Things Without Names

Remember when you were an itty bitty baby?
Before you knew any words?
And when you looked and saw things?
Do these memories shape your current world-view?

I have some memory issues so I only have two of these memories.
The first is of this exact brick wall, which still exists today.

I didn't know what a car was, or a window, or a wall, or a brick;
but I was in a car looking through a car window at this brick wall;
at a different angle though, ground level, straight on.

You know how grown ups pick up a baby against the left side of their chest, like to burp them, and the baby is looking over the left shoulder? That's the position I was in for this second memory.

I was in church looking at the back where the door to the pastor's study was open. Again I didn't know what church was, or a pastor, or a study, but I had a feeling about that doorway; like it led to another place. I guess I must have been through doorways a few times by then, enough to feel what their purpose was.

How then do these memories shape my world-view? Simply that things, including the Universe exist whether they are named or not. They don't magically come into existence because some one else told you a word.

Imagine a mother teaching shapes to an 18 month old. She holds up a ball and asks "What is this?"

The toddler replies, "hand."

"No. No. This in my hand?"

The toddler hasn't quite mastered the word "nothing" yet so remains silent, because there is nothing in the mother's hand.

Mother then says "Ball. It's a ball"

The toddler laughs at the magic trick of a ball suddenly appearing, "Ball."

Now why in the World am I writing this thread? It's all so obvious isn't it?

All I'm really saying is that I don't care what fancy long standing accepted philosophy or religion you're trying to push on me, or convert me to. Forget it. Not happening. I will never ever believe that things only exist if they are named.

who has suggested that things only exist if named?

Everything just IS. Whether we have named it or not... whether we have even noticed it or not.

But language allows communication - sharing ideas from one to another. Names are just symbols, placeholders by which we can express ideas about the named "thing".

Back in the dark-ages, they claimed that to know a thing's name (that of a demon, for instance) gave you power over it. In a "modern scientific world-view", one is supposed to chuckle at this notion as superstitious mumbo-jumbo, because of course, demons don't exist (or so they say).

Yet I am frequently amused, when confronting the Interwebs, that we are right back there. To know the name of a thing gives you power.

Don't believe me? Try shopping online for... you know... that thing that I want... it's a connector thingy that plugs into the whosis so the whatsis will turn... ...if you know the thing's name, you can type it in, options to buy it will pop up, you can get one delivered to you in 24 hours... ...but if you haven't a clue of what to call that thingy... you are helpless. Powerless.

Your premise verges on "Is Math Discovered or Invented?" The arguments go both ways... and both are convincing to some extent. But once you notice and isolate something: good for you! But to talk to someone else about this new discovery/invention of yours, you will have to name it.

You know that feeling you get, when you're driving through a desert alone, and the sky is huge overhead, the clouds stand 5 miles high, and the nearest human being might be 50 miles away... when "Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis" by Ralph Vaughan Williams comes on the radio... and for just a few minutes you can almost see through the veil of the material world? ... what is the name of that feeling? It's a very real feeling, a very real but intangible thing. Does it have a name? How to quickly bring it up in conversation, if it doesn't have an agreed-upon designation?


(performance of music in question picked at random off utub. Not sure if this is a better performance or not.)

( definitions from en.wiktionary.org... )

ineffable : 1. Beyond expression in words; unspeakable.
transcendent : 3. beyond the range of usual perception

a reply to: tnxoxodka

who has suggested that things only exist if named?

I was thinking the same question.

It does read more like a rant or rejection of certain (or all) philosophies and religions. Perhaps with the caveats 'push on me, or convert me to'.

I have honestly no idea what this thread is about.
Seems all obvious stuff being obvious.
I'm clearly missing something.
Your post seems to give me an idea at least. Thanks.

a reply to: pthena

My mother became blind at 72..... everything had a name, nothing had a "vision-of". How she understood that.. was what was hard, and I did everything 24-7 to help.

A world where one sees nothing, nothing...yet every one of those unseen...has names. It was an odd twist to your thread....

Millions of things not seen, all with names. Do things really have, need to have...names if one doesnr "see" them?

a reply to: Hecate666
Yeah, I was wondering the same things.

What in religion or philosophy isn’t named, and who is trying to make us believe that which isn’t named ?

The OP just feels like a very murky long winded attempt at anti- religious snark. We can get that from any 12 year old who’s mad at their Sunday school teacher.

The easy solution for everyone involved is -

We don’t care in the slightest that you’re bothered by religion. Why don’t you just not care about us who are religious ? We can just ignore each other. But I guess the reality is that a lot of people need to be mad for their whole life, that religion even exists.

And I’m always suspicious of people who claim to have memories from infancy. I don’t think this really happens. But it probably is a good gag to base strange stories on.

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: pthena

My mother became blind at 72..... everything had a name, nothing had a "vision-of". How she understood that.. was what was hard, and I did everything 24-7 to help.

A world where one sees nothing, nothing...yet every one of those unseen...has names. It was an odd twist to your thread....

Millions of things not seen, all with names. Do things really have, need to have...names if one doesnr "see" them?

I think the blind are doing a lot more processing and analysis than anybody non-blind can fathom. From other heightened senses, to systematic cataloguing and identification in their minds.
Sort of reminds me of hearing about some folks in jail or maybe POWs, playing chess games completely in their heads, both players having all moves so far and positions of every piece memorized, as the game moves along.
I don’t think we can even imagine how to go that until we find ourselves stuck in that situation and force ourselves to do it.

a reply to: pthena

Now why in the World am I writing this thread? It's all so obvious isn't it?

Not at all.

All I'm really saying is that I don't care what fancy long standing accepted philosophy or religion you're trying to push on me, or convert me to. Forget it. Not happening. I will never ever believe that things only exist if they are named.

Everything that is known to exist has been given a name. In fact, it's probably been given many different names by different people who are aware of it's existence. The whole premise that "I will never ever believe that things only exist if they are named" lacks a certain amount of common sense, doesn't it? The chances are pretty high that if you know something exists, others do too. You just don't know it's name, but that doesn't mean someone else doesn't or it doesn't have one at all. I don't know the names of all of the angels, but that doesn't mean I don't believe they exist AND it also doesn't mean they don't have a name.

a reply to: tnxoxodka

who has suggested that things only exist if named?

I was under the impression that there are people who consider The Matrix series of movies as a sort of documentary rather than fantasy/science fiction. A computer generated simulation using code (words), wherein perceived reality has no connection whatsoever to actual reality.

If I am wrong, and there aren't people who think that reality isn't real, then I deserve to feel quite embarrassed.

Don't believe me? Try shopping online for... you know... that thing that I want... it's a connector thingy that plugs into the whosis so the whatsis will turn... ...if you know the thing's name, you can type it in, options to buy it will pop up, you can get one delivered to you in 24 hours... ...but if you haven't a clue of what to call that thingy... you are helpless. Powerless.

I love nomenclature. I hope my readers haven't gotten the impression that I'm anti word. I used to have a job which required quarterly certification. Knowing proper nomenclature was quite important. "This thing here" is not a suitable substitute for "wave guide tunnel".

ineffable : 1. Beyond expression in words; unspeakable.
transcendent : 3. beyond the range of usual perception

Numinous (/ˈnjuːmɪnəs/) arousing spiritual or religious emotion; mysterious or awe-inspiring , derived from the Latin numen, meaning "nod" and thus, in a figurative, metaphorical sense, "divine will, divine command, divinity or majesty."

a reply to: pthena

I was under the impression that there are people who consider The Matrix series of movies as a sort of documentary rather than fantasy/science fiction. A computer generated simulation using code (words), wherein perceived reality has no connection whatsoever to actual reality.

If I am wrong, and there aren't people who think that reality isn't real, then I deserve to feel quite embarrassed.

There will always be people who choose not to live in the real world and look for excuses as to how they've been deceived their whole lives. I have my own theory on how people are being deceived by interdimensional spirits. We are all being tested in reality. Part of the idea that we are not living in reality, is part of the deception. Not too much different than the serpent telling Adam and Eve that if they eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden, that they really wouldn't die like God said they would.

a reply to: midicon

It does read more like a rant or rejection of certain (or all) philosophies and religions.

Well it is a rant, granted. One that I should have posted five or six years ago, but just never got around to.

It is a rejection of philosophies and religions which teach that the physical universe is less real than the spiritual or idea(Platonic term). Most new-agey religions are into that sort of thing. Perhaps some Eastern Religious ideas mistranslated into Western frameworks.

a reply to: Hecate666

Seems all obvious stuff being obvious.

Quite. Makes me wonder why I wrote it.

Thanks.

You're welcome.

a reply to: pthena

It is a rejection of philosophies and religions which teach that the physical universe is less real than the spiritual or idea(Platonic term).

They are equally real. As humans, we have to pass through one to get to the other.

The philosophies I can't stand are the ones that try to claim that "NOW" is the only thing there is and it encompasses everything past, present, and future all at the same time. Just a bunch of mumbo jumbo to confuse people from what's real so that they don't have to make choices. Like I said, it's all a test and we have been given free will. Preset computer simulations and NOW are just excuses for not using what you've been given and taking the lazy way out as an excuse.

a reply to: stevieray

We can just ignore each other.

Bravo! You did a very good job here, didn't you?
Your interpretation of the OP is completely opposite.

a reply to: Deetermined

The philosophies I can't stand are the ones that try to claim that "NOW" is the only thing there is and it encompasses everything past, present, and future all at the same time.

You nailed it right there.

They are equally real. As humans, we have to pass through one to get to the other.

I see it different. I am living both at the same time. And I am temporary, in no way eternal.

a reply to: pthena

I see it different. I am living both at the same time. And I am temporary, in no way eternal.

You can live both at the same time. The spiritual side of you will become eternal. If we don't become eternal, there really is no good reason to test us now while we are still human. Do you believe that humanity will exist forever? What does spirituality bring to you in this life? Just a sense of peace until you are no longer?

a reply to: Deetermined

Do you believe that humanity will exist forever?

No.

What does spirituality bring to you in this life?

Spirit enlivens, whether it is noticed or not. "Spirituality" as an exercise seems quite optional.

Just a sense of peace until you are no longer?

Being me amidst and among all other things, living and non-living.

a reply to: pthena

So, you want your spirit to absorb into the Universe?

a reply to: pthena

I admire the calm with which you respond to comments.



Cheers

a reply to: Deetermined

It isn't a matter of "want", the spirit is here and here it shall remain.

I'm not into the whole self as eternal re-incarnating thing. The self is a complex organism with much movement of moving parts, metabolism, and nerve energy. The simple non-reduceable spark of life, which means the difference of me being alive or not, is not me and is not mine, it is lent to me for now. Breath (spirit) is similar to spark of life (spirit). They both belong to the whole, just as the elements of my someday rotting corpse.

This is starting to get kind of morbid.
Happy Halloween!!!