Feynman on knowing the name of something

[Osaid]

12 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

I bet it is some thing.

Haha, nope. I wasn't lying when I said it was ineffable.

As an analogy, there is seeing, and then there are the objects we see. It's easy to get entangled in all the different objects, to the point where one might even ask "which object am I?". 

The kicker is that seeing itself is never any of the objects and never was. You can say that you're seeing a table and a chair, but you can never say that seeing is a table or a chair.

[UnbornTao]

9 hours ago, Osaid said:

Haha, nope. I wasn't lying when I said it was ineffable.

As an analogy, there is seeing, and then there are the objects we see. It's easy to get entangled in all the different objects, to the point where one might even ask "which object am I?". 

The kicker is that seeing itself is never any of the objects and never was. You can say that you're seeing a table and a chair, but you can never say that seeing is a table or a chair.

Fair enough.

By 'ineffable', you may already be attributing some quality to it, making it a thing that is, by definition, not expressible. I was trying to get clear on what's being pointed to. But I'm not sure where we are now, or what we're doing here.

I suppose seeing our entanglement in language would be a valuable thing to do.

I find this meditation useful for that purpose: What would an experience of the world without language be? What is language? Can thinking occur without language? And so on.

Edited 22 hours ago by UnbornTao