Question about dualistic language

[WokeBloke]

I often see people say language is dualistic. Could someone please elaborate on what they mean by that? Maybe with an example or something.

[John Paul]

When something means something it automatically doesn't mean the opposite of that meaning. 

Beautiful means something- it means opposite of ugly.

 

[WokeBloke]

@John Paul And why is that important? 

[Vibroverse]

This one explains it pretty well, with a good depth of information about it. 

 

 

[Mason Riggle]

@WokeBloke because it makes it difficult to talk about something that has no opposite. 

If everything felt good, and there was no bad feeling, how would you tell other people about it?  How could you describe it to yourself, or 'know it'? 

How does this massage feel?  It feels good.  What does 'good' mean if there's nothing to contrast it against? 

[Kksd74628]

@WokeBloke

How could you find plastic bottle from its surroundings if you didn't know which "part" of that which you see is plastic bottle? For that you need word that divides the whole to something which is it and which is not. To tell someone what is plastic bottle you need to explain the definition of the word to the listener. There is no problem as long as you both agree on the definition and NOW you can have working conversation about the plastic bottle.

How could you point towards the thing that is everything? For example that which is "I" + "other" is something you can't talk about, because any word you try to give to it is dualistic already. So you could understand this sentence you need to know what these words mean and to know that you need to know what they don't. Otherwise it would look like "everything everything everything everything everything everything" and you wouldn't get any information from it.

So nature of word is that it cuts reality and when you want to talk about that which is not cutted how could you use word that cuts it to explain it? Anyways dualistic nature of language is not the biggest problem, but that you can't ever explain your experience to someone without them to experience it, because otherwise you would just give mind picture to them that is more or less like the actual thing.

 

[_Archangel_]

@WokeBloke  you can use lenguage only to explain, point to, or refer to a certain object, a certain cutted peace of experience(ideas included). 

But notice that experience cannot be "communicated", you can just refer to it and hope that the reciever has a frame of reference.
Ex.: i can describe to you the taste of lemon, but i cannot trasmit to you the actual experience of its taste. Only if you tasted it yourself you'd know what i'm talking about. 

This becomes very evident in spirituality: i can try to describe awakening, but its descripion is not "it".

[Osaid]

A word is a pointer to something, like a finger that points to the moon. The word "moon" points to the object "moon". When you point to something, you by default separate that one thing from everything else, thus creating a duality.