Thread: Tractatus Magnus Opus - Language is not Transcendental

Originally Posted by Merlock

Okay, if this topic is strictly about language, then...language isn't the only way to communicate. There's conceptual thought. The ultimate level of thought our mind (our subconscious) uses. Which I mentioned but briefly.

So if you don't like language, why not train your interaction with your subconscious and train the conscious use of conceptual thought along with telepathy and magecraft?

Or is this topic strictly and to the point about the inefficiency of language? Are you pondering of a way other than language to relay thought or are you questioning if language can be used in a better way or...?
If you could sum the goal of this topic up shortly, I might grasp fully what you're saying because right now it seems like this topic is either relaying "language is inefficient and we shouldn't use it but have to" (technically 'insulting' language) or "our perception is imperfect and we are all inferior beings in the way we communicate and perceive the world" (technically insulting all human beings).

So, if you could elaborate...or maybe the opposite: shortly describe the aim of the topic, I hope I'll be able to figure out the meaning herein.

I really do not want to give the impression that this is about some spiritual or non/dualist implications because it is not.

It is best to answer you in the words of Wittgenstein:
"Students alwasy want some practical theory or application out of me. What they never appreciate is simply a good thought or discourse."

I hope that explains it. I am really just pointing out the limitations of language. If anything, the "goal" of it would be to better understand other people, philosophers, etc. To simplify life and communication with other people. It does not show how but it shows why you should. Does that better illustrate the implications..?
~

Originally Posted by thegnome54

I don't really follow this bit. Why should we represent facts?

"Music is red" really means that the aural input you are receiving is somehow activating the area of your brain which is responsible for experiencing red. I can't really see how it's nonsense.

We try to represent facts all the time. Keep in mind that "facts" in this case are not inarguable truths or laws about the world but things that exist without requiring tangibility. Most sensory perceptions alone are facts and cannot be attributed to a certain experience.

Here are some more examples that are all nonsense in this respect:
"This table feels like sour."
"That tastes like blurry vision."
"That looks like X smell" (I can't think of a smell)
"That feels like confidence."
"Strength is purple."
"Thoughts are tangible."

What you are mentioning is an association. We can hear something and it may remind us of something red, but it is nonsense to say that "music is red." Try and separate contextual thoughts from associative thoughts.
~

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

Real close anyhow.

There is much more to the idea of the"mirror" though.

Mhm. (*That is not sarcasm.. that is a grunt of agreement..*)

I would be interested in reading your elaboration though.
~

Aye, now I see the meaning in the topic but conceptual thought isn't mystical or spiritual. You dream in it every night, you interact with your subconscious with it every moment.

Even leaving telepathy and magecraft aside, conceptual thought and how optimal it is relates to the topic at hand. If everyone communicated using it, there would be no misunderstanding. We'd be relaying entire tomes of information with every thought we relay in order to impress the entire "state" of that thought to the other person, both conceptual and emotional.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Mhm. (*That is not sarcasm.. that is a grunt of agreement..*)

I would be interested in reading your elaboration though.
~

As per the theme of the thread here, explaining what I am seeing through language is not a sure thing by any means, but I will do the best I can.
Also realize that it is the intangible being dealt with here. There are no hard facts to work with, no "proof" as per say. Proof is limited to the individual directly experiencing such. All I am doing is relaying my "perception" to you. I am not trying to prove anything, as I do not need to where as I am concerned.
As I write you must look at your own self and "see" what is being exressed on your own inside yourself. The examples are right there with you and your own "seeing".

"I". Look at such. Such is nonduality itSelf. All there is is "I". There are no qualifiers. Such just is of its own. It is Self without a other. Bring up the thought "I" and really sit and look at it for a moment.

Such is base awareness. Awareness in of itSelf sees all that exists without any real distinction .
I have a memory that dates back to early childhood. It is the first memory I have that is able to be recalled vividly . It is before I was aware of "I" or the differentiation and labeling of anything else. I remember the feelings I had, which I can now put labels on. Back then feelings were just part of the one experience. An arising of natural energy without association to any particular thing. Consciousness had not developed to break everything down into duality.

Now take this thought, "I", you have in your mind and start looking at everything in the world around you . Maintain focus on "I" and just be aware of all that is around you as you look. Dont shift your focus off "I". As you pan around all that you see is one thing, including your body. You only know "I". Everything around you is part of that "I". This is the base awareness of what is as it is. It is what consciousness arises from.

No let go of fthe "I" thought and keep looking around. Let the conscious self take over and you will immediately find yourself differentiating and labeling everything in your view. Consciousness breaks it all down into duality.

As one grows into the consciusness one loses that simple awareness. Its like one puts on dirty glasses that one cant see well through. When one begins to "clean" those glasses off, ie by reaching beyond the physical existance and beyond the consciousness, one begins to see or be aware of the base awareness within behind the consciousness. This is the arising of Self Awareness. This is where the consciousness begins to function as a mirror. Through this "mirror" one can see ones own primary state of base awareness. Without the consciousness, Awareness or the "I" state cannot "see" itSelf as it does not discern between self and other. To It all is one phenomenon.

That is about the best I can bring words to do in relating such.

If you can grasp that , there is more. If you cany grasp that description, then there is not much use in continuing.

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

As per the theme of the thread here, explaining what I am seeing through language is not a sure thing by any means, but I will do the best I can.
Also realize that it is the intangible being dealt with here. There are no hard facts to work with, no "proof" as per say. Proof is limited to the individual directly experiencing such. All I am doing is relaying my "perception" to you. I am not trying to prove anything, as I do not need to where as I am concerned.
As I write you must look at your own self and "see" what is being exressed on your own inside yourself. The examples are right there with you and your own "seeing".

"I". Look at such. Such is nonduality itSelf. All there is is "I". There are no qualifiers. Such just is of its own. It is Self without a other. Bring up the thought "I" and really sit and look at it for a moment.

Such is base awareness. Awareness in of itSelf sees all that exists without any real distinction .
I have a memory that dates back to early childhood. It is the first memory I have that is able to be recalled vividly . It is before I was aware of "I" or the differentiation and labeling of anything else. I remember the feelings I had, which I can now put labels on. Back then feelings were just part of the one experience. An arising of natural energy without association to any particular thing. Consciousness had not developed to break everything down into duality.

Now take this thought, "I", you have in your mind and start looking at everything in the world around you . Maintain focus on "I" and just be aware of all that is around you as you look. Dont shift your focus off "I". As you pan around all that you see is one thing, including your body. You only know "I". Everything around you is part of that "I". This is the base awareness of what is as it is. It is what consciousness arises from.

No let go of fthe "I" thought and keep looking around. Let the conscious self take over and you will immediately find yourself differentiating and labeling everything in your view. Consciousness breaks it all down into duality.

As one grows into the consciusness one loses that simple awareness. Its like one puts on dirty glasses that one cant see well through. When one begins to "clean" those glasses off, ie by reaching beyond the physical existance and beyond the consciousness, one begins to see or be aware of the base awareness within behind the consciousness. This is the arising of Self Awareness. This is where the consciousness begins to function as a mirror. Through this "mirror" one can see ones own primary state of base awareness. Without the consciousness, Awareness or the "I" state cannot "see" itSelf as it does not discern between self and other. To It all is one phenomenon.

That is about the best I can bring words to do in relating such.

If you can grasp that , there is more. If you cany grasp that description, then there is not much use in continuing.

Yes. That is pretty much exactly the concept I am trying to show. I think I made the mistake of trying to prove rather than describe..
~

I remember when I was little maybe eight years old, and I was just sorta day dreaming. The suddenly, I mean just suddenly I get this intense feeling of being outside of my self mentally - not physically like an outer body experience. Just outside of my own thoughts.

The day dream stopped running because I couldn't remember who was day dreaming, or why. "Are those my thoughts?" "Who is 'my'?". Then I even began to question if my reality as of right now, is a dream. So I looked at every detail in the room and questioned if it was real in comparison to all the details in the day dream. There was very little difference. I experienced both therefore they both are.

Then I couldn't help but question "Who am I?" not because I was the thinker at the age of eight, but because for the first time in my life I realized I did not know who the 'I' was. And I thought, "Am I (my name)?" And the answer was instantly 'no'. Because I am even without a name. "Am I a girl?" And the answer was instantly 'no' again. Because the 'I' questioning 'who am I' was still "I" without a gender identity.

And then I would try to ground myself by thinking of all the things 'I' enjoy and 'I' don't enjoy but all those thoughts just spiraled down into nothingness. Because in the end 'I' was still 'I' whether or not I liked or disliked those things. And in an instant there was this fear of knowing that I am not who I am in life. That in life there is this human facade that isn't real compared to the 'I' that is still 'I' having not done anything to define itself as 'I'. It only needs to say "I am" and it is.

I didn't like those thoughts when I was little, because it felt like reality would rip apart into unreality. And I shook them off quickly. And I could feel myself sink into a lesser consciousness, where the consciousness is defined by outer things, such as an outer appearance, a body, a name, and cartoons I watch. Because when I thought "who am I?" and the only answer I got was "I", I couldn't recognize my own face in the mirror, it was just fake. And very frightening at the age of eight.

for years no one understood me when I asked "have you ever asked who am I? And got an answer?" they thought I was silly and when I asked who are they they would simply describe themselves with outer things or give me a name. As if they would cease to exist without it.

Originally Posted by juroara

I remember when I was little maybe eight years old, and I was just sorta day dreaming. The suddenly, I mean just suddenly I get this intense feeling of being outside of my self mentally - not physically like an outer body experience. Just outside of my own thoughts.

The day dream stopped running because I couldn't remember who was day dreaming, or why. "Are those my thoughts?" "Who is 'my'?". Then I even began to question if my reality as of right now, is a dream. So I looked at every detail in the room and questioned if it was real in comparison to all the details in the day dream. There was very little difference. I experienced both therefore they both are.

Then I couldn't help but question "Who am I?" not because I was the thinker at the age of eight, but because for the first time in my life I realized I did not know who the 'I' was. And I thought, "Am I (my name)?" And the answer was instantly 'no'. Because I am even without a name. "Am I a girl?" And the answer was instantly 'no' again. Because the 'I' questioning 'who am I' was still "I" without a gender identity.

And then I would try to ground myself by thinking of all the things 'I' enjoy and 'I' don't enjoy but all those thoughts just spiraled down into nothingness. Because in the end 'I' was still 'I' whether or not I liked or disliked those things. And in an instant there was this fear of knowing that I am not who I am in life. That in life there is this human facade that isn't real compared to the 'I' that is still 'I' having not done anything to define itself as 'I'. It only needs to say "I am" and it is.

I didn't like those thoughts when I was little, because it felt like reality would rip apart into unreality. And I shook them off quickly. And I could feel myself sink into a lesser consciousness, where the consciousness is defined by outer things, such as an outer appearance, a body, a name, and cartoons I watch. Because when I thought "who am I?" and the only answer I got was "I", I couldn't recognize my own face in the mirror, it was just fake. And very frightening at the age of eight.

for years no one understood me when I asked "have you ever asked who am I? And got an answer?" they thought I was silly and when I asked who are they they would simply describe themselves with outer things or give me a name. As if they would cease to exist without it.

Such is how Sri Ramana Maharshi describes the practice of self inquiry, constantly asking the question "I am. Who am I?"

I was 20 when I read the works of Plato. After that I began the road of self inquiry. I started with the notion of "what am I aware of ?" I wrote a few pages of notes describing my inner findings over a few months time and dropped it for about twenty years. A year ago I picked it back up again after immersing myself in a number of works from CS Lewis, Wayne Dyer, Namkai Norbu, Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Rumi, The Bhagavad Gita, The Tao, and others. I began writing as I expolered mySelf. Theres well over a hundred pages of notes, poetry, etc. now. concerning my experiences and realizations. The doubts are gone, its the incessant "clinging" and grasping" at the illusion that I am moving to completely let go of now.

I have looked at communication, all forms, in this case, of coarse language, as
a step away from form & fact to relaying by communication.

Like all forms of transformation or transferring one thing to another, it looses something along the way.
It doesn't stay that way on a scientific level, much less when human variables are added.


Kind of a short and simple reply for such a deep discussion.


juhora, NDual, O'nus and all, "self"
Oddly it seems that in most cases of people who try to or have found themselves,that it is the "me" that they shed.
The only "self" you find on the tops of mountains is the self you bring up there?

Originally Posted by Howie

I have looked at communication, all forms, in this case, of coarse language, as
a step away from form & fact to relaying by communication.

Like all forms of transformation or transferring one thing to another, it looses something along the way.
It doesn't stay that way on a scientific level, much less when human variables are added.


Kind of a short and simple reply for such a deep discussion.


juhora, NDual, O'nus and all, "self"
Oddly it seems that in most cases of people who try to or have found themselves,that it is the "me" that they shed.
The only "self" you find on the tops of mountains is the self you bring up there?

Really that is pretty much the way it is. When the awareness steps into the physically existant realm it does so through the consciousness that arises from it which is tied directly to the embodiment.
I call the awareness the state of "Being" while I call the embodied condition the state of "existance".
There is always a "me" of sorts attached to the existant consciousness. In the state of Being, there is no sense of "me" attached to the awareness. There is only the vaguest, most extremely subtle whispering of a Self knowledge, and that in itself is not diferentiated in the slightest way from all that arises through the motion of existance.( I realize using words is next to a hopeless venture in transmitting what this state is, but its all there is to work with herein. Trust me in that the words used are terribly inadequate)

So yes, the only "me" one drags up the mountain is the "me" present in the consciousness. Ultimately when one realizes all this through direct knowledge then one can transcend the "me" while retaining the consciousness to work with while being "unstained" by the whole existant experience. Such transcendance requires persistant dedicated practice . Beginning such is the stage at which I am now.

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

Really that is pretty much the way it is. When the awareness steps into the physically existant realm it does so through the consciousness that arises from it which is tied directly to the embodiment.
I call the awareness the state of "Being" while I call the embodied condition the state of "existance".
There is always a "me" of sorts attached to the existant consciousness. In the state of Being, there is no sense of "me" attached to the awareness. There is only the vaguest, most extremely subtle whispering of a Self knowledge, and that in itself is not diferentiated in the slightest way from all that arises through the motion of existance.( I realize using words is next to a hopeless venture in transmitting what this state is, but its all there is to work with herein. Trust me in that the words used are terribly inadequate)

So yes, the only "me" one drags up the mountain is the "me" present in the consciousness. Ultimately when one realizes all this through direct knowledge then one can transcend the "me" while retaining the consciousness to work with while being "unstained" by the whole existant experience. Such transcendance requires persistant dedicated practice . Beginning such is the stage at which I am now.

What confuses me is (~ I am referring to myself here) understanding a concept, but still not getting it.
Maybe I can't say I do understand it, in full.
Perhaps it is like some of those perplexing and illusive complex math problems.
Stare at it, read it, work it - nothing.
Then one day it's all there.

"At any given moment, I open my eyes and exist. And before that, during all eternity, what was there? Nothing."
- Ugo Betti

Originally Posted by Howie

What confuses me is (~ I am referring to myself here) understanding a concept, but still not getting it.
Maybe I can't say I do understand it, in full.
Perhaps it is like some of those perplexing and illusive complex math problems.
Stare at it, read it, work it - nothing.
Then one day it's all there.

"At any given moment, I open my eyes and exist. And before that, during all eternity, what was there? Nothing."
- Ugo Betti

I can relate exactly to what you are saying.

I spent months looking at the concept of what I have been talking about above, but getting no closer to really grasping any of it. It was like i would grasp a bit here and a piece there from reading Chogyal Namkai Norbu's texts on Dzogchen, then a bit here or there from other texts such as the Bhagavad Gita. It was like I was smelling the food on the plate but I just couldnt get close enough to actually taste it.
Then one day I just let go of all my ideas of being an individual for just a moment and there it was, the direct experience of that state I was trying to grasp. no more question as to what it was, or what it "tasted" like. I knew.
Now when I speak of such it is from direct experience and direct knowledge, not just repeating findings written in books. I try to put what I "see" in terms that those around me may best understand, but as per the subject of this thread, words just dont do justice and cannot convey true enough meaning to really get the "taste" of what is there across.

It seems to me that you know exactly what I am talking about NonDualistic.
Just with an end result.

It seems you would really appreciate the writings of Anthony Demello's - Awerness.
Exckart Tolle as well.

I know that you have dropped much of the illusion. But information is still abound.

.....

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

.....

~

I need some clarification, please elaborate .

Originally Posted by Howie

I need some clarification, please elaborate .

That which we cannot talk about we must consign to silence.
~

Originally Posted by O'nus

That which we cannot talk about we must consign to silence.~

Sorry if this is with regards to veering off the topic a little O'nus.
If not I have more -- U guessed it > words.

The English language that is considered brutal because of all it's slang and synonyms and such, to me is our communication skills trying to evolve.
There are many words and groups that make up their own word association = /slang. Some of it makes it into our lexicon.

Our lexicon adds tens of thousands of NEW words every year. It does make it more complex. But it does give us the ability, when used correctly, to further elaborate on our thoughts. Try to convey meaning to what otherwise might be, only thought.

This seems more important via communication with words and not spoken language. Without expression, emphasize, body language, really knowing the one to whom you are communicating to, and more I'm sure. makes "bigger" words, words I would not use otherwise appropriate.

I realize that many of us do not speak on this forum as we would in person, like myself, but it is a form of expression that I feel that I can convey more accurately that I could otherwise.

I see and hear new words all the time and try to mimic them in an attempt to expand my repertoire.

From the Tractatus:

4.063
An analogy to illustrate the concept of truth: imagine a black spot on white paper: you can describe the shape of the spot by saying, for each point on the sheet, whether it is black or white. To the fact that a point is black there corresponds a positive fact, and to the fact that a point is white (not black), a negative fact. If I designate a point on the sheet (a truth-value according to Frege), then this corresponds to the supposition that is put forward for judgement, etc. etc. But in order to be able to say that a point is black or white, I must first know when a point is called black, and when white: in order to be able to say,'"p" is true (or false)', I must have determined in what circumstances I call 'p' true, and in so doing I determine the sense of the proposition. Now the point where the simile breaks down is this: we can indicate a point on the paper even if we do not know what black and white are, but if a proposition has no sense, nothing corresponds to it, since it does not designate a thing (a truth-value) which might have properties called 'false' or 'true'. The verb of a proposition is not 'is true' or 'is false', as Frege thought: rather, that which 'is true' must already contain the verb.
~

I am sorry O'nus, but I have pondered over this three times now.
This seems to complicate things more than clarify the issue of truth.

It is likely me. But I just don't follow it anywhere to any further understanding.
It seems no matter how it is illustrated, that any observers of 'truth" have to agree upon what that truth is. Which will always be obsolete.
Almost like time. Subjective to the observer at any given point.
I don't know. I'm lost in a fog.

Originally Posted by Howie

I am sorry O'nus, but I have pondered over this three times now.
This seems to complicate things more than clarify the issue of truth.

It is likely me. But I just don't follow it anywhere to any further understanding.
It seems no matter how it is illustrated, that any observers of 'truth" have to agree upon what that truth is. Which will always be obsolete.
Almost like time. Subjective to the observer at any given point.
I don't know. I'm lost in a fog.

I am trying to argue, via Wittgenstein, that truth should not be applied to anything more than the context of cognition. We always use it in this context and it is then frequently mistakenly transfigured into the "nature" of the universe.

Truth is always used in the context of a consciousness emerging from ignorance or during the course of revelation of deception. To say anything otherwise is to refer to the nature of something. ie. the nature of gravity is the force, etc. etc... it is not the 'truth' it is just the nature of it. (This is assuming that we completely understand gravity).

Does that help..? This may be something that requires preconceived discussion from other related topics...
~

Originally Posted by O'nus

I am trying to argue, via Wittgenstein, that truth should not be applied to anything more than the context of cognition. We always use it in this context and it is then frequently mistakenly transfigured into the "nature" of the universe.

Truth is always used in the context of a consciousness emerging from ignorance or during the course of revelation of deception. To say anything otherwise is to refer to the nature of something. ie. the nature of gravity is the force, etc. etc... it is not the 'truth' it is just the nature of it. (This is assuming that we completely understand gravity).

Does that help..? This may be something that requires preconceived discussion from other related topics...
~

Per following the "other topics", that does put a familiar theme to it.
But taking the "I" out of the equation, does propose a different stance.
We the labelers of all things truth or otherwise.

Hey Onus, sorry for the delay in responding to this. I have to be in the right mindset (pardon the pun) before I can properly respond. This sounds a lot like what I was saying but more from the literal standpoint. In my explanations, I tend to use many alliterations and metaphors to add an emotional right-brained twist. Although, it is interesting to read the explanation of the same concept from a more left-brain aligned mindset.

I think the problems you are running into with your explanation aren't with your wording or content but more with expressing that which cannot be expressed to those that haven't directly experienced the idea in the first place.

Experience or meaning cannot be passed on, no matter how well written or concisely worded. It can only be recognized or unrecognized by those with or without that experience.

Those without the experience, will have their eyes glaze over after the first few sentences and not really know what you are talking about. Granted, they may understand the words written. However, understanding and knowing are two different things entirely.

Those with the experience, will know what you mean within the first few sentences and the rest becomes unnecessary filler to that idea they've already directly experienced.

So sadly, the words only add clutter to an intent or idea that can only be directly experienced by quieting your surroundings and withdrawing into one's self. Once you take out all distractions long enough, you will know... not just understand. And, if one feels compelled to disagree, they simply don't know yet.

As I said before in my other thread, this past new year's I did acid multiple times. One of those times I spent the majority of the time talking about my ideas on life and systems of life in Japanese and English with my girlfriend. I realized about half way in, she didn't understand me at one point. So I asked her just how far back she didn't understand me, and she was unable to explain in either language. Of which, completely threw me for a loop because it seemed as if she were following me.

This caused me to think deeply about any given moment and just how far anyone at any time doesn't really understand anyone even when they think they do. I really felt the limitation of words that night and I felt this strong sense of separation amidst the strong connection to all things. I felt like I could never get confirmation on whether how someone perceived my words was ever in the same vein of my original intent, or not. I've had this experience many times but felt it much stronger that night. I remained silent after that. Words had become irrelevant obstacles to expressing intent or meaning.

It was my misperception of their misperception in a sea of constant misperceptions futilely attempting to be properly perceived.












































Don't read between the lines...KNOW between the lines...













































.

I hope you realize that what you said has been what I have been saying from the beginning.

~

Tractatus Magnus Opus

Gesundheit.