Interview - words

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote:

>

>

> Hi Pete,

>

> Yes it could be taken as a metaphor and not literally and vice

versa.

> They also can be disregarded and seen as non-sense. It is possible

> that the words can be seen as saying that there is nothing but words

> floating in nothingness. Anything can be done to those words and

they

> can be taken in as many ways as one imagines....

>

> However, the latter conclusion about words floating in nothingness

> would indicate a gross misunderstanding of Dr. Theo's thesis. Such a

> conclusion indicates an inference and assumption about, a desire

for,

> a belief in, or an attachment to " somethingness " over " nothingness "

> and this works to alter, interpret Dr. Theo's point that " no thing "

> lies beyond words to mean that " words float in nothingness, and are

> the only existent, which would be ridiculous. " In the English

lexicon

> these words can both exist simultaneously with all the meanings and

> sensations and perceptions, experiences and uses attached to them.

For

> example, chair is a word. Is there something beyond the word chair

> that the word refers to? What is beyond the word chair? There is one

> experiential possibility.

>

> And that is to give an explantion or description in words in anyway

> imagined, individually and socially (common, practical, scientific,

> literary, etc,) which leads to infinite progress of descriptions in

> words and or use of the word to do things (like sitting down, or

> bashing someone with it, or changing a lightbulb or shutting a door

> (the conventional truth in Buddhist terms). This Dr. Theo's point.

> Words pointing to more words with the use of imagination that

creates

> meanings, experiences, perceptions and sensations and uses. You can

> assume the various meanings and uses of the chair and use it and

> experience as it goes. A chair is not always a chair as it is

defined

> in the formal lexicon. It is indexical and it is used, experienced

as

> the context requires. How is it concluded that words float in

> nothingness?

>

> P: Excuse me, Lewis, there is an obvious element of academic

bullshit

> in the above. People do not come up with words first and then

invent

> uses, or things to fit the words. And no one is so naive as to

believe

> that when Toombs says " Nothing exist. " he is impuning the

reality

> of a word. And if a nurse tells me, " take a chair', I know

that

> doesn't mean take the chair home, or hit me with the chair. But

> when someone says, " There is nothing but words, " I know

this is

> nothing but a bad meta4, because words are just

units of

> communication, and for communication to occur the symbol must

> point to something beyond itself. Now, that when it comes to

> philosophy and religion the symbol is often the mesage, is what

needs to

> be understood, and that doesn't mean' there is 'nothing but words'

> when talking cats, dogs, and chairs.

>

> ==========================================

FIRST was the word, and the word was god.

God did not create words - words created god.

God is nothing more than a word.

I should know because I also am nothing but a word call it god or

anything else words can be.

If you are " more than a word " then just add a few letters to

this " more than a word " that you are.

 

the other word

..

 

 

>

>