Posts Tagged ‘truth’

truth set free: from idealism to enlightenment

December 27, 2013
English: Stephen Tyng Mather plaque, Zion Huma...

English: Stephen Tyng Mather plaque, Zion Human History Museum, Zion National Park, Utah, USA (Photo credit: Wikipedia)




For the idealist who is unconsciously feeling guilty about certain elements of human history, there is a desperation to rescue the world from the world so as to earn entrance in to a future eternal paradise or utopia. There is the cycle of fear, hope, excitement, naivete, disappointment, frustration, arrogance, disillusionment and despair.


Oddly enough, that sequence is later recognized as the path to enlightenment. So, if you are not free of distress yet, then perhaps your most sacred “truth” is not a truth that frees one from the cycle of idealism.

Idealism is the presumptive, terrified insistence that life should be other than how it actually is. Another word for idealism is hell.


Parthenon from west

Parthenon from west (Photo credit: Wikipedia)



The truth about language: access to new forms of bias

February 21, 2013
Werner Erhard and Associates v. Christopher Co...

Werner Erhard and Associates v. Christopher Cox for Congress (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


Truth (Photo credit: d4vidbruce)

Consider the idea that at some point in the future, media will be free of bias- or that it should be and that we should be champions to free media of bias. I assert that such an idea is from the beginning utter nonsense.

One cannot use language without bias. One cannot communicate without bias. The whole point of communication is to influence the attention of others, as well as the perceptions of others, and of course the behavior of others.

Communication is the essence of governing (of the organizing of social groups of humans). When the Hebrew prophet Noah “received” the 7 commandments (long before Moses), that was not a minor development in human history.

So let’s consider an elementary review of the obvious. First, language is not the pathway to truth. Truth is already eternal and then language came along and labeled various portions of the truth and made a whole new subcategory of truth which we could call “the truth about language,” which includes jokes, encoded puzzles, and other perceptual oddities such as the truth about deception.

English: Icon for Template:Cognitive-psych-stu...

English: Icon for Template:Cognitive-psych-stub illustrating classic Stroop test. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

So, if language is not the pathway to truth, then what is it? Language is a system of ways to relate to the truth, like we can reject it, like only in language can we reject or condemn the truth: “things should not be how they are!”

Language creates way of relating. Language organizes different ways of relating to the truth.

Language does not “create” biochemistry. Language organizes new relationships with the truths of biochemistry, including some “truths” which may conflict with prior constructions in language (as in beliefs about how low-fat diets are good or bad or whatever). Humans did not create biochemistry or suddenly create the earth going around the sun (as if that had not already been happening).

Humans experienced new ways of relating to life through variations in the use of language. Humans experienced new forms of bias. That is what language is for. So that we can have access to new forms of perspective or new biases or new ways of relating.

דוגמא לגופן "פרנק-ריהל" הגופן ששימש ...

דוגמא לגופן “פרנק-ריהל” הגופן ששימש לדוגמא: Frank-Ruehl, של קולמוס. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

song recording: “real ideals”

October 27, 2012
Cover of "Heaven"

Cover of Heaven


Once Upon A Time - Paleyfest - March 4, 2012

Once Upon A Time – Paleyfest – March 4, 2012 (Photo credit: starbright31)


Once Upon A Time - Paleyfest - March 4, 2012

Once Upon A Time – Paleyfest – March 4, 2012 (Photo credit: starbright31)



June 10th, 2012


Once upon a time we believed that love was the greatest of all ideals
Then came a time when we all learned that real ideals are flawed
So now I wonder of them all is love just the last one to dissolve

Once upon a time I perceived that life was not how it should be
Then came a time when I could see that life was all of me
So now I wonder all the time is life fundamentally just fine

Once upon a time I conceived that I was who I really should not be
Then came a time when I deceived many others but not me
So now I wonder about our most sacred truths. Are lies what we’re real anxious to prove?


English: "King Arthur", one of the N...

English: “King Arthur”, one of the Nine Worthies believed to personify the ideals of chivalry

2012, June 10-15, Sedona 020
2012, June 10-15, Sedona 020 (Photo credit: caltexian)

, fresco in the Corridor, Trinci Palace, Foligno, Italy (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


Woman with bound feet reclining on chaise loun...

Woman with bound feet reclining on chaise lounge, China. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I see the world as just one world I see each word as just one word
I know each chord is just one chord I know all words are just real ideals
I lost all hope of reaching heaven then I realized where I’d already been






why I do not believe in the existence of atheists

March 29, 2012

Below is a dialogue between myself and Mark Newbrook, “resident” Linguist of Skeptical Humanities (as of a few weeks ago):

Major levels of linguistic structure

Major levels of linguistic structure (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This dialogue emerged from my recent post linked below, with Mark’s original comment (not interspersed with my reply) posted at this link:

…It is claimed here that language means nothing and never will mean anything.
It is claimed where? Let’s imagine that someone did claim exactly what you stated. Wouldn’t it be self-evident as nonsense and thus inspire no further comment?
Given my deep appreciation for parody, let’s imagine that I may have said “language does not mean anything.” If I were to say something so obviously absurd, such as “this sentence is not an instance of language,” that might only be for the “philosophical” point of playfully demonstrating the absurdity of the issue.
Of course language has meaning. For instance, one obvious definition would be that language means “symbolic codes for directing the attention and behavior of other humans.”
However, what I may have written (and I also reserve the right to make innocent typographical mistakes), is that no particular symbolic code has any particular meaning. The same word can denote a few very different things or a multitude of not very related things, and that is just denotation- not even connotation.
The mere fact that there is such a thing as connotation (as well as “secret codes”) points to the fundamental reality of language: the meaning is not in the words themselves. The meaning is in the social context in which the words arise- not just in the context of syntax, but of non-linguistic social “cues.”
From sounds, language arises. However, the mere fact that it is possible NOT to be fluent in a particular language is prima facie evidence that the language itself inherently means nothing. Only in a particular social context can language arise, and the social context DEFINES the meaning of the language.
What do these shapes on this screen “mean” to my cat or my infant? Nothing at all.
What do these shapes on this screen “mean” to you? Something very specific!
Language is amazing. In fact, it is so amazing that I titled this video that:
Now, is this supposed to be news to linguists or anyone else? Of course not. It is self-evident. Everyone knows from direct experience that language is amazing and that social contexts define the meaning of language, like “I love you” can be spoken with several different tones that all communicate different WAYS OF RELATING, such as the soothing “oh, sweetie, I love you” and the apologetic “Really, I love you” and the defensive “hey, I love you, alright?” and the longing, manipulative “but, but…. I love you!”
Actually, it is all manipulative. Language is manipulating. That is what it is for- at least in the broad sense of manipulating as influencing or re-organziing.
So, I state the obvious not to inform you of something new, but to establish a particular context or way of relating.  Now, let’s explore from here together, given that what we have been doing all along is self-evidently nothing more than that.
English Language and Linguistics

English Language and Linguistics (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

  Subject to the major issues regarding how the term nothing is being used here, this viewpoint is, of course, contrary to prevailing opinion both popular and academic (the latter including both linguists and philosophers), and thus needs to be justified at this point. Indeed, it might be suggested that if language ‘means nothing’ it cannot itself be used to say anything useful.  And, while – as is proclaimed here (albeit in somewhat strange wording) – language can be seen as ‘a sequence of codes for the directing of attention’, it is generally taken as obvious that language has other functions and aspects in addition to this.
Such as? I challenge you to name one instance of language that is not directing my attention to whatever alleged instance of language you might name.
You could say that language is the moving of attention or the motion of intelligence or the activity of consciousness, but all that would be a trivial variation on the other statement. You can say that “unconscious linguistic events” do not qualify as “directing attention,” but that is limiting the verb “directing” to its transitive case only, which is not the only possible meaning.
Within language, it is accepted here that different words and letters are distinct.  (The use of the term letters seems to betray a folk-linguistic starting-point; a writer with knowledge of linguistics would instead talk here primarily of phonemes.)
…perhaps unless writing for an audience that may lack a knowledge of the formal lexicon of non-folk linguistics. Whatever, though…. Or are you unplayfully applying the standards of a academic linguistics journal to a non-academic linguistics journal internet blog entry?
  But these words and letters are all seen as variations on ‘nothing’ (this raises the above-mentioned issues regarding this term); and, while they do possess meaning (this apparently contradicts what is said earlier), this supposedly arises only ‘through perception’. Concepts are identified as ‘linguistic formations’ arising ‘out of nothing’, which is ‘the capacity for linguistic formations to simply happen by themselves’.  Like individual words and ‘letters’, each specific language is distinct, being seen as ‘a specific set of distinct, isolated formations’ – and is ‘finite’, in contrast with ‘language itself’ which is ‘infinite’; it is not clear how the terms finite and especially infinite are to be understood here.  And boundaries between languages are, again, seen as different manifestations of ‘nothing’.  I find the conceptualising obscure at this point, and it is difficult to comment helpfully.
What if all concepts are inherently obscure and only so precise? What if the spectrum ranging between precision and obscurity is one which language can never escape?
Further, returning to the issue of language as a utilitarian (or “useful”) phenomenon, what if directing attention does not require any more precision than actually “required?” What if, upon the fulfillment of whatever amount of clarity is deemed subjectively “enough,” the activity of language simply ceases?
I add here brief comments on some specific points in later sections of the material.‘One language evolves into another, with perhaps an entire family of languages being similar to each other’While essentially ‘along the right lines’, this claim apparently mixes diachronic and synchronic points and needs to be clarified.  (The term evolve is also contentious here.)
I admit that in the case in point, I was just synchronicalizing mixtures of diachronology. Okay, I might have just made up those words, but apparently you made up synchronic and diachronic first before I did because, when I see those words, I instantly recognize that they are synonyms for harmeronomic diaxophosphate, by which I mean slightly unfamilair to me.

linguistics (Photo credit: quinn.anya)

‘Languages mix and influence each other.  Languages may be called distinct, but the boundaries between them shift’Although the reference to shifting boundaries is obscurely expressed and perhaps mis-conceptualised, these general points are, of course, very familiar to linguists. 
This reminds me again of my clearly stated disclaimer at the beginning of the article: “this is written exclusively to professional full-time linguists, both of them.”
‘If the boundaries shift, then the boundaries are arbitrary. In fact, the alleged boundaries between various languages are alive, existing only through the declaration of language’This appears obscure.  There may be a good (if familiar) point in the former of these two sentences, though it needs to be much more clearly expressed; but the second sentence, as expressed, is very strange (what do alive and declaration mean here?).
Alive means changing or evolving. And that was a great question: what do these words actually MEAN?
My analogy is this: how many colors are there. Are there exactly 6 colors, as any 2 year old can tell you? Or, are there actually 24 different colors, as anyone 4 year old with the big yellow box can tell you? Or, are there any number of colors depending on however many distinct labels one chooses to categorize?
Language is categorizing. How many languages are there? 214? 32,915? That is a trivial question. Fundamentally, there is one language which is language itself.
The most famous poets of human history, such as Lao Tzu and Buddha and Abraham, have referenced the singularity of that universal meta-language by such labels as Logos, Tao, and even The Heavenly Father, through which “the world of subjective experience” is “created” by what method: speech!
Name one word that is not fundamentally just a word. Yahweh? YHWH? Jehovah?
No, those are all words, too- though those “words” are all references to something “subtler than all other concepts.” Linguists who do not comprehend “metaphysics” may be liars, insofar as metaphysics and linguistics could be two labels for the same- but wait, that simply could not be possible to have two labels or appellations or names or titles for the exact same pattern, right?
What if when ignorant translators translate some ancient Sanskrit phrase in to the English words “name and form” and then call it “Buddhist mystical metaphysics,” that is an ENTIRELY ARBITRARY way of relating to those Sanskrit terms, though of course an entirely valid way of interpreting them or labeling them or translating them or relating to them? Was the Buddha a linguist or not? Well, if the English word “linguist” had not been invented by the time of his life, then how could he have been a linguist? Maybe he is finally now a linguist, but only became a linguist within the last few sentences- not that I care, by the way- but that brings me back to the earlier question raised by our academic correspondent of what is meant by declaration: by declaration, I mean all instances of language, as in all instances of the directing of attention, including gestures or then again possibly not… 😉
Anyway, there was no such thing as a linguist until someone created the term “linguist” and then declared self-authoritatively themselves to be the apt target of such a label. “Linguist” is a totally arbitrary label like all labels of symbolic code, but many “academic” linguists may or may not pretend otherwise, even though they do not deny the self-evidence of any of it.
Before there was a linguist, there was language. Linguist is just an instance of language, as is “The Buddha” and “metaphysics” and “spiritual poetry” and “incurable diaxyphosphatitis.”
I am the author of language. Why? Because I said so.
Is it even true, though? Well, declarations in language are never exactly TRUE. They are just more or less USEFUL. Precision (aka “TRUTH”) is a spectrum invented in language and language never can get all the way to the end of a spectrum that only exists as a linguistic concept.
In other words, precision is just a relative term. In fact, because precision is just a relative term, all terms are just relative terms. Truth is just a relative term. Language is just a relative term. “Absolute” is, ironically, just a relative term.
In the ancient Hindu tradition of Advaita (“non-dualism”), the fundamental relativity of all terms of linguistic relating is relatively recognized as just one way of relating to the absolute relativity of all language, except of course for the word “joke,” which is actually not a word at all. 😉
‘Is Creole [= a particular creole language? (MN)] a language? Clearly it is entirely composed of other languages.  [Not necessarily the case. (MN)]  However, it is also not a dialect of any particular language. What is it? It is whatever it is called!’It is not clear that there is a genuine issue here regarding creoles as such.  There are relevant definitional-cum-philosophical issues at a more general level concerning the individuation of languages, the ‘language’-‘dialect’ distinction, etc.; but these are not rehearsed here.
Labelification is individuation. That was my point.
The fact is that “languages” is just a label and so is “dialects.” You can’t get away from the fact that all words are just symbolic categorical linguistic conceptualizations of individuation or division or duality. Beyond language is the non-duality called “nothing” by certain Buddhists, about which there is really not a lot that can be said, but then again, all language is an expression of that nothing and a labeling of that nothing and a directing of that nothing.
While quite contradictory, language is inherently contradictory. Or then again, maybe not. However, there either are or are not any instances of contra-diction except only in language. If language is not inherently contradictory, fine, then I take it back and contradict myself as if to demonstrate the point: language gives rise to the possibility of contradiction, not that it is at all important to point this out.
It may simply be a lot of fun. But that could be important, too, right?

‘Is there such a thing as “I” (“me”)? In many languages there is such a thing as “I” or similar concepts to the concept of “I.” However, “I” is fundamentally a concept, a construct of language, merely a thing. “I” is not itself fundamental (which is the ancient teaching called anatma).’

There, of course, are words meaning ‘I’ in all languages.  But it is not clear how significant linguistic facts of this kind might be for philosophical issues regarding the reality or otherwise of persons; as I have argued elsewhere, it is probably dangerous in a philosophical context to focus too heavily upon the ways in which ideas are expressed in specific languages – although this approach is common enough in mainstream ‘analytical’ philosophy.

What do you mean by the “reality or otherwise?” What are you talking about in reference to something besides reality?
“Person” is a real WORD. Isn’t that enough? Is it so dangerous for me to just come out and say what is self-evident? Next thing you know you are going to launch in to some obscure poetry about “nothing.” That would be very diaxyphoshate of you, sir!
 ‘Language is more fundamental than “I,” and nothing is more fundamental than language.’It is not clear what fundamental means here, or what this claim amounts to.


The same source presents  This material again deals with some linguistic issues, this time in the context of an essentially religious discussion involving claims regarding souls, sin, etc.  Linguistics, as an empirical discipline, cannot be grounded in specific theological viewpoints; and as an atheist I would prefer not to engage in this context in discussion which assumes a religious stance that I do not share.

“Religion” is just a category of language. If you deny the existence of that particular category of language, that is entirely alright with me.
As a worshiper of Santa Claus, I would just like to state for the record, your honor, that there is no such thing as mythology or poetry or humor. Also, I do not believe in atheists. There is simply no such thing, by which I mean no such word.
 However: it is undoubtedly true, as is claimed here, that it is a conceptual error to mistake a piece of language, such as a word, for the item in the non-linguistic world to which it refers.  Like the well-known picture of a pipe by Magritte, the word pipe is not itself a pipe.  Some such conceptual errors are potentially damaging.  But the further claim that ‘belief in words is the root of all malice or ill will’ is not adequately defended and appears vastly overstated.
I completely agree. I furthermore assert that the hypocritical idiot who made such a ridiculously dramatic accusation was entirely precise in an “absolute truth” kind of way. Forthwith, the diachronic subjective experiential pattern of “malice” is completely unrelated to words, which are just ways of relating, and therefore do not exist, at least not in the absolute sense of the word. I arrest my case.
More credentials of Mark:

the ultimate taboo- the truth about words

March 23, 2012

the quieter, clearer version:

the louder, energetic version (more like the original intent of the song):

well, I tried not to think about it but you know how that has gone… cuz I am still singing about it & maybe I’ll never stop

if I’m designed for one thing then that’s the thing I’ll do… in spite of any lying                        to cover up what’s true

well, I told you words are sacred              but do you know what sacred means?

I know only truth is holy but mere words are labelings

so if this sound is loud now calling it silent makes no change… yet labels guide experience       at least for those who aren’t awake

some people may say things just shouldn’t be this way… at least according to what we’ve been trained to assume

well, I tried not to talk about it but can you guess what’s coming next

everyone has their taboos and there’s nothing wrong with that

sure maybe you think you shouldn’t maybe you even think you don’t… but just because you say you can’t that doesn’t mean that you just won’t… not yet

some people may say people just shouldn’t be this way… at least according to what we’ve been trained to assume

some people may say taboos just shouldn’t be this way… at least according to what we’ve been trained to assume

maybe waking up is the ultimate taboo

Sacred Datura
Sacred Datura (Photo credit: DKFrost)
Related articles

spirit of clarity or divisiveness

January 17, 2012

Image by sirwiseowl via Flickr

What color shirt do you have on? Are you absolutely sure?

In other words, would you argue about it? Would you ask someone else’s opinion of it, or can you directly determine it for yourself?
Beware of those who would argue in animosity. Their animosity may reveal that they are not speaking from their heart, from direct experience, from the spirit of clarity. Perhaps they are repeating something from another source without an understanding of the thing they are repeating. Perhaps they are clinging to a particular interpretation without recognizing it as an interpretation. They may be like someone who argues about the color of a shirt rather than looking at the shirt and seeing what color it is.
They may speak of what color the shirt should be or must be or cannot ever be. They are full of talk and may be avoiding looking at the shirt with all of their talking.
Many people may use the word truth, but do they even know what truth means? Truth is not just the word true (as in accurate), but the word truth… as in the actuality distinct from a label in language for the actuality.
Some may repeat the word truth like a little child mimicking a sound, but it is like copying a foreign language to them, like singing a song of sounds that might as well be nonsense. They may use the word, but listen to how they use it and it is obvious whether they know what it means or not.
Now, why would someone argue? Is that a sign of clarity and confidence or of ignorance and defensiveness? From ignorance, one may seek to communicate with others with an attraction to identifying an expert who knows from direct experience, an expert who neither argues nor validates a particular interpretation or label as having some monopoly on the absolute truth.
A label is not the thing that the label is used to label. An interpretation cannot be the absolute truth. Words are all interpretations. Those who are anxious about words have been hypnotized by words and prefer words about truth over truth itself. They may defend ignorance with argumentativeness and accusations, but does the one who knows what color a shirt is have any distress about the issue, any contempt, any anxiety?
Why would someone prefer words about truth over truth itself? Could they fear that they would be ashamed if they were to confront truth? So, they may argue about words as a way of hiding from their shame, their condemnation,
their judgment that they should not be however they are.
If they fear many labels, then they may cling to a particular label. If they fear the absence of labels, they may cling to some label and then worship it. That is idolatry. It is very common. It is a normal developmental stage in relation to an awareness of the functioning of language, of symbolic labels, and of interpretations.
We may have trained in some ways how we should be as well as in several ways that we should not be. That training is not an inherent truth. It is normal and useful to have such training, but the training is specific to a context in which that pattern of training formed and persisted.
We may have been trained in language about how we should be and how we should not be. Some may argue about the language of what should be or should not be. That is in accord with their training.
Others may actively seek the opinions of others about what should be or should not be. That is the stage of experimenting with new ways of thinking and speaking. Soon, one may actively seek the opinion of others about how one should be or should not be. That is the stage of exploring alternatives to any original training about how one should be or should not be, at which time questioning the authority of those speaking was not part of a child’s or subordinate’s process.
Consider a new employee in an old business. It is normal and functional to ask about what should be and what should not be. It is even normal and functional to ask about how should I be and how should I not be.
However, there is also a stage at which one is very clear that labels in language about “should” are all interpretations, not truth. Truth is not the realm of what should be or what should not be, which is just a matter of training. Truth is the realm of what is.
Recall that there is a very simple answer as to the color of a shirt. Recall that there is a very simple process as to determining it’s color.
Further, notice that there could be a very simply answer as to what I am. There could even be a very simple process as to determining what that answer is.
One who knows the answer may not be so interested in words about it. Arguing about it would not interest them. Other people’s interpretations might be, to that one, just the business of those other people.
What would be the fruits or signs of such a clarity? Playfulness might be one, but it may be enough to say that in the presence of that clarity, there is no shaming.
If one who is arguing is actually seeking to identify one who is beyond shaming and arguing, offering to argue would be one way to test for a response of counter-arguing. If who seeks to identify one beyond shame, offering shame would be one way to test for a response of counter-shaming.
Beware of those who would argue in animosity. Beware of those who worship shame.
Do not try to change the color of someone else’s shirt before you know how to determine the color of your own shirt. Do not try to persuade others about truth until direct experience is present of what you are, not as a label in language, but as truth.

complaints about complaints

January 12, 2012


Spit in the wind hits my own face

I heard the words of old complaints

I blame the world for how it is

I relate to it as a shame

it should not be the way it is

it should be like in sacred myths

I learned them from a TV screen

a preacher teaching us his dream

a creature pumping her campaign

of ads for politics of hate

“There is the thing that should not be

Here is the only remedy

No, here’s the cure- no, here’s relief

for side effects of wonder drugs

treating the symptoms not the cause

by cutting wires to quiet alarms

just make them silent; make them stop

will I complain “I turned them off!”

I can’t believe the things I did

I can’t believe the way I am

I can’t believe the things I say

I can’t believe how I pretend

to blame the world for how it is

to relate to it as a shame

it should not be the way it is

it should be like in sacred myths

of innocent, ignorant bliss

not victimizing me like this

it should not label me like that

or is it me who labels it?

Spit in the wind hits my own face

I hurled the words of old complaints

about complaints about complaints about complaints

New super-condensed version of Buddhism‘s 4 noble truths:

1) the truth of complaints
2) the truth of complaining as the cause of complaints
3) the truth of complaints vanishing in the absence of complaining
4) the truth of whether or not there can be a life after complaining
English: The moment of revealing four noble tr...

Image via Wikipedia

the four noble truths

January 10, 2012
Neuroimaging sheds light on the seat of suffering

Image via Wikipedia

This is a lesson based on a tradition called “the four noble truths.” Briefly, those truths are the first truth of suffering, the second truth of the cause of suffering, the third truth of the discontinuing of the cause of suffering, and the fourth truth of the way to live life after suffering.

The first truth of suffering involves relating to life as if there is some part of life that should not be how it is. Suffering is not simply pain or illness or old age or dying or even violence. Suffering is a way of relating to life. Suffering involves ill will as in contempt as in enduring madness as in mental illness as in agonizing as in hell. While there are a variety of forms and intensities of suffering, what I mean by the word suffering includes all of them.

The second truth of the cause of suffering involves the recognizing of the power of words. Words are symbolic codes with an origin as signals of sound, though words can also be written. The term “words” can even include gestures and hand signals or “sign languages.” 

Words are distinct from a mere signal because of the importance of the sequencing of the words. Words are the origin of what can be called nonsense, such as “this should be what should not be.” The second truth, briefly, is that all suffering is caused by nonsense made of words.

Specifically, “this should not be how it is” is the kind of formation in words that can correspond to the experience of suffering, at least if there is a belief in the nonsense rather than a recognition of the nonsense as nonsense. “This should not be how it is” is rooted in “there is exactly one way that this should be.” In other words, suffering is rooted in the linguistic model of “there is exactly one way that this should be,” at least as it applies to some particular perception or experience. “There is exactly one way that this should be” is further rooted in “there is exactly one way that life should be,” which is nonsense.

However, if operating as if it is inherently true that life should be a certain way, then suffering is the natural and inevitable result. That suffering could be in the form of ill will as in contempt as in enduring madness as in mental illness as in agonizing as in hell. Or that suffering could be mere frustration, worry, resentment, sorrow or grief.

Earlier than the belief that “there is exactly one way that life should be” is another presumption in language. That presumption is “there is exactly one way that life is,” which is also nonsense.

So, if there is a belief in the nonsense that there is exactly one way that life is, then that leads to the belief in the nonsense that there is exactly one way that life should be (which is also the way that it allegedly is), which leads to the various forms of suffering such as shame and blame and rage. If there is a belief that there is exactly one way that a particular thing is (which is also the way that it should be), then that belief in nonsense inevitably leads to various forms of suffering.

Beliefs are made of words. Beliefs are all nonsense. They are the origin of suffering.

Beliefs in what should be produce suffering. Beliefs in what is also produce suffering. Belief is also called idealism and idolatry and foolishness.

So, before we proceed to the third noble truth of the discontinuing of the causing of suffering, let’s review. The first noble truth is that suffering is relating to some part of life as if it should not be how it is. The second noble truth is that suffering originates in the belief that there is exactly one way that a particular part of life is and that is the only way that it should be.

Now, by summarizing those two truths close together, the nonsense of suffering may be extremely clear. If there is exactly one way that life is, but then life is not that way, then how can there be exactly one way that life is? Obviously, a linguistic construction of how life is exactly one way is part of life. So, if there is a logical conflict between a linguistic construction (or belief) about how life should be and the actual experience of how life is, then suffering is neglecting the actuality of life for the nonsense belief in words. 

In the Judeo-Christian terminology, neglecting the actuality of life by worshiping a nonsense belief in words is what is referenced by “placing another God before God.” In Muslim terminology, recognizing the actuality of life as distinct from worshiping a nonsense belief made of words is what is referenced by “there is no God but God.” Of course, because language involves codes, various interpretations of the encoded messages in words are possible. However, worshiping language instead of God is the root idolatry. 

Even the phrase “literal interpretation” is ironic because if something is recognized as an interpretation, then interpretation implies the use of symbolic codes of language. How can there be a “literal symbolism?” Such idealisms and idolatries are nonsense from the start.

However, nonsense is part of life. Should there be no nonsense? Should there be no beliefs made of words and no words? Should there be exactly one interpretation of anything?

Those ideas fall back in to the same trap of nonsense. It is not that there should be no suffering, nor that there should be any suffering. There either is suffering or there is not suffering. That is all.

So, the third noble truth of the discontinuing of the cause of suffering is simple. To discontinue causing yourself suffering, simply recognize how you have been causing yourself suffering through the inattentive use of language. That recognizing is sufficient to discontinue the causing of suffering. 

In other words, suffering does not need to fixed. Suffering can be distinguished. The distinguishing of suffering results in a relaxing away from the beliefs that cause suffering. Once the beliefs are distinguished as nonsense, no additional beliefs are required to replace the presence of the prior beliefs. More beliefs will only bring more suffering.

To review again, the first noble truth is that suffering is relating to some part of life as if it should not be how it is. The second noble truth is that suffering originates in the belief that there is exactly one way that a particular part of life is and that is the only way that it should be. So, the linguistic belief that there is only one way that some part of life should be results naturally in relating to one or more parts of life as if they should not be how they are, which is suffering.

Further, the third noble truth is to discontinue causing yourself suffering by simply recognizing how you have been causing yourself suffering through the inattentive use of language. Recognize the power of language and you will never worship any beliefs of language. You will be free of the suffering caused by the inattentive use of language.

So, there is no single way that life should be. There is no single way that anyone should be. There is no single way that I am. There is no single way of labeling life with language that is the only possible interpretations. All of those constructions in language are nonsense. Many interpretations in language are possible.

As for the fourth noble truth, the way to live life after suffering is basically to be attentive to language. Do what you must do. Do what you can do. Do what you should do. Do what you will do.

Now, there may be other interpretations of these four noble truths. Since these four noble truths are just symbols made of language, why shouldn’t there be multiple interpretations?

Is there exactly one way that the four noble truths should be? Is there exactly one way that the four noble truths are? 

Are there exactly four noble truths? Are these noble truths even true? What if there is no such thing as a noble truth except as a symbol in language?

If someone says “attention to language makes no difference,” so what? If someone challenges you with a nonsense belief made of language, so what? If someone says that their nonsense belief made of language is not a nonsense belief made of language, so what? If someone says that idolatry is not idolatry, so what? If someone says that their language is not idolatry but some other language is idolatry, so what? If someone says that there is no such thing as freedom, so what? If someone says that there is no such thing as language, so what?

Remember, when nonsense is recognized as nonsense, nonsense cannot cause suffering. Only believing in nonsense can cause suffering. So, one can play along with someone else’s beliefs or not. If someone is speaking the language of suffering, you can speak in that language as well, yet is there another form of language beyond suffering? Also, is there another form of interacting beyond the use of language?

%d bloggers like this: