Resolving Ultimate and Conventional Truth

Nasruddin said:
Seriously, our language affects our thoughts which informs our language which affects our feelings, which leads to thinking about our feelings, and isn't that an interesting thought?
Click to expand...

Still attempting to process all of this and have to admit it is slow going!

For example. In what way does language affect our thoughts. Are you suggesting that someone whose native language is French will have different thought patterns than someone whose native language is English?
 
Devils' Advocate said:
Would you expand on this thought further? I agree that an object can be defined differently in different contexts. Where I lose you is why you believe that would alter the reality of the elephant.
Click to expand...
I will have to think about how to say it differently from how I have expressed myself earlier.
 
Devils' Advocate said:
Still attempting to process all of this and have to admit it is slow going!

For example. In what way does language affect our thoughts. Are you suggesting that someone whose native language is French will have different thought patterns than someone whose native language is English?
Click to expand...
Maybe not that close, but somewhat due to culture differences. It really show up in collectivist culture as opposed to individualist culture. For example, Japanese students taking a test will answer questions one way, and when they take the same test in English the answers change. Another way is that in our language there exists the idea of subject and object. Because of this, we often see the universe in the same way, as if there must be an observer and the observed. In Buddhism, this concept would seem absurd, but many westerners hold to it like it was canon.
 
Benjamin Whorf was the first person to really study the relationship between the way we think and our language. From there, the science of psycho-linguistics took off. Today we have psycho-neuro-linguistics, because we have the tools to map our neurology as well.
But it all started with Whorf: http://ling.yale.edu/history/benjamin-lee-whorf
 
Namaste Jesus said:
I see your point, but is not the elephant defined as an elephant by the thought and belief that it is an elephant?
Click to expand...

Here is an interesting statement I missed the first time around. My answer would be no, unless you are speaking directly about the word 'elephant'. That is the term we use to define this particular animal. So in that one situation, yes. Outside of that, however, an the animal that is an elephant is an elephant completely separate from our thoughts and beliefs. No matter how we think of it, it cannot become anything other than what it is.
 
Wibble said:
As for things not being solid, have you ever dropped a brick on your foot? We know theoretically about the sub-atomic world, but that is not the one we experience.
Click to expand...

As you may have guessed by now, I have been going back and rereading this thread, more about that in a minute. For the now this quote by Wibble seems of particular relevance to this discussion as it points out what we actually experience versus what we have discovered about the foundation of how reality works. If there is an 'Ultimate', is it the foundation of reality as we understand it, or is it how we experience it instead. Or is it both? Or is it neither???
 
Does any one else have the sensation that we are spinning our wheels in this thread? It doesn't seem to me that we are any closer to a conclusion than we were with Nas's original post. It seems like there is a 'something' of import that we are missing. And I have no clue what that something might be!
 
Devils' Advocate said:
Does any one else have the sensation that we are spinning our wheels in this thread? It doesn't seem to me that we are any closer to a conclusion than we were with Nas's original post. It seems like there is a 'something' of import that we are missing. And I have no clue what that something might be!
Click to expand...
Well none of us are coming at it from the same direction and we a re all perfectly fine with we already feel we know. I don't know what more we can do but share this, surely we aren't going to be solving the/an ultimate truth here are we?
 
The whole point of the thread was to hold open the door to thinking about things in different ways. People who explore their own thinking might have fun doing this, but others are pretty sure they're where they need to be. It doesn't matter which really, because it's all just intellectual playfulness when it comes down to it. There is something called the "absurdity of the human condition" that I like to have fun with, because it is the underpinning of comedy, and it has the potential for human tragedy.
The original question was posed in such a way, or so I have observed, that the whole point of it was missed, and the parts that people focused on were of immense interest to me. So, I learned a great deal from all of you, thank you!
The larger existential issue, for me anyway, is that if the greatest among us ( in my personal opinion) the deep thinkers, the saints and sages, if they think that at it's very core, life is perfect the way it is, and us regular folk see it as a struggle, are they crazy or are we asleep?
Now, if you don't give any credence to the voices of these folks, then it isn't a problem. Completely a case of a certain sect of folks who have a different view, most likely because of their environment, lifestyle, culture...
But suppose just for a moment, indulge me for that long at least, suppose that they do see reality much clearer than we?
 
One thing I've learned in my time on the planet is, if you want to enjoy life's journey at all, you've got to get the hell off the main road! That's where ultimate truth resides and perfection in what's really important.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top