UnbornTao

😅 It's not like the session lasts half and hour, it's more like five minutes.

I think Vernon Howard has a quote that goes something like this: "The first thing to do when pursuing the truth is to notice and admit to yourself that you don't give a hoot about it." (Paraphrased) Also, just because a person, group, or practice claims truth as its goal doesn't mean that's actually the goal. More often than not, it amounts to some kind of fantasy or worldview validation - like psychedelic drugs, religion, Jehovah's Witnesses, Buddhism, philosophy, psychology, or any other conceptual structure that supposedly aims at uncovering what is true about existence.

Definitely. I tend to stretch a bit while showering. After the practice, you could also lie on your back on the floor, with one palm on top of the other just below your navel, focusing on your breath and breathing from the center, almost like a meditation. You might even start the whole routine with a cold shower - could become a nice sequence of habits.

The main tool I liked using to decrapify Windows was this one: https://github.com/ChrisTitusTech/winutil

@Basman tell me this isn't art I'm a real pain in the ass By the way, do not read the comments if you plan on playing it. In fact, don't search for anything about it.

But this thinking still operates from "language." It takes it for granted as an objective reality.

To me it is about the exchange and the probing themselves. Language exists and is something in its own right, so it is possible to have insight into it. Language is whatever it is, regardless of one's state. And the possibility that it is grasped through one's experience does not mean that we, as selves, are the deciding factor who can simply declare that language is x or y. As for your second paragraph, yeah, that's mostly what I was trying to allude to with the term insight. I think it is better left open-ended, in the sense that it will be known when each of us personally grasps what it is. Funnily enough, it could be spoken - using language. That's what language is for. That doesn't mean that what is expressed will be an exact representation, but something will be gotten across. As hard as it is to actually reproduce, I think pretending or imagining what life was like prior to the existence of language can help open up our inquiry. At the very least, it can be a fun little meditation exercise. Also, I like to bring up Helen Keller in these conversations. In her lessons, we may be able to appreciate how earth-shattering this whole business can be. Her case might provide a contrast to our already established "language world." She also said: Which is interesting to consider.

I like the way you put it. To add a bit to it, it might turn out that, more often than not, the truth is unknown, and so, in order to be authentic, an opening or a search has to occur - if becoming increasingly real with yourself is the goal. In your example, are you disappointed or not? If you are, but you express something that's inconsistent with your internal state, we might call that being inauthentic - with oneself and/or with others. Even in that example, is that the whole story? If you were to look into the disappointment, you might find deeper doorways to authenticity by uncovering what's behind it. If you discover that there's a sense of hurt behind the disappointment, then being authentic would require experiencing the hurt rather than the disappointment. And maybe, at some point, you find that the pain isn't true in itself, but something that's activity-generated. But this is speculation - we'll find whatever we find.

@Shermaningeorgia Are you a past user trying to stir up drama?

This is trickier than throwing spiritual platitudes around, it seems to me. This is where questioning comes in, since it's likely that we think we already know what it is, or else we settle for an intellectual conclusion to believe in and call it a day. And distraction - relative to what? If the goal is to find out what this whole language business is about, then this line of questioning is appropriate, if only as a starting point. I like to start with my experience of language and the way I relate to it, and proceed from there. This provides a more authentic footing from which to inquire more deeply.

Essentially: Can one be authentic without knowing the truth? Can you be authentic in an emotional expression, for example, when you're not aware of its source - of what the emotion is based on? I'm just using emotion as an example.

@RisingLane

I don't know.

This framing is better, in my view, because it feels a bit more grounded. As for your question - where is it coming from? Who said you have to? I guess my gripe with this kind of thinking is that it's once again based on artificial ground - a certain way of seeing the world that's been taken on and believed by you. Setting aside models, you could ask yourself what expectations and values you hold in regards to collective survival, and pursue those consciously. Sorry if this isn't what you were asking for.

Is it, though? I wouldn't be so quick to make that conclusion (about meaning-making). Again, the question is what language fundamentally is, rather than the various forms or manifestations it can take. When you ask what it represents, this is where my "complaint" lies. The act of representing something - such as an experience - with something else may indeed be the purpose of language. That is to say, take away language, and the act of representation cannot come to pass. You seem to want to adopt some hearsay and claim that this settles the matter, but the question remains. And as far as I can tell, this is not about an absolute. It is something to be dealt with on its own terms. I don't expect that we could discover its nature here simply by exchanging ideas; at best, this discussion can support our meditations. Also, don't presume that this issue is easily resolved by arriving at a conclusion or a satisfying answer. Insight is required.

Okay, but what is it? That's the thing to contemplate. As for meaning, why mention it? There might be a relationship between language and certain forms of meaning, but these are different subjects. We still take language to be inherent; in other words, it's an assumed reality for us. We have a hard time having an experience prior to language, which I think could be an eye-opening exercise, even though I haven't attempted it in earnest yet. For example, when you say that radios already exist and we create the symbols to represent them, this still isn't language. The symbol (or words, sounds, gestures, formulas, equations, and so on) are not the same as this possibility of language. So what is it? Food for thought.

Make a real question - from experience. An adopted model of the world is just that, and no model is ever true. It can even become a distraction from genuine inquiry. I'd first ask myself what I'm trying to understand in a concrete way. What are you asking, specifically?

The issue I see with this is that it itself arises from the presumption - or operation - of language. We keep failing to experience reality prior to language, confusing it with words, labels, or symbols, as if language were a trivial or extraneous activity independent of so-called objective or "real" reality. And yet, it goes beyond merely making comments on things. Perhaps certain things depend entirely on language for their very existence.

Good luck! Go kick some ass out there.

My name is Manousos Oviedo. I'm not one of them. I wish to save the world.

mmm hmm

It is possible to play Bloodborne on PC: https://www.reddit.com/r/BloodbornePC/

My observation so far is that, at some point, it didn't exist - it had to be invented. That way of perceiving, interpreting, and framing reality must have been created by us humans. Where does the observer begin and the observed end? Maybe without the observer, there is no object. But this is not an insight.

Don't insult Jak & Daxter like that.