Words Point To Flow

lost-in-translation-picI’ve recently got some emails and blog comments with concerns about the language I use – how I talk so much about a ‘me’, and how I seemingly imply a ‘person’ who’s doing, wanting, resisting, and so on.

But my writing could only suggest that if seen from a perspective of the universe model. Therein, there’s people—that is, space-time entities with perceptual capabilities and cognitive faculties—that can move around and do things, want things and resist things – and coming from that frame of reference, any mention of doing, wanting or resisting naturally leads one to think of that space-time entity that’s central to the universe model.

But my work is all about deconstructing that model – and once that process have run its course and the model is abandoned, language is naturally seen to, no longer accurately or inaccurately depict an objective reality, but to be a mere poetic attempt at describing the flow of phenomenality.

In other words, any reference to a person is like a reference to Gandalf. Everybody understands that Gandalf doesn’t really exist – yet we can talk about him. We can tell the story of how he helped the hobbits and fought the orcs and everybody understands that we aren’t really talking about something that actually happened outside the screen. We’re simply describing how a particular storyline unfolds within the flow – not making any reference to an objectively existing space-time reality.

If I say “I took a walk and had some ice cream,” I don’t mean to imply that there is a space-time entity with perceptual capabilities and cognitive faculties doing all that. I’m merely describing a flux of sensations, framing it within a particular model – in this case, the universe model, around which dualistic language is built, and to which 99.9% of everybody subscribes.

So when I say: “Sit down and do this,” I don’t mean to tell you in a literal sense that there’s an actual space-time object called “you” that has the cognitive abilities and capacity to perform actions – I’m merely trying to invoke* a torrent of sensations, which, framed under the universe-model, would constitute you sitting down and doing something, but seen from a liberated paradigm, would be recognized to be just that – subjectivity unfolding.

Only if we believe that words could accurately or inaccurately depict reality would we ever concern ourselves with speaking ‘correct non-dual lingo’ – otherwise we’re free to use language in any way we want; because we know that we aren’t trying to capture reality in concepts – we’re merely trying to invoke an intuitive sense of what the the words could point to in direct experience.

(*please disregard the implicit reference to causality – that’s merely a make-believe model as well)

Further reading:

7 Responses to Words Point To Flow

  1. George says:

    I like your idea of referencing Gandalf. In fact, just imagining a 3D image of Gandalf where you normally assume your own body to be in perceptual space, does a little something to shake the assumption of a “me” called “George” (or whatever).

    Actors do this sometimes to help them adopt a character – basically, overwrite themselves with the image and attributes of the character, directly. I always thought it was a nice metaphor (mechanism?) for how we become “ourselves”, unwittingly.

  2. Mark says:

    Sounds like you’ve felt compelled to defend against the Fundamentalists.
    Gandalf probably had to too.

  3. SpeshulK says:

    I always enjoy and find your writing inspired. It helps me. So thanks. There is much to piont out that is great about it…IMHO…that is all that needs to be highlighted. So again thanks Gandalf…er…I mean Goran.

  4. RC says:

    Thank you.

  5. Jay McLean says:

    “;because we know that we aren’t trying to capture reality in concepts – we’re merely trying to invoke an intuitive sense of what the the words could point to in direct experience.”

    My friend came up with the saying, “River Language Balance”. Which (to me anyways), is a way of speaking. It’s a way of speaking (and writing) that respects inherent values and hidden biases of the spoken word more then the printed word. Aka it acknowledges the spoken word’s fleetingness. That words are for ‘pointing’, or ‘for doing the pointing’ and that ‘the point’ is not words (or as you say “direct experience”). (To use an Alan Watts quote, “the menu is not the meal”. That is, the essential ‘balance’ that is needed in communication in general is to minimize reification. Reification being to give false impressions of unchangeable structure on to physical (and especially) non physical phenomenon.

    Language is the ultimate double edged sword!

  6. Jack says:

    You refer to yourself as ‘I’ because there is a sense of ‘I’ present, but that sense of I isn’t ‘you’.

    You make a stance and point on ‘nonexisting’ as a literal thing.
    Words point towards certain phenomena and act as functional understandings.

    The term ‘I exist’ denotes that I am here and now, ‘I’ would no longer exist upon death (if my death was observed by someone else).
    So, the terms ‘people’ and ‘planet’, what they point to, happen to ‘exist’ – but the planet and people are not the labels.

    They only act as functional understandings, yet, some people do not realise this.

    I see issues in Advaita Vedanta, mainly because it steps into the boundaries of belief and faith.

  7. Jack says:

    You seem very hasty to call causality make believe.

    For what reason?
    Please write up a post detailing why.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *