existential_028

existential_028

status
developed
admin
DARK
last edit
Jul 18, 2021 6:39 AM
word count

breakdown of language, modes of being, layers of reality

Sometimes when I look at a word it becomes alien. Something about it is off. It just turns random string of lines. It just starts to look funny. And I can access this random-like perception if if I stare at any word long enough.

As an example, I can stare at this word:

concert

If I stare at it--really stare at it--it falls apart. it starts to look weird and sounds weird. like gibberish. my mind has an automatic thought when i come cross this word, an aoutomatic attachment. but if i meditate on it long enough, it evaporates.

There is a divorce between learned meaning and raw data. same work speaking. i've has sensations where as i speak the sounds that are coming out of my mouth are just random noises that my mind has become conditioned to make meaning out of. perhaps this is seeing reality as it actually is? - no cause intent (ref essay on it). ive had a fear that as i get mor eenlightened, ill lose the ability to read sine ill be seing words for "what they really are".

in the same way if i look at my hand- i can get the same sensation of it feeling almost alien - like i truly do not know what it is.

perhaps there are layers to reality, and one isn't necessarily deeper than the other. so layers may be the wrong word- modes might be better. one mode of reality is to see words for their intended communicative existence. but another mode is to see them in their rawest form- just random lines and squiggles on a page. it's not obvious to me which one is the real reality. for the existence of these strange looking characters on the page is dependent on a function. they exist for a purpose- so one should not divorce the words from their intention. in this case the intention of the characters is what matters more- and is thus “more real”, if “real” could be measured on a gradient. is there any other example of this?: in the same way one cannot, by default, divorce music from its emotional content (use a better phrase- emotional content sounds cheapening). with practice and forced conscious effort- i of course can. but that isn't necessarily giving myself access to a “deeper reality”. i could actually be masking reality with an agenda or avoiding reality. with effort, one can mentally distort anything. as such, in the other mode of being, i could consciously relax the machinery of my mind and see the characters as just raw data- as pixels on a screen or ink on a page.

is this a different essay?:

i could go further and say that there are multiple interpretations of what one object could be. a word can be a word, but it's also just squiggles in a page, but it's also ink on a page. but it's also a marvelous feat and product of evolutionary engineering. many interpretations to things. i wonder what base reality is. i gravitate towards intention, whatever the agreed upon meaning of a word is by the aggregate collective consciousness is what it is. that's honestly how we define reality. through aggregation of consent and agreement of what exists, and what is right, and what we could and should do in life. for to break away from this aggregate collective mind is to be deemed insane, an outsider, and more.

as such the words that appear on the screen, and whatever it is i read is not my words or thoughts- it's a product of what society has agreed

it may also be a frightening sensation because there is this irrational fear that i may never understand language ever again. this definitely relates to my fear of enlightenment. once over enlightened reality gets destroyed in a way.

like money, language is a finely tuned social illusion- syntax/semantic/didacticism - but necessarily for our surivival and for the flourishing of consciousness- so to call it an illusion is a mistreatment

my hatred for words, syntax and language-Words are a terrible, deceptive tools for the contemplative life. Words like “what is the meaning of life” are so petty and superficial. Are you able to fully articulate a piece of music on words? No. Then how can you do the same with reality?

We think in words -a nd thus language influences our thinking greatly, and thus our vision of the world. We think reality can be broken into language blocks. Language becomes our only dimension of connection with the outside world.

  • how liuanguage itself - its syntax influences our way of thinking.
  • constructs our thinking and thus our reality.
  • referring my essay in contrast. we don't say “allegedly i alledgedy pick alledgedy up allegedly the alledgedy black alledgedy paintbrush”

even though it may be a more accurate discription and picture of reality, we don't speak or think that way- it's inefficient. and thus we simplify. also is a common denomintor. if everything is allegeded, nothing is, or we can cancel it out.

existential_035

the problem is that we forget this. when we write and speak we forget that we always …. and we think words are the right means of describing reality as it really is.

language is a low resolution means of communication. (or is just low resolution). so questions like what is the meaning of life implies it could be satisfactory answered in words.

framework_067
words themselves have no meaning but for xontext. like "latin" means latina and hispanic people but it is also the sacred ancient script of latin. but even deeper (but also right at the surface? superficial? is there something to be said about that? if you stare at the word latin long enough it breaks down".

breakdown of language.

sometimes when i read- a word can sometimes just turn random. that it just starts to look funny. if i stare at a word long enough. it starts to look weird and sounds weird. like gibberish. a divorce from learned meaning and raw data. same work speaking. i've has sensations where as i speak the sounds that are coming out of my mouth are just random noises that my mind has become conditioned to make meaning out of. perhaps this is seeing reality as it actually is?

in the same way if i look at my hand- i can get the same sensation of it feeling almost alien - like i truly do not know what it is.

perhaps there are layers to reality, and one isn't necessarily deeper than the other. so layers may be the wrong word- modes might be better. one mode of reality is to see words for their intended communicative existence. but another mode is to see them in their rawest form- just random lines and squiggles on a page. it's not obvious to me which one is the real reality. for the existence of these strange looking characters on the page is dependent on a function. they exist for a purpose- so one should not divorce the words from their intention. in this case the intention of the characters is what matters more- and is thus “more real”, if “real” could be measured on a gradient. is there any other example of this?: in the same way one cannot, by default, divorce music from its emotional content (use a better phrase- emotional content sounds cheapening). with practice and forced conscious effort- i of course can. but that isn't necessarily giving myself access to a “deeper reality”. i could actually be masking reality with an agenda or avoiding reality. with effort, one can mentally distort anything. as such, in the other mode of being, i could consciously relax the machinery of my mind and see the characters as just raw data- as pixels on a screen or ink on a page.

is this a different essay?:

i could go further and say that there are multiple interpretations of what one object could be. a word can be a word, but it's also just squiggles in a page, but it's also ink on a page. but it's also a marvelous feat and product of evolutionary engineering. many interpretations to things. i wonder what base reality is. i gravitate towards intention, whatever the agreed upon meaning of a word is by the aggregate collective consciousness is what it is. that's honestly how we define reality. through aggregation of consent and agreement of what exists, and what is right, and what we could and should do in life. for to break away from this aggregate collective mind is to be deemed insane, an outsider, and more.

as such the words that appear on the screen, and whatever it is i read is not my words or thoughts- it's a product of what society has agreed

it may also be a frightening sensation because there is this irrational fear that i may never understand language ever again. this definitely relates to my fear of enlightenment. once over enlightened reality gets destroyed in a way.

like money, language is a finely tuned social illusion- syntax/semantic/didacticism - but necessarily for our surivival and for the flourishing of consciousness- so to call it an illusion is a mistreatment

my hatred for words, syntax and language-Words are a terrible, deceptive tools for the contemplative life. Words like “what is the meaning of life” are so petty and superficial. Are you able to fully articulate a piece of music on words? No. Then how can you do the same with reality?

We think in words -a nd thus language influences our thinking greatly, and thus our vision of the world. We think reality can be broken into language blocks. Language becomes our only dimension of connection with the outside world.

  • how liuanguage itself - its syntax influences our way of thinking.
  • constructs our thinking and thus our reality.
  • referring my essay in contrast. we don't say “allegedly i alledgedy pick alledgedy up allegedly the alledgedy black alledgedy paintbrush”

even though it may be a more accurate discription and picture of reality, we don't speak or think that way- it's inefficient. and thus we simplify.

the problem is that we forget this. when we write and speak we forget that we always …. and we think words are the right means of describing reality as it really is.

language is a low resolution means of communication. (or is just low resolution). so questions like what is the meaning of life implies it could be satisfactory answered in words.

"to see is to forget the name of the thing one sees". - paul valery. reference the journal quote. and also reference the essay on "guitar"

breakdown of language.

sometimes when i read- a word can sometimes just turn random. that it just starts to look funny. if i stare at a word long enough. it starts to look weird and sounds weird. like gibberish. a divorce from learned meaning and raw data. same work speaking. i've has sensations where as i speak the sounds that are coming out of my mouth are just random noises that my mind has become conditioned to make meaning out of. perhaps this is seeing reality as it actually is?

in the same way if i look at my hand- i can get the same sensation of it feeling almost alien - like i truly do not know what it is.

perhaps there are layers to reality, and one isn't necessarily deeper than the other. so layers may be the wrong word- modes might be better. one mode of reality is to see words for their intended communicative existence. but another mode is to see them in their rawest form- just random lines and squiggles on a page. it's not obvious to me which one is the real reality. for the existence of these strange looking characters on the page is dependent on a function. they exist for a purpose- so one should not divorce the words from their intention. in this case the intention of the characters is what matters more- and is thus “more real”, if “real” could be measured on a gradient. is there any other example of this?: in the same way one cannot, by default, divorce music from its emotional content (use a better phrase- emotional content sounds cheapening). with practice and forced conscious effort- i of course can. but that isn't necessarily giving myself access to a “deeper reality”. i could actually be masking reality with an agenda or avoiding reality. with effort, one can mentally distort anything. as such, in the other mode of being, i could consciously relax the machinery of my mind and see the characters as just raw data- as pixels on a screen or ink on a page.

is this a different essay?:

i could go further and say that there are multiple interpretations of what one object could be. a word can be a word, but it's also just squiggles in a page, but it's also ink on a page. but it's also a marvelous feat and product of evolutionary engineering. many interpretations to things. i wonder what base reality is. i gravitate towards intention, whatever the agreed upon meaning of a word is by the aggregate collective consciousness is what it is. that's honestly how we define reality. through aggregation of consent and agreement of what exists, and what is right, and what we could and should do in life. for to break away from this aggregate collective mind is to be deemed insane, an outsider, and more.

as such the words that appear on the screen, and whatever it is i read is not my words or thoughts- it's a product of what society has agreed

it may also be a frightening sensation because there is this irrational fear that i may never understand language ever again. this definitely relates to my fear of enlightenment. once over enlightened reality gets destroyed in a way.

like money, language is a finely tuned social illusion- syntax/semantic/didacticism - but necessarily for our surivival and for the flourishing of consciousness- so to call it an illusion is a mistreatment

my hatred for words, syntax and language-Words are a terrible, deceptive tools for the contemplative life. Words like “what is the meaning of life” are so petty and superficial. Are you able to fully articulate a piece of music on words? No. Then how can you do the same with reality?

We think in words -a nd thus language influences our thinking greatly, and thus our vision of the world. We think reality can be broken into language blocks. Language becomes our only dimension of connection with the outside world.

  • how liuanguage itself - its syntax influences our way of thinking.
  • constructs our thinking and thus our reality.
  • referring my essay in contrast. we don't say “allegedly i alledgedy pick alledgedy up allegedly the alledgedy black alledgedy paintbrush”

even though it may be a more accurate discription and picture of reality, we don't speak or think that way- it's inefficient. and thus we simplify.

the problem is that we forget this. when we write and speak we forget that we always …. and we think words are the right means of describing reality as it really is.

language is a low resolution means of communication. (or is just low resolution). so questions like what is the meaning of life implies it could be satisfactory answered in words.