Thanks again for the response.
Yes, because we are confined to an inadequate language, we have to do some of this. It's a question of how do we look past the words at what is being pointed at.
Yes I agree. It's difficult to do. I was amused watching an argument today between 2 colleagues who were not actually disagreeing in a substantial way, I thought in fact they were saying the same thing, trying to approximate the same outcome. I'm noticing this a lot lately. A curious side effect is that sometimes in a measured and thoughtful way, I can cut through these kinds of situations. I did the other night with a friend, she started crying with relief after we discussed a
"problem" that she had.
That's something for yourself to leave as an open question. Only a recognition from noticing will reveal that. Even if it was (responding to concept) it was an experiential response.
Yes there appears to be no real demarcation. When I notice (granted this is a concept but hear me out) I notice a kind of dualism drop. The dualism is false, Noticing the happening it is the noticing or realising that the dualism and seperation is false...So the concepting is not "unreal" or "in here" it is a part of the all-all-around. It seems there is the noticing of it...so as not to become too enamored with it where you begin to cling to it, and in this way you notice more.
The "vague approximation..." is fine, as long as we know what it points to.
Thought is defined (in the dictionary) as a noun. That's a thing. ..but something that we are not taught in school is the difference between and abstract noun and a concrete one. Turns out that the definition of an abstract noun is (almost) the same as a concept. Abstract nouns represent intangible ideas. (Grammarly) Ha, it's a thing that's not a thing. How confusing is that?
...but we're stuck with this crazy language, so we just have to muddle our way through.
Crikey, I never made that connection...that's bizarre. It could represent a cultural kind of split between the physical and the abstract....that seems to plague us.
Do you think that a thought is concrete - as concrete as anything else? So there isn't really any need for the label "abstract", since the thought is a much a part of everything as everything else - it doesn't exist as "an abstraction", which is to say a thought is a happening like a bird chirping is a happening? We call it abstract because we have a split in a culture...like the split in our minds of say, the spiritual and the physical - one that other cultures do not have.
Yeah we really tend to muddle along...with the addition of a very strange biology it's not so hard to understand all the weird and wonderful variations that arise.
So we can't banish the tree, but we think we can banish the thoughts...really we just need to notice.
Of course you are. The point is not to banish thoughts, but to recognize them for what they are.
Here's an interesting one; i sit here with laptop on lap and through the window is a large tree. i see tree. ..but not that tree.
i see the abstract noun of that tree. When i notice this, some characteristics of the tree come into focus. Now i see this tree. i notice the character if some branches, the coloring of leaves, movement, the backdrop of blueness, shadow.
This was a very helpful paragraph. I really like this. It is the immersion in the moment, the ability to take a step back and just look. A tree, a thought, a happening...