the process of naming things
 

over the last few months there's been talk about labeling things on these boards and some other utterings about names so I thought I'd share what the Tao Te Ching says about it in chapter 1 here.

A path that one can take
is not the path of entirety
A name that one can say
is not the name of entirety

The Heavens and Earth
Came about yet there were no names!
The 10000 things
are children of the process of naming

So in viewing entireness without desire for what the names should be
One will see subtleties
But in viewing entireness with desire for what the names should be
One will see boundaries.

There is but one thing here
And it goes about as itself, yet there are many different names for it
When starting to put these in the same category there is insight
Very deep insight
This is the gateway to the collective subtleties.

A few things, perhaps related?

Both Islam and Judaism prohibit the depiction of God for fear that the devotee will end up worshiping the depiction instead of that which it depicts.

I have found that whenever I come to a realization that I feel is somewhat profound (at least seems profound to me), I find that the more accurately and detailed I try to describe it, the further away from a good description I feel I am getting, until I eventually just give up.

Finally,
It now seems appropriate to me that such things as truth, reality, and the meaning of life, should evade capture by words and thoughts. I expect that any explanation of such things that I could craft with such blunt instruments would be inevitably and wholly unsatisfying.

Dont know what to think of this writings. But i like how it is. Its sounding nearly poetic.

human nature to do so... we get addicted to our descriptions of things..

kinda silly to suppose, I suppose, that you could take a small part of reality and map the entire reality in it. Kinda like trying to put a river into a milk jug. But we have our dreams I suppose.

Labeling of things is needed for functional, practical uses in the material world. But the issue is that we continue the labeling thought process even when we are not in the functional mode, forgetting to relax and switch the thought process off.

Seeing a rose, some start labelling it mentally, and analyse it as stamen, filament and anther compulsively, instead of seeing it as it is.

Thought is useful for material purposes, but when it becomes a compulsive addiction, it becomes unnatural and creates misery and psychological distress , which affects the body psychosomatically as well.

It is this disease of the mind which comes up with civilization, that Lao Tzu is perhaps referring to over here.

I think you are right we need words for practical purposes (mostly to communicate things to others or to get a handle on complex concepts) but the thing is every word makes a box around some part of reality. And people have a tendency to start looking at the boxes so intently they lose track of the reality...

Best thing I've read in a long time.
You also reminded me about reading that book. Been putting it off but this just inspired me!

I agree with no needs for labels even to the extreme. Was reminded of Neo from the matrix when they show you the world from his perspective. Instead of seeing matter it was all code. All the same but coded different.

I'm curious if Buddha and Jesus could see this way too. Essentially we're all made up of the same things. The way we perceive them is what creates them. I wonder if knowing this the way they did in every cell of their being allowed them to see everything as neo did?

well I've seen smatterings of things. Usually, the levitation energies kick in at about the same time as I'm seeing stuff and make me feel like I'm falling to the ground, so I can't hold it long.

time tunnels, geometric shapes, the white cave, and the dots are things I've often glimpsed... the dots are actually easy at night in a darkish room, somewhat harder to bring to life during the day in a lighter room :smile:

I also liked the green splotches once a long time ago when I was looking at a tree on a cold, dark night. Man that was forever ago!

If I understand it correctly.? In quantum field theory, matter (particles) do not exist as such until measured (observed?) by an observer. Before that, they exist only in potential, as the probability to be found in a given state at any given location and given time. We cannot speak of where they are when not observed as they do not exist until then. This probability is unbound within the knowable universe, and although this probability may be so high in a given location so as to be a near certainty to be found there once an observation is made, this probability is never zero anywhere else. Yet we do not know what determines this probability distribution. Is it the universe, or perhaps our own expectations? Even once the forms are realized the universe seems to hold back on giving a complete and definitive answer, preferring to maintain a subtle but real level of uncertainty as a matter of principal. It is as if the universe holds existence in abeyance, not making up its mind as to what it will show reality to be until we ask it a question, and then it only gives an incomplete and uncertain answer.

Is it then the very act of naming that gives form and reality to that which is named? Is then the certainty of that which is named only illusion in the mind of the observer, a false certainty that merely hides the subtle reality of the formlessness from which the forms arise and eventually to which all forms return? Do not all forms represent a concentration of energy, a depression in entropy, which the laws of thermodynamics tell us the universe will relentlessly seek to smooth back out? If the forms that exist, only exist because we asked the universe to show them to us so we can give them a name, then what will happen to the forms when we forget their names?

Bearing in mind I'm not well versed in uncertainty theory while at the same time having to deal with it... I thought a couple of things you said resonated. First though let me say that I at some point lost interest in knowing how the universe was going to relate to me (it seemed a losing proposition because of the uncertainty of everything, I feel like a bull in a china shop sometimes) and started wondering how I relate to the universe?

I think there is something else in play, other than that I get my desire that the 'names' I choose in some way deeply resonate with what I see around me? One aspect of this is definitely the fact of uncertainty.

this is kind of along the lines of what I think, at least within the mind we need the names to sort of separate one thing from another. But, since things aren't as obviously separable as we like to think, the very fact of using names makes us look at the reality through a certain lens, and it blinds us to other things that are just as real. For example I'm having a hard time sticking to your view of the topic because I'm not used to thinking in terms of uncertainty lol!

But it seems like (from what I can tell) the makeup of the distribution you mentioned is at least partially designed to make us get tired/bored with whatever names we are using after a while so things have a chance to settle out again. Rise and fall of civilizations?