0
   

Can philosophy/words inquire into the Immeasurable?

 
 
jbji
 
Reply Fri 8 Aug, 2008 09:27 am
Hello,
I wonder, can words, thought, logic ever lead consciousness to the perception of the eternal/ground of being?

Words can prove apparently anything one is inclined to and one chooses to prove - whether that choice is prompted by unconscious conditioning, temperamental inclinations or other factors, which one is perhaps not aware of.

But once one gets or hears such a 'proof' (such as the existence of God, or its non-existence) then what?
Either one holds on onto that, one becomes a believer in it or a preacher of it, or at some point one gets tired of it - since it perhaps does not give one more than cerebral stimulation - and one switches camps and one clings to an opposite proof, or one carefully fabricates the proof mathematically, as I have seen the author of a message doing, while another, more clever person comes along and dis-proves it...
and so one keeps on navigating, sailing while being blown about by unknown winds.

But one's life, remains essentially as it is, though one's intellect might get a bit more knowledgeable and polished.

So I wonder, is our interest in philosophy, forever moving in the enclosure of the 'word' and its manipulation, or does it ever lead to something original, self-created and not merely just another 'God', created in man's image?

I just found the below text, you might be interested to reflect on.
Regards, jbji
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/J-Krishnamurti_andLife/

"The unknown is not measurable by the known. Time cannot measure the timeless, the eternal, that immensity which has no beginning and no end. But our minds are bound to the yardstick of yesterday, today and tomorrow, and with that yardstick we try to inquire into the unknown, to measure that which is not measurable. And when we try to measure something which is not measurable, we only get caught in words."
- J. Krishnamurti, New Delhi 1970
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,054 • Replies: 8
No top replies

 
urangutan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Aug, 2008 10:45 am
@jbji,
I like it. Not all of it but much of it and one part in particular I found immeasurably poignant. (Funny that word can be used to say it was disstressing. I would have to say that it is the weirdest word I have ever encountered in English. I only knew of the meaning I had in mind about it, I liked it.)
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Aug, 2008 11:14 am
@jbji,
jbji wrote:
Hello,
I wonder, can words, thought, logic ever lead consciousness to the perception of the eternal/ground of being?

Words can prove apparently anything one is inclined to and one chooses to prove - whether that choice is prompted by unconscious conditioning, temperamental inclinations or other factors, which one is perhaps not aware of.

But once one gets or hears such a 'proof' (such as the existence of God, or its non-existence) then what?
Either one holds on onto that, one becomes a believer in it or a preacher of it, or at some point one gets tired of it - since it perhaps does not give one more than cerebral stimulation - and one switches camps and one clings to an opposite proof, or one carefully fabricates the proof mathematically, as I have seen the author of a message doing, while another, more clever person comes along and dis-proves it...
and so one keeps on navigating, sailing while being blown about by unknown winds.

But one's life, remains essentially as it is, though one's intellect might get a bit more knowledgeable and polished.

So I wonder, is our interest in philosophy, forever moving in the enclosure of the 'word' and its manipulation, or does it ever lead to something original, self-created and not merely just another 'God', created in man's image?

I just found the below text, you might be interested to reflect on.
Regards, jbji
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/J-Krishnamurti_andLife/

"The unknown is not measurable by the known. Time cannot measure the timeless, the eternal, that immensity which has no beginning and no end. But our minds are bound to the yardstick of yesterday, today and tomorrow, and with that yardstick we try to inquire into the unknown, to measure that which is not measurable. And when we try to measure something which is not measurable, we only get caught in words."
- J. Krishnamurti, New Delhi 1970

Sure; we do it all the time. It is called meaning, which is a judgement of individual people and of humankind into the value of all intangibles. Look. All realities, physical and moral, ask us a moral question, and demand a moral judgement. The stuff we talk about does not have to be real, physically real, for us to give it some meaning and value. Just because that meaning is never exact, or the same twice, or equal for different people does not mean we cannot say meaning, or more meaning, or less. Physical reality is only slightly more tangible than the world of intangibles. Life does not hand us anything we can be certain of, and certainly, life is uncertain. Let me offer you an example from the quotation above. All realities, moral and physical, are understood by way of forms which are all forms of relationship, as well.

Now words, and language are two such concepts, which are forms used to abstract reality, and, forms of relationship. If I talk to you in a common language, and even use our most exacting vocabulary; it is certain we will be caught in words. That is, we will always be looking for a formal definition to express reality exactly in the use of our words. But this is nonsense, because the intention of words and language is to focus attention else where, and not on itself, which is considered the second intention, I believe. So, everyone surrenders a measure of exactness in particulars in the hope of grasping a greater understanding in general. And this is the relationship that people have through language, it is one of agreement to abide by a certain level of accuracy of definition, or not. Since the great bulk of our reality judged by time is moral reality, for which the concepts of suffer a want of firm definition, that is mensurable, we have to work out what is what, not through the form ulation of laws, but by agreement and understanding.
jbji
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2008 10:14 am
@Fido,
Hi Fido,

You wrote:
"Sure; we do it all the time. It is called meaning, which is a judgement of individual people and of humankind into the value of all intangibles. Look. All realities, physical and moral, ask us a moral question, and demand a moral judgement. The stuff we talk about does not have to be real, physically real, for us to give it some meaning and value."

It seems to me, that there is no communication here (which is not unusual on the net).
So O would suggest, let's be careful, for we are here moving about in the slippery dimension of the Babel Tower (of words), and _not_ the factuality of what-is as it is.
I communicated on inquiry leading to an _actual_ 'perception of the eternal/ground of being';
you speak of interaction of Thought-forms. of concepts with their values, judgements and the endless varieties of 'morals' (mind made)... an activity occurring in Time, forever bound and imprisoned in its own matrix, producing its own value-structures, being steered by it and so a conditioned slave, in its views on the world.
And thus never discovering something original, free, independent, cause-less.

And _can_ and Thought-activity in Time (for thought being created in time, is time) with the limited 'me/i' at its centre, ever discover the Time-less?

You also point to the 'world of intangibles' as different from that of the physical reality.
The timeless reality I point to, is another than the temporary time-bound reality as intangibles of mentation/conceptualization/morals and the physical.
However, if your interest is only in the two forms of reality you mention, then that's quite ok; but then, we do speak of two different things.

Regards,
jb
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2008 12:08 pm
@jbji,
jbji wrote:
Hi Fido,

You wrote:
"Sure; we do it all the time. It is called meaning, which is a judgement of individual people and of humankind into the value of all intangibles. Look. All realities, physical and moral, ask us a moral question, and demand a moral judgement. The stuff we talk about does not have to be real, physically real, for us to give it some meaning and value."

It seems to me, that there is no communication here (which is not unusual on the net).
So O would suggest, let's be careful, for we are here moving about in the slippery dimension of the Babel Tower (of words), and _not_ the factuality of what-is as it is.
I communicated on inquiry leading to an _actual_ 'perception of the eternal/ground of being';
you speak of interaction of Thought-forms. of concepts with their values, judgements and the endless varieties of 'morals' (mind made)... an activity occurring in Time, forever bound and imprisoned in its own matrix, producing its own value-structures, being steered by it and so a conditioned slave, in its views on the world.
And thus never discovering something original, free, independent, cause-less.

And _can_ and Thought-activity in Time (for thought being created in time, is time) with the limited 'me/i' at its centre, ever discover the Time-less?

You also point to the 'world of intangibles' as different from that of the physical reality.
The timeless reality I point to, is another than the temporary time-bound reality as intangibles of mentation/conceptualization/morals and the physical.
However, if your interest is only in the two forms of reality you mention, then that's quite ok; but then, we do speak of two different things.

Regards,
jb

If you are trying to deal with infinites, you are already stepping beyond words, abstractions, and even philsosphy into a dream world where you can have what you want only by wishing for it. We live in this world, and it is intangible enough in its moral and social dimension. The one thing that makes meaning portable, so we can carry it from place to place, and from situation to situation is life, our lives, which give all thing meaning, even time, but it is not infinite. All time before us and after us has less and less meaning as its distance grows until it has little, if any at all. What is real is what we have, to some extent, experienced, with life..
jbji
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Aug, 2008 10:34 am
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
If you are trying to deal with infinites, you are already stepping beyond words, abstractions, and even philsosphy into a dream world where you can have what you want only by wishing for it. We live in this world, and it is intangible enough in its moral and social dimension. The one thing that makes meaning portable, so we can carry it from place to place, and from situation to situation is life, our lives, which give all thing meaning, even time, but it is not infinite. All time before us and after us has less and less meaning as its distance grows until it has little, if any at all. What is real is what we have, to some extent, experienced, with life..


My q. was:
'Can philosophy/words inquire into the Immeasurable?'
To go into that, it is not to deal with 'infinities' or 'step into a dream-world'.
It would necessitate first to see into what the 'word' is.
Which means, what 'knowledge' is.
Knowledge is gathered thru time.
It is a form of conditioning.
The 'known' can only move within its own matrix.
The eternal/immeasurable/timeless/un-conditioned, the _actuality_ of 'it', though it can be labeled _conceptually_ and talked _about_, it cannot be touched by the 'known'.
If it could, it would suffice to read some philosopher's verbalized proofs of 'it', in a book. But info is one thing, and the actuality another... - or as Krishnamurti points out 'the word is not the thing'
But all one gets, are ideas, which are merely more grist for the dream world, of word, and so never stepping out of it.

Insight into the limitations of the 'known', regardless how polished and 'deep' it might be, might bring into being, the un-known.

So yes, I would agree that dealing with/insight into the 'tangibles' is important, or else they might fool oneself.
However, an interest, exclusively in the known, (via the word/thought), as a stimulating occupation, might unawares become an addiction, and therefore a clinging to the limitations' cell, without ever investigating into whether there is a door somewhere, or not.
jbji. www.kfa.org
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Aug, 2008 12:21 pm
@jbji,
jbji wrote:
My q. was:
'Can philosophy/words inquire into the Immeasurable?'
To go into that, it is not to deal with 'infinities' or 'step into a dream-world'.
It would necessitate first to see into what the 'word' is.
Which means, what 'knowledge' is.
Knowledge is gathered thru time.
It is a form of conditioning.
The 'known' can only move within its own matrix.
The eternal/immeasurable/timeless/un-conditioned, the _actuality_ of 'it', though it can be labeled _conceptually_ and talked _about_, it cannot be touched by the 'known'.
If it could, it would suffice to read some philosopher's verbalized proofs of 'it', in a book. But info is one thing, and the actuality another... - or as Krishnamurti points out 'the word is not the thing'
But all one gets, are ideas, which are merely more grist for the dream world, of word, and so never stepping out of it.

Insight into the limitations of the 'known', regardless how polished and 'deep' it might be, might bring into being, the un-known.

So yes, I would agree that dealing with/insight into the 'tangibles' is important, or else they might fool oneself.
However, an interest, exclusively in the known, (via the word/thought), as a stimulating occupation, might unawares become an addiction, and therefore a clinging to the limitations' cell, without ever investigating into whether there is a door somewhere, or not.
jbji. www.kfa.org

It is in my nature to differ so I feel quite natural in saying ding dong you're wrong. It is because things can be infinitely large, or small, or long or short in time or size, so that we cannot see the end of them that they are infinites. All those bits of reality we can concieve of we concieve as we grasp them, in our hands, with full measure. Now, Even of infinites we can say we know one thing, though it is more of ourselves than of our infinite things. Whether they exist or not, whether they are phenomenon or concept, and no matter what they may be; If they have no physical reality they are at minimum, Moral Realities. Then it does not matter what they are or if they are; but what does matter is the moral choices we make in regard to them. So, as we concieve of that which has no substance, we rank and classify our concepts according to a moral valuation, so everything without certain being has a certain meaning as we find it more necessary... We put our finger on the scale whether we are weighing tangibles or intangibles.

And, If I may correct you; the word is the thing. Say dog and it brings the dog to mind. But, we do not know the dog. We cannot grasp the essence of dog. What we know with the word, Dog; is a part of the concept standing for the whole. And it is not dogs we know, but concepts of dogs. The word is the concept and the concept is the thing as much as we can know the thing.
jbji
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Aug, 2008 09:47 am
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
It is in my nature to differ so I feel quite natural in saying ding dong you're wrong. It is because things can be infinitely large, or small, or long or short in time or size, so that we cannot see the end of them that they are infinites. All those bits of reality we can concieve of we concieve as we grasp them, in our hands, with full measure. Now, Even of infinites we can say we know one thing, though it is more of ourselves than of our infinite things. Whether they exist or not, whether they are phenomenon or concept, and no matter what they may be; If they have no physical reality they are at minimum, Moral Realities. Then it does not matter what they are or if they are; but what does matter is the moral choices we make in regard to them. So, as we concieve of that which has no substance, we rank and classify our concepts according to a moral valuation, so everything without certain being has a certain meaning as we find it more necessary... We put our finger on the scale whether we are weighing tangibles or intangibles.

And, If I may correct you; the word is the thing. Say dog and it brings the dog to mind. But, we do not know the dog. We cannot grasp the essence of dog. What we know with the word, Dog; is a part of the concept standing for the whole. And it is not dogs we know, but concepts of dogs. The word is the concept and the concept is the thing as much as we can know the thing.



The first part of your reply, i would not get involved in; it is a mind's playing with self-created complexities. It sounds to me like a quite intense activity within the tower of babel.

Conc. your 'the word is the thing' as opposed to my pointer that 'the word is -not- the thing' (not the thing in itsself), it seems to be in accordance with your statement: "It is in my nature to differ so I feel quite natural in saying ding dong you're wrong."
Have you ever questioned your nature?
It might indicate your personally created and fed trap-reality, in the service of your isolating self-center.

And secondly, you seem to willingly not have understood what I meant by 'the word is not the thing in itself'.
I meant: the word 'tree' is -not- the actual tree, the word points to.
And the word/concept 'love' is ceratinly not love.
And if one believes it is, then one contributes to the world's illusory 'reality', conflicts and bloodshed... as those performed 'in the name of 'god''.

However, you do say that the word 'dog' is a concept.
You complicate the issue, by introducing 'essence of the dog, which you can never know'.
How do you know that?
I have once known -directly- (not thru the word) the Living Essence of a chain of mountains. I became their actual vastness, strenght, de-hydrated narture, wisdom and weight of my bodily form though as stone. And no, I was not 'stoned'.

The problem of non-communication, seems to arise out of your choice of not hearing what i was saying.
That is the problem with these intellectual exchanges.
There are lots of concepts - and the more the more 'clever' one is (which does not imply wisdom, but often confusion) - using these to mold and impose upon what the other is saying, but very little actual willingness to listen and hear, what the other is actually saying.
jbji
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Aug, 2008 09:54 am
@jbji,
Below a quote from Krishnamurti, suggesting that intelligence is not the cleverness of knowledge.
jbji.


J. Krishnamurti:
"So we have to ask: what is intelligence? As we said the other day, to perceive that which is illusory, that which is false, not actual, and to discard it, not merely assert that is false and continue in the same way, but to discard it completely. That is part of intelligence. To see, for example, nationalism, with all its peculiar patriotism, isolation, narrowness, is very destructive in this world, it is a poison in the world, and seeing the truth of it is to discard that which is false. That is intelligence. But to keep on with it, acknowledging it is stupid but keep on, that is essentially part of stupidity and disorder. It creates disorder. So intelligence is, is it not, we are talking over together, I am not saying it is, or it is not, we are investigating very seriously into this question: what is intelligence which alone can bring about in one's life complete order and peace? And we said that can come about only when there is this extraordinary quality of intelligence. And intelligence is not the clever pursuit of argument, of opposing knowledge, contradictory opinions and through opinions find truth, which is impossible but to realize that the activity of thought, with all its capacities, with all its subtleties, is an extraordinary waste of thought. It is not intelligence. Intelligence is beyond thought. Please don't agree with the speaker. We are looking at it, going into it. "
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Can philosophy/words inquire into the Immeasurable?
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 02/03/2023 at 11:33:05