Labels are the words that we use to describe objects and the experiences that we encounter in our everyday lives. We use labels as a form of communication in order to understand the world around us as well as our life on earth. But do these labels actually tell us anything at all about what we perceive, or do they actually limit our experience and feed an illusion that we call “understanding”?
For instance, if we were to hold up an object such as an apple and ask another person “what is this?” then that person would probably look at us a little weird and say something like “umm…an apple.” The person would be right of course. But what if we pushed them further and said something like, “yes that is the label that we have all agreed upon for this particular sensory object, but that label doesn’t really tell us exactly what we are seeing. So again, what is this?” At this point, if the person we are speaking to remains interested in the conversation and sticks around, then we could both go further into discovering the object by adding to its description. We would probably use many more words in order to describe the apples physical properties (IE. its red or green, it’s spherical in shape, and that it’s smooth and hard). We would also likely describe the apples nature and its function and anything else that we could think of relating to apples in general. We would say things like, “the apple is food, it grows on a tree, it provides nourishment, and it is delicious.” We might even go as far as to say that the apple is made up of matter called molecules and atoms and that it contains within it, a sort of energy. At this point, having exhausted our combined apple related, descriptive word lists, we may at last be satisfied that we know what an apple is.
But here in lies the paradox of labels, because the notion that individual labels do not tell us what an object or experience truly is, applies to all the words used to describe the first word. As such, each descriptive word is a label in itself. After all, what is an atom other than a label and what is energy other than a label? So with this notion, hopefully comes the realization that words and labels are simply a method that we use to communicate an unknowable experience in order to create a sort of illusion that we call understanding.
And so in this way, labels and words actually act as a sort of filter which limits ourselves to the external world. Words in essence, act as a barrier and function as a means to separate our self (the perceiver) from the external world (the perceived). A description of an experience is not the experience itself, it is just talk about an experience. And so, we cannot truly know what an object or experience actually is even despite the fact that we often believe that we understand what we are experiencing. Said another way, though an object or experience is unknowable – it simply “is what it is,” we label our perceptions in order to separate our self from the external and create an illusion that we understand what we are perceiving so that we can communicate it to others.
The true magic of all of this is that if we could realize this notion (even only briefly) then in that moment we would likely stand in awe of our experience. In such a moment not a single thought would enter our mind and we would know that we are seeing the object for the first time and that no label could ever truly describe such a feeling. In such a moment, we would not be separate from the perception but actually a part of it.
Image taken from https://www.thoughtco.com/verbal-paradox-1692583
ok but some labels can not be forgone in my opinion.
Can you explain further? I'm interested
Y'know, those kinds of labels.
Just kidding.
Whatever you thought I meant is entirely the responsibility of your own dirty mind. :)
After reading this post, I don't think I'll be looking at apples the same way ever again...
Haha yeah. But that's the point - trying to see the world differently and not taking things for granted. At least briefly - I mean you can't functionally live life that way lol.
Congratulations @leaky20! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPCongratulations @leaky20! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPDo you want the spoiler? :)
yes definitely. What are your thoughts
There is no "isness". Sort of. Entitization is a low-level perceptual process that takes more or less random sensory input and creates "things". Take for example a pile of sand. That's one entity. Yet if you separate it into two piles of sand nothing's changed except how it's entitized. Instead of one entity (pile of sand) you have two entities (two piles of sand.)
This process relies on boundaries. For an entity to "be" something, there also must be something it's not. It's not always oppositional in the way that a lot of people assume, it could be as simple as creating a boundary that distinguishes an entity from it's environment. (Sort of pop-up book style.)
You appear to have completely skipped this level of analysis and gone right for the self-world division which is exactly the same process -- but the first. That's a very low, low level perceptual process. It's remarkable that you've intuited it. (I'm assuming you intuited it, but anyway about it, I'd love to hear how you came to this conclusion.)
So, just for fun: on to mayhem. :) The boundaries of entities are flexible. They're fun to screw with. Google "rubber hand illusion".
I'm aware of the rubber hand illusion and find it very interesting.
I have come to this conclusion through trying to understand a few key experiences that I have had. But basically, when you remove words (as in the internal dialogue) from your experience, it completely changes how you perceive the world. Without an internal dialogue one cannot reason and it becomes impossible to make sense of anything intellectually. In fact its difficult to even separate ones self from the experience. I other words, the perceiver and the perceived are one without distinction. So, in such a moment one realizes that the world is truly a mystery, that it is unknowable. In order to combat the fact that life is a mystery and to survive, we use language to make sense of the world. But since we ourselves have created the language to describe our experience then it remains a very convincing illusion. It is essentially a circular argument.
Circular argument demonstrated as a dialogue:
Me: The world is such and such.
You: Why is that so.
Me: Because I say so.
You: How do you know you are right.
Me: Because the world is such and such.
The world starts as a mystery.
Language allows us to understand the world.
But we created the language so language is meaningless.
We could call things whatever we wanted to (change all of the labels) and nothing would change in the world, but the world would become mysterious again.
Thanks, I'm fairly sure I know what you mean.
We, as in all of us?
How do animals reason and solve problems without language? For example, octopi are notorious for being able to solve puzzles.
(I'll tell you what I'm thinking next post.)
You'll probably dig this.
That was really interesting. It awesome when individuals with an understanding of neuroscience have these incredible experiences that they can later explain intellectually to others.
Its a good question. I of course do not know the perspective of animals so I can only speculate. But I don't think that animals "understand" the world, at least not intellectually. Animals do not try to reason about the way things are and they do not pass judgement over their experience. It may be something like what Buddhist's call "being in the moment." Perhaps they are in a constant state of being in the moment? In such a state, an individual can still function and survive as easily as any other organism; they simply do not pass judgement over their experience or try to make sense of it. Again, I can only speculate but it is something to ponder. Good question :)
Here's something that you may dig.
There's an old buddhist thing about there being no paper in paper. Why? Because paper isn't made of paper. It's made of other stuff. Paper is just an entity that groups all that stuff together as "paper". Something to think about. :)
I like that. ha. I've never heard or thought of that but it makes a lot of sense. That's really great.
One more. The dragon's head is an entity. I don't want to give spoilers for this, it's best seen.
That is cool too
Very interesting
Thank you. I appreciate the support