Theos-Talk Archives (September 1996 Message tl00102)

At 06:22 PM 06/09/96 -0400, you wrote:
>>From Einar in Iceland.
>
>>From Liesel and Bee Brown we read:
>
>>>"...We can use the arts. Actually, I wonder whether we can express more
>>>completely and accurately than in words. I'm thinking of dreams, which are a
>>>form of communicating. Try to put a dream into words. While you're
>>>describing 1 part the other part disappears from your grasp. An impression
>>>wells up from within, and it's very difficult to express exactly what you
>>>perceive. Your man says that we perceive something, & right away we see it
>>>through our own individual skewed lens. That's true too. It's a fascinating
>>>subject. Did you find it written up somewhere?..."
>>>
>>>Liesel
>>>
>>"...As I read somewhere deep in the brain a feeling of understanding
>>wafts by but as soon as I try to figure out what it was I seemed to
>>understand, it all goes blank. Very frustrating. I just hope that what ever
>>it was, it found a place to lodge for future use. It all points to an
>>open-ended and relativistic way of functioning. I get the distinct
>>impression that the words we use are more important than we think, to our
>>overall wellbeing and peace of mind. I can feel some changes happening and
>>they are for the better and I try to follow the ideas I have learned about
>>leaving certain little words out of my vocabulary and that isn't easy and I
>>find myself just about to use it and then I stand there with my mouth open
>>and nothing comes out. Hilarious really..."
>>>
>>Bee Brown
>
>>Logic is a systematic method of coming to
>>the wrong conclusion with confidence.
>>
>I like your "slogan" Bee, because it homes on a very widespread problem of
>communicating a real understanding.
>Words are in my view very important tools in both formulatinging and
>communicating our thoughts and "impressions", but we must always think of
>them as tools apart from the real content of "the understood". Words and
>concept are nothing but "cheques" to experiences. We name or describe
>somthing, but it has no meaning for the receipient, unless he or she has a
>corresponding experience on his or her own account of lifes experiences.

There is also the concept of words that are just noises. If we do not take
care with what we say, we can end up talking just for the sake of talking
and say nothing real.
Our politicians and the media are full of such talk. It sounds good but on
further analysis, they actually said very little of value. Yet most people
accept this state of affairs apart from grumbling to each other about it and
then go about their lives as usual. Valueless talk can then become an
accepted way of life and I wonder if life then becomes a little more
valueless too. What I have been reading would suggest that we, as a culture,
become the way we talk about ourselves and carelessness with our concepts
and language can have a grave reflection in the way we respond to each other.

 You
>can't describe the beuty of a sunset to a person that has been blind from
birth.
>Words are important indeed, as tools, but we tend to give them an undue
>value most of the time. As tools, all words and concepts are of equal value.
>No word, concept or a set of concepts are more important than the next.

We tend to identify with the words we use and it has been interesting to see
how we abstract from a basic experience to something that may loose all
reference to the actual experience by the time it gets to abstraction level
3 or 4. If we have phychological hangups, we will not want to accept a basic
experience that disturbs us so we abstract from it in a manner that we can
accept but which is not real.

The
>experience or the memory of experience may be very important - to the
>individual, but only to him. He may want to share this importance, but that
>is only possible if he can touch, or ewoke, similar importance within the
>other. This, to me, is the backbone of real communication. A communion -
>sharing - is the all important factor - not the sharing of words or
>concepts, but of experience, significance, insight, meaning, - and love!
>
>Another factor is due to the faculty of memory. The memory of an experience
>is not the experience itself. In cherishing our good memories, we exclude
>our good experiences. In cherishing a good concept we exclude the good
>experience of understanding that good concept once again - or even
>continuously, moment to moment. If we are to live in the present moment we
>must get rid of the attachment to our memories and conceptual thinking. They
>are all useful for their purposes, but the attachment to them make us the
>slaves of the past.

Attachment is the key word. Lack of self-awareness also causes us to be
careless with our speech. I picked up a little book by a guy who was taught
by Ouspensky and Guidjeff and it was interesting to remind myself about
being attentive to the moment and what was happening in each moment. It is
like a continuous meditation and can, with time, become a permanent way of
living.
>
>Therefore, when you are enjoying your unformulated vague understanding, or
>the hazy immpressions of your dreams, don't rush to wrap them up in the
>opaque packing of concepts and words. It is the "airy" content, the
>unformulated insight or impression, that contains the real value of
>momentual experiencing, and by dwelling quietly with the prevailing state of
>conciousness, it can be maintained or prolnged further into the "present".
>This is one of the arts of meditating, to keep away the onrush of concepts,
>and dwell in the very potent, but utterly quiet, fullness of direct insight.
>And even if you can't collect it in your personal bucket of memory, it won't
>be lost. It's there for you when you tune to it again. In the bucket you can
>only carry a picture of it anyway!
>
>And once again, don't take my words for it. (They are of no value anyway.)
>Try it, try it, try it!

I would say 'do' it and keep 'doing'
>
>Good luck and a "swell" life for you all.
>
>Einar.
>
>
>
Bee Brown
Member Theosophy NZ, TI.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to
the wrong conclusion with confidence.