Is the truth beyond words?

[Sunstone]

In our deepest moments, we say the most inadequate things
-- Edna O'brien

Is it true that somethings are beyond the power of words to express? Or do words more or less do an adequate job communicating even the most profound truths?

 

[Jaymes]

I think about nine times out of ten, that statement rings true. Sometimes on the tenth one people can say something meaningful, but usually there really aren't any words to explain what we feel.

 

[Master Vigil]

This is the biggest idea of zen buddhism, and taoism (since zen came from taoism). It is the idea of the koans, or riddles used to break the mind of boundaries. These boundaries are bounded by words. If one understands without words, than one understands completely. Without bias, or perception. Without finite words, all is possible.

 

[Runt]

I'm with Master Vigil on this one. Some things are best understood when we don't try to understand them with words.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Without finite words, all is possible.

Levitate a kumquat.

 

[Lightkeeper]

Words dilute truth.

 

[Master Vigil]

Levitate a kumquat.

I meant all spiritual understanding is possible by way of enlightenment. Perhaps after enlightenment occurs, levitating a kumquat becomes a rediculously stupid notion. And the thought of it should not even exist within our heads.

 

[Pah]

Without words - doesn't truth become entirely subjective? Without the words - universal truth is impossible.

-pah-

 

[Master Vigil]

"Without words - doesn't truth become entirely subjective? Without the words - universal truth is impossible."

Well, I'm not sure about that. If you witnessed the most beautiful sunset you have ever seen, could you put it into words so that another would be able experience it as completely as you did? No of course not, it is words that bind us. Your experience did not include words, which makes it subjective. What you see, is not what others see. Truth is also this way. It is words that binds truth. Without words, universal truth is known.

 

[Pah]

"Without words - doesn't truth become entirely subjective? Without the words - universal truth is impossible."

Well, I'm not sure about that. If you witnessed the most beautiful sunset you have ever seen, could you put it into words so that another would be able experience it as completely as you did? No of course not, it is words that bind us. Your experience did not include words, which makes it subjective. What you see, is not what others see. Truth is also this way. It is words that binds truth. Without words, universal truth is known.

In the instance you suggest, I think it is entirely the limitaions of vocabulary in describing the scene and the feelings associated with it. Great writers are know for it. One needs only a few sunsets to undertand the words describing the grandeur of snow covered mountain peaks - the majesic quiet of a evergreen forest (that is never really quiet) - the stark beauty of a desert - the crashing violence and roar of the sea against a rocky shore. You need a starter, something in which to frame the understood words others use.

I don't think you can have a universal truth even with a mastery of words and sufficent communication but without communication how would anyone know that there was a supposed universal truth.

-pah-

 

[Lightkeeper]

In the instance you suggest, I think it is entirely the limitaions of vocabulary in describing the scene and the feelings associated with it. Great writers are know for it. One needs only a few sunsets to undertand the words describing the grandeur of snow covered mountain peaks - the majesic quiet of a evergreen forest (that is never really quiet) - the stark beauty of a desert - the crashing violence and roar of the sea against a rocky shore. You need a starter, something in which to frame the understood words others use.

I don't think you can have a universal truth even with a mastery of words and sufficent communication but without communication how would anyone know that there was a supposed universal truth.

-pah-

It wouldn't matter.

 

[Green Gaia]

"Oh Thou, before whom all words recoil......." -- Shankara (who has been called the Thomas Aquinas of Hinduism)

If ultimate truth is "God", then I would say we do not have the communication skills needed to properly communicate the nature of God, i.e. Truth.

 

[Master Vigil]

"One needs only a few sunsets to undertand the words describing the grandeur of snow covered mountain peaks - the majesic quiet of a evergreen forest (that is never really quiet) - the stark beauty of a desert - the crashing violence and roar of the sea against a rocky shore."

But would you indeed be able to relay the sunset exactly as you saw it. As if another would be there exactly as you were. Perfectly? No I do not believe that to be true. And to suggest that communication would allow the knowledge of a supposed universal truth would apply limitations to a universal truth. For truth is subjective, and different for everyone. Therefore even if one never had contact with another human, one would still have there version of "truth".

 

[Pah]

"One needs only a few sunsets to undertand the words describing the grandeur of snow covered mountain peaks - the majesic quiet of a evergreen forest (that is never really quiet) - the stark beauty of a desert - the crashing violence and roar of the sea against a rocky shore."

But would you indeed be able to relay the sunset exactly as you saw it. As if another would be there exactly as you were. Perfectly? No I do not believe that to be true. And to suggest that communication would allow the knowledge of a supposed universal truth would apply limitations to a universal truth. For truth is subjective, and different for everyone. Therefore even if one never had contact with another human, one would still have there version of "truth".

I think that a "carbon copy" description is not necessary. The expression of the sunset only needs sufficient detail, not all of it. If you described the colors and the basic form of the clouds - maybe some positional elements - I'm certain I could appreciate the beauty you saw.

Do you know the universal truth of bananas or hot dog relish? Now you may, since I used the words to call it up.

We do agree on the subjectiveness of truth.


-pah-

 

[Master Vigil]

But we are not sharing an expression, we are sharing the exact thing. That is why, words are never sufficient. I don't want you to appreciate the beauty I saw, I want you to know it as if you yourself experienced it. That is not possible with words.

 

[Pah]

But we are not sharing an expression, we are sharing the exact thing. That is why, words are never sufficient. I don't want you to appreciate the beauty I saw, I want you to know it as if you yourself experienced it. That is not possible with words.

I'm sorry - neither of us is making headway. I think that it is important to understand the beauty - you think I must see it for understanding.

But let me leave you with this thought - that when I see it, in my mind I think in words and at the very least I think "beautiful" - I think "look at the colors". I find that I do not have thoughts without words that specify the thought. I think in words. My thought is internally expressed in words. I just looked at my dictionary and I thought "blue" for that is the color of the cover. "Book" came next. I think it is impossible to think of something that has no label. But that's just me.

There is a branch of linguistics that thinks that God (myth) was created when language was created. That language is "man's prime instrument of reason" - "the symbolization of thought" - that "conception always culminates in symbolic expression" - "conception is fixed and held only when it is embodied in a symbol" ( Language and Myth by Ernst Cassirer)

-pah-

 

[Master Vigil]

I'm sorry that we aren't making headway. I feel it is because I am not able to help you understand my point. I am not saying you must see it to understand it. All I am saying is that you can never understand something completely without personally experiencing it. Not matter how good the words are. And when you saw this book, your limited understanding said it was a book. But perhaps it is other things as well. Labeling something as "book" limits that item. Same as it limits understanding. I'm sure we still aren't understanding each other. But I wished to try again.

 

[Pah]

I'm sorry that we aren't making headway. I feel it is because I am not able to help you understand my point. I am not saying you must see it to understand it. All I am saying is that you can never understand something completely without personally experiencing it. Not matter how good the words are. And when you saw this book, your limited understanding said it was a book. But perhaps it is other things as well. Labeling something as "book" limits that item. Same as it limits understanding. I'm sure we still aren't understanding each other. But I wished to try again.

I know that is what you are saying.

I'm also saying that the example of the book was a real experience and I noted the process my mind went through when I looked to the side of the computer.

"Blue" was the first word - "book" came later. My thoughts were not limited but incompletely written in the post. The point I wished to make was that I thought in words - I thought in a language. My contention from the quotes in the follow-on paragraph is that you can not think without a language (a series of symbols of thought) As language developed, thought developed and grew. Before that time, I believe it was insticnt that made action possible.

Mathematicians think abstractly; the symbols of that thinking is mathematics. Frenchman thinks in French. Bi-linguals can think in more than one language as can the mathematician. Chemists can think in terms of formula construction.

As an experiement, please try to think of something - anything - without putting a word or symbol to it. I don't think you can. Whatever you do come up with becomes a framework for conveying that thought when the language and definition are known.

I don't think experience is the totality of understanding. When someone speaks of losing a child to death, I can readily relate to it even though I do not know the child that died nor do I have children that died. I can do this within the framework of death of a loved one which has happened to me. And I can understand that there is a range of reaction of which you will be experiencing one aspect. For I have had many differing reactions to the death of loved ones.

I contend that it is not necessary to experience the same event and that the meaning for another is sufficiently understood. It follows from the words "my son died". It is the essence, the "truth" of the event that I understand. That "truth" is modified by any following words. What happens is that I go from "genetic" to "specific" and get to the ultimate specificity through the comprehensive words being given.

-pah-

 

[cvipertooth]

This thread is a perfect example of words not being sufficient in understanding or describing things. Nobody really knows what the other is trying to say. If words could sufficiently provide "truth" then there would be no arguement here because we would all know the truth. As a matter of fact, if words could express "truth" there would be no arguements at all. No different religions for that matter.

 

[jewscout]

There are instances in our lives when the confides of our finite vocabulary are not enough to explain experiences and events, especially with the divine.