The Ineffable

Yes. And if he speaks of it, he must depend on others having had similar experiences associated with similar words in order to be understood.

But the central point is that the descriptions are not what they describe. This is where I strongly agree that the map is not the territory. This sensual-emotional territory is referred to on the map, but does not exist in the same way that the map does. Concept is one thing. The sensual/emotional is another. Yes, they are related. But I think they are different. We easily ignore this because we are social beings, often immersed in our abstractions.

Yes, so he must. And so what? Of course descriptions are not identical with what they describe. If they were they would not be descriptions. They would be the thing itself. What is epiphanal about that? You announce a verbal tautology as if it were some kind of revelation. Whoever suggested that the map is the territory, or that the concept and the emotion were one and the same thing? You bring news from nowhere. "Water is wet, whatever you say!" "But I never said that water was not wet".

Yes, this is the sort of thing I was pointing out. All life is a "miracle." Except miracle has associates with that which is out of the ordinary. Life is only ordinary when we are hypnotized by abstractions that suggest otherwise. It's a strange and beautiful thing...and also wretched agony too. When a leg is shot off. When cancer crowds the brain. Birth defects. Prodigies. Terror and wonder. Birth and death. All around us. The world is so fecund, so merciless. We are aware, alive, and so often we are somehow....bored. :Glasses:

i guess all I can say is, "Wow!" and I am not sure I can even say that! (Although I did!).

Exactly. Life isNO ordinary thing, in fact I think it is quite the opposite, and as you mentioned, it seems ordinary when we are (and I think the key word here is hypnotized) to believe so by our lust or even need to have fun and to always have a sense of enjoyment, and I think much of this lust and need for fun is presented by materialism and the worldly pleasures of the physicality that is our environment, these are distractions, they give us a false sense of happiness when we have the latest iphone or cool trend. And sure enough the word is hypnotized, the brain is very good at adjusting and can get used to many things, believe me, it can even fool you in to thinking that it is a normal thing for matter to be aware!!

This is an unbelievable phenomenon that is beyond explicable and comprehensible that people much too often take for granted. I often hear people complain about their lives being bad and not worthwhile or appreciable, and I think to myself how can you think like that? would you rather you had been some lifeless metal? or the atoms that make up the pavement on a road? I mean sure some people have it very tough which makes it difficult to be thankful, but I think If I where to die tomorrow of cancer, or an unfair accident or a shooting or of starvation, I would die UTTERLY thankful for the opportunity I've had, I mean after all as far as we know (or can prove) we life on Earth are the ONLY amounts of matter in the ENTIRE universe that is capable of experience.

I cannot conceive of how people can think of experience as ordinary and normal, in fact I find it very difficult to conceive of experience AT ALL!! it is MATTER! how can matter experience? how can matter be aware? when you actually contemplate this it is rather spooky, one night when I was younger I was walking alone at night along a stretch of road with no street lights and just forest on either side, the only thing I could visually perceive was the the faint white lines on the edges of the road (only just) these white lines seemed like black only just noticeable from even darker black, if I shut my eyes and walked along I could not tell the difference. As I walked along I saw this faint outline floating in the air beside the road, it was an owl sitting on a tree, if it was not for his large glossy eyes I would not have seen it, as I walked by it its eyes were fixed on me and its head slowly rotated in accordance with my movement, so there I was walking along as this, thing, this concentration of molecules and atoms being totally aware of me, watching me, thinking about me, ATOMS!!, all I could think was,WOW! this is totally unbelievable, unexplainable, and SPOOKY! I could not really make sense of what had happened, how could this concentration of mass be aware of me? with all my knowledge of molecules, particles and physics I could not account for this, lets see the scientists explain this one!

Lets make hypothetical scenario. For some reason you are all alone in the middle of space floating in the midst of nothing and surrounded by nothing but all the lifeless matter in the entire cosmos where you are the only matter that is conscious and aware and you have been for an eternity so even the concept of other matter in the universe as been aware has never crossed your mind. So there you are in complete isolation where you have been for as long as you know anything has been, surrounded by lifeless systems of high entropy, low order and low design, when all of a sudden this this small amount of mass, approaches you, an ant, with miniature limbs and organs and perceptional tools and a computational system, all the things that it requires to be, it perfectly and magically has, it is observing, watching its environment, it is thinking, it is aware! it is conscious of its environment and conscious of you! this tiny condensation of atoms is having an EXPERIENCE!! you would no doubtingly think of this as a pure miracle, something incomprehensibly and inexplicably amazing, you would no doubtably value this tiny precious thing as the most meaningful thing in the entire cosmos. Its amazing how your brain can adapt to make you think of such a thing as pests no?

The stress here is on the potential mystery and beauty of our every moment, which is missed by us because of our absorption in abstractions.

You really need to read some Krishnamurti, you know.

I would start with First and Last Freedom.

well if you've read him, you've read him. I rarely read anything of his any more, but from the late 70's until the late 80's he had a big influence on me. I have read about that Wendell Berry book too, he looks like an inspirational writer.

I don't think you understand my intentions. This is a pointing away from an abstractions, not some argument about them. The point is that life is irreducible to abstractions, that abstractions are just one aspect of experience. You can say that we know all that already, and in theory we do. But humans are still quite ready to be cruel to one another over certain abstractions, and also think that they have the great answer, although this "great answer" is nothing but abstraction which are always smaller than human experience in its totality. To emphasize sensation and emotion is to emphasize all that we humans presumably have in common beneath the level of the abstractions we tend to identity ourselves with.

I've lately been interested in what words do not seem able to manage. Qualia, for instance. We have a word for green, but this word cannot carry greeness to the blind, for instance. We have a word for "toothache," but this word cannot carry pain. We also have words like "love" which do not directly carry the experienced emotion to the other.

What I'm looking at is the opposite of abstraction, that which slips through the mesh of language.

Words can't, don't and aren't meant to directly convey meaning. They're representations (icons, or avatars) of speech. To have any meaning, these utterings must be linked to a concept, sensation, object, phenomena. As it is, and depending on the amount of differences in what we hold as 'definition', there's a lot of miscommunication.



You won't find it, it doesn't exist; unless and until (as you mentioned) we can somehow telepathically communicate.

... it'd be awfully nice though. Imagine how much better we'd communicate if we could communicate without the filter of what something means to someone else and go brain to brain.

Thanks

Does that mean that my taste of wine is ineffable just because I am unable to reproduce it in your mouth.

No, I don't think so. Ineffable simply means something can't be sufficiently described with words.

What - I believe - Reconstructo is describing is the direct-transfer (absent of representations) of pure meaning. I think I could describe the taste of wine, but it would only be through verbal representations; all subject to misrepresentation, miscommunication and disparate meanings.

I think part of the confusion here is that 'ineffable' is a non-specific adjective. Its vague to say "I can't describe this sufficiently with words": Exactly what might we mean by "sufficiently"? How 'accurate' could or should it be to be deemed a sufficient explanation.

I'm sure he'll correct or clarify here if I'm wrong. Again, we tend to think in extremes. "Sufficient explanation" to me is not the same as exactly reproducing sensations through words.

... muddling through the verbal wastelands here

So "can't describe it sufficiently" does not mean, "sufficiently so that the taste is reproduced in your mouth" Fine. So what does it mean? What is it that I cannot do with my description which, if I did it, would be describing the taste sufficiently? What would be the criterion of a sufficient description? What is it a description cannot do which, if it cpuld, it would do?

I think part of the confusion here is that 'ineffable' is a non-specific adjective. Its vague to say "I can't describe this sufficiently with words": Exactly what might we mean by "sufficiently"? How 'accurate' could or should it be to be deemed a sufficient explanation.

I think part of the confusion here is that 'ineffable' is a non-specific adjective. Its vague to say "I can't describe this sufficiently with words": Exactly what might we mean by "sufficiently"? How 'accurate' could or should it be to be deemed a sufficient explanation.

So "can't describe it sufficiently" does not mean, "sufficiently so that the taste is reproduced in your mouth" Fine. So what does it mean? What is it that I cannot do with my description which, if I did it, would be describing the taste sufficiently? What would be the criterion of a sufficient description? What is it a description cannot do which, if it cpuld, it would do?

Words can't, don't and aren't meant to directly convey meaning. They're representations (icons, or avatars) of speech. To have any meaning, these utterings must be linked to a concept, sensation, object, phenomena. As it is, and depending on the amount of differences in what we hold as 'definition', there's a lot of miscommunication.

ah, great question. Now we're cooking. This is the very problem I was talking about when I said:


I don't think there's an answer I could state with any confidence.

...what finds its reflection in language, language cannot represent. What expresses itself in language, we cannot express by means of language....

4.212
What can be shown, cannot be said.

6.44
It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists.

6.522
There are indeed things that cannot be put into words. They make themselves manifest. They are what is mystical.

6.5
When the answer cannot be put into words, neither can the question be put into words. The riddle does not exist.

Were Wittgenstein and Heidegger trying in any way to do the same thing? To point at the same thing?

I don't think that Heidegger was trying to point to anything, so the answer is, no.