Let's create a unified language for sharing truth

[seeking_brilliance]

@Leo Gura @CreamCat @Joseph ICU @Joseph Maynor @Apparation of Jack @electroBeam @Nahm

 

Here's maybe a better example of what my point is with this thread :

I know that creating a unified language for this work can't be forcibly done, may never happen, or is already well in motion thorough the invention of internet.  BUT there could be A FEW things that we could agree on as a society /community that we could change in our language to simplify and uncomplicate understanding.  For example : in english we tend to personify the ego, saying it does this and that and doesn't want this and that, but no it's not! The ego is the ego. A natural evolved process happening in a so called brain. We tend to, at least in English, refer to the illusionary dream self as the ego. We've bastardized the word, kind of, because most people that aren't into this work consider the definition of ego to be 'a person's sense of self-esteem or self-importance' and in the psychoanalysis field : 'the part of the mind that mediates between the conscious and the unconscious and is responsible for reality testing and a sense of personal identity.'. A part of the mind. Not a self.  But then under that it says in the philosophy field : '(in metaphysics) a conscious thinking subject.  So now it's a self? And then we learn there's no self but we still (confusingly) refer to self as ego, and refer to the animalistic process in the mind that filters reality as ego. Its confusing! And we perpetuate it! 

I propose we come together as a society / community and agree to refer to the illusionary self as the illusionary self. Or as I like to say, the character.  Or at least agree to stop referring to it as the ego. We have the power! ?? Let's stop confusing the newbies! 

 

[seeking_brilliance]

6 hours ago, cetus56 said:

Language as a form of communication is based more on difference then on similarity. What is needed is a non-linear form of communication.

Yeah for sure.  What would that be like? 

[Leo Gura]

Language is inherently dualistic, so you're never going to be able to accurately describe spiritual truths using it.

[StarStruck]

9 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Turkish is a rather fascinating language that has some synthetic elements in it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_language

Why would Turkish be fitting language?

[Hellspeed]

Esperanto.

[cetus]

@seeking_brilliance

 

[tsuki]

16 hours ago, seeking_brilliance said:

Let's create a unified language for sharing truth

It's called silence.

[seeking_brilliance]

1 hour ago, tsuki said:

It's called silence.

Hahaha you're so right

[seeking_brilliance]

@Joseph ICU the website describes how the Bible is an esoteric path to enlightenment. Not necessarily how language is used in the Bible, but of course that is a large part of the allegorical interpretation.  The website is http://Www.spiritofthescripture.com

[Mu_]

7 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Language is inherently dualistic, so you're never going to be able to accurately describe spiritual truths using it.

 

I believe I get what your saying and have felt and experienced the nature of language on experiencing and how it pulls towards duality, creates pain and contraction in right/wrong true/false and this/or that   I’ve also felt how almost inherently in using language (and maybe this varies from society to society, which Alan Watts has led me to believe with one of his analyzations of symbols and meaning usuages with Eastern thought and Chinese dialect) is this already assumed belief and starting point of a separate and concrete ‘me/i’  and ‘others’.

However could it be that the dualisticness is less to do with the language and more to do with the degree of awaking. This would be true for the one using it and also the one interpreting.  I feel this more and more as the normalcy of oneness sinks in  

 

[Hellspeed]

We should use the natural meaning of english pe example.

Changing the word Morning for something else. Because in the Occult knowledge the root of the word is "mourning".

Language is like this to create the Ego cosumerism behaviour. 

Teach a new generation how all thia works and we will have an awakened humanity. 

[Leo Gura]

@Mu_ The duality of language cannot be escaped because the nature of any symbol is that it is not the thing symbolized.

Contemplate what a symbol is. Become conscious of what a symbol is.

[Natasha]

6 hours ago, tsuki said:

It's called silence.

[Mu_]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

@Mu_ The duality of language cannot be escaped because the nature of any symbol is that it is not the thing symbolized.

Contemplate what a symbol is. Become conscious of what a symbol is.

But could it be that a symbol is not a symbol but directly the absolute,  that can draw one in to the experience of the symbol since as you know, there are no symbols either, only god/absolute.

this is what I’m pointing to. I don’t even think it invalidates what your saying, which isn’t my intention either. I get where your coming from and I’ve seen it from that point of view before as well (and still do) but I’m bringing into question the notion  of dualistic and it’s dependency on awakened perspective. 

Based on what I gathered from your last blog post on omnipresent, you’ve seen what I’m eluding to and perhaps much like I’m going through it’s having a fundamental shift in how one phrased and used notions that seemed inherently absolute and true. 

Edited June 17, 2019 by Mu_

[Mu_]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

@Mu_ The duality of language cannot be escaped because the nature of any symbol is that it is not the thing symbolized.

Contemplate what a symbol is. Become conscious of what a symbol is.

And to elaborate more. And this is just a hypothesis in the works. But this statement is one that makes sense and holds truth to someone at a certain place in understanding and awakening but not in the same way as one who’s moved past that consciousness of seeing. But for one whose more in concreteness of things potentially can pull said individual into a more clearer seeing of reality as it is and is ising ( ya I just made that word up). 

Because interestingly enough the implications of what this statement is pointing towards, the word symbol can be replaced with ‘experience or ones experience’ and it leads to a similar awakening. Again until all that’s left is god understanding. 

Both sound like the Neti Neti route honestly as I’m writing this and are as you may know powerful awakeners to this strange world of not it’s and yet IT/You/I as the leftover or remainder. 

Edited June 17, 2019 by Mu_

[Leo Gura]

35 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

But could it be that a symbol is not a symbol but directly the absolute

That's exactly what I'm saying.

The nature of a symbol is such that for it to serve as a symbol is its being must be overlooked. If a symbol's being is recognized, then it stop being a symbol and becomes being/Absolute.

The word cat is not itself a cat. Because of this, the Truth cannot be symbolized. Truth is prior to symbols. Truth cannot be pointed at because any pointer is already itself the Truth, but not recognized to be so.

[Zigzag Idiot]

17 hours ago, seeking_brilliance said:

@Leo Gura @CreamCat @Joseph ICU @Joseph Maynor @Apparation of Jack @electroBeam @Nahm

 

Here's maybe a better example of what my point is with this thread :

I know that creating a unified language for this work can't be forcibly done, may never happen, or is already well in motion thorough the invention of internet.  BUT there could be A FEW things that we could agree on as a society /community that we could change in our language to simplify and uncomplicate understanding.  For example : in english we tend to personify the ego, saying it does this and that and doesn't want this and that, but no it's not! The ego is the ego. A natural evolved process happening in a so called brain. We tend to, at least in English, refer to the illusionary dream self as the ego. We've bastardized the word, kind of, because most people that aren't into this work consider the definition of ego to be 'a person's sense of self-esteem or self-importance' and in the psychoanalysis field : 'the part of the mind that mediates between the conscious and the unconscious and is responsible for reality testing and a sense of personal identity.'. A part of the mind. Not a self.  But then under that it says in the philosophy field : '(in metaphysics) a conscious thinking subject.  So now it's a self? And then we learn there's no self but we still (confusingly) refer to self as ego, and refer to the animalistic process in the mind that filters reality as ego. Its confusing! And we perpetuate it! 

I propose we come together as a society / community and agree to refer to the illusionary self as the illusionary self. Or as I like to say, the character.  Or at least agree to stop referring to it as the ego. We have the power! ?? Let's stop confusing the newbies! 

 

@ Mu

Maybe we can point at the symbol from different angles and discuss it with some profit.

 

Wish I had Found this topic earlier. 

@Mu_

I'm absolutely with you on this. I've been noticing this causing confusion  for years and actually brought it up in a former online community I was apart of.  As a community, it would sure be helpful if we could come to a common agreement that there have developed two usages of the term ego which end up almost in contradiction to one another.

Ego is used synonymously with personality in some circles of developmental psychology but in spiritual work it's a reference to narcissism and identification..

 

There is no Ego Separate from the Soul

One important thing we see here is that there is no ego separate from the soul. The proverbial ego of spiritual terminology is nothing but the ego-self, the soul structured through ego development. There is no ego as an entity; there is only the soul that can become ego by becoming structured with mental forms. Therefore, the idea of ego death is a misnomer. There is no entity that dies, for the soul does not die. All that happens in such experiences is that an ego structure dissolves, and the soul field is liberated from its influence. More accurately, the soul ceases to structure her experience through these mental forms. This can bring about the dissolution or transcendence of one’s identity, but this identity is a feeling that arises from the soul being structured by a particular self-representation. A representation dies, but no entity.

 

more to come,,,

[Zigzag Idiot]

I garbled up some of my above post.  This articulates it better

Confusion About the Term "Ego"

Here we digress to point out a source of confusion about the term “ego.” Readers who know both the spiritual and psychological literatures will find the term freely used in both, but with no general agreement on what the term refers to. This ambiguity often leads to confusion. The literature on spiritual development, on essential or inner development, on all matters of religious concern, generally uses the term “ego” to mean something which is seen as the barrier to spiritual realization. The literature on depth psychology, however, uses the term with a very different meaning. The ego referred to by Freud, and which ego psychology studies, is not the ego which is the barrier to spiritual development. They are two different concepts. The psychoanalytic term “ego” refers, rather, to the functional self, which is the site, organizer, and coordinator of the functions of perception, memory, mobility, and so on. There is, however, a concept in depth psychology and ego psychology that coincides with the ego of spiritual literature: it is called the “ego-identity,” and is sometimes referred to as the sense of self, or the sense of identity. This sense of self or separate identity is the main concern of ego developmental theory. This identity is, in fact, the acme, the most important outcome of ego development. It is ultimately the organizing center of the psychic apparatus. This psychic apparatus includes as one of its units the Freudian ego. In other words, the Freudian ego is part of the mind, is a structure or a structured process in it, while the self is a sense of identity and a center of action. The exact sense in which the ego identity is a barrier to spiritual development will become clear in later chapters.

From https://www.diamondapproach.org/glossary/refinery_phrases/ego

[Mu_]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

That's exactly what I'm saying.

The nature of a symbol is such that for it to serve as a symbol is its being must be overlooked. If a symbol's being is recognized, then it stop being a symbol and becomes being/Absolute.

The word cat is not itself a cat. Because of this, the Truth cannot be symbolized. Truth is prior to symbols. Truth cannot be pointed at because any pointer is already itself the Truth, but not recognized to be so.

Ok, I see how your using the question now. Really fascinating because that saying at least in my observation can and has been used to mean that the symbol or word is not the actual thing but a Pointer to materialistic belief of truth or a description of subjective experience which isn’t the actual feeling experience of it. Where as your using the the same statement to point to Truth actually. 

[Zigzag Idiot]

Does  a multiperspectival approach form a natural bridge between conceptual knowledge and the Truth of being?