Topic: The mistake of identifying words with 'things'

[Zamurito]

This habit of identifying word with `thing' creates verbalism. We use
many words under the delusional evaluation that
we are talking about `beings', `entities', and `things', when in fact
the words are only symbols for different orders of
abstractions. The entire race has become afflicted with this habit,
which has resulted in elementalism, infantilism, and
dense ignorance. Why? Because the race lives on the verbalistic level,
under the delusion that all words represent and
stand for `things', `beings' and `entities.' So a general racial,
mesmeric, psychic consciousness is built up which has
no foundation whatever in truth, in fact, or in reality. In that
delusional, mesmeric, and psychic state, we think we are
talking about factual, important, and actual `things' as subjects;
whereas we are merely making noises—bla bla about tra tra.

Vitvan

[nichi]

Amen!
And amen!

[Zamurito]

There is a jewel of perfect ecstasy of being who you are. You are at
the level of consciousness that has the greatest pleasure and ecstasy
you are capable of accepting. Regardless of what I tell myself, or
what I have at times experienced, my greatest pleasure right now is
to be penniless in a room in San Francisco writing this book.

--Thaddeus Golas

[Zamurito]

Liberation means the end of seeking, the end of time.  Do you believe
that you need more time to get there?  That's the perpetuation of the
illusion.  You don't need any more time when you allow this moment to
be as it is.  The only difference between you and the master is that
the master lives in complete alignment with what is.  The now is
welcomed instead of resisted.  Allowing this moment to be as it is,
that's the key.  If you are not ready for this act of surrender, then
that's fine too.  You need more time and you need more suffering
that's inseparable from time.  And eventually you will reach that
point anyway.  Eventually you will realize that liberation does not
require time.  Liberation is from time.  Or realize it now and you
are free now.

Eckhart Tolle
Dialogues With Emerging Spitual Teachers
p. 123, 124

[nichi]

There are varying levels of this perspective, though.

On the one hand, that which is "ineffable" can only be suggested in the modes of expression we have at our disposal: language, music, art, dance.

On the other, there are magical systems built entirely around the Word: geomancy, the kabbalah, ceremonial magick, et al. "In the beginning there was the Word." And that word is ... I Am ...
There is a certain universal magic in some words -- or better yet, in certain sounds. What we utter is not all garbage, in other words.

But a concretizing of this concept occured in western religions and (imho) that led to dualism, religious authoritarianism, linear empiricism, and science, which took us away from the ineffable.

[erismoksha]

There are varying levels of this perspective, though.

On the one hand, that which is "ineffable" can only be suggested in the modes of expression we have at our disposal: language, music, art, dance.

On the other, there are magical systems built entirely around the Word: geomancy, the kabbalah, ceremonial magick, et al. "In the beginning there was the Word." And that word is ... I Am ...
There is a certain universal magic in some words -- or better yet, in certain sounds. What we utter is not all garbage, in other words.

The word, 'vibration' of the sound of a word, or letters. Words have power, especially when we assign them a power with energy. Or even an intent. Sure.

But a concretizing of this concept occured in western religions and (imho) that led to dualism, religious authoritarianism, linear empiricism, and science, which took us away from the ineffable.

Do you think its more of the orthodoxy of some religons which are western? Also, I wouldnt say all of this is primarily western though - we've seen the same thing occur from middle eastern and eastern religions as well. If anything, christianity, islam, judaism, all come from the middle east even. But even Hinduism and Buddhism, have suffered in various ways from the same things, dualism, religious authoritarism. Though Buddhism originated in India, it still swept through asian territories, china, japan, thailand, indonesia, where all of those countries have had issues with women being ranked in higher positions, as well. I think of that, and wonder if the west is completely at fault for these things, or did they inherit some of the dual thinking? They didnt create dual thinking. If anything, other religons addressed issues with duality/non-duality, because there were severe problems with conflict, wars, and finding resolution.

[nichi]

I've seen cases made for the duality in eastern traditions too.

I think the image which flashes to my mind is a Hieronymous Bosch painting --- or .. that Plague-ridden period wherein they cut into the skulls of the mentally-disturbed, expecting the demons to be released... or the period wherein torture chambers with nipple-guillotines were in use to force the confessions out of the alleged witches.   Where words had indeed become "things", and dangerous things to boot. Things for which one could be executed, in new and scientifically-"gruesome" ways.

Could be the same thing was afoot in eastern cultures --- I don't know. The "demand for proof" -- the demand for the tangible -- the suspect connotation of the intangible -- I always associate with western culture.

[erismoksha]

Well I think because what we think of when we think of some of the worst, the inquisition, torture chambers and iron maidens, forced confession and bloodshed of 'holy wars,' crusades, that can dominate, but also because catholicism, for example, is still the largest religon in the world, and did dominate the globe for quite some time. Prior to that, Pagan Rome, though. Which was also dominating, and because they did a hard elimination of other pagan religons, which was their goal, or like in mexico and south america, too. However, china, within its own territories had its troubles even. India with untouchables and brutality with that. I dont think any religon is really 'free' from making mistakes, but others made even bigger mistakes than most.


I wouldnt say as much the 'demand for proof' is big in the west. I would say, demands for 'proof' were created post age of enlightenment because of all the conflicts of science and relgion, but it was necessary, because other religons were demanding 'blind faith' and 'belief,' and to do away with the reasoning mind, which they wanted this more, so as to not lose numbers in a church or group. Because if something does arise in conflict, then a person will struggle with a particular belief. But of course, not all spiritual things can we always expect to get 'proof on,' but reasoning cannot always give us what we need either.

[nichi]

I wouldnt say as much the 'demand for proof' is big in the west. I would say, demands for 'proof' were created post age of enlightenment because of all the conflicts of science and relgion, but it was necessary, because other religons were demanding 'blind faith' and 'belief,' and to do away with the reasoning mind, which they wanted this more, so as to not lose numbers in a church or group. Because if something does arise in conflict, then a person will struggle with a particular belief. But of course, not all spiritual things can we always expect to get 'proof on,' but reasoning cannot always give us what we need either.

In my view, the demand for scientific proof, a la the linear empiricism of cause and effect (not even quantum physics), is still very big in western culture.  The Roman Church even adopted a twisted version of this methodology, in its Inquisition and its reluctance to acknowledge both miracles and the "god within". The whole saga of the spiritualist church has been about "proving the existence of life beyond this plane." Proof, proof, proof, as if they could only be "legitimate" if they "proved" it.

I submit that all of this phenomena is beyond the range of our small-minded "proof".

Rationalism didn't help either: "I think therefore I am" even further ennobled our fascination with our own thoughts, and led to a veritable institutionalization of duality and dichotomy. (See all the works of Alan Watts.)

We go to dictionaries, to pour into the essence of a word, as if the truth lay there, mystically. But all we really learn in the dictionary is about our own minds/selves/cultures/language/epistemology. Not that that learning is a useless endeavor by any means, but I maintain that that which is quintessential, that which is mystical, that which is spirit, cannot be found in words. 
 
Just my take~



Tea and Ashes

My thousand-lines are stuffed
Aside, scratched and scrawny;
Again I bid adieu,
Perfection.
Better now, to absorb water-stains
Collected, as
Waste-free coasters,
Holders for the tea and ashes.
Lucille, you inspired
Me madly.
I burned and wept in whiteness,
But not for you,
Sisterpoet.
You sing, and grow, and make.
I am lost, in Western verbage--
Trash of the architects,
Who chiseled stone,
Sepulchre-castles,
Way-lays for moat men ...
Who murkily inscribed
Their ominous manuscript,
Everywhere.
These measurements our gods,
The Form our Kali --
They bring to us the nonlife,
Good-words, scrolled.
(Priests roll up the traps.)
This ink is my blood;
My daughters ... are photos.
And me...
Bones of stone,
Heavy and dense,
Overgrown by a well-read mother ---
Who chose from some
Thousand lines,
The right way to cause
The wanted
Effect.

VLambert 
1976

[Michael]

i'm a bit slow here.

could someone explain how we got from the world of words vs actual things,
to duality, and from there to the inquisition, other nasty stuff that people do in the name of religion, and the place of women in society?

I mean, just a quick explaination - why we went down that road.

i suppose what i can't quite get is why the use of words caused torture, lets say, instead of beauty.

I'm not saying there isn't a link, but I got confused in the above, and would appreciate an attempt at clarity - or at least a summary. (before i add my own thoughts anyway)

[nichi]

"Someone" being me.

I was trying to render an image of the time period when words became mistaken for things, and in so doing gave the imagery of the "nasty things".

[Michael]

There are varying levels of this perspective, though.

On the one hand, that which is "ineffable" can only be suggested in the modes of expression we have at our disposal: language, music, art, dance.

On the other, there are magical systems built entirely around the Word: geomancy, the kabbalah, ceremonial magick, et al. "In the beginning there was the Word." And that word is ... I Am ...
There is a certain universal magic in some words -- or better yet, in certain sounds. What we utter is not all garbage, in other words.

But a concretizing of this concept occured in western religions and (imho) that led to dualism, religious authoritarianism, linear empiricism, and science, which took us away from the ineffable.

no i didn't mean you unnecessarily nichi, but if you are referring to this post, then i can grok that quite well - i mean, not all words miss the mark, yet they still involve our way of perceiving through them. I do see here your connection between words and authoritarianism - yes, that has a valid twist - who owns the words etc.

even Rudi's fire post, just showed it to a colleague and he said the catholics are such hypocrites - they believe in mysticism, but also stamp it out. Of course it's your point, 'Official' priest sanctioned mysticism is OK, but not your home grown variety - and they accept that - it is precisely their point, that they have the authority to decide what is good and what isn't - you don't have the wisdom to make that decision.

so too the same can be said about words - power authority sustains its power position by manipulation and ownership of words, and thus the 'word mind view' of what is reality.

yep i get that bit.

[nichi]

When words became things (to me) correlates with the time when western culture endeavored to separate themselves from "nature".

A good book on this is Nature, Man, and Woman, by Alan Watts.

[erik]

so too the same can be said about words - power authority sustains its power position by manipulation and ownership of words, and thus the 'word mind view' of what is reality.

The power of discourse - it is possible to talk one's percpetion of the world into various different states. Look at cults - words disconnect them from reality. Schizophrenic is talked by 'voices' into attempting to walk in the thin air...through the window on 15th floor.

Social constructivist theory postulates that we construct our world through discourse, through using words. We can even lie...but if we do so long enough...we start to believe it...and change ourselves - and that is a trick authorities know so well.

How it was in Orwell's 1984? Party will tell you what the truth is - don't even try to guess it!

[Michael]

to say nothing of the neo-liberal economic conspiracy, whereby they deliberately set out to change the words we use to talk about economic, government and social concepts, such that now when even objectors speak about such things they find themselves using the very words these right-wing think tanks have so very carefully propagated.

the power of control of words is quite lucrative.

and yet, the question of the connection between words and things is not so simple. it is not all misplaced. once we are able to relate to the world beyond the confines of our words, we find we can 'name' things, with words that do have a power relationship to those things.

yet that is a different matter really - the first problem is to escape the word trap. there is a big debate in philosophy on whether we can know anything outside words - can we know without words? I think everyone here would be able to give an answer to that, but still, as DJ said, in the last moment we always interprete - how close is that interpretation bound to our words?