Intelligence is rather simple, little kids understand far more than they can articulate for example. So words do not precede understanding, but are merely a product of such (however much confusion they cause during the process of attempts of communication).I would suggest if you're walking along the pavement, focused on your phone, walk straight into a lamp post, you may indeed realize just what intelligence is, what knowing is. The spellbound must awake; So, when we understand no decision is necessary. Likewise, when there's understanding, interpretation and embellishment are completely absent.So hunger is hunger, the menu is the menu, the food is the food, the experience is the experience...
Moralistic, a needless interpretation, surely? The nature of the eye is perfect vision. A grain of sand within the eye causes corruption of such perfect vision.Now, to say sand is evil is simply an idiotic over reaction is it not?Good and bad are just silly words used for the sole purpose of exploitation. In themselves, a corruption.Sure fear is feeling, but from where?
I was waiting for that, ha, ha. But anyway, I'm talking the perfect eye (eyes), not those corrupted by malnutrition, by mental/emotional states, etc.
@edclear what counts as Noise to the mind? how do you know when the Noise is corrupting? when the Silence is broken? overthinking is paralysis, loopy, but of the Noise that is fun, why call it Corruption?
@funkyanarchy i find it hard to believe that much of importance goes over your head, but here we are. as someone who spends at least three hours a day ranting about 'academics' and their 'witch words and black magic' for no good reason, admittedly not always in those exact terms, at least not everyday, id be interested when something i say misses you by a mile or so. im interested in 'deepening' my communication, at least i say i am, so knowing what you are taking away from my words is at the very least very interesting to bored ol' me.
How bout this: there is no perfection. Stemming from that presumption, then at the same time, everything is perfect, has no need of perfecting. You feel me?! There is no "perfect eye" in the sense that there was nothing wrong with eyes to begin with...
Perfection was used within an allegorical context, so let's consider this...
It's a nice calm day, we're sitting by a lake The water is clear, still, reflecting all around, sky, trees on the shore, mountains. Along comes a huge plane, empties its cargo of toxic yellow sludge into the centre of the lake. Suddenly the water is disturbed, bubbling excitedly, colour changing to to that of piss lager. After a few minutes, fish appear on the surface, dead.
That is all I mean by corruption, by imperfection. So it's not moralistic as someone said, not judgemental, not falsely imposing an ideal.
Language is such a barrier to understanding, language itself being of a hierarchical nature.
Differentiation is absent to the clear mind. Corruption is what it is. It's like the laws of humans. The vast majority obviously think laws create order, but they do nothing of the kind, law is disorder.
a sky isn't a mind. the analogy seems flat to me partly due to so much use (ex: Zen). and your so-called 'mind' is a party in this, and 'its own,' controversy, even in the paltry world of logic.
an impoverished *decisional circle* trying its hardest to over-determine. 'facts' are *made* through certain decisions ('to cut off' -decaedere) which are only ever *relatively autonomous,* 'effects' (and affects) of that which is foreclosed to thinking...and 'minds' and analogies. and no, i ain't speakin' ontology.
statements and words? idiomatic, far too often harassing/persecuting, and usually lacerating to every lived being. and yet, i refuse to say 'limiting.'
sermon-y? yes, that's how your meal tastes. no judgement...simply the affect and a hand-ready name for it.
shin,it sort of sounds like you called me a bad craftsman blaming my tools....i don't encourage you to write off something you find useful or fun...but i've never used many words like "corrupt", so i haven't used them as "tools" to begin with....
because of the objective they appear to me as vague observations by no one from nowhere and moralistic inference they come from someone telling me i should think/act/understand from vague observations by no one from nowhere....also because of their lack in describing anything i want to convey, and the words vary so greatly in what they mean from one person to another.no need for me to use a certain tool if i don't desire to build the thing it creates, or if the word obscures my meaning. as far as words i throw away, i quite enjoy the process of using other words that convey in a more sensory, active, and personal way....and that includes "calling things that feel deeply off" to me.i understand that your experience varies from mine.
nihilist: "There are some chains of words that I'm just not going to try and decode for the sake of lazyness and simplicity."
edclear: "So what is the problem with the words?"
to ask what 'the problem is' here suggests to me that you'd seek some way to valuate preceding and/or exceeding our verbiage. i don't see a problem with the words, but the way you're using them seems a bit medieval to me. perhaps i'm mistaken, but you seem to be playing the part of an apophatic, that is, you unsay what you do say (cataphatic) after you say it. this can be interesting to me in certain contexts, but i don't see it as particularly effective here. (the words i use may be just so, differently).
perhaps it isn't that words are so limited as that the Real remains infinitely effable. and in this (ostensibly) anarchist's view, the language of finitude, be it of a 'true nature' or that of 'my desire/life' (so common in anarchist discussion and of which i've partaken also at times) presupposes an opposite "infinitude"...which, of course, contradicts its very postulation. i say let's absolutely open up grammatically/verbally if we wish, as nihilist put it, 'to open ourselves,' although i'd probably use slightly different lingo.
Why do these words obscure tho, that's what I don't get, as they are everyday straightforward talk. We can't bury our head in the sand. Today I had a couple at the door trying to convert me to their christian belief. So, yes, belief exists as a reality for many, who in turn attempt to draw others in too... religions, politics, sciences, etc. How can we possibly converse and convey meaning without saying "wait a minute, how about this... what is your belief other than a mental projection of a desire, which if you want to go into we can".
Some may interpret that as me being an arrogant sod, thinking I have all the answers, but I'm saying "let us go thru this".
So here I am, going thru this, as I decided to reply to someone looking for an answer, and others replied to what I said. So I just plod on, writing in my own simple way, looking at what is said by all... and having a great laugh too (not necessarily at anyone... more at how the collective corrupts).
edclear,i understand that a lot of words i don't use get used by many as everyday straightforward talk...and i also understand that most people commonly talk about their "beliefs" (i'd have to live totally isolated to not notice that)....okay, so i don't consider that "burying my head in the sand"....far from it, i seek to understand in a much different way than "everyday talk"....one of my reasons for using different language in particular cases (probably a few hundred words out of many thousand).i'll gladly take one or two of the words and explain why i think they obscure, why they don't have value for me (other than to discuss why i don't use them), etc.....if you feel interested enough to continue. i think i've tried to do that to some degree already with little understanding, but i'll go further if you'd like.i also had a neighbor who recently began trying to get me into his religion....he said to me "well, everyone believes in something"...i then told him i don't use the word"belief" as a way to describe anything that goes on in my head or life....that led to a lengthy discussion.....so, not using certain words does not cause me to shut off possibilities in relationships....if anything, it changes the the way we relate, mostly in a way i like......he pretty much stopped trying to convince me of "believing" in his religion after that, but he still engaged with me in a way that we got to know each other better.
i don't intend to convince you not to use words that i don't....i mostly want to convey that i don't use them and why, and how that has impacted my life and relationships....and i often enjoy discussing it, revealing my viewpoint, and perhaps giving others something to consider if they would like....i don't think of you as "arrogant" , and, like you, i get some pleasure out of "going through" this conversation through writing.
"Medieval", ha, that did tickle me. I am getting on in years, but not that old!
Our subject seems rather simple to me. It's like that of hierarchy itself. Without self holding a false notion that it is important, or certain aspects of our way of living as important, there can be no hierarchical structure, be they outward or inward. When people impose a context which does not exist with certain words, they form a hierarchical pedigree. All regimes do this, and for one simple reason, prestige. So we see it in religion, which began as a simple persons way of expressing their own appreciation of a mystery. We see it in politics, in the class systems they create, etc. We see it within science too, using obscure language in an attempt to dupe the masses. Every branch of human life has been twisted out of shape.
Language is very limited, and that's why we have to understand what language really means. Just like road signs, words point towards, they are not. Just like the menu is not the meal.
So yes, we have to open up, but that doesn't mean changing or rejecting the basic meaning of words. If I say duck, and we're not near a pond, you'll know to duck and dodge the brick falling off the scaffold. The figurative as well as the literal.
I'm just very curious as to why there is such opposition to simple words, which are in no way judgemental, and are totally applicable. So yes, to aid clarity, please do use the word corrupt as an example as to why you personally do not use it.
All words have an underlying meaning. As you said, and most will know, many of such have been corrupted over the ages, indeed can now mean the opposite of what they originally did. Anyway, take the word corrupt as an example, the basic meaning is to degrade, destroy. Taken in context, it isn't hard to know how the person is using the word and hence there need be no confusion.
It's like when some here said the word corrupt smacks of a moralistic tone, only due to their own bias getting in the way of comprehending a word which can be applied to the animate as well as the inanimate.
Language is relatively stable and for good reason, we have to use this means to communicate. If one person decides to call an apple a banana, they're going to have to waste a lot of time explaining exactly what they do mean. So yes, language is best kept fairly static.
Language isn't authoritarian in any way, that's like saying a knife is authoritarian. Language is a simple practical solution, which many give way too much emphasis, hence the corruption of mind by a certain use of such.
Language is limited by its own nature, again something most seem to have forgotten. Words are pointers at best, mis-directive so often. The limitation is that no string of words can actually convey completely ones perception, nor that of say a tree. Words can be used to explain this or that aspect, but they can never ever encompass what a tree actually is. That is the limitation of words, of language. Again it's back to the menu not being the meal... the meal not being what appears on the plate, etc, etc, etc.
I think too many on forums miss the point of a forum; a place of discussion, of dialogue. Sure we all make statements (generally very short ones at that). So we have to read between the lines a lot, and that's where simple direct words come into play.
It's a bit like the way so many groups develop their own group speak. They use everyday language, but in a twisted way. This happens in art circles, in science, in politics, etc. It's all shallow, just about identity. Give me the honesty of a simple word, an agreed meaning, any day over such hierarchical esoteric nonsense.
I've not actually seen any criticism as such, I was referring to certain phrases such as "calling out". To call out usually means that someone is offended by whatever and has to take a stand, or express their point to counter act whatever. Now if there is nothing to counteract, why bother with the "calling out"?
I don't see why anyone can disagree with the meaning of words that's all. Nor can I see how anyone could possibly justify dumping toxic sludge in a lake. No one is that ignorant, are they?
I wouldn't say I'm using words in an idealistic way. I'm using them as they ought to be used, literally and figuratively. That's the beauty of words, flexibility.
Don't most just take on their own form of obedience; to themselves, become slaves to "their" ideas, "their ideals?
edclear:"Language isn't authoritarian in any way, that's like saying a knife is authoritarian."
who are you responding to here? it can't be me, since i said nothing of the sort.what i did say :"what i do refuse, however, is their (words) authority and the authority of discourses which gird them". its seems obvious i wasn't speaking of language in toto, but the authority given (and taken as given) to words-in-discourse.
i'm done conversing with you at this time. best.
Trolling, never been fishing in my life. If you mean the more modern meaning, not so. When someone comes out with "words have no basic meaning", I think the obvious has to be stated. Dictionaries would not exist, teachers of language would not exist, etc. Indeed, we'd just be grunting, pointing, and generally leaping around trying to make ourselves understood. One second thoughts, maybe a shared language doesn't exist.
Yep, I know the feeble attempts at justification for all manner of issues, large and small, but they'll always be just that... attempts.
"Authority"... "Authoritarian", same difference, one leading naturally to the other.