Language for things beyond language

[taotemu]

Ludwig Wittgenstein once wrote, "Whereof we can not speak, thereof we must be silent".  Wittgenstein basically said that all problems of philosophy are problems with the use of language.  Also, the first phrase of the Tao Te Ching, "The Tao that can be spoken of is not the eternal Tao".  Same idea.

Language is a means of communicating ideas, feelings and stories.  It should be used to reduce confusion, not add to it.  I often see language used in ways that only adds to confusion here.  Saying things like, "I am God".  Creates confusion.  Normal use of language makes no distinction between "I" being the ego vs "I" being the spiritual God self (of which we are all a part of).  Because normal language makes no distinction, it is our burden to make the distinction for the listener.  I would NEVER claim to be God in conversation because I know how that phrase will land for most people.  It is not the responsibility of the listener to create clarity around what we say, it is entirely ours.  

Statements like "I create Leo to awaken" is an abuse of language.  It only creates confusion.  A statement like, "Consciousness manufactures the experience of reality" is much more accurate.  It is a completely predictable thing to see Adeptus reaction to some of what Leo has said because of Leo's careless use of language.  I get how difficult some of these concepts are to effectively communicate.  Knowing that, one must be exceptionally careful with the choice of words to minimize confusion.  If something is simply beyond the use of language one must shift to myth, music, poetry, allegory or analogy.  And sometimes these are inadequate to communicate.  Then we are left with silence.    

When we throw language around in a careless way with these deep and important subjects, it just creates confusion.

 

[This]

I remember i used to think as a teenager in school philosophy class that questions like "who am i?" or "what am i?" are boring and useless. Then at some point about 10 years later those questions seemed very deep and meaningful to ask and now those questions are seen to be boring and useless  and a waste of my time again.

Playing videogames, listening to music, walking outside, watching netflix,  are all more fun and interesting than asking myself who am i.

[tsuki]

It is not possible to grasp the absolute using language. Period. Not by any use of it, not by anyone, ever.

There is no way of using language that would make distinctions for someone. All distinctions must be made for oneself, within one's own experience, relative to one's own path. Enlightenment is impossible to understand and nobody attains it. There is no such thing as a responsible use of language in regards to enlightenment. Enlightenment is not even in a different room from language. It's off the charts. 

[LastThursday]

5 hours ago, taotemu said:

When we throw language around in a careless way with these deep and important subjects, it just creates confusion.

All language requires context. You can use just words to create context, like in a novel, but most every day spoken language is done with reference to reality (i.e. non-language context). I don't think Leo is careless with his words, he's actually very precise. It's just that you need a large amount of context to understand those words - which Leo actually provides in his videos and elsewhere.  The problem arises because it's very easy to be lazy or mischievous and just take a phrase like "I am God" without any of Leo's context. It's unfortunate that a word like "God" is already so loaded with it's own traditional baggage, so it's incredibly easy to misinterpret what Leo is saying.

Personally I have a lot of trouble with a phrase such as "everything is love", but that doesn't mean this phrase shouldn't be used. There is some onus on me to understand it, communication is a two-way process.

[Tim R]

5 hours ago, taotemu said:

Language is a means of communicating ideas, feelings and stories.  It should be used to reduce confusion, not add to it.  I often see language used in ways that only adds to confusion here.  Saying things like, "I am God".  Creates confusion.  Normal use of language makes no distinction between "I" being the ego vs "I" being the spiritual God self (of which we are all a part of).  Because normal language makes no distinction, it is our burden to make the distinction for the listener.  I would NEVER claim to be God in conversation because I know how that phrase will land for most people.  It is not the responsibility of the listener to create clarity around what we say, it is entirely ours.  

It is a completely predictable thing to see Adeptus reaction to some of what Leo has said because of Leo's careless use of language.  I get how difficult some of these concepts are to effectively communicate.  Knowing that, one must be exceptionally careful with the choice of words to minimize confusion.  If something is simply beyond the use of language one must shift to myth, music, poetry, allegory or analogy.  And sometimes these are inadequate to communicate.  Then we are left with silence.    

When we throw language around in a careless way with these deep and important subjects, it just creates confusion.

 

Well said?

However, it's not possible to prevent confusion entirely. And if we're going to engage in discussions about various spiritual topics, we have to consciously take into account that there will be confusion, no matter how careful and responsible our choice of words may be. 

5 hours ago, taotemu said:

Statements like "I create Leo to awaken" is an abuse of language.  It only creates confusion.  A statement like, "Consciousness manufactures the experience of reality" is much more accurate. 

I disagree. "More accurate" is your interpretation as the listener. I don't think you can accuse someone of making "inaccurate statements" when it comes to such ineffable aspects of reality (and yes, they're no more ineffable than talking about ice cream, but let's pretend they are). 

So there's that problem. Language is inherently limited and when talking about god, consciousness and love, you will be seen as woo woo and nonsensical (to "normies" or people like Adeptus), no matter what you say (of course that doesn't mean that we should be totally careless)

[Nahm]

8 hours ago, taotemu said:

If something is simply beyond the use of language one must shift to myth, music, poetry, allegory or analogy.

[wildflower]

8 hours ago, taotemu said:

Ludwig Wittgenstein once wrote, "Whereof we can not speak, thereof we must be silent".  Wittgenstein basically said that all problems of philosophy are problems with the use of language.  Also, the first phrase of the Tao Te Ching, "The Tao that can be spoken of is not the eternal Tao".  Same idea.

Language is a means of communicating ideas, feelings and stories.  It should be used to reduce confusion, not add to it.  I often see language used in ways that only adds to confusion here.  Saying things like, "I am God".  Creates confusion.  Normal use of language makes no distinction between "I" being the ego vs "I" being the spiritual God self (of which we are all a part of).  Because normal language makes no distinction, it is our burden to make the distinction for the listener.  I would NEVER claim to be God in conversation because I know how that phrase will land for most people.  It is not the responsibility of the listener to create clarity around what we say, it is entirely ours.  

Statements like "I create Leo to awaken" is an abuse of language.  It only creates confusion.  A statement like, "Consciousness manufactures the experience of reality" is much more accurate.  It is a completely predictable thing to see Adeptus reaction to some of what Leo has said because of Leo's careless use of language.  I get how difficult some of these concepts are to effectively communicate.  Knowing that, one must be exceptionally careful with the choice of words to minimize confusion.  If something is simply beyond the use of language one must shift to myth, music, poetry, allegory or analogy.  And sometimes these are inadequate to communicate.  Then we are left with silence.    

When we throw language around in a careless way with these deep and important subjects, it just creates confusion.

 

Great post. I also studied Wittgenstein Tractatus when younger, not only does it should the limitations of an objective framework absolutely being true (it's contextual and relative, and if we try to reduce it to a logical propisition (atomize it) it becomes useless tautologies), (similiar to Godels), but also shows the inherent limitations of language to describe that which exists or is the case.

I noticed Leo uses some of Ludwigs terminology so Im assuming he's also read it

This forum has some of the weirdest misuse of language I've ever come across, it's perplexing and bizarre

[wildflower]

2 hours ago, Tim R said:

Well said?

However, it's not possible to prevent confusion entirely. And if we're going to engage in discussions about various spiritual topics, we have to consciously take into account that there will be confusion, no matter how careful and responsible our choice of words may be. 

I disagree. "More accurate" is your interpretation as the listener. I don't think you can accuse someone of making "inaccurate statements" when it comes to such ineffable aspects of reality (and yes, they're no more ineffable than talking about ice cream, but let's pretend they are). 

So there's that problem. Language is inherently limited and when talking about god, consciousness and love, you will be seen as woo woo and nonsensical (to "normies" or people like Adeptus), no matter what you say (of course that doesn't mean that we should be totally careless)

I think there has to be distinctions when using the word 'you', it cannot be used interchangeably and conflated constantly between relative and absolute, it doesn't make sense, it literally is just poor use of language to convey a message or meaning.

Ego-you && (absolute-you||god-you) would for example clear all confusion