Like Jeannie has already asked, "How do you understand an experience".

What are you even talking about?

If a woman walks by you and it has a profound affect on you and your heart rate increases and you feel a tingling all over and you feel a deep seated DESIRE to be close to her, then what do you need to compare that with to understand it?

I don't think you need to compare it with anything. You simply understand it for what it is directly.

From my point of view you're making no sense at all by demanding that you can only understand an experience by indentifying it with something else. That's absurd.

You'd have to explain why you feel that's necesasary. It certainly isn't obvious to me.

I don't need to compare things to understand them. An apple is an apple and an orange is an orange. If oranges didn't exist I could still understand what an apple is. I don't need to know what an orange is to understand an apple.

So I have no clue what you are even attempting to say.

Experiences are what they are. You don't need to compare them with other experiences to understand them.

At best, all you would be doing in that case, is understanding the differences between two different experiences. But that understanding wasn't required to understand either of the original experiences in their own right.

You're not even making any sense as far as I can see.

If you have a coherent thought here I can only imagine that you are having extreme difficulty expressing it via language because the things you actual say aren't even making any sense. At least not to me anyway.

The flaw with this entire conversation is in assuming we have an authoritative perspective of our own thoughts.

We do not.

Why don't you answer that question Creative? You don't want to accept anyone else's answers or opinions, so you probably have one of your own. By all means, enlighten us.

What do you mean by an authoritative perspective? I think if anyone or anything has any kind of "perspective" on my personal thoughts it would be me.

Therefore I have more a "authoritative perspective" than most because I can look at my thoughts and somewhat analyse them from a personal standpoint. I am better equipped to analyze a dream than a stranger would be. (That might not be true of some people.)

That sounds like a pretty authoritative statement right there.

You'd have to elaborate on what you mean by 'authoritative perspective'.

An authoritative perspective with respect to what?

With respect to actuality?

Well, wouldn't that depend on the truth of the nature of actuality?

From your perspective you're nothing more than a marionette doll that is pulling its own strings. You view your conscious awareness as having arisen from your physical brain. You're a self-referenced closed system. What could the word 'authoritative' even mean in that context? You're at the mercy of your brain, because that's how you view your actuality. All you are is your brain.

However, from Jeanniebean's perspective she is the universal conscious of actuality. She is not Jeanniebean. She is just the one who is running the Jeanniebean doll. Her marionette strings are in control, not of her brain, but of her higher spiritual consciousness. She is running her body from outside of this universe. She holds the ultimate 'authoritative perspective'. Ultimate in the sense of actuality as she experiences it to be. Her system is not closed. She is not at the mercy of her brain. She is the cosmic presence that plays with brains.

So whether or not we can say that we have an 'authoritative perspective' on our thoughts can indeed depend on what we perceive actuality to be, does it not?

We could even say that it depends on the truth of what actuality is.

You believe your actuality to be your brain.

Jeanniebean just shrugs her shoulders and says, "Yeah, I used to fall for that one too at one time."

If I take this to be an honest statement, and I do, then it is clear that I have either not been understood or this is a deliberate attempt at something else. It is quite clear that the question was read without much attention and/or focus.

Are you telling me, James and JB, that you cannot understand an experience, and therefore the question is somehow irrelevent?Evidently - it seems to me - that I need to clarify this, so I will post the question again with a little emphasis where needed.

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

If an example is needed, I would be more than glad to show how it(whatever example one would like to entertain) necessarily fits into this criteria.

Although James just gave a great example of this already, with his own identifications intact...

That understanding necessitates language to identify those feelings and/or perceptions. I do not necessarily mean a formal language, just the internal language between the mind/brain and the perceptual faculty. That is the very thing that I have been explaining for nearly 6 pages, the origin of language, thought, and belief.

...with a formal language that allowed so many different facets of understanding to even be able to be considered!



The experience of language...

Jeremy wrote...



I would like to hear more of this line of thought Jeremy, specifically speaking, how it relates and or affects the content here.

EDIT:

I can see how this could be referencing determinism, and I have reason to believe that all personal beliefs are determined(grounded) by other things held - previously or simultaneously - as true. In addition, the only perspective we can have of our own thoughts, is one that our current beliefs allow us to have...

Is that what you mean?

If it is, then that has just hit the nail that I previously named a "grave human error" directly on the head...

I would love to drive it deeper... if at all possible.

In that case you have no choice but to recognize that bees can not only think but they are quite proficient at language as well.

All I did was describe a very primordial experience that ALL ANIMALS have, and you jumped on it as a perfect example to make your case. But the problem is that if this makes your case then it blows all your previous assertions right out the window.

Clearly you've got some details to work out.

You are totally confusing my explanation of the situation with the actual experience of it.

You don't need to make all of those connections when you're actually having the experience. In fact, no sane person would!

The only reason it appears that way in my post is because I'm necessarily putting it into a form of language to explain it.

You're totally confusing the analysis of an experience with the actual experience. When you actually have these experiences you don't have any need to analyize them.

You're just totally lost in analysis is all. And there is no way to escape it as long as you continue to talk about it via a text-based forum. How could any thought be conveyed in a text-based forum without first converting it into some analytical description. It can't be done.

This is why I tried to bring up the Zen in an attempt to convey the need for the direct experience. But you will have none of that. You're obscessed with analysis and language. It's where you live evidently.

Hey, more power to you!

I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with that.

I'm just saying that eveyone doesn't think analytically about every experience they have.

Like AB said, your very thread is already proof that language can't even do a very good job of conveying thought. You never even understood the thought I was attempting to convey. All you saw was the analytical description that I had to describe it as to convey the thought to you and you jumped on that.

But there is no other way to describe it in a text-based format but to convert it into language to describe it!

However, when you are actually having the experience there is no need to describe it to anyone or to analysis. Analysis and descriptions of your experiences are not required to simply have them.

You are so deep into analyizing things that you can't even see past your own analysis.

I'm in total agreement with AB. Not only is this thread proof that thought is not language, but it's becoming a perfect example of how it's almost impossible to convey thought via language.

James...

It is your understanding of my claims, which has already been clearly shown on several different occasions, that is severely flawed by your own prior presuppositional beliefs. This response represents just one more time to dissect your presupposition from the facts at hand... which is required for the ability to obtain an accurate understanding of this experience.



All animals do not have what you described, nice try. The idea itself which is contained in this paragraph is yet another grave human error... the anthropomorphizing element.



Wrong!



No kidding! One does not need to understand an experience in order to have one That ability comes in gradual steps. In addition, the time available during an experience does not usually allow for that kind of reflection upon prior beliefs. All understanding rests it's validity upon prior belief.

Those things which you found the ability to put into words reflect some of your thoughts on the matter. That does not mean that one knowingly makes all of those connections during the experience itself, nor does it mean that you are even aware of all of your own thoughts and feelings. Most of the individual elements comprising that experience already had their identity before that experience. You make even more connections after you think about it. Get it? It is a building process.

Are you ready to answer the question yet?

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

I've already answered this, but you haven't understood the answer.

You are speaking entirely in terms of analytical understanding, after the fact. This is what I've held from the very onset of this thread, but you haven't seemed to have understood that yet.

Your analysis does not imply that thought is langauge. The only thing that your analysis does is say that thought can be analyized via language after the fact.

We can do that to animal behavior too. If we analyize the behavior of bees we will have no choice but to conclude that their behavior requires analytical thought. If we describe their behavior using language, then we must conclude that their behavior is language based because that's how we described it. Do you see the problem with this?

The bottom line from my point of view is that humans are indeed animals. We must ultimately be able to think like animals. Therefore if animals can think in non-language terms then we must be able to do this as well. As far as I'm concerned it's obvious that we do.

Humans are animals. We can think in very primordial ways. Language is merely an overlay. It's an additional perspective, it's not the underlying feature of thought.

From my point of view you're just totally lost in analysis. You analyize things and then see your analysis as the thing.

Then you call that an understanding.

That's a common trap that people fall into. And that would indeed be language based thinking.

I have no doubt that you are obscessed with language based thinking.

I most certainly do accept that.

But I do not accept that everyone thinks like that, or that this is the only possible way to think. In fact, I know better. I don't always think in terms of language.

In fact, I can think of a lot of things that I could never even begin to attempt to convey to you or anyone else through language.

Hells bells, it's almost impossible to communicate with you as it is even using language and speaking entirely about logical things.

What I meant is that If I where to analyze my own experiences, and try to characterize what is taking place in my own brain I would fail to do so becuase what comes out in the experience has been edited before "my" becoming aware of it.

"...has been edited"

Pray tell, by whom? Who has done this editing without your knowledge?

You question is:

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

I have to be honest here and say that I just don't understand the above question.

A language between the mind/brain and the perceptual faculty? Why would a 'language' be needed if the mind and brain are the same thing as Jeromy asserts? Why would a language be needed unless the mind and the brain and the perceptual faculty were all three separate conscious (and thinking) "individuals" that needed to communicate?

I can only guess that you are talking about the 'signals' that stem from the vibrational input (stimuli) to the brain then to the mind for perception by the self. But if you are like Jeromy and asserting that the Brain IS THE SELF then I would not be able to address your question because it is based on a premise I do not subscribe to.

You will have to answer your own question for your own satisfaction, but don't expect me to accept it as fact.

He said, "IF I where to analyze my own experiences, and try to characterize what is taking place in my own brain I would fail to do so becuase,..."

If I understand him I'm in complete agreement. We simply don't evaluate our experiences that way in order to undersand them.

To evalutate them after the fact is necessarily 'removed' from the 'actual' experience. It's not how we 'think' in real-real.

At least that's what I got from that.

Like AB pointed out, language is a very poor method of attempting to communicate our thoughts. It's a miracle we can communicate at all using language.

And in fact, we often don't. We seem to misunderstand each other far more than we understand each other almost consistently.

True understanding obviously comes from something far deeper than language. Language is just a clumsy way of attempting to communicate our actual thoughts.

Why does the verb 'edit' require the personification of a presumed 'active agent' ?

I'm not sure if I truly understand Bushido's message, but its seems to me, from self examination, that aspects of my sensory/interpretory process permit only part of the total 'experience' available to my senses to be experienced by my 'conscious mind'.

To try to understand the whole of what is actually happening - well this is quite a tangled web to navigate with inadequate development of language and ideas - many meditation oriented subcultures have developed their own metaphors and terminology to deal with this issue, and I view modern psychology as another inadequate effort to impose a seemingly-sensible characterization onto the process.

I'm not sure that memory is really at the heart of this issue, but just a way to come to common ground:

I wonder, JB, if you feel that you can rely on, say, your memory of an event to be perfectly accurate and objective and complete? If not, there may be room for some common ground with which to understanding Bushido's message.

Abra wrote:

James...

That was a very good response! I believe that I do and have understood what you mean, however, I have not taken the time to express that aspect clearly enough for you to know that. I am questioning your understanding of what I mean though, and I feel that you are not quite grasping the relevency of the question at hand.



This is an incorrect assessment of my expressions as will be clarified in this post.



Your missing a few connections here.

One cannot understand an unidentified thing. Identification is the root of all language, thought, belief, and all understanding which comes only through these things. Perceiving the existence of correlations between more than one thing requires the perception and identification of more than one thing. The act of recognizing these relationships within perception constitutes thought. One does not need to know that they understand something in order to do so. One does not need to know that they are thinking in order to do so. So your description of my thought is clearly incorrect.

There is one very important thing that it seems you are failing to consider in the same way that I do because of your presuppositions involving the terms language and analysis. Analysis of experience happens in thinking creatures whether it is known to the thinker or not. It happens with creatures with rudimentary understanding and no known verbal or written skills, creatures that do not possess the ability to believe that they know something. This is true in all cases of thought. It happens during and after an experience in creatures capable of conscious and purposeful reflection... creatures capable of changing belief based upon conscious comparison of that previously held with current experience.

There are many levels/degrees of thought, belief, language, and understanding being interwoven here which all have the same foundation. That foundation is being sought after, and can only be done through a purposeful analysis of what is believed to be known. I find it a little curious that you are doing this as well, yet are not attributing that to your own expressions as you are mine.

The beginning of language/thought/belief(in the manner that I am describing) is the identification and recognition of what is believed about the correlations between elements of perception. It is applicable to all possible examples and knowing thatfacilitates the ability to distinguish between the different degrees of a creature's understanding. A more complex language grows out of the need to expand a creatures ability to identify and correlate these knowns. This includes the identification and subsequent correlations of the perceiver's own emotion and desire along with all prior held belief, which is only possible with more complex language. Formal language grows out of the need for the expansion of itself. Complex thought grows out of the need for the expansion of itself. They grow into one another, physiologically speaking as well. Belief about what is being identified and understood - as it correlates to other things - is understanding. Unknowingly or otherwise. Again, your descriptionand application of 'after the fact' analysis fails to capture the entire picture here.

Experience can be had without being understood, therefore experience itself is not understanding. Understanding first necessitates the identification of different elements of perception, then recognizing how those things relate to one another and/or the perceiver.

Analysis of experience happens in thinking creatures whether it is known to the thinker or not. The degree of this is determined by the complexity of the thought involved. Simple creatures have simple analysis and do not require complex formal language. Knowing that drinking water removes thirst requires that the water and thirst have a separate identity, in addition the correlation between the two things must be understood in and of itself as a separate identity... one which we call quenching. That is a correlation understood. It does not require formal language for communication, but necessitates a self-contained means of the identification and recognition of separate elements of perception and their correlation(s) to one another and/or the perceiver... the most basic form of thought/language.

None of that requires post experience thought, but all of it requires simple analysis. So your argument to denounce the relevence of analysis in thought fails on a very basic level. Logic is innate in all thinking creatures in this way. Perhaps your presuppositions concerning your understanding of logic fails to allow you to acknowledge that.

For me this is the root of it all.

What do you mean by unidentified?

From my perspective, if you feel a sensation, then you've already identified with that sensation.

What more 'identification' do you require?

Why should you need to label it, or compare it with anything else?

It is what it is in its own right.

Sure you can analyize it with respect to other things and you can even get into the physics of asking if you can set up some sort of cause and affect relationships. You can pass judgments on it and tuck it away for retrival for reference to build up a belief system.

YES YOU CAN!

I don't deny that.

All I'm saying is that you don't need to do that!

That does not constitute understanding. That constitutes building up your own judgments about your relative experiences.

The fact that we can do that kind of thing is a given. But that doesn't automatically mean that this is the basis of thought.

On the contrary. It's merely one of the things that we do with thought. In fact, this is precisely what the Buddhists are telling us not to do.

At least not as our sole method of experiencing the world. Sure we will always end up making use of analysis and comparing things and labeling them and judging them. We ultimately need to do this to survive in a physical world.

But the point the Buddhists are attempting to make is that we don't need to always think like that. We need to learn that we can indeed free ourselves from that kind of analytical thinking.

Therefore it cannot be the basis of thought.

That's my experience.

I won't even call it a 'belief' because by the way you are using the term a belief would need to be the result of logical thinking.

There's no logic required. It's the true nature of mind.

It's an experience. Not an analysis.

That's the whole point of the Zen.

We don't need to think analytically.

An experience is what is is directly.

There is nothing more to add to it.

You can't 'identify' it beyond what it is.

If you think you can, then you are lost in analytical thought.

You don't need to know about oranges to understand apples.

However you can compare apples and oranges and create judgements, beliefs, cause-and-affect relationships, etc.

But in the end you will still only know apples as apples and oranges as oranges.

You can't understand an experience any better than to experience it.

Analyizing it doesn't add understanding. Unless you're talking about analytical understanding relative to other things, which obviously you are.

But we allowed for that way back on page one or so.

We don't need language to understand an experience. An experience is what it is. It's the most primal element that we can be aware of. To know an experience is to understand it.

There is nothing beyond the experience to understand.

Jeremy wrote...



What 'comes out in the experience'?

What does that mean?