ~bible 

Edited Saturday at 06:43 AM by Salvijus

[Human Mint]

7 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

By what metric is it better? You can write something down to be recalled or for some permanence. This requires language / text.

I do not imagine this could be done with telepathy. 

I just care about God realization.

[Carl-Richard]

7 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

By what metric is it better? You can write something down to be recalled or for some permanence. This requires language / text.

I do not imagine this could be done with telepathy. 

Akashic records baby.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

1 hour ago, Human Mint said:

I just care about God realization.

Then why talk at all? Excuse to avoid elucidating our reasoning? Muah-HA!

57 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Akashic records baby.

SHOW ME, NEED IT ❤️

[Human Mint]

7 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Then why talk at all? Excuse to avoid elucidating our reasoning? Muah-HA!

Haha, but the point is not always reasoning... 

I believe communication is more fundamental than language. And language is just a refined medium. 

I say some good stuff but it is very often dismissed.

[UnbornTao]

23 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Oh wow, it's almost like we're in a human body right now and we can't talk about the human body without being in a human body, so it shapes how we talk about it. Or like how we're in a community right now so it shapes how we talk about the community. Or we're conforming so it shapes how we talk about conformism. Self-reference is not deep.

If you approach it merely in an intellectual fashion, of course it comes across as superficial and even lame, because the heart of the matter isn't being addressed in such a case. You just think you've stepped out of it, which, unironically, is enabled by language.

But it bears repeating the "taken-for-granted" bit once again - you might be surprised. Pay attention to your experience of language, and you'll start to notice its influence. It doesn't seem profound to you because, according to your previous reply, you were simply holding language as symbols in a coherent framework - and that's only a definition. And it's not even precise. It would be like saying that language is language. Language creates symbol.

Notice that, in either case, your certainty actually undermines truly looking into these things. We don't really know what a body or the social world is either. Like most of us, for example, you too consider social reality as, well, real, objective, and true - excluding the superimposed, learned notions about it that still occur within such a world.

Edited Saturday at 02:14 PM by UnbornTao

[UnbornTao]

17 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Images? And motion image memory?

If we go down this road.... We will need to define language and how loose or tight we want to be with it. Language is so embedded into us, I struggle to imagine how I might interpret someone's telepathy memory...

Is a clap language? 🤪

That a sound or image can represent something other than the sound or visuals themselves - yeah, that's based on language. A clap without language is just the sound it makes. Even if it produces a reaction in us, it doesn't mean something is being communicated. But when the clap is able to convey a distinction other than the sound it makes, it is already language.

One conflation we (people in general) likely make is this: words are language, or the same as language.

Edited Saturday at 02:02 PM by UnbornTao

[UnbornTao]

16 hours ago, Salvijus said:

The right question to ask is not what language is but what communication is. Can you express something without words? Can you express something without anything just by your very existence? Actually without the use of symbols, body, thoughts you can express that you are love and I love you. Just by the process of existing, you're communicating that always via your vibration. It's synonyms with the I AM presence. That process of reverberation is the first universal language and those are your first words.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God . " ~bible 

Quote

One conflation we (people in general) likely make is this: words are language, or the same as language.

1 hour ago, Human Mint said:

Haha, but the point is not always reasoning... 

I believe communication is more fundamental than language. And language is just a refined medium. 

I say some good stuff but it is very often dismissed.

How can communication exist without language - without the space or context in which communication shows up?

"Language" has to exist first by necessity.

Edited Saturday at 02:03 PM by UnbornTao

[Salvijus]

1 hour ago, UnbornTao said:

How can communication exist without language - without the space or context in which communication shows up?

"Language" has to exist first by necessity.

When a mind stops labeling things, that's when that individual is TRULY in communication with the cosmos for the first time. 

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

If you approach it merely in an intellectual fashion, of course it comes across as superficial and even lame, because the heart of the matter isn't being addressed in such a case. You just think you've stepped out of it, which, unironically, is enabled by language.

But it bears repeating the "taken-for-granted" bit once again - you might be surprised. Pay attention to your experience of language, and you'll start to notice its influence. It doesn't seem profound to you because, according to your previous reply, you were simply holding language as symbols in a coherent framework - and that's only a definition. And it's not even precise. It would be like saying that language is language. Language creates symbol.

Notice that, in either case, your certainty actually undermines truly looking into these things. We don't really know what a body or the social world is either. Like most of us, for example, you too consider social reality as, well, real, objective, and true - excluding the superimposed, learned notions about it that still occur within such a world.

I consider taking a definition as a kind of knowing. Whether you go beyond that or not is what depth entails, and it would be a deeper form of knowing. If you want to speak hyperbolically and say "language is so deep, I must say I feel like I know nothing about language", that's on you. Taking on a definition is so simple, we do it all the time. And you don't necessarily have to dig around that definition to get deeper knowledge. You can use it as a starting point.

 

2 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

How can communication exist without language - without the space or context in which communication shows up?

"Language" has to exist first by necessity.

Communication, transfer of information, can be relatively unstructured so that you would be less likely to call it a language. Simply shouting loudly is an example. It can mean one million things. And what it means depends for example on context. Context is a central concept in communication theory (which is different from the study of language).

[UnbornTao]

17 hours ago, Salvijus said:

When a mind stops labeling things, that's when that individual is TRULY in communication with the cosmos for the first time. 

I think you're fantasizing rather than actually examining either language or communication. What would it even mean to be in communication with the cosmos? I can understand the desire to feel connected and in unison with the cosmos, and this discussion doesn't necessarily invalidate that. But setting that aside, what is it to communicate? Consider that labels are just one manifestation of language; they're not the same as the space of language, to put it metaphorically. Labeling is just one of the many functions enabled by language, it seems to me.

This brings us back to our earlier contention: the idea that communication is somehow stumbled upon by virtue of "stuff happening" in existence - like thinking that solar flares are "communicating" something, and, perhaps most importantly, that it is being communicated to you.

Edited 19 hours ago by UnbornTao

[Salvijus]

1 hour ago, UnbornTao said:

But setting that aside, what is it to communicate?

If you're in love, your presence will communicate love via vibration. If you're angry, your presence will communicate anger via vibration. Perception creates an experience. Every experience has a unique energetic signature. And that energetic pattern is a universal language all life inherently understands and is part of. 

Your experience is inseparable from what you're communicating to the world since your experience always reveberates out and others can read everything about you and emit their experience onto you back. That's a heart to heart communication. Conciousness to conciousness. A universal language of energy.  

Edited 18 hours ago by Salvijus