Those are valid observations Jack. However if you look at the question of language and being foundationally or genetically as Heidegger does, the obscure becomes clearer. The essence of logos is a joining together, that is, grasping the different in their sameness, ie. abstraction. Heidegger points out, the more comprehensive a concept is in scope, the more indeterminate is its content. And what is a more comprehensive concept that "Being"?

So if the underlying-total project of the logos is the comprehension of Being as such (the Being of beings), then, necessarily, as we approach higher layers of abstraction, the experience of Being becomes increasingly "ineffable". Suggesting a kind of original intuitive-synthetic apprehension. The word "sinks down to become a mere sign".

I do think that the mystifying is language is a real problem in philosophy — Jack Cummins

Yes, H. repeatedly touches on this, when language fails to un-conceal it begins to conceal.....

TMF!

Thank you kindly for the link, it said:

Ineffability is concerned with ideas that cannot or should not be expressed in spoken words (or language in general), often being in the form of a taboo or incomprehensible term. This property is commonly associated with philosophy, aspects of existence, and similar concepts that are inherently "too great", complex or abstract to be communicated adequately.

I agree, as you alluded, that there are varieties of religious experiences that are ineffable. In your mind, are there others? For example, say the feelings of love, or to be excruciatingly graphic, during procreation activities/love-making, are those kinds of things similar, you think?

Listening to Jimi Hendrix is not the same experience as listening to Brahms. Listening to Jimi while cruising a highway is not the same experience as listening to Jimi while trying to solve a difficult puzzle. — Banno

Interesting. In what ways are they different? (Can language capture the phenomenon...)

'Everything I say is a lie', which if true is false, and if false is true .i] — 3017amen
Within everything exist everything, so the paradox of the above statement is present in all statements if we allow ourselves to realize it.

For example, consider the statement, "The boy has the blue balloon." If there is no visible light present, does the boy still have the balloon? Is it still blue? — synthesis

The former is a classic example (liar's paradox) of binary truth values associated with a priori logic, and the limitations of language (thereto). This occurs primarily with sentence structures of self reference and self referential statements. The main point is that not only does it underscore the limitations of language, it undermines the truth values, one being the nature of (our) existence.

With respect to the latter, my interpretation of that would be the necessity of a posteriori logic, and the need to perform empirical analysis to determine its truth value. In that case, you would seek to discover whether the boy has the balloon or not in order to determine the truth value.

Perhaps the consistent theme is, we are trapped in this mystery of self-awareness, which resides in our consciousness.

Truth-maker (fact, "territory") =|= truth-value (proposition, "map").

Perhaps the consistent theme is, we are trapped in this mystery of self-awareness, which resides in our consciousness. — 3017amen

Perhaps, but much more fundamental would be the acknowledgement that the human intellect is simply incapable of accessing reality in any way, shape, or form, so instead, we make-up all kinds of ways to approximate (for practical reasons). Whatever combination of letters/numbers you may wish to suggest have a relationship based on some natural law is stretching it a bit.

This is not to disparage mathematics or language, in general, as they satisfy basic needs, but (and as is always the case), it is in the understanding inherent limitations that give forth true value.

Perhaps, but much more fundamental would be the acknowledgement that the human intellect is simply incapable of accessing reality in any way, shape, or form, so instead, we make-up all kinds of ways to approximate (for practical reasons). Whatever combination of letters/numbers you may wish to suggest have a relationship based on some natural law is stretching it a bit.

This is not to disparage mathematics or language, in general, as they satisfy basic needs, but (and as is always the case), it is in the understanding inherent limitations that give forth true value. — synthesis

Well said Synthesis! BTW- I like the concept/term you used 'approximate' (language being an approximation- of a something).

You should read Chomsky if your into language. Although he unfortunately went off the deep end politically, he is truly a linguistics genius.

TMF!

Thank you kindly for the link, it said:

Ineffability is concerned with ideas that cannot or should not be expressed in spoken words (or language in general), often being in the form of a taboo or incomprehensible term. This property is commonly associated with philosophy, aspects of existence, and similar concepts that are inherently "too great", complex or abstract to be communicated adequately.

I agree, as you alluded, that there are varieties of religious experiences that are ineffable. In your mind, are there others? For example, say the feelings of love, or to be excruciatingly graphic, during procreation activities/love-making, are those kinds of things similar, you think? — 3017amen

What "...should not be expressed..." has nothing to do with language and is more about stuff like respect, pity, love, goodwill, taboo, etc. For instance, many times I find myself thinking "I don't want to talk about it" and I'm sure this unwillingness to "talk about it" is quite common as evidenced by the many times I've heard it being said aloud to overly inquisitive folks. This, however, as is obvious, not a limitation of language - we can talk about something but it's just that we don't wish to.

What "...cannot be expressed..." is what the limitations of language should (try to) discuss. Come to think of it, this seems to be an impossible task; after all if something is ineffable, it precludes any and all language-based inquiry. It's like trying to break a bulletproof glass with a bullet. It doesn't make sense [@180 Proof "stupid question"].

I don't know why you seem to think that exploring the limitations of language is 'impossible'. You speak of the idea of taboos of people not wishing to discuss certain matters. I wonder if in some ways the whole idea of the 'ineffable' is a way of trying to avoid going too far in thinking.

'ineffable' is a way of trying to avoid going too far in thinking — Jack Cummins

This resonates at some level with the experiences I've had but the impossibility that I mentioned follows from the contradiction inherent in asking us to,

eff the ineffable — Samuel Beckett

However, it appears that we're at liberty to beat around The Burning Bush

I don't see why we can't use language to remark on the limitations of our language. That would seem like saying we can't use our minds to think about our own mental limitations. — Jack Cummins

What "...should not be expressed..." has nothing to do with language and is more about stuff like respect, pity, love, goodwill, taboo, etc. For instance, many times I find myself thinking "I don't want to talk about it" and I'm sure this unwillingness to "talk about it" is quite common as evidenced by the many times I've heard it being said aloud to overly inquisitive folks. This, however, as is obvious, not a limitation of language - we can talk about something but it's just that we don't wish to. — TheMadFool

Sure, but that is not germane to the issue. Thanks anyway!

What "...cannot be expressed..." is what the limitations of language should (try to) discuss. Come to think of it, this seems to be an impossible task; after all if something is ineffable, it precludes any and all language-based inquiry. It's like trying to break a bulletproof glass with a bullet. — TheMadFool

As Jack alluded, are you saying we can't use our minds to think about our own mental limitations?

But back to the question that you were unable to answer, in paraphrase, when we experience moments of pleasure (or anger) what are the distinctions in expression?

As Jack alluded, are you saying we can't use our minds to think about our own mental limitations? — 3017amen

Might such a paradox provoke one to step-back for a moment and consider alternatives to conceptualization? Might there just be another (better) way to seek the truth of the matter?

And if this truth is confronted (then realized), will you then be prepared to demote your language from master to slave and see that reality cannot even be imagined, yet qualified/quantified.

I am thinking how you(synthesis) spoke of the idea of the ineffable at some point in your discussion of the relative and the absolute thread. Obviously, our words and our thoughts are limited but I do believe that they are the best tools we have. The scientists don't say that they can't understand everything, so they might as well stop trying, and, of course, the scientists rely on language as much as other writers. As far as mysticism is concerned, I am drawn towards it by nature, but my inner philosopher reminds me to use words for critical thinking rather than to just remain perplexed by the mysteries.

However, we all probably have blindspots in our thinking, and, perhaps, even meditation can aid us to greater awareness, because words can emerge from the void of silence, a bit like @Madfools suggestion of the 'Burning Bush', referred to, in his recent post above, to me.

Might such a paradox provoke one to step-back for a moment and consider alternatives to conceptualization? Might there just be another (better) way to seek the truth of the matter? — synthesis

Synthesis!

Sure. Thank you for that thought... . For reference, we can look to Kant and Schop (few of many) in parsing the different theories of knowledge and apperception(s). Meaning, in laymen's terms, how do we perceive our truth's, and how does the intellect, and the logic of language impact our (epistemic) knowledge. Consider a blind or deaf persons ability to perceive things without those natural abilities, thru the intellect/language, so as to affect apperception (our ability to have self-awareness).

As a segue to questions of how languages help us, I'm thinking that perhaps exploring the teleology of language and how this provides for self-awareness/self-consciousness might be more intriguing here. What is the purpose of language, was it caused or was it human invention?

For example, one question might be, did language evolve, and if so is it still evolving, and if yes, what are the future possibilities in providing for this better quality of self-awareness? Could the evolutional changes in language somehow be the only means and method by which we seek and perceive our truth's? We know for instance, that the language of math (and modern day discoveries in same) provides for a certain level of understanding about the Cosmos, etc. etc.. But will a different set of equations and languages be necessary for a complete ToE?

Lot's of different implications there, thanks for planting that seed...thoughts?

Sure, but that is not germane to the issue. Thanks anyway! — 3017amen

I guess I went off on a tangent. I'm always distracted but generally by beauty. So, if you want to use me as a beauty-meter here you might want to give what I wrote a second look. Disclaimer: I suffer from Quasimodo syndrome and of course as Shakespeare said, "beauty lies in the eye of the beholder."

mysticism — Jack Cummins

I recently watched a series of videos on philosophy and it had a 30-40 minute episode on mysticism and what really caught my attention was the words, "...to be conscious without being conscious of anything..." Is that possible? Not so from a Western perspective on consciousness which is defined as awareness, awareness of something (the world, the self). I brought this up because to be in a mystical state as defined above, I wouldn't be able to describe the experience as my mind is literally emptied of all its contents. Doesn't that qualify as an ineffable experience?

Probably in the midst of an extreme mystical experience a person would be so absorbed that that wouldn't be the moment to describe it. One thing that strikes me is the importance of choice and whether the person wishes to communicate the experience to others or not. Metaphysical poets, such John Donne, chose to write poetry and some may wish to create art about it.

But, I do believe that it all comes down to a mixture of motivation and ability to convey a certain experience to others. I am aware that I see communication of peak experiences as important, but that is probably because my own searching is bound up with my own quest for creativity. Many people may be coming from a different angle and not see communication of the experience as important, and settle for speaking of the ineffable. So, it is what works for each person.

I have just read your post again and you are asking at the end about how you would approach your own experience. Of course, I don't know if you are speaking on the basis of having experienced any mystical states or with a view to potential opnes. If they are ones you have already experienced only you can decide whether you are able to describe them or not, and if they are ones you may have you will have to wait and see.

One thing I would like to be able to do better is draw and paint the images I see on the borderline before I get to sleep. I haven't managed it really, but I wish to work to be able to do so. However, I can describe the experience, but that is probably because it is not emptiness.If anything, I don't value emptiness that greatly and see it more as creative block, but that is purely my own subjective view.

Just to get to the point where people acknowledge the limitations of the intellect is significant! Most people simply cannot deal with the notion that reality is beyond their conceptualization.

As a Zen student (and Jack and I have chatted about this), my path to the non-intellectual is meditation. I always thought if it was good enough for the historical Buddha, it's good enough for me, :) but I believe there must be all kinds of ways to gain access.

Regardless of the method of entry, when you frequent the non-intellectual, you begin to understand the contradictions and paradoxes giving rise to the conceptual mind, and to the degree that thinking occupies a category somewhere between incredibly lacking and downright absurd.

Not content with observing the flow, the conceptual mind implores us to pick at those things that excite us (one way or another) so we must depart from actual life and take on our role as commentator (as if we have a clue).

As one becomes more comfortable in the flow of things, the urge to jump onto the banks of the stream lessen as you realize that reality (without adding your 2 cents) is not only considerably more accurate, but it affords you a much lighter sense of being as you have been relieved from your responsibility of having to figure-out every damn thing.

The limitations of language adds another section to the intellectual maze that leads most people to a life of incredible stress and suffering. Attempting to think one's way through the convolutions is impossible as we cannot even understand the simplest of things.

For those who are willing to give everything up (conceptualization), there exists a much simpler way, that of acceptance, a humbling which makes all things possible.

Effanineffable!


The Naming of Cats
T. S. Eliot


The Naming of Cats is a difficult matter,
It isn’t just one of your holiday games;
You may think at first I’m as mad as a hatter
When I tell you, a cat must have THREE DIFFERENT NAMES.
First of all, there’s the name that the family use daily,
Such as Peter, Augustus, Alonzo, or James,
Such as Victor or Jonathan, George or Bill Bailey—
All of them sensible everyday names.
There are fancier names if you think they sound sweeter,
Some for the gentlemen, some for the dames:
Such as Plato, Admetus, Electra, Demeter—
But all of them sensible everyday names,
But I tell you, a cat needs a name that’s particular,
A name that’s peculiar, and more dignified,
Else how can he keep up his tail perpendicular,
Or spread out his whiskers, or cherish his pride?
Of names of this kind, I can give you a quorum,
Such as Munkustrap, Quaxo, or Coricopat,
Such as Bombalurina, or else Jellylorum—
Names that never belong to more than one cat.
But above and beyond there’s still one name left over,
And that is the name that you never will guess;
The name that no human research can discover—
But THE CAT HIMSELF KNOWS, and will never confess.
When you notice a cat in profound meditation,
The reason, I tell you, is always the same:
His mind is engaged in a rapt contemplation
Of the thought, of the thought, of the thought of his name:
His ineffable effable
Effanineffable
Deep and inscrutable singular name.

Further, it's tempting to think there is something you mean, but you can't quite find the words... but if you cannot say it, how can you mean it? — Banno

This is what it is like when you think you mean something, but you can't quite find the words.
And you can put it into words!

you think you mean something — baker

Indeed. I'm asking - couldn't you be wrong here? Couldn't it be that you don't have a thought, for which you cannot find the words?

I guess I went off on a tangent. I'm always distracted but generally by beauty. So, if you want to use me as a beauty-meter here you might want to give what I wrote a second look — TheMadFool

You're fine TMF!

I think you raise a good point there. We know there have been theories associated with the philosophy of beauty (Aesthetics/Kant, et.al.) that impacts our cognition... .

To that end, it cannot be overstated how the act of perceiving or perception of beauty effects our human sentience. Our way of Being. For instance, a simple experience of a sunny day would yield feelings of happiness, contentment, joy, and even a spiritual-high of sorts. Similarly, the previously mentioned feelings associated with say, acts of procreation, invoke feelings that are in fact communicated through aesthetics/the object, in this case, through the object known as the human body/Being. Accordingly, in this context, perhaps the body is just a means to an end. But what is the end goal there, in those instances? Is it to communicate feeling's? Communicate the Will?

It seems we have yet another way to communicate on an interpersonal level. Without talking, we can engage in, yet I utter this word-picture, another form of communication/activity during lovemaking with our partner. As Freud might posit, that way of communicating is quite powerful and 'quite subconscious' if you will-no Schopenhauer pun intended LOL. Or maybe it's simply instinct. All that of course is not too dissimilar to feelings associated with experiencing music and the like. Perhaps the simple takeaway there is that this notion of ineffable experiences (body languages) are wide ranging....

What is a word, other then a sound that a human makes and what is a sound other then a vibration in the air? Just as a map is not the territory, a word is not the thing it represents. The meaning of all words are agreed upon in a dictionary and yet meanings differs with each individual’s personal experience.
The sound one makes in one language, may be completely different from the sound in another language, which demonstrates the sound itself is unimportant. The sounds are just pointers to things which are not sounds.

Indeed. I'm asking - couldn't you be wrong here? Couldn't it be that you don't have a thought, for which you cannot find the words? — Banno

If it can be thought, it can be put into words.

But, if it can't be put into worlds, then it's not a thought?

Why not?

If it can be thought, it can be put into words. — baker

Can the Mona Lisa be put into words? It certainly was thought.

It certainly was thought. — Pantagruel

Was it? It's a painting, not a thought. What part of the Mona Lisa is or was thought? Are you claiming that it was a thought before it was painted - a plan? That can be put into words: "Please do a portrait of Lisa Gherardini..." Be clear, because what is at issue is what is to count as a thought.

Are you claiming that it was a thought before it was painted — Banno

Not before only, because.