There is one common pestilence that is shared universally - Language.
We are from birth indoctrinated into language, without realizing it. As we mature it slowly consumes our thoughts, until we mistake that inner voice consisting of vocal chords of a primate as thought itself. However, thought isn't language based, it is so much more. This is what I call a throat adder, being that is conditioned by language to use its mental capacity - that is thoughts only in language. One must realize that if consciousness can operate without language, it's inherent capacity is far more vast. Thoughts based on language severely decrease our potential. Good example of our culture is that when thought is used to visualize something, it's not called a thought, but visualization, except that in truth the visualization part is equal to as language based thought is - just an image contained within a thought. Then when somebody breaks this control - and mind begins to recuperate, and one begins to see visions, hear voices and experience strange feelings - they are branded 'mentally ill' when finally their mind is attempting to liberate itself from the claws of language. Not to mention how confused they become themselves when they believe language to be truth. It's nothing but extremely limited description of nature of things. Nature isn't nor cares of language, it's crude and archaic, lowly operating system.
Understand this, lean on nature itself, and you will achieve liberation. Trust in nature, where as fish know how to swim from birth - your mind knows so much more.
If you knew what I’m talking about then good. Most of you probably won’t even understand what I’m saying.
We must train our inner mind to go back to that time before language wasn’t yet invented. When our thoughts were not shaped by “words” but by pure emotion and “feeling”
In this instance, one who does not interpret sound is greater than we are.
I getcha, OP. I tried the old "Put a thing here" test with someone the other day and they couldn't spontaneously do it. They had to actually stop and plan and think. They couldn't just summon a mental image without words.
Brandon Cruz
Language is a construct user. Spoken, Written, any form, is inefficient and ruins the spontaneity that our brain craves, even our subconscious. Embrace your natural, beautiful thought. >metal
This is truth in that. Language is a tool to understanding our feelings and animalistic desires though. Once we understand ourselves, the implication of language becomes much more vast. I've also found different languages can affect how we perceive reality. Asian languages for example reflect their genetic behavior and how they perceive the world. They're very and blunt and explicit in tone, and I find that describes the Asian personality pretty well although I am generalizing.
David Morgan
First of all, Yas Forums is not the place for philosophical ideas like this. In five minutes it will be drowned out by all the white women taking big black cocks.
Second of all, the idea of of a "thought" you have manifested in your head is a spook. You have not defined what is this elusive thing called a thought? And why. And why is it a more "pure" definition of a thought than someone else's definition?
Abstractions can exist pre-language. The brain already has a predisposition towards consolidating sensory phenomena into cohesive abstract ideas. The sound of the abstract idea or the written form of the abstract idea are simply particular features of the abstract idea, among many features. I see nothing wrong with "referencing" those abstract ideas with those features of sound and written form. What, in your opinion is "wrong" with participating in this activity?
This being said, if your argument is that "social language" (i.e not internal monologue, but interpersonal interaction) and the rules governing it are necessarily collectivist, then I would see your point. But that's not the argument you are making. Social language seems to be a force that necessarily pulls individuals into a collectivist and not individualistic mindset. This I agree may be problematic, depending on one's subjective values. in particular it is problematic if one values freedom above comfort.
