|
|
Post by Healthy Merking on Jun 8, 2005 9:53:28 GMT -5
PEACE
when i consider the aims of this forum
actually
any message board
or hell
any conversation for that matter
perhaps it can be said that for those who are seriously persuing knowledge it may be helpful (possibly even important) to determine what exactly the limits of a build are between two or more people
PEACE
|
|
|
|
Post by CIVILISON on Jun 8, 2005 12:32:50 GMT -5
True indeed, this is a nice one right here.
You know, I have this analogy:
an apple
its peel
its scent
When you build, we describe A CERTAIN ASPECT of a reality but words are not the REALITY ITSELF. For instance, when I speak of an orange the recipients' mind imposes images associated with an orange. Yet, these images, words and thoughts are not the orange itself. When the person tries the orange and actually experiences it, he or she knows the reality. What happens when a person who does not self-experience the reality itself teaches others regarding its being… the answer is around you.
Reading about God is not the same as knowing God. Same goes for everything else.
The word is the scent, the thought is the peel and reality is the apple.
Words are extremely limited... yet extremely important. It doesn't surprise me that the Kemetians were thinking hieroglyphically. They would have images representing the reality and not the words as images are conducive to the right side of the brain - the receptive and spiritual one. Words cater to the left brain, the segregative faculty.
For instance, the water of Nu and the Boat of Ausar.
It’s amazing how the spirit works… beautiful!
Add on...
In Peace
|
|
|
|
Post by Healthy Merking on Jun 9, 2005 9:11:38 GMT -5
PEACE CIV
nice post
this is a tricky subject because we are using WORDS to discuss WORDS and the limits of WORDS
(have you ever read jacques derrida and his theories of deconstruction?)
what are the limits of a build?
the limits of a build seem to be where two or more people participate in a build and:
1. knowledge is shared
2. thru words being spoken or transmitted
3. and the participants emerge with a mutual understanding
therefore - anytime a person enters a build WITHOUT the aim of emerging with a MUTUAL understanding - the person is aiming below the limits of a build
unfortunately it seems that this occurs often
examples:
- a person goes into a build looking to 'change a person's mind'
- a conversation which focuses on the clashing of 'opinions' rather than knowledge
|
|
|
|
Post by Healthy Merking on Jun 9, 2005 9:36:43 GMT -5
PEACE
words:
words DESCRIBE reality
but they are also a PART of reality
make the analogy to a child:
if you have a child - your child shares YOUR qualities - in that essence it DESCRIBES YOU
and once the child emerges - i dont think anybody would disagree that it is very real
the same way as when you take a shit - it describes what you consumed
and it is also real
|
|
|
|
Post by CIVILISON on Jun 9, 2005 17:28:19 GMT -5
LOL, ironically! Fortunately, we both have adequate spiritual experience to feel each other's perspectives.
No, any good?
Only one thing I can disagree with here. See, that child is of you, it shares in your substance.
Reality exists independent of words that describe it.
Bottom line is, words can at the best give us a proper idea of a reality (a slight one too) and at the worst they can provide massive misinformation regarding a certain reality. Both ways, they are limited.
Would you agree and do you see any alternatives?
This is a nice build, let's add on!
In Peace
|
|
|
|
Post by Healthy Merking on Jun 9, 2005 18:04:39 GMT -5
"Reality exists independent of words that describe it. "
you sure about that CIV?
PEACE
|
|
|
|
Post by CIVILISON on Jun 9, 2005 19:25:09 GMT -5
In a purely semantic context, a tree would still exist if we didn’t have words to describe it.
What did you mean by that statement?
|
|
|
|
Post by Healthy Merking on Jun 10, 2005 8:15:39 GMT -5
In a purely semantic context, a tree would still exist if we didn’t have words to describe it. What did you mean by that statement? good point i forgot about that aspect of looking at it but the wall that i seem to have been repeatedly running into over the past while is coming to terms with the fact that once you utter or write the word 'tree' it also becomes a part of reality... and more and more that fact is becoming of great significance does that make sense? PEACE |
|
|
|
Post by CIVILISON on Jun 10, 2005 11:31:16 GMT -5
Yes, it does.
I'm starting to see the angle you're coming from, LIGHT.
It seems that we might quibble over the term "reality" (again the irony... ha). Let's put it this way:
It's 25 degrees Celsius outside, and one person says "man, it's hot today". The other person, however, states that it’s not that bad, it's rather quite chilly.
Now, it could be said that for the one person, it is reality that it is hot as for the other it is not. Nevertheless, there exists a universal reality that it is 25 degrees Celsius outside.
I am not sure if this is a proper comparison to what you're saying but are you speaking of ultimate reality or subjectivity, dealing with individual perceptions?
Yes, if I utter the word tree, it does indeed become a part of my reality only due to the fact that I have experienced what a tree is and I have direct knowledge regarding its being. This is subjectivity within the realm of universality. If I don’t have direct experience of that tree, would uttering that word affect its reality?. I would only have a slight notion of its being.
I agree with what you are saying but perhaps I am not 100% clear on what you mean EXACTLY.
It would be appropriate right now to ask you if you are familiar with the Hekau (words of power)? That is something we could build upon in another thread.
Add on, LIGHT. You know, it seems like we've both grown ever since we built last time.
In Peace
|
|
|
|
Post by Healthy Merking on Jun 10, 2005 21:07:25 GMT -5
PEACE CIVIL
every day brings a new lesson man
and on the days i think i am close to being done
i get 2 lessons and a reminder to stay humble
humble
humble
lemme try to be as concise as possible with what i am saying:
a word is a piece of information
when you say a word
you have created a piece of information
the existence/experience/measurement of a tree/orange/25 celsius is of no consequence in what i am saying
i am saying that when you speak a WORD - that WORD becomes a part of reality
to which i have made the 'mistake' of posing the question:
what is the significance of the creation and existence of a word
and that is one hole that went a hell of a lot deeper than i thought it would
i dont know anything about the hekau but i did a quick google search (thanks M97) and it seems like some fascinating isht
PEACE
|
|
|
|
Post by CIVILISON on Jun 11, 2005 13:39:20 GMT -5
What I noticed is that with more power comes greater responsibility. The more wisdom we gain, the more difficulties we are to face.
Yes, humbleness is the core of it! Without a doubt!
Like I said, I do agree with this statement. However, this reality is limited by one's experience.
Conveyance of ideas, means of communication? Dealing with the hekau, much, much more than that.
What is your perception?
Like I already stated, the ancients would have the hieroglyphic alphabets and phonetics. These means of communication are more prone to right brain stimulation and therefore the thinker gets closer to reality than through words which stimulate the left brain. Westerners changed it all.
I'd like to knowledge what you have to say. Then I can add on.
PEACE
|
|
