So what do you say to the Zen Buddhists? And forget about religion because many Zen Buddhist even refuse to consider ideas of spirituality. Many of them demand that Buddhism is nothing more than a philosophy.

Yet, their whole point is that we need to transcend this language-type of labeling things causing us to believe we have understood something just because we've labeled it, when in fact that process actually produces just the opposite affect. All it amounts to is building up a library in our minds of preconceived notions and expectations based upon the language-like labels and connections that we've made.

The whole idea behind Zen is to get past that mentality.

But how could that be possible if language is the ONLY way to think as you suggest?

The Zen Buddhists are basically saying that we need to transcend labeling things.

You demanding just the opposite suggesting that it's impossible to understand anything without labeling it.

You've fallen for the very trap that the Zen Buddhists are attempting to help people awaken from. Your demand that until we've labeled things they are meaningless would be the very antithesis of the Buddhist philosophy.

You are demanding that understanding can only be had from analytically thought and analysis cannot occur without labels and definitions with which to weigh with logical propositions.

You're thinking entirely in the realm of the logical to the exclusion of any other possible perception of the world.

The other possible perceptions come from the emotional and the intuitive, where language fades into oblivion.

But you flatly reject that, telling people that it's impossible to think that way and that they are kidding themselves to believe that they can. What does that amount to other than that you have erroneously labeled your own logical thinking to be superior to their intuition?

All you're truly saying when you do this Michael is that you can't conceive of any other way of understanding the world other than via building logical constructs. All you're saying is that you don't trust your intuition, or you aren't even in touch with it.

All you are demanding is that everyone must view the world through your eyes of worshiping logic or they are kidding themselves.

You say:



Well, someone could equally say to you, "To deny your intuition in favor of logic is to continue a grave human error."

What could you say to that, other than to argue for a logical construct against it? But that would be nothing more than just to denounce their perspective of life in favor of your own.

<----- has no delusions of clout!

Me understand intuitively.

What is knowledge, but a construct, logical or otherwise?

That is like my notion in the other thread.

What is physical, but that which interacts material or otherwise?

Structure, and form define everything. Knowledge, matter, energy.

Its this form, this structure that Creative is calling language.(correct me if I am mistaken Creative I am not apt to speak for others often)

I do not really agree with the characterization of structure and form at a fundamental level being called language(I would define language at a higher level myself), but I can easily adapt to this definition in order to meet him on this level and agree that its this form and structure that gives rise to understanding whether conscious, or unconscious.

In fact if I where to call all form and structure at this level language then I would be giving a characterization or intelligence to processes and things that I do not feel are properly characterized in that light.

It may be language like . . . but not be language.

Just like we see design like qualities in evolution, but its not designed.

This will be one of two posts that I feel is required to answer some recent mentionings...

Jeremy wrote...



The first question is directly 'on point' and could add a multi-dimensional focus upon yet another 'facet' of necessary correlation existing between my thoughts on the matter and the history of human knowledge(including Zen Buddhism) - as it we know it.



No need for correction...

That is very close, and I appreciate the careful attention - which was required - in order to think about my expressions of language as being beneath words. Beneath meaning foundationally speaking.

Upon studying formal language(through the history of both Western and Eastern thought), belief, knowledge, and understanding, in conjuction with the common concepts of mind and psychoanalysis the importance of the grounds upon which higher forms of cognition rest became the focus of my thought.

The common denominator between these things was revealed to me in a dream... just kidding!



I see the point here... language begetting language is a difficult conclusion to accept, and cannot be logically done by adhering to the most common meaning of the term. Despite the difference in terminological application, the correlations and distinctions underlying my thought have been recognized - assuming, of course, that my interpretation of the meaning behind your words matches your understanding of them. I have reason to believe that it does.

The difficulty, I find, exists in exposing the root of language through the confines of the collective conscious, which is necessary for communication of the idea that language is not words alone.



The implications run deep. If followed, my thoughts must conclude that all living creatures possess some degree of perceptual awareness, which I do believe is the case. It does not, however, necessarily conclude that all living creatures possess intelligence, or that intelligence has been imparted. I would most likely balk at that idea as well.

My thoughts on the subject do not depend upon deliberate purpose, reason, nor intent(as in transcendental). Those things belong in the religion forum.

You can then state catagorically that you can measure intelligence...?

for all we know plants may have a form of communication (language if you will)... and we are just not intelligent enough (or in the right way) to notice it.

In response to James...



I do not know, none have openly asked me anything.



This is a response to your perception(as explained here) of what Zen Buddhism represents, according to your expression of what it means to you. I would only know what it means to them should they communicate that meaning to me.

Understanding IS the identification and recognition of the content of experience. That which has no identity cannot be understood. Even when that identity is one of being unnamed, the elements of consideration, in totality, which - when combined - form 'the unnamed'... create it's identity. All of this comes through sensory perception and can only be had through the conscious consideration of the existing correlation(s). In other words, the mental connections that are physiologically made regarding what happens during the conscious recognition of perceived relationship(s) between things of experience either during that experience or during the later recollection of that experience are what constitute language, thought, and understanding. That includes both, emotional content and objects of observation.

Zen is beyond words... as is the experience of language.

One completely misses that experience by focusing upon the labels, as is being shown below...



The whole idea is to get beyond your conception of language, not mine.



No!

Your demanding all of that, because you do not understand what it means to experience language outside of your labels...



Only language as you see it.



Now is this a deliberate falsehood? It is one none-the-less. What I rejected was the idea that it is logically valid to claim that we cannot know anything for certain, which is what you had asserted. You have misconstrued this(my response to your assertion)beyond all recognition, which is truly the epitome of 'undoing' understanding.



You are so so wrong James... so... so... wrong! I find very few places where that term fits. This is one.



I am actually including intuition, but we have yet to come to that as a direct result of the need for sifting through the extraneous in order to get to the content of meaning behind the question posed. It takes a multi-dimensional approach to assess a multi-faceted subject.

Again, I really do want to thank you for your participation in the matter. Unfortunately, it seems that you think that I have been dismissing the relevence of all of what you say, however, to me, it has been a matter of getting beyond the preconception of language in order to be able to relate to that which can be revealed through it that does not necessarily depend on one specific word.

The experience of language... not the definition.

Truly.

In fact, there are entire books written on the topic of how to have a communiqué with plants.



"Grave human error?"

Shouldn't you like contact the Department of Education or someone and bring this to their attention?

When I first came into this thread I thought you were just asking a question. Now it's become a "Grave Human Error?"

Was this established during the course of this thread, or was this your conviction before you ASKED the question?

Based on these words...



AB asked...



No I would not draw that conclusion. A thing can only be measured by it's relation to another thing.

James further adds...







Would the answer change your perception, or would knowing that further bolster your openly displayed perceptual illusion of me and my intent?

I have absolutely no clue what you're even attempting to establish to be quite honest Michael.

All I know is that it sure sounds like you're attempting to establish some kind of absolute assertion of truth that cannot be denied by anyone, and even in your own words it's "A Grave Human Error" that humanity has missed out on whatever it is you feel that you've discovered.

If it's all that important and imposible to refute, or even to suggest other possible views on, then I suggest two very serious questions are indeed in order.

1. Why did you post it as a question on discussion forums if you already believe that you hold the absolute answer that cannot be refuted?

2. If it's all that important that humanity has made a grave error by not realizing it, shouldn't you be writing it up in a paper to submit to some philosophy establishment so they can add it to the history of great irrefutable discoveries?

Based on your demand that it's so important and so irrefutable, it would seem to me that you're just wasting your time posting it as a question on a dating site forum. Especially when you aren't even open to any other views on it.

I have NO CLUE what you're even attempting to establish.

I accept that you are WAY OVER MY HEAD Michael.

You should submit your dissertation to some professional philosophy establishment if it's as important to humanity and as logically irrefutable as you claim.

That's all I know to tell you.

To the original question is thought unspoken language...

Thought (for me) is way beyond anything language (as I know it) has ever been able to convey.

It is richer in content than mere words can release so that others may also share.

It is richer than the unspoken communication of body 'language'.

It is not a language in any way (for me).

if a picture be a thousand words than thought is 10,000 pictures.

and yet from time to time I meet people that can understand... and no language was used.

James asked...



Why do you continue to assume my beliefs on it were already in place?



To the underlined...

I am...

To the rest, I respect your right to disagree, and for you to claim that I have not or am not even willing to consider other views directly contradicts my experience.

Who are you to tell me what I understand and/or consider? Have I not clearly shown that your perception of that is clouded by your own presuppositional beliefs, which are and have been written by you...not me?

This comes from a man who in this very thread told me that it's impossible to think like I think and that I'm only kidding myself?



I'm not the one who is making assertions about the nature of thought to the exclusion of how other people care to view thought.

If you want to believe that all your thought is unspoken language that's fine with me. I'm more than willing to accept that this is your world view.

From my point of view such a view of thinking would be a mere limitation. I see absolutely no reason why you shouldn't be able limit your world view in such a way. But to demand that this is true of all thought seems absurd to me. How can you even know how other people think?

Maybe they aren't limited by the way you think?

Did you even think of that?

It would be useful if we could recognize that all these various disciplines— music, painting, psycho-analysis and so on ad infinitum—are engaged on the same search for truth.

—Wilfred Bion (Four Discussions with W. R. Bion (1978)

Actually a poignant observation.

Plants do have a form of internal communication. Some even have external communication.

They use chemicals to signal mineral deficiencies and to send messages to regulate the system against damage, infection, and in response to environmental changes.

Like I said I seem to remember certain plants that even communicate with others of there species to determine when best to reproduce. I wish I could find the article. Ill give it a go here when I go on break.

Hmmmm....

Plants 'thinking' ???

There's a twist!

At what point does thought become belief?

In other words, if thinking is recognizing correlations between things of perception, then - at the very moment of recognition - at least two things are believed to have a relationship to one another. That perceived relationship would constitute a belief. Does this not require that belief be an emergent property(as Jeremy likes to say...) of thought/language?

Does this not show that understanding is based upon what is believed to be recognized through our perception?

That would place belief below understanding on the ladder of cognition...

So then, language, thought, and belief would be the holy trinity... and understanding would emerge through it.

Intuitively... that sounds correct!

At the point of decision.

Example:

Thought: "Is that real?"

Decision: "I believe that is real."

Doubt: "That appears to be real, but I'm not sure."




Thought/language? Are you slashing these (/) to imply they are the same thing? If so, the answer would be 'NO.'




HUH???? Sorry, you lost me.



Probably. I believe I have a computer but I don't completely understand how it works.




I don't think so. Experience is where the ultimate "understanding" lies.

Thought, Language and belief might convince a person he 'understands' to a degree. But until he experiences ... he probably does not understand fully.

What constitutes understanding of an experience without identifying the elements of that experience in relation to other things?