Defining the core of language

What did you say? And what did you mean by it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2454
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Defining the core of language

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Nov 17, 2017 1:56 pm

Viveka wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 2:25 am
Let me explain to you why Emptiness is not nothingness in meditational terms. When one brings about nothingness through meditation, one literally ceases all consciousness and lacks existence and there is a break in time and space in that it is non-experienced as nothingness.
That is an interesting "memory" of an experience, no time, no space...how were you aware their was no time-space?
I don't remember or am aware of what I experienced since it was nothingness itself! I had a break in time and space, and the only way I could explain it was that I experienced nothingness as much as nothingness can be so-called 'experienced.'
So emptiness is nothingness? However you state "Emptiness, again, IS NOT NOTHINGNESS!" below. If you experienced "nothingness" and where able to be aware of a break in awareness, would not some other facet of your being be aware of this (considering you were still breathing, heart beating, etc.)? Observing a break in awareness is still awareness formulating its own limits. Limits observe both structure/relation and the absence of structure/relation as a neutral median.


Emptiness, again, IS NOT NOTHINGNESS! You are looking at the finger pointing at the moon and saying the finger is the moon. Emptiness is a designation of an experience that is ineffable.
But considering it is an "experience" equates it to "something" as "experience." I could understand if you claimed to "empty" yourself of something in order to observe clearer, but the logic your using only proves "somethingness"...unless I am missinterpretting something some where.
Yes, it is a 'somethingness' but it is ineffable.
The point, getting back to "Defining the core of language", is that language has many characteristics most of which are rooted in the nature of "Being" and "non-being".


Yes, but what is becoming or non-being is not necessarily equal to being. I can define becoming by being, but not becoming by becoming or being by becoming unless it broadens being to suppose becoming.

It may not be equal fully, but in there are structures of equality considering "becoming", "non-being" and "being" have a common unifying structure of "be" as the root. In these respects it is equal and language as a median observes this common core.

Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Defining the core of language

Post by Viveka » Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:57 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 1:56 pm
Viveka wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 2:25 am
Let me explain to you why Emptiness is not nothingness in meditational terms. When one brings about nothingness through meditation, one literally ceases all consciousness and lacks existence and there is a break in time and space in that it is non-experienced as nothingness.
That is an interesting "memory" of an experience, no time, no space...how were you aware their was no time-space?
I don't remember or am aware of what I experienced since it was nothingness itself! I had a break in time and space, and the only way I could explain it was that I experienced nothingness as much as nothingness can be so-called 'experienced.'
So emptiness is nothingness? However you state "Emptiness, again, IS NOT NOTHINGNESS!" below. If you experienced "nothingness" and where able to be aware of a break in awareness, would not some other facet of your being be aware of this (considering you were still breathing, heart beating, etc.)? Observing a break in awareness is still awareness formulating its own limits. Limits observe both structure/relation and the absence of structure/relation as a neutral median.
Dear God. I told you that emptiness is not nothingness because I have generated nothingness in meditation before, and it is not like emptiness!
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 1:56 pm
Emptiness, again, IS NOT NOTHINGNESS! You are looking at the finger pointing at the moon and saying the finger is the moon. Emptiness is a designation of an experience that is ineffable.
But considering it is an "experience" equates it to "something" as "experience." I could understand if you claimed to "empty" yourself of something in order to observe clearer, but the logic your using only proves "somethingness"...unless I am missinterpretting something some where.
Yes, it is a 'somethingness' but it is ineffable.
The point, getting back to "Defining the core of language", is that language has many characteristics most of which are rooted in the nature of "Being" and "non-being".


Yes, but what is becoming or non-being is not necessarily equal to being. I can define becoming by being, but not becoming by becoming or being by becoming unless it broadens being to suppose becoming.

It may not be equal fully, but in there are structures of equality considering "becoming", "non-being" and "being" have a common unifying structure of "be" as the root. In these respects it is equal and language as a median observes this common core.
If you say so.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2454
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Defining the core of language

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:01 pm

Viveka wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:57 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 1:56 pm
Viveka wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 2:25 am
Let me explain to you why Emptiness is not nothingness in meditational terms. When one brings about nothingness through meditation, one literally ceases all consciousness and lacks existence and there is a break in time and space in that it is non-experienced as nothingness.
That is an interesting "memory" of an experience, no time, no space...how were you aware their was no time-space?
I don't remember or am aware of what I experienced since it was nothingness itself! I had a break in time and space, and the only way I could explain it was that I experienced nothingness as much as nothingness can be so-called 'experienced.'
So emptiness is nothingness? However you state "Emptiness, again, IS NOT NOTHINGNESS!" below. If you experienced "nothingness" and where able to be aware of a break in awareness, would not some other facet of your being be aware of this (considering you were still breathing, heart beating, etc.)? Observing a break in awareness is still awareness formulating its own limits. Limits observe both structure/relation and the absence of structure/relation as a neutral median.
Dear God. I told you that emptiness is not nothingness because I have generated nothingness in meditation before, and it is not like emptiness!
You haven't generated nothingness, I know from personal experience from doing the same and more advanced forms of meditation. Been there, done that, "nothing" was there except a cheap attempt at self-annihilation...and there are much more interesting ways of doing that.

A "black out" has no depth of spirituality to it, its not even shallow. A lack of awareness where you are aware of nothing, and absent of awareness, still maintains a grounding in the body being "aware" (through posture or movement) throughout the whole exercise. The body is an extension of human awareness as it houses it.

You were alive during the whole experience, it wasn't nothingness. Emptying oneself of thoughts, or feelings, is understandable. However to "become nothing", is simply and absence of self-awareness. Why are you so anxious to prove "nothing", what does is prove but "nothing"?

You argue "emptiness" is different from "emptiness" because of subjective experience, it is this nature of "subjectivity" within the axiom that causes variation within language itself. The core of language always has a subjective element, and in this regard it maintains a continual movement through redefinition such in the same manner we see between cultures as "subjective" groups.

However it objectifies itself through its relation to other words. While "emptiness" and "nothing" may appear different to you at a subjective level, they share an objective bond of "deficiency" or "absence" as the means through which they are redefined. In this respect "emptiness" and "nothing" share a common relation as "absence". Subjectivity, in these respects, is limited through objectivity and what we understand of "emptiness" and "nothing" is not limited your experience alone but universalized in certain degrees through "absence".


Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 1:56 pm
Emptiness, again, IS NOT NOTHINGNESS! You are looking at the finger pointing at the moon and saying the finger is the moon. Emptiness is a designation of an experience that is ineffable.
But considering it is an "experience" equates it to "something" as "experience." I could understand if you claimed to "empty" yourself of something in order to observe clearer, but the logic your using only proves "somethingness"...unless I am missinterpretting something some where.
Yes, it is a 'somethingness' but it is ineffable.
The point, getting back to "Defining the core of language", is that language has many characteristics most of which are rooted in the nature of "Being" and "non-being".


Yes, but what is becoming or non-being is not necessarily equal to being. I can define becoming by being, but not becoming by becoming or being by becoming unless it broadens being to suppose becoming.

It may not be equal fully, but in there are structures of equality considering "becoming", "non-being" and "being" have a common unifying structure of "be" as the root. In these respects it is equal and language as a median observes this common core.
If you say so.

Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Defining the core of language

Post by Viveka » Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:51 pm

You haven't generated nothingness, I know from personal experience from doing the same and more advanced forms of meditation. Been there, done that, "nothing" was there except a cheap attempt at self-annihilation...and there are much more interesting ways of doing that.

A "black out" has no depth of spirituality to it, its not even shallow. A lack of awareness where you are aware of nothing, and absent of awareness, still maintains a grounding in the body being "aware" (through posture or movement) throughout the whole exercise. The body is an extension of human awareness as it houses it.

You were alive during the whole experience, it wasn't nothingness. Emptying oneself of thoughts, or feelings, is understandable. However to "become nothing", is simply and absence of self-awareness. Why are you so anxious to prove "nothing", what does is prove but "nothing"?

You argue "emptiness" is different from "emptiness" because of subjective experience, it is this nature of "subjectivity" within the axiom that causes variation within language itself. The core of language always has a subjective element, and in this regard it maintains a continual movement through redefinition such in the same manner we see between cultures as "subjective" groups.

However it objectifies itself through its relation to other words. While "emptiness" and "nothing" may appear different to you at a subjective level, they share an objective bond of "deficiency" or "absence" as the means through which they are redefined. In this respect "emptiness" and "nothing" share a common relation as "absence". Subjectivity, in these respects, is limited through objectivity and what we understand of "emptiness" and "nothing" is not limited your experience alone but universalized in certain degrees through "absence".


EMPTINESS IS A NAME. EMPTINESS IS NOT NOTHINGNESS. I HAVE GENERATED NOTHINGNESS, AND IT IS NOTHINGNESS, NOT EMPTINESS.

I'm not going to bother with you any more. You simply cannot grasp what I am saying or you have some kind of mental handicap.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2454
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Defining the core of language

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:55 pm

Viveka wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:51 pm
You haven't generated nothingness, I know from personal experience from doing the same and more advanced forms of meditation. Been there, done that, "nothing" was there except a cheap attempt at self-annihilation...and there are much more interesting ways of doing that.

A "black out" has no depth of spirituality to it, its not even shallow. A lack of awareness where you are aware of nothing, and absent of awareness, still maintains a grounding in the body being "aware" (through posture or movement) throughout the whole exercise. The body is an extension of human awareness as it houses it.

You were alive during the whole experience, it wasn't nothingness. Emptying oneself of thoughts, or feelings, is understandable. However to "become nothing", is simply and absence of self-awareness. Why are you so anxious to prove "nothing", what does is prove but "nothing"?

You argue "emptiness" is different from "emptiness" because of subjective experience, it is this nature of "subjectivity" within the axiom that causes variation within language itself. The core of language always has a subjective element, and in this regard it maintains a continual movement through redefinition such in the same manner we see between cultures as "subjective" groups.

However it objectifies itself through its relation to other words. While "emptiness" and "nothing" may appear different to you at a subjective level, they share an objective bond of "deficiency" or "absence" as the means through which they are redefined. In this respect "emptiness" and "nothing" share a common relation as "absence". Subjectivity, in these respects, is limited through objectivity and what we understand of "emptiness" and "nothing" is not limited your experience alone but universalized in certain degrees through "absence".


EMPTINESS IS A NAME. EMPTINESS IS NOT NOTHINGNESS. I HAVE GENERATED NOTHINGNESS, AND IT IS NOTHINGNESS, NOT EMPTINESS.

I'm not going to bother with you any more. You simply cannot grasp what I am saying or you have some kind of mental handicap.
Don't be angry over "nothing"...get it?

You can only "name" "something", the "name" "nothing" equates to a deficiency in something.

Seriously ...you know "nothing", according to you, what do you expect...really? Why should I or anyone take what you say, in regards to this argument only, seriously when you talking about "nothing".

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest