Who am I ?

[m19834]

I do not need to control the thoughts of man and I need not fear the thoughts of God.

ps-  The only substance of immortal value to be gained from a mortal sense of existence is this very statement.

[ahinton]

I think that the answer to the question posed in your thread title simply has to be
"Karli".

That said, I should perhaps mention that, in another thread on this forum, you recently drew attention to your perception of a similarity between K and m1469 so, who knows? perhaps m1469 would agree with what I have written above (and perhaps she will accordingly tell us whether or not this may be the case)...

I'm off to make a salad and a dressing for a late-night (in UK) supper; a nice dry chilled sauvignon blanc of Pessac-Léognan was at the ready to accompany this but I've decided to pass it over for now in favour of a pinot gris from Oregon (and, in so saying, I realise that I'm in the wrong thread here!...)

Best,

Alistair

[chopininov]

It really bugs me when people ask OTHERS who they are.

[ahinton]

It really bugs me when people ask OTHERS who they are.

Then be duly bugged (and also presumably discouraged from contributing further to this thread).

Best,

Alistair

[general disarray]

I'm off to make a salad and a dressing for a late-night (in UK) supper; a nice dry chilled sauvignon blanc of Pessac-Léognan was at the ready to accompany this but I've decided to pass it over for now in favour of a pinot gris from Oregon (and, in so saying, I realise that I'm in the wrong thread here!...)

Best,

Alistair

In vino veritas . . . no matter the thread in which it appears.  Cheers!

[m19834]

It really bugs me when people ask OTHERS who they are.

Are you just stating a random opinion about your life as you know it or does this comment actually have some kind of relevance to the thread you have posted it in ? 

Taking that opinion for what it is, it would seem you wish for an individual to be somebody they are not, which is a bit ironic considering you also seem to believe that only the individual should determine just whom or what they are.  Chopininov, be a dear and don't bother forming opinions about other people, especially since those opinions are apparently utterly worthless .

[Petter]

Are you speaking about a communist liberal?

[maul]

You are m1469. Question mark (space) ?

[m19834]

Are you speaking about a communist liberal?

I don't know ! :-

You are M.. Question mark (space) ?

Well, yes.

[m19834]

Who am I ?

Piano playing is a human and instrumental endeavor. 

Playing music is transcendence beyond the human and the instrument.

[m19834]

If that which is unlimited is truly unlimited, would it then -- in its limitlessness -- be capable of including limitation ?


The only way I can see to work this out would be to consider the "nature" of each.  What is the nature of limitlessness and what is the nature of limitation, and would their essence, their nature, have to be the same ?  For some reason, I think they would need to share an identity, which would change the concept entirely.  Limitation would need to be born of limitlessness, and the nature of limitlessness is limitlessness...

Right now, I don't think that "limited" thought has a state of being nor a nature other than being limited.  So, it is not exactly a cause and its not even an effect since it does not have a state of being other than itself.  Once a higher intelligence is found, this intelligence or knowledge erases what was once considered to "be" -- which was only a limited sense.  That's all the further I am right now on that.

[m19834]

hmmm ... it just dawns on me that the entire concept of limitation is "born of" limited perception, which I guess means its not born of limitlessness, which I guess means that limitlessness does not include limitation ...

[frigo]

You'll never know what limitation is, because you and the concepts you use are limited. The things you say or think as words are very different from what nature is, each word you say has something of your own thought and vision of them. So, the truth will never come up... but, you can think that, as all things are your frontiers, start knowing your world in order to know yourself... once you find your limitations, you find you....


or so I think....

[concerto_love]

You are you!! who else...

[general disarray]

If that which is unlimited is truly unlimited, would it then -- in its limitlessness -- be capable of including limitation ?


The only way I can see to work this out would be to consider the "nature" of each.  What is the nature of limitlessness and what is the nature of limitation, and would their essence, their nature, have to be the same ?  For some reason, I think they would need to share an identity, which would change the concept entirely.  Limitation would need to be born of limitlessness, and the nature of limitlessness is limitlessness...

Right now, I don't think that "limited" thought has a state of being nor a nature other than being limited.  So, it is not exactly a cause and its not even an effect since it does not have a state of being other than itself.  Once a higher intelligence is found, this intelligence or knowledge erases what was once considered to "be" -- which was only a limited sense.  That's all the further I am right now on that.

For beginners, words are just symbols.  After sensation, words are only the poor substitute of perception. 

Everything you have written here is intellectualized nonsense.  The truest thoughts are those that are most clear, most understandable.  Yours are utterly unintelligible. 

You need to learn that the ambiguous is not virtuous or profound.  Only pompous.

[goldentone]

Piano playing is a human and instrumental endeavor. 

Playing music is transcendence beyond the human and the instrument.

Very nice.

[m19834]

For beginners, words are just symbols.  After sensation, words are only the poor substitute of perception. 

Everything you have written here is intellectualized nonsense.  The truest thoughts are those that are most clear, most understandable.  Yours are utterly unintelligible. 

You need to learn that the ambiguous is not virtuous or profound.  Only pompous.

I was suspecting that somebody would comment as such.  Thanks for fulfilling my suspicions (though I actually don't believe you think that way  -- and I actually think your post is exactly as you described mine to be (as best as I can make out what you are all about in that post, anyway  :-)).  I decided, as you can see, to go ahead and post anyway since for me these are sincere thoughts.  I figure there will be perhaps the right people interested in the subject, or perhaps nobody at all.  In any event, I figured I would go ahead and let myself be expressed as she is .

Very nice.

Glad you like it.  It dawned on me as such right before I typed it -- even if that were all I realized for the day, I think it's a fruitful day.

[term]

Piano playing is a human and instrumental endeavor. 

Playing music is transcendence beyond the human and the instrument.

Oh god.
I understand that, but its abstract and philosophical and therefore beyond any practical meaning.

If that which is unlimited is truly unlimited, would it then -- in its limitlessness -- be capable of including limitation ?

If freedom is free, then it would be free even to be unfree.
Again, philosophical, abstract, and really without meaning. Of course the word itself, and its meaning (two sides of the medal, the "real thing") are seperate. In other words, self reference is not allowed.
Therefore, limitlessness means really without limitation, but the word itself has naturally just one identity and is as limited as the word freedom is unfree etc.
In other words, philosophical hairsplitting. 

[tds]

(though I actually don't believe you think that way  -- and I actually think your post is exactly as you described mine to be (as best as I can make out what you are all about in that post, anyway  )). 

omg double pairs of brackets

[tds]

You are you!! who else...

i think you got the best answer, concerto!

IQ estimate=189

[m19834]

Oh god.
I understand that, but its abstract and philosophical and therefore beyond any practical meaning.

Actually, I understand what you mean but disagree that it is entirely beyond any practical meaning (which is what your blanket statement implies).  It is quite practical for the right moment and the right circumstance, and obviously there are other things to be learned before that would be the case. 

Also, abstract and philosophical can be very practical for some people at the right time, however, I don't actually think of what I said as either of those.  It is just what was clearly before me, it was something tangible and still is -- I know how to aim for it, too -- and I would take it with me every time I sit at the piano or even think of the piano.  It's really no more abstract nor any more philosophical than saying something like sound governs motion.  That doesn't mean everybody will "get" it the moment it's said, but just because that is the case doesn't mean it's not useful and quite practical for some.

If freedom is free, then it would be free even to be unfree.
Again, philosophical, abstract, and really without meaning. Of course the word itself, and its meaning (two sides of the medal, the "real thing") are seperate. In other words, self reference is not allowed.
Therefore, limitlessness means really without limitation, but the word itself has naturally just one identity and is as limited as the word freedom is unfree etc.
In other words, philosophical hairsplitting. 

Again, I disagree.  I am a person with deep-inside-of-me questions, and my life tends to stop at them at times.  I try to address them one by one because I feel I have no other choice than to address them ... I have tried to ignore them or hide from them, but they don't go away ... etc. etc. etc..  So, I have been pondering this one particular question for a few days, perhaps a week.  Finding any answer is more than practical for me, it is progression as a person.  And, when I approach my day and the activities within it from a new perspective, my day and my individual activities are much more productive in every way -- those are actually the main points in taking up the questions.  I do find that some of my questions are "dead ends" of sorts in and of themselves, but others are definitely not.  This one here is not a dead end of any sort for me, but rather very vital to how I view life and how I live it. 

Impractical or philosophical hairsplitting ?  No, sorry, not for me. 

[term]

That doesn't mean everybody will "get" it the moment it's said, but just because that is the case doesn't mean it's not useful and quite practical for some.

Fine. I just wonder because i didn't see the relevance of that statement right now.

Again, I disagree. 

Alright, but why exactly do you disagree?
 I'm just saying that that kind of self-reference makes no sence. These are words. Their meaning has to be absolute. If freedom is so free that it's also unfree at the same time, what is it now?
Most illogic.

[m19834]

Alright, but why exactly do you disagree?

I disagreed that my considering these things are impractical and nothing but philosophical hairsplitting on the grounds that for me it is meaningful beyond words and beyond posting on an internet forum.

I'm just saying that that kind of self-reference makes no sence. These are words. Their meaning has to be absolute.

Yeah, I actually don't really get what you are referring to when you say "self-reference."  What do you mean, exactly ?  I am by no means trying to argue the meaning of words, so I don't have much to say on that subject, though I do understand that one must consider the limitations of words when using them.  If anything, I am aiming to get beyond them in understanding.

If freedom is so free that it's also unfree at the same time, what is it now?
Most illogic.

Well, I guess that is part of my question as I talked about in the post where I was considering the "limits" of limitlessness.  I think that peering at whatever its nature is would be an answer, however, I don't necessarily expect to come by this answer overnight.  'What is it now ?' is exactly along the lines of what I would like to figure out, and I would like to discover what is in fact possible vs. impossible.

For me so far, I find what some people are saying to be quite impractical for me because I don't really know what I am supposed to do with them.  Also, I am not even sure what is being "argued" against with reference to me as I am asking actually a question, not making a statement.   I can comprehend on a surfacey level how the words limitlessness or freedom do not mix with limitation or bound (unfree), but I am thinking of more than just those things as I am pondering these subjects. 

[term]

Yeah, I actually don't really get what you are referring to when you say "self-reference."  What do you mean, exactly ? 

For example, you say freedom itself has to be free. (Works the same with limitlessness). Freedom is obviously not free to be one thing: not itself. You have to keep the identity of the meaning, otherwise you're ambiguous.
This 'trick' is only possible with a few words anyway. It's a language curiosity, not a relevant question, because such attributes always refer to other things than themselves.

[m19834]

For example, you say freedom itself has to be free. (Works the same with limitlessness). Freedom is obviously not free to be one thing: not itself. You have to keep the identity of the meaning, otherwise you're ambiguous.

er... you are the one who brought up "freedom" and it is not "I" who is being ambiguous then, but the language  -- which is perhaps your point all along though it wasn't clear to me until just now.

This 'trick' is only possible with a few words anyway. It's a language curiosity, not a relevant question, because such attributes always refer to other things than themselves.

Okay, I can get this as it relates to the language, but there is still something of substance behind the concept for me, though seeing the point about the language helps matters.  I find it interesting that people have chosen to think that I am for some reason just trying to "philosophise" about a subject that I genuinely had questions over...  All in all, that critique in a personal way is not helpful for me because there is nothing I can do with it until something actually becomes clear for me regarding the subject.

[term]

er... you are the one who brought up "freedom" and it is not "I" who is being ambiguous then, but the language  -- which is perhaps your point all along though it wasn't clear to me until just now.

Well it's the same with your word, just substitute. It's you who is ambiguous if you say limitlessness includes limits. So the answer to the question must be no, limitlessness does not include limits, because it would not be what it is.
There is little substance btw because we're talking about imaginary ideas here. Freedom as such doesn't exist anyway. This is just a theoretical, abstract concept if you don't link it to real things.

[m19834]

It's you who is ambiguous if you say limitlessness includes limits.

And it's you who is being a pain since you didn't bother to read what I wrote about and have decided to be the pain you are being instead.  I will happily just go back to my own private world, thank you very much.

[term]

And it's you who is being a pain since you didn't bother to read what I wrote about and have decided to be the pain you are being instead. 

I said "if", in case you answer with yes. I understand you were just asking the question.
And I happily am a 'pain' if i, hopefully, can convince you to get back to the realms of logic...
I bothered to read your comments, but they barely make sense:

Right now, I don't think that "limited" thought has a state of being nor a nature other than being limited.  So, it is not exactly a cause and its not even an effect since it does not have a state of being other than itself.  Once a higher intelligence is found, this intelligence or knowledge erases what was once considered to "be" -- which was only a limited sense.  That's all the further I am right now on that.

I was always convinced that an insightful comment is one that makes complex things understandable, not one that obfuscates through far fetched associations.
You just fell into the trap philosophers sometimes fall into. No problem, sh*t happens. 

[m19834]

I was always convinced that an insightful comment is one that makes complex things understandable, not one that obfuscates through far fetched associations.

And it is my impression that those whom aim to complicate and confuse matters because they have nothing better to do and can't be more creative than that, they are not worth my time nor energy; please feel free to officially play with yourself.

[term]

I have no need nor desire to run circles trying to explain myself to you

I've heard that a lot. I rather think, you can't even if you wanted. From what i've read, you're doing that abstract, vague, i-don't-know-why-but-i-feel-it kind of talk in which you're adressing complex things but don't know the basics, like an architect who's building a skyscraper on randomly chosen terrain - if it happens to be solid enough, you're lucky, but chances are that it's going to collapse.
No offense, but thats how you sound.

[m19834]

*gives 'term' a delicious little doggy treat and lovingly pats him on the head*

[m19834]

I've heard that a lot. I rather think, you can't even if you wanted. From what i've read, you're doing that abstract, vague, i-don't-know-why-but-i-feel-it kind of talk in which you're adressing complex things but don't know the basics, like an architect who's building a skyscraper on randomly chosen terrain - if it happens to be solid enough, you're lucky, but chances are that it's going to collapse.
No offense, but thats how you sound.

Once again, this is a perfectly useless "critique" for me.  There is nothing in there that has actual substance in terms of me building something of value in my life, therefore, your words are actually not even a critique at all (or at least of no true pertinence to my life, other than me realizing this very fact), but are only the babbles (whimpers and whines ?) of an under-informed person whom likes to "hear himself speak."  

*holds out a new doggy treat*

[term]

Once again, this is a perfectly useless "critique" for me.  There is nothing in there that has actual substance in terms of me building something of value in my life

A lot, actually, but you refuse to see my hints. 
But anyway, you're looking for something of value in life in an...internet forum? Jesus Christ... 

[m19834]

But anyway, you're looking for something of value in life in an...internet forum? Jesus Christ... 

Well, you know, it's a public place with people in it, generally discussing a subject(s) that I very much enjoy.  The value this has is really up to the people, how we choose to behave and what we bring to it (and take from it). 

Where would you suggest finding something of value ?  Some other place with other people ?  Some place with reading materials that are 'bound' in hard copies ?

*gives second treat and kindly strokes 'term'*

[thalbergmad]

Some place with reading materials that are 'bound' in hard copies ?

Well that is where i would go. In fact i will spend tomorrow in Baggins Book Bazaar.

Eats doggie treat offered to term by karlifoxy

Thal

[m19834]

Eats doggie treat offered to term by karlifoxy

Thal

That one was homemade with carob pieces and all .

[Petter]

Maybe you´re both right. 

[keypeg]

I just saw this thread.  Um?  Words are symbols that are human-made.  Immediately we are bound to the meaing society gives to the realities we encounter, and limited in how to perceive and interpret them.  That is, unless we can retain our sense of What Is outside that interpretation.  Next we have our senses, but these limit our perceptions too.  We cannot see ultraviolet light or hear what a bat hears.  Our world is "interpreted" through our senses and the mix of those senses.  Is there something to the cat which is beyond what I can perceive of its "catness" - or to anything?

I've had such thoughts for a long time, but just now I'm reading some old history starting with the Greeks, and they tried to find a true reality beyond that of our senses, which ultimately led them to things like mathematics in a quest for balance and one-ness with something - finding it also within themselves.  Ok, that's them, then.

Must it - can it - be expressed or perceived in verbal thought?  Or can you "know"?  Is the place for knowingness art, and artistic expression?  Has it been hidden and tucked away beyond the notes or colours or words, that we can receive and share, but only if we don't look  it full in the face in view of analyzing and "understanding"?

Keypeg

[m19834]

Must it - can it - be expressed or perceived in verbal thought?  Or can you "know"?  Is the place for knowingness art, and artistic expression?  Has it been hidden and tucked away beyond the notes or colours or words, that we can receive and share, but only if we don't look  it full in the face in view of analyzing and "understanding"?

Keypeg

Hi, Keypeg,

Thanks for posting your thoughts.  I suppose I could have grabbed them out of the air on a special wavelength of some kind, but as it turns out, reading them and thinking about them gave me actually a new insight into the subject.  While I do start to gain a better perspective on these subjects because of this thread, and I can comprehend what people are talking about regarding language and limitations of language, a particular curiousity stands out to me.  Language and words, similar to music, is at the auditory level nothing more than organized sound.  The intention behind the sound varies, of course, but if we would like to talk origins and values of the language, it stems from the need for expression through sound (and through symbols in the written word) -- something that is natural to our beings.  I see that there are perceptions to be dealt with (and the same is true about music), and there are limitations in perception.  

But -- though I may be wrong -- I believe this conversation is steering toward the need for music (and/or art) as it is capable of expressing something that words cannot.  And, while I do not disagree entirely, I also wonder why that would be, given the principles behind the expression ?  And, if the conversation is not steering in that direction, then my question regarding language is still along those lines.  Who, exactly, says it cannot fully express ?  I am reminded of a quote that is favored, it seems, by some "Where the music starts and the words end" (or so)  -- well, why must they be separate things to us ?  Perhaps that is just how we would like it to be.

[general disarray]

Karli, my apologies for a post way far up -- and hopefully forgotten -- where I challenged your sincerity about your philosophical speculation in this thread.  You clearly are a fine thinker and a sincere one.  You also seem to be a truth-seeker.

That said, I just wanted to pass on some ideas about perception.  The classical definition of perception is that "perception" is what the brain interprets for us after sensation.  "Sensation" being the pure, first experience of something before we've put a word to it.

Words are weird.  They are wired into the brain with so many associations to them that any one word recalled (perception) brings up a host of ideas, notions, scents, sounds, feelings.  When that word arises, the real object sensated "dies."  We no longer experience it for what it truly is; it has become abstracted, embellished, and/or edited by the word connected with it.

I find that fascinating and depressing at the same time, because I love language.  But language DOES separate us from sensation and that separation very well may be what the authors of Genesis are metaphorically describing as our "Fall from Grace."  With "knowlege," i.e. the word, sensation becomes replaced by perception and our wonder with the universe ceases.

My two cents and probably worth less than that in these inflationary times.

[keypeg]

I don't know whether I have caught what you are looking for, Karli, or whether I'm waffling on about my own thing.  As far as languages are concerned, I am learning my sixth and seventh, and in my professional work I am constantly wokring on preserving the meaning of the message as it goes between one language and the next.  If we speak only of language, much of meaning lies beyond the words. There are the conventional things such as word order, syntax, word choice, of course.  There is the cultural background and messages within that which we take for granted and shouldn't.  There is inflection of the voice, pauses - status of the speaker - context of the speaker.  Language is a means of conveying things from one person to another person, and much can get changed within that conveyence.

Those things which I care to express, however, would lie beyond linear conventional words.  They are best expressed artistically.  I have ability in all three arts: writing, visual arts, and music.  The problem with visual art is that you have to draw something, unless it's abstract, so people will say "Oh, it's a horse." and they have ideas about horseness - the deeper can be lost.  If it's words, you have to be saying "something" - it has be "about something".  It is only in music that you can reach this nameless side, and not be forced to name it, or give it an image.  But nowadays it seems people try to name  and quantify that too, which is too bad if the do so.  Are we talking about the same thing, or something different?

[keypeg]

But must we be enslaved to the tyranny of words and the meaning imposed upon them?  Can we not be like Humpty Dumpty, who said "When I use a word, it means what I want it to mean."?  More to the point, the deeper meaning is what is beyond the words and maybe that essence can remain.

[general disarray]

But must we be enslaved to the tyranny of words and the meaning imposed upon them?  Can we not be like Humpty Dumpty, who said "When I use a word, it means what I want it to mean."?  More to the point, the deeper meaning is what is beyond the words and maybe that essence can remain.

We are enslaved to the word because of neurology.  It can't be otherwise.  Evolution of the brain has seen to that.  It's the way the brain is designed.  We may use a word, like Humpty Dumpty, and have it mean whatever we wish, but our memory -- if it contains the original definition of the word accorded by culture -- will compete with our new definition.  The word is not the thing and all deeper meaning is beyond the word.  The "thing" is outside of you, brought first to your attention by sensation, that programmed into your brain, automatically and without your will, into perception.   

[keypeg]

Science, especially "brain science" is still in its infancy, and thinks too much of itself.  I've read scientific article after scientific article, and tunnel vision doesn't begin to describe it.  How many languages do you speak and work in, GeneralDisarray.  How do you reconcile the concept of a thing embedded in one language, and the concept in another?  It is not only in the word itself, but in the structure of the language.  Russian doesn't use the verb "to be" as it is in English, Arabic is very gender-conscious, German concepts are not dependent on word order because of grammatical endings - If I teach such a language I must bring the learner not only into new vocabulary, but new perceptions of a thing, and perceptions of reality.  And in so doing, they lose the enslavement of language's hold.

Have you ever interpreted between two people speaking different languages, especially under pressure with the words and emotions flying?  At that moment when the woman is telling her experiences in French, and you retell her story in English, as though you yourself were reliving them, in what language are you reliving them?  In what language, with which concepts and imagery, do I think while I am staring at German words, but the words that come onto the screen from my typing are English?    And what, when there are three or four languages going on, and you understand them all?  In which do you think?  Well no, people will try to "think in a language", and that is why language learning is so hard for people.  But reality has an immediacy which is beyond language, and existence is a pure thing that does not depend on social encoding.  This is also the source of being able to learn languages at any age - remaining fluid and linguistically unfettered.

I guess I'm ranting.  I hate it when "science" tries to explain me or my world to me.

[general disarray]

Okay, let's start again.  First, brain science is absolutely in its infancy and you couldn't be more correct about that.

But the notion of "sensation" and "perception" is not brain science.  It's quite observable and one of the core tenets of the so-called perennial wisdom, i.e. that knowledge base expressed in mysticism and in the great meditative traditions, such as Buddhism.

It is an observable fact that the first time a child sees (sensates) the ocean, the event is utterly original and un-repeatable.  Why?  Memory has yet to interfere with the sensation.  Then it does and the brain lays down a "perception track" and the experience is codified.  Associated to that experience are similar experiences.  For example, if the water is blue, the miraculous brain will associate that to a beautiful, cloudless day in June with a blue sky.  So, the color "blue" corrupts the original sensation of the experience of first seeing the ocean.

The ocean, therefore, becomes a perception and is never seen again with complete originality.  Memory (the major component of perception) has seen to that.  That is an observable fact.

The question is:  can we overcome this problem?  The answer, thankfully, is yes.  That's where Buddhism offers a solution.  The solution is meditation and breaking down the brain's biological propensity to store sensation into perception.  The miraculous step is "enlightenment" or "awakening," or "kensho" or satori.  I'm sure you know this.  It's about experiencing the familiar world with complete originality once again and every time you see it.  It's what the great mystics have managed to restore to themselves.

Sensation stored as perception is "conditioned intelligence."  It is second-hand and corrupted with associations provided by the brain involuntarily.  Again, a phenomenon any one can observe in himself or herself.  But to say this doesn't happen is erroneous.  It does.  It's not just "brain science' theory.

You mention nuances in various languages that you speak.  Of course, you are correct about this, but these nuances are the result of cultural conditioning.  Russian response differs from French, etc.  But, still, the existence of these various nuances only proves one thing -- cultural conditioning, or second-hand perception of that sensated, is "conditioned" by its differing environments.  That doesn't make it more valid or more true to the original sensation.  It's just different.  The response may be "original" to a foreigner, but it is not truly original.  Only culturally specific and still only perception -- not sensation. 

[keypeg]

How have you managed to observe yourself into the mind of a child?  What you are describing is a theory someone has put forth on how a child experiences or "sensates" the ocean, or blueness of sky.  I might assume that this goes together with the Buddhism you describe later on, which you have learned is to get beyond the theoretical thing that theoretically is supposed have happened to the child.

When you write about language perception and culture, you have not stated yet whether you live in more than one language.  That would make a difference.  Otherwise it is also theory and not experience.

No, I don't think I experienced "blue" or "ocean" in that way.  The description itself sounds adult intellectual postulated.

[general disarray]

How have you managed to observe yourself into the mind of a child? 

By the very means of having experienced "satori" on two separate occasions in my life.  The first was when I was in mortal peril and fully expected to die.  While waiting for that horror, the miracle occurred.  After I was rescued, I saw everything as if for the first time again.  That condition lasted for three days.  I did not sleep because I was too busy being alive in my childlike state.   It's not an uncommon phenomenon for people in that situation.  Many have spiritual conversions after such events. 

The second time was the result of intensive years of Zen meditation.  Five days of seeing the world anew once again.

But, as is common, conditioned intelligence normally reasserts itself.  Only the great spiritual geniuses maintain it for a lifetime.  I am not, as you already know, a genius. 

I am only fluent in English, though I can read French and German.  As an American who has not had the privilege of living in non-English speaking countries from an early age, I feel cheated.  I envy your linguistic talents and bow to your superior knowledge here, keypeg.

p.s. if you are interested in reading about this phenomenon, pick up William James' "The Varieties of Religious Experience" or, more recently written, Philip Kapleau's classic "The Three Pillars of Zen."

[keypeg]

I am glad that what you describe comes from personal experience.    I have had certain experiences myself.  It may be why I cannot identify with this idea of how a child experiences the ocean.  But more importantly, whatever I have experienced or "known" brings me to my present knowledge and perception - including knowing that *I* perceive what I do not know I perceive if this makes sense.

However, I will not state an absolute, to say "people" or "children" perceive or have perceived a certain thing.  I do not know such a thing.  I only know what my own perception has been and will not state this about anyone else.  I think that is the part that bothered me.

In regards to language abilities: please do not bow it it - know that it is yours for the acquiring.  I changed countries when I was five years old and generally stayed put where I am after that.  My last language is learned much faster than those I learned when I was young, because I can be in a childlike kind of mode, receiving the language directly without interpretation or analysis.  To learn language as a child, you must be as a child, it would seem.

If you can "think in the other language" for the languages you learned, rather than translating into your first language reality, then you will have transcended language and changed reality perceptions to some degree.

My insight into a worldless perception came while interpreting in a very tense atmosphere with words flying.  I had thought that I had jotted down a note in one of the two languages while the person was speaking and perceived that "word" as a word in the fly of things.  But when the person beside me began chuckling, I saw that I had drawn a comical cat with whiskers, not checkmarks.  I had to ask myself what language I had been thinking of while rendering this interpretation.

Well, supposing someone tells a tale of falling down the steps, twisting an ankle, and their sister comes to help - and you then tell this same tale in the same language.  Might the tale be received as an image, as though you are experiencing it as the other person's memory: the falling down the steps etc., and then when you render those words in the new language, you are drawing on the "memory" of those images instead of words.  When I translate or interpret, I do not "translate" one word into another, or think in the original language.  I am seeing those words on the page, they form images and ideas, and fluently those images and ideas come into my fingers typed in another language, as though they were my own.  I type almost as fast as I would were I typing out ordinary text as typists will do.  Where is language?  Am I thinking in "no language" at the transition between the two?  Are the images and ideas beyond language?

In what language was I thinking when I drew the cat?

[keypeg]

I looked up Satori and found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satori  Was it their definition of satori or kensho (trying to gain understanding of this).

[concerto_love]