There are no nouns

[Kykeon]

There are only activities that begin and end, there are no objects that arise and fall away.  

There is a seeing, and a reading, a remembering, and a thinking.  These activities happen to digest this post, but when a searching is initiated as inquiry instructs - what will never be found is a seer, a reader, a rememberer, a thinker, or a searcher.  There are only sensations generated along with these activities (the sensations are also activities) which are then paired with an additional activity of assuming that those sensations are the noun that is initiating the activities.

This all became much clearer today as this activity of life systems was walking and inquiring today - a highly effective/recommended self-inquiry method.

It was helpful in that grokking the phrase “You/God are/is a verb!” had yet to occur until it did today and an activity of apparent liberation followed.

Now there is curiousing about other descriptions of the same epiphany, or responses to this.

Thanks

[impulse9]

Alan Watts spoke a great deal of this too. There are no birds, there is just birding. There are no houses, you can say that the world is just "housing" in certain places, and that's all that's happening.

[Moksha]

There are nouns, but only in relative reality. A noun is the subject of a verb. Ultimately, there is only Consciousness, which is the eternal object.

[Kykeon]

@Moksha I would go as far to say that even in relative reality there are no nouns.  Where are they? Language creates the apparent concept and then assumption that the concept has any bearing on reality, regardless if considered from a relative or absolute “perspective”.  The noun-ness of activities exists as an assumed aspect of relativity until it is investigated.

So nouns are useful for communication, which is a pixilation of what is being communicated.  Even consciousness falls into non-existence when it is not engaged in/by activity.  Not very objectful of it! Haha!

Edited August 5, 2021 by Kykeon

[eputkonen]

@Kykeon  Yes, nouns are a convention of speech...but not reality...not something that exists.  As Alan Watts said, the world is wiggly and we try to grasp the wiggly world by cutting it up and boxing it with our concepts.  One such concept is the "noun"...that is "things".

Edited August 5, 2021 by eputkonen

[Moksha]

@Kykeon Do human beings fit the definition of a noun? Within relative reality, of course they do. Relative reality is like a pinball machine of causes and effects. From the ultimate perspective, it is all Consciousness, and the dream of nouns, verbs, and adjectives dissolves.

[Kykeon]

@Moksha How do they fit the definition of a noun? Where does a human object begin and end and how do you determine such?  If I try to use the rules of apparent cause and effect then the human object extends in all directions to infinity.  If I freeze frame to isolate the object, it will vanish as per the rules of physics.  If I look at exactly what a human object is made of I find that it is in fact not an object but several communities of processes in turn made of small communities on and on to infinity.

As far as I can tell, from a relative perspective, there is no actual evidence that anything is an object.  We just use that concept as an abstraction to communicate and plan.  Ironically, even in those abstractions we still take into account that the object is not actually static and changes, to which we must anticipate and adjust.  Which would mean that we even then still regard it fundamentally as a process or activity.

[mandyjw]

no-uns   bahahaha

 

God: You can name all the animals and stuff. 

Adam: But what about me?

God: Your name is atom  Latin atomus (especially in Lucretius) "indivisible particle," from Greek atomos "uncut, unhewn; indivisible," from a- "not" (see a- (3)) + tomos "a cutting," from temnein "to cut" (from PIE root *tem- "to cut"). https://www.etymonline.com/word/atom     Ok, got it? Not separate, not two.

Adam: Oh ok, Adam. It's a bird, it's a plain and I must be superman. 

God: Ah...damn. ?‍♀️

Edited August 6, 2021 by mandyjw

[Moksha]

@Kykeon A noun is a name assigned to something that appears to be cohesive, regardless of reductionism. In relative reality, nouns fray at the micro- and macro-levels. Most linguists would agree that humans fit the definition of a noun, but most linguists aren't philosophers 

The point of relative reality is that there is no objectivity. Energy, mass, and time vary, depending on the perceiver. Not only are there no objective nouns, there are no objective verbs, adjectives, or anything else. Within the web of Maya, it is all relative and reducible.

[LastThursday]

On 04/08/2021 at 11:16 PM, Kykeon said:

There is a seeing, and a reading, a remembering, and a thinking.

Even these are dubious. Aren't they nouns? Nouns and verbs just carve out reality in different ways. Neither are true.