No Self

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Gem

It's basically correct to say acquired knowledge is not 'truth' in any ultimate sense of that word, but incorrect to say it is empty of meaning.

Originally Posted by Ground

I have been talking about certain linguistic expressions being 'knowledge' in that although they are empty of meaning from the outset

In my expression 'empty of meaning' refers to 'linguistic expressions' not to the knowledge expressed with linguistic expressions that are empty of meaning from the outset since they are mere forms or sounds. So my expression is correct. you must not confuse the object expressed with the means of expression.

Originally Posted by Gem

In that the narrative is the way in which we make sense of the lived experience, it is meaningful. The narrative, however, isn't static. For example, the story of the 'atom' has been changing for thousands of years. Each stage of the narrative about atoms has been the way in which people have made sense of existential problems. Of course the story that 'explains the atom' has always had meaning, but has never been inherently true. It's always been a conversation - a discourse regarding 'atoms'. Now we're quite advanced in physics we can't say a fundamental particle 'exists' in any objective sense at all, but none-the-less, we have not only a meaningful narrative about particles (the standard model), but also a narrative which is 'true in that it works'. So, as Niels Bohr put it, physics doesn't concern how nature is; it only concerns what we can say about nature. In short, the conversation is meaningful, and it is continuous and ongoing, but it never reaches that conclusion which we can call 'truth'.

Here again the narrative is not inherently meaningful since as linguistic expression (means of expression) it is empty of meaning. However it can evoke a meaning in a hearer that however does not necessarily correspond with the object expressed by the corresponding speaker.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Ground

In my expression 'empty of meaning' refers to 'linguistic expressions' not to the knowledge expressed with linguistic expressions that are empty of meaning from the outset since they are mere forms or sounds. So my expression is correct. you must not confuse the object expressed with the means of expression.

In that you make meaning of what I'm saying now, it's ridiculous to argue to the contrary.

Here again the narrative is not inherently meaningful since as linguistic expression (means of expression) it is empty of meaning. However it can evoke a meaning in a hearer that however does not necessarily correspond with the object expressed by the corresponding speaker.

OMG.

[Bohdiyana]

Here again the narrative is not inherently meaningful since as linguistic expression (means of expression) it is empty of meaning. However it can evoke a meaning in a hearer that however does not necessarily correspond with the object expressed by the corresponding speaker.

That reminds me of what Jesus was quoted to have said in regards to the "karma" or effect of just a thought.

Matthew 5:28: but I say unto you, that every one that looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

It's an interesting idea to claim thoughts or words are empty of meaning. Jesus's words contrasted that greatly claiming just thinking about adultery was as bad as doing it. Can you get bad karma from just thinking about bad things? Probably since what you are thinking about shows your state of consciousness in that moment. But then it's a long road we are on, with thousands of incarnations working on ourselves and the energies we encounter here, so it's not like we are not forgiven or are punished forever for such things. I would think the karmic effect for thinking bad things is immediate as a bad mood right then and there.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Gem

In that you make meaning of what I'm saying now, it's ridiculous to argue to the contrary.

It is as you say: 'Meaning is made' because words/linguistic expressions are empty of meaning. If meaning would inhere in words/linguistic expressions then meaning would not have to be made upon seeing or hearing words/linguistic expressions.
Words/linguistic expressions are nothing but concatenations of forms (written language) or sounds (spoken language) empty of meaning.

And since the seer of those forms or the hearer of those sounds 'makes' [his own] meaning upon seeing or hearing the meaning made does not necessarily correspond with the object expressed by the corresponding writer or speaker.

[Bohdiyana]

Originally Posted by Ground

words/linguistic expressions are empty of meaning

A simple way to achieve that would be to learn no languages. If you learn a language, and can write and speak and understand it, I'm afraid you can't undo that. The language and words you learned and know and understand does have meaning to you. The sentence above has a meaning to the writer, which proves the statement is false.

[jonesboy]

I would say that words do very much have meaning and that they can be very important especially within a tradition.

The thing is when someone is saying something to you and it sticks, hurts, makes you upset, that is the window to your own obstructions, issues/fears.

[Jeremy Bong]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

I would say that words do very much have meaning and that they can be very important especially within a tradition.

The thing is when someone is saying something to you and it sticks, hurts, makes you upset, that is the window to your own obstructions, issues/fears.

Do you mean the idiom, I know this one has a lot of meaning: don't do to others what you would not have them do to you己所不欲，勿施于人.

Another one Chinese idiom: come to the end of one's tether 计穷力竭.

Another one: always bear in mind profound truths and celebrated sayings 念念不忘至理名言.

Another one: mean and ignorant浅陋无知.

Meanings are inside the words, innit ?

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Ground

It is as you say: 'Meaning is made' because words/linguistic expressions are empty of meaning. If meaning would inhere in words/linguistic expressions then meaning would not have to be made upon seeing or hearing words/linguistic expressions.
Words/linguistic expressions are nothing but concatenations of forms (written language) or sounds (spoken language) empty of meaning.

The narrative it the way in which things are understood. Language is commonly understood code used for the conveyance of meaning. This is to say, all the narrative does is produce meanings. Ideally, the meaning produced by one person would be understood by the person they address. Hence, when I say I there is a tree in my backyard, you know what I mean.

And since the seer of those forms or the hearer of those sounds 'makes' [his own] meaning upon seeing or hearing the meaning made does not necessarily correspond with the object expressed by the corresponding writer or speaker.

Yes. But it's not as arbitrary as you try to make it sound because in the cases where people pay attention and are sincere in trying to understand another, the message gets across as a mutual understanding.

It's quite simple in principle. I have the 'thing' I wish to convey so I code it into language. The other person hears those words and decodes them and has an idea of what I mean. Hence when I say I need water, you might oblige me.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Gem

The narrative it the way in which things are understood.

The narrative is the way in which things understood by a narrator are expressed by this narrator.

Originally Posted by Gem

Language is commonly understood code used for the conveyance of meaning.

A language is a conventional code which as such is empty of meaning that can be applied by a speaker or writer for the expression of his/her meaning objects.

Originally Posted by Gem

This is to say, all the narrative does is produce meanings.

It is one condition for meaning to arise in an individual. The other condition is the individual's capacity for individually conditioned processing of the linguistic code.

Originally Posted by Gem

Ideally, the meaning produced by one person would be understood by the person they address.

yes 'ideally' and that it happens according to this ideal is usually taken for granted although actually it is impossible for this ideal to be met because it will never occur that all meaning aspects are identical. But people ignorantly perceive their meaning objects of mind as if inhering in the signs they use to express them.

Originally Posted by Gem

Hence, when I say I there is a tree in my backyard, you know what I mean.

That is a good example since it refers to visible objects. Empirically in the context of objects of the five senses linguistic agreements happen easily and misunderstandings due to different individual meanings are rarely significant.
However considerung that most of the objects discussed in forums like this one are merely objects of thought, not accessible to the five senses, linguistic agreements on words applied are more difficult to attain and misunderstandings due to different individual meanings are the rule.

Originally Posted by Gem

Yes. But it's not as arbitrary as you try to make it sound because in the cases where people pay attention and are sincere in trying to understand another, the message gets across as a mutual understanding.

This is of course an object of belief beyond objective evidence.

Originally Posted by Gem

It's quite simple in principle. I have the 'thing' I wish to convey so I code it into language. The other person hears those words and decodes them and has an idea of what I mean. Hence when I say I need water, you might oblige me.

Again: in the context of objects of the five senses it is quite simple. So if we both meet and see a car it is very likely we come to the lnguistic agreement that we both use the word 'car' when discussing the object's features.
But as soon as we e.g. discuss the conceptual object 'awareness' which is merely a mental concept and lacks a corresponding impression of the five senses we will be talking at cross purposes since such mere mental concepts are usually embedded - individually and consciously or subconsciously - in systems of views which are the individual conditionings for individual meanings to arise.
A meaning is a very complex mental structure and a compounded object. Its components are aspects or connotations deriving from past experiences and past conditionings, past contacts with philosophical systems, often merged with sentiments and feelings.
Only if a meaning is perceived as an emptiness is it empty of sentiments and feelings and only rationally connected to the individually conditioned processing of empty linguistic code ... so even then it is an individually conditioned arising not shared inter-individually. Different individual meanings however do not exclude inter-individual conversation since that happens in the sphere of emptiness and its innumerable degrees of freedom. Conversation does not require inter-individually shared identical meanings.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Ground

The narrative is the way in which things understood by a narrator are expressed by this narrator.

Exactly. The narrative produces meaning, and conveys it between people (narrators).

A language is a conventional code which as such is empty of meaning that can be applied by a speaker or writer for the expression of his/her meaning objects.

If had no meaning it might look like this: jerfik morish umb bikkl't jor.

It is one condition for meaning to arise in an individual. The other condition is the individual's capacity for individually conditioned processing of the linguistic code.

You mean both communicators have to understand the language?

yes 'ideally' and that it happens according to this ideal is usually taken for granted although actually it is impossible for this ideal to be met because it will never occur that all meaning aspects are identical. But people ignorantly perceive their meaning objects of mind as if inhering in the signs they use to express them.

People often understands what other's mean by what they say.

That is a good example since it refers to visible objects. Empirically in the context of objects of the five senses linguistic agreements happen easily and misunderstandings due to different individual meanings are rarely significant.
However considerung that most of the objects discussed in forums like this one are merely objects of thought, not accessible to the five senses, linguistic agreements on words applied are more difficult to attain and misunderstandings due to different individual meanings are the rule.

More complex and subtle topics are generally mutually understood through ongoing conversation rather than drawn conclusions.

This is of course an object of belief beyond objective evidence.


Again: in the context of objects of the five senses it is quite simple. So if we both meet and see a car it is very likely we come to the lnguistic agreement that we both use the word 'car' when discussing the object's features.
But as soon as we e.g. discuss the conceptual object 'awareness' which is merely a mental concept and lacks a corresponding impression of the five senses we will be talking at cross purposes since such mere mental concepts are usually embedded - individually and consciously or subconsciously - in systems of views which are the individual conditionings for individual meanings to arise.

I'm aware so I know exactly what 'awareness' refers to.

A meaning is a very complex mental structure and a compounded object. It's components are aspects or connotations deriving from past experiences and past conditionings, past contacts with philosophical systems, often merged with sentiments and feelings.
Only if a meaning is perceived as an emptiness is it empty of sentiments and feelings and only rationally connected to the individually conditioned processing of empty linguistic code ... so even then it is an individually conditioned arising not shared inter-individually which however does not exclude inter-individual conversation since that happens in the sphere of emptiness and its innumerable degrees of freedom. Conversation does not require inter-individually shared identical meanings.

Of course nothing is exactly identical - but close enough is good enough.