I’m sure it’s been said many times before that language is both a great tool, and a huge barrier. Simply because we all derive different meanings from different symbols, depending on our brain chemistry, past experiences, etc.
However, I would like to talk about a huge flaw in the english language, that utterly confuses us and distorts our entire view of “reality”. This is the fact that in our current English language we have this distinction between what is the knower, and what is the known. Or the verb and the noun. Now, can anyone tell me what the difference between an event and a thing is? The difference between action and non-action? These seem to me to be arbitrary concepts, that while they have important use in our society, we mistake them for reality.
For example, we say the lightning flashes. How is the lightning any different from the flashing? Surely the lightning is the same as the flashing.
Anyway, this is simply part of what gives us the illusion that in reality there are seperate things and events. I think the best way to describe “reality” would be event, or process, if you’re going to try to put it into words.
Not at all. Without distinguishing different properties we would not be able to talk. This does not claim that the properties are removed from the rest of reality, just that they are usefully distinguishable. This is obviously arbitrary (or rather, conventional) but nevertheless useful for selecting the particulars which you are talking about (the optical sensory flash of the lightning, as opposed to its auditory component or its electrical effects).
The whole business of thought is to compartmentalise and abstract things, and it is done pretty damn well.
I guess what I meant, is our language of subject and object. Or verb and noun, confuses us. Simply because we think in order for there to be something known there has to be a knower. But who is to say the knower and known aren’t the same thing? This would refute the idea of a monarchical universe. Or the belief that there is a controller, controlling the universe, and not the universe simply being so of itself.
Lightning and flashing are not the same. In the sentence “lightning flashes” the word lightning refers to the shape made by the arc of light across the sky, while flash refers to the short period in time that it occurs. All lightning flashes, but not all flashes are lightning (not all flashes have the line/fork/arc shape of lightning. Some are just general spread-out flashes). In addition lightning refers (like oreso said) to the associated phenomena of storminess, a booming echo, etc. which are not necessarily related to the mere phenomenon of flashing. Not all lightning flashes (in some cases we only hear the boom) and not all flashes are lightning. They are most definitely not the same.
no what’s wrong with english is that it’s got more exceptions to its rules than words that follow its rules. take, for example, “i before e, except after c. except words that sound like “a” , such as neighbor and weigh.” well what about seizure and leisure? what about either? then there’s the vowels: a, e, i, o, u, and… sometimes y. well when? as i heard someone once say, "what is y? the rebel vowel? who did y piss off in the 12th century? ‘as long as i am king, y will never completely be a vowel! ahahahahahah…’ "
english is just a stupid language in general. and we also have the word “phonics” which is not spelled phonetically, “lisp” with an s in it, and various other stupid things.
no what’s wrong with english is that it’s got more exceptions to its rules than words that follow its rules. take, for example, “i before e, except after c. except words that sound like “a” , such as neighbor and weigh.” well what about seizure and leisure? what about either? then there’s the vowels: a, e, i, o, u, and… sometimes y. well when? as i heard someone once say, "what is y? the rebel vowel? who did y piss off in the 12th century? ‘as long as i am king, y will never completely be a vowel! ahahahahahah…’ "
english is just a stupid language in general. and we also have the word “phonics” which is not spelled phonetically, “lisp” with an s in it, and various other dumb things.
It is a coordination of various experiences – the experience of flashing, booming, storminess, etc. are all involved in the idea of lightning. A complete listing of all the sorts of experiences involved is the lightning, nothing more or less.
A similar argument would be made about flashing. Flashing is associated to a different set of experiences than lightning. It is on this basis that I say they are not the same. Not all flashes are lightning and not all lightning is flashes.
Ok, so what is the lightning without the flashing? What is the flashing without the lightning? You’re trying to seperate things that cannot be seperated. I would go so far as to say nothing can be seperated, but that seperation only occurs in seeing a difference. However, realize at once! the difference between something and another thing relies on the other thing. How can you know black without white? How can you know white without black? These things are only seperate explicitly, but they are together implicitly. So, I would say, what is black without white? What is white without black? There is no possible way to tell. The same applies with lightning, and all other distinctions. Again, we confuse real reality, with the way we talk about it, think about it, and describe it. What do you have when you take away all distinctions? That is reality.
I don’t know what you mean by separation. In one sense I can easily separate lightning and flashing. Often I hear lightning without seeing flashing and often I see flashing (from a car light, say) without seeing OR hearing lightning. So it is easy to separate lightning and flashing.
Nah.
What’s “real reality”? Some indescribable thing about which you can say nothing? Why then should I think that whatever you mean by “real reality” is in any way different from “nothing at all”?
When I say the lightning flashes, I am assuming you understand that I am talking about Flashing ONLY coming from Lightning. I didn’t know that was so hard to understand. I am not talking about any kind of flashing. If I was then there would be no point at all. That would be like me saying “this cookie tastes good” but simply because I am talking about goodness, that means I am not referring to the cookie at all. Obviously I am referring to the goodness of the cookie, which is a reference to goodness, but not simply ANYTHING that is good.
That only applies to half my point. The other half was that you can hear lightning without seeing a lightning flash. Not all lightning has to do with lightning flashes. The idea of lightning is distinct from a lightning flash. Now if you want to further restrict and say obviously I’m only talking about the sort of lightning where you see a lightning flash, then you’re just saying that lightning flashes are the same as lightning flashes, which is a triviality.
Ok my basic point is how does a noun start a verb? How does the lightning start the flashing? Surely these things are the same, and at the same time they are different, but only because we perceive them to be different.
How does a thing put a process into action? Obviously it can’t.
here’s how to separate a verb from a noun. put the word “to” in front of it and see if it makes sense. “to flash” makes sense. it’s a verb. “to lightning” does not. it is a noun.
But what I’m asking is how do you make a disctinction between a noun and a verb? Can you tell me how a noun (which is not supposed to be a process) is not a process? Everything is always in a state of constant change, therefore it is in the state of process.
See when I say the lightning flashes. What I want to know is how does the lightning start the flashing?
Processes vary in size, speed, density etc. Lightning-flashing may appear the same but fish-swimming does not. The fish cannot be defined by the action of swimming. The continual processes that maintain the life of the fish are complex. One result of them is the process maintaining the swimming reaction
Lightning flashing is a tricky (perhaps delibrately?) example, because it’s very difficult to seperate the two- the vast majority of the time, when we experience lightning, we are experiencing a flash. So it seems confusing to refer to the lightning and the flash as two different things.
But most of the time, this is not the case. What about a bear walking? A bear is obviously very different from walking, and the bear is doing many other things (digesting, sniffing, smelling, pining for the fields). In this kind of situation, we would never ask “What’s the difference between a bear and walking?” or “How does the bear start the walking?”
To bring it back to the original example, suppose the lightning flash struck a lightning rod, and the current was measured by a man with a machine. In addition, someone else was holding a wire corrected to the lightning rod, and experienced a great shock. A third person sees the flash. In a situation like that, suddenly the lightning is much more than a flash. Each person could ask “What is the difference between lightning and a flash?” “What is the difference between lightning and current?” “What is the difference between lightning and tremendous pain?” and to each question, the other two observers would have the answer.
Really? Think about that statement the next time you hear lightning from a distant storm, or during the daytime. Often you won’t see any flash, especially if you’re not paying attention to the sky at the time.
Any time we have different words for different things, it is because we perceive a difference between the things. And that means that there “really is” a difference between the things.