From the section "What Is and What Shall Never Be"....
There seems to be a confusion spreading around town- that something (X) "is" something else (Y). I don't know how these rumors get started, but it comes from a position of confusion due to the surface level experiences of reality that we endure through a basic trickery of our own minds. This wild beast is running around overturning trash cans and smashing windows and making the world a generally unpleasant place. This is the monster of miscommunication and misinterpretation, and it is deeply burrowed in the minds of humans. This confusion can be noted as a lack of depth (attachment to the surface material world) and a relatively un-diagnosed ailment in the health of the disconnected primate mind, mixed with a slight hint of primal barbaric tendency, hence all the smashing (of the environment, each other, language, etc). It seems to us that all workings are in order, yet beneath it all we find suffering and angst in society (our relations and understandings between one another). How can a sick person not know they feel sick? How can the obvious disease of the mind go so unnoticed?
"To be, or not to be. That is the question." This was proposed so logically by Shakespeare. This offers only two options to the question in a world of multitudes and infinitudes. In a reality full of potentials we have many more options. To be what? To be where? Who? When? Why? Relative to what? Where? Who? When? Why? So much is left to differing assumptions.
Let's re-write that: "To experience relative to possibilities as an observer, or to experience relative to more possibilities as an observer, or to turn away and ignore. That seems to many of us to be a question the observer seems to be faced with at this time."
A great rewrite of a classic!
The linguistic term "is" is equal to the mathematical term "=", "is"="=", "is" equals "equal", but the only thing that can equal something is itself or an exact representation of itself (same size, details, functions, purpose, and even time/location in reality which may affect its purpose or function). Anything else is merely a symbol, model, or map of the thing (or situation or experience) and can not be held accountable for being equal to the thing itself. X can not equal Y unless X is Y, but X is X, and Y is only a representation of X if it includes certain conditions. The attorney is not the defendant. The story is not the event. The meal is not the recipe. The parable is not the truth.
The statement "This sucks" does not include the needed observer. Nothing in reality exists in isolation, and no event or object exists in observation or thought independent of the observer. A more accurate statement would be "This seems to suck to me, but I could be wrong."
"Most problems exist because the verbal form you put them in creates the problem."
-Robert Anton Wilson
Removing the "is" from observations removes the identity (separation) of the object or event and includes the observer as a part of the phenomenon. After all, identity is simply a separation; a compartmentalization or category. Even something as obvious as saying "It is night" makes a definitive statement that all reality is night. What is "it"? What is "is"? What is "night"? These are the debates we don't know we engage in within our various ranges of communication. Certainly it's not night in China if it is night in America unless somebody pulled the plug on the Sun, and certainly it's not night near the surface of The Sun. It also isn't night in the deepest darkest reaches of outer space. Night is the position denoting an act or time of being in the shadow of Earth, and all the mysteries that the night offers.
"The ultimate truth is beyond words. Doctrines are words. They are not The Way." -Bodhidharma
"Is" becomes a weapon of identified separation: is or isn't, yes or no, black or white, cowboy or indian, right or wrong. With such a certification on reality, we propose to know what is happening when nothing in reality can be certain. We also propose a separation. Then when another person dubs that something is something other than we agree it to be, we feel compelled to defend what we are certain of and attempt to correct the error of the other person. For example, I could say "Donkey meat is disgusting." Then my next door neighbor, who happens to be the owner of a company called "Put Your Ass In Your Mouth Gourmet Donkey Meats", hears about my statement and has a reactionary meltdown because his passion (certitude) has been challenged. This leads to mutual psychological reactions that lead to dislike, distrust, and anger. I have miscommunicated my opinion as a general fact, and he has misinterpreted my opinion as a personal and threatening attack. Now I am no longer friends with my neighbor. Both of us are to blame. The next thing you know, we are in court with claims against each other over tree branches crossing over each other's fences, or any such similar nonsense. Certainly I am right and he is wrong. In his version of certainty, he is right and I am wrong. The vicious cycle continues for years and perhaps generations. Hatred spins its web and silliness flies right into the middle of it.
Now suppose I had a more accurate statement about donkey meat. Suppose I had said, "Personally, I don't prefer donkey meat." Then there is no problem. Then my neighbor and I exchange gardening tips or play horseshoes and all is beautiful in the neighborhood. Suppose he had a more reasonable reaction to my statement, such as "That's ok, neighbor, ass meat is not for everyone!"
Words are delicate to the sensitive emotional mind. Our pains and joys hinge on these utterances. Meaning is agreed upon in various ways. As an example, the word "physician" means something very specific to our relations- a doctor in a white coat that checks your eyes and ears and general physical health and passes you off to a specialist if anything seems off. The word "physician" is not such a specific word itself, but it has a specific meaning in the mental consensus of society. "Physician" comes from the Latin root word "physica" meaning things relating to nature. So a physician can be a person who practices the art or science of things related to nature. This is a very broad term and could apply to gardeners, athletes, doctors, circus clowns, scientists, bodybuilders, and other people in the field of the natural or physical. However, in our modern accepted understanding of the word, if a stumbling circus clown were to claim they were a physician they might risk being shunned (or even arrested) for posing as a fraudulent doctor. So we see that words extend beyond literal meaning and become implied, sometimes far beyond their meaning. Metaphor takes these definitions even further from their literal source. Language, therefore, is more of an art than a science, and can have the same comforting or discomforting effects as art.
When we understand the depths of semantic expression we can gain a foothold of how we relay our thoughts to the world. This allows us to be less offensive. We also get a better grip on understanding what is being expressed by others, and we gain the ability to be less offended. Reacting in a hostile manner to someone insulting your mother who does not actually know your mother is a highly illogical ape-like reaction since the noises the offender is making are completely meaningless and unfounded. A good reply to such meaningless insults could be, "maybe", if a reply is needed at all. We each have a responsibility to be less offensive, and we each have a responsibility to be less offended. Understanding the psychology behind expression will help.
"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
-George Bernard Shaw
We hopeless hominids have been making quick judgments for centuries and centuries. It's a good thing, we have used it for survival. Fire equals hot is logical. Muslim equals bad is not logical. Fall equals danger is logical. Tall equals basketball player is not always logical. Quick judgments keep us out of trouble. However, chronic and excessive judgment, in more complex psychological, sociological, and semantic circumstances, are quick assertions that can lead to misunderstanding, and a planet full of billions of quick assertions every second of every day can lead to many compounding misunderstandings, big and small. As a simple matter, seeing fire as hot is not a complicated issue, but saying that (*insert whatever unfounded prejudice here*) is bad or wrong deals with more complex variables that may or may not make that perspective true from individual to individual. The more complex the subject, the less exact a statement about it can be, because more variables must be considered. This complex social chaos has led to wars, greed, division, hatred, racism, bigotry, sexism, slavery, the building of jails, currencies, governments, religions, theft, armies, extreme consumerism, poverty, and just plain old societal overload that has led to mass insanity.
"We cling to our own point of view, as though everything depended on it. Yet our opinions have no permanence; like autumn and winter, they gradually pass away."
-Zuangzi
Frogs are green. Are they? Or, are some frogs green and others other colors? And to who? You? Bumble bees? What color are frogs in the dark? What color is a frog to an earthworm? What color is a frog if no one (or thing) is looking at it at all? What color is the frog under an ultraviolet light? What color is a frog to a blind person?
“In spite of language, in spite of intelligence and intuition and sympathy, one can never really communicate anything to anybody. The essential substance of every thought and feeling remains incommunicable, locked up in the impenetrable strong-room of the individual soul and body. Our life is a sentence of perpetual solitary confinement.”
-Aldous Huxley
Nothing actually is anything. The observer and all circumstances in space and time must be considered, or at least implied, in the observation to illicit greater understanding. Including the observer in assessments and statements (the relaying of information) is important because the entire nervous system of the experiencer is present in the story of reality.
Remember that "is" is equal to "=". Donkey meat is not disgusting to everyone, even if it is to me or you. Our statements about reality are not universal, and they may change. It could be that donkey meat prepared a certain way might be delicious, or maybe not, or you may find that you are the ass. When you make a statement about reality it is important to note that it is only a statement about your limited perceptional experience of reality. You know very little beyond that sliver. The rest is just guesswork based on very little and applies to very few and only within a certain time frame or scenario context.
Once upon a time, in 1888, a 35 mph (miles per hour) train felt fast and nearly blew the top hats and bonnets off of traveling upright gentlemen and ladies. These days 35 mph feels slow. This is all relative to the experiencer and the general understanding of the experience of speed. As of 2013 most people on Earth have felt high speeds in cars, trains, planes, and roller coasters, so in their version of reality, in 2013, a 35 mph train feels slow. However, in 1888, many people had only gone as fast as a gentle horse trot. To them the experience of a 35 mph train would have been astounding. The experience of a modern roller coaster would be terrifyingly heart-stopping. So the experience of reality and what can be said of it depends on its context of when, as well as the contexts of where, what, and who.
“Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.”
-Albert Einstein
Take the example of heat and cold. We say "X is hot" or "Y is cold". These are quick judgments relative only to our experience and relative to our organism and our immediate environmental relations. Therefore, the loose observation of hot or cold is relative to the experiencer, so the observation includes the observer, even if the state to does not. In reality, something can only be hot or cold in relation to something else. 212° Fahrenheit is hot relative to 108° Fahrenheit, but both are "cold" relative to molten lava on Earth. All three temperatures, 108°, 212°, and molten lava, are hot relative to standard human existence. The liquid metal mercury (known as quicksilver) is only liquid in standard conditions relative to human life. It has a "melting point" of -38.83° Celcius, but since that temperature is far colder than our standard conditions of life experience we call it a freezing point, or vice versa. There are planets in which the usual state of mercury would be a solid metal. A more accurate statement (or interpretation of statements) would be "X seems hot to me right now" or "Y felt cold to me yesterday", or "X seems hotter than Y to me at this point in time". To simply say "X is hot" is a general statement relative to the observer that does not include all points in space and time and does not include the observer. Even worse than stating a definitive statement is interpreting a statement as definitive.
When someone says to you, "You are an asshole!", what are they saying? What are you interpreting? What is actually happening on a psychological or relative sociological level? Understanding semantic foolishness will help you take things less personally- "Like water off a duck's back." What do these noises actually mean?
"Everything is self-evident."
-René Descartes
The language of mathematics does not include "=" as a statement without putting conditions on both sides of the proposition. For example, mathematics (the symbolic representations of reality) does not allow us to say 5=3, because it doesn't. It does allow us to say 5=3, but only if you include the conditional reality of +2, so 5=3 when 2 is also present; 5=3+2. It also allows us to say 5=X with X acting as an unknown variable. The variables of what could equal 5 are so many (infinite) that to say that 5 can only equal a specific statement, such as 3+2, is a false assumption (all 5s are not only 3+2), like saying all frogs are green, or all Muslims are terrorists, or all Christians are evil, or all gays are going to hell, or all monkeys eat bananas, or all bosses are right, or all humans think and therefore they are, or whatever other absurdities and irrationalities we hear throughout our day. 5 can equal 5 or 3+2 or 12-7 or 1+1+1-14+36-20 or 1,000,000-999,995 or whatever concludes to being conditionally equal to 5 or includes the recognition of an unknown variable that may allow something to equal 5. In this way we see that each individual number (or thing or experience) is deeply tied into infinity. Anything less than five, or smaller than 5, does not equal 5, and even a representation of five, such as 3+2, only accurately represents 5 as a numerical function. This depends entirely upon the circumstances of the statement itself. For example, 5 planets of varying sizes are not the same (not =) as 5 planets of the same size each. They are equal in number only, but not necessarily equal in true representation. Words are also dependent upon the circumstances of the statement. Chicken soup = chicken soup, but grandma's chicken soup is not equal to canned chicken soup, Chinese chicken soup is not equal to Indian chicken soup, cold chicken soup is not equal to hot chicken soup, rotten old chicken soup is not equal to freshly cooked chicken soup, and chicken soup to me is not equal to chicken soup to you. Other variables exist that destroy the generalization of "is". Similarly, brownies with walnuts are repulsive to many children but quite delicious to many adults, and many adults seem to subconsciously conspire to make brownies with nuts deliberately included in them to, a) torment the children, and b) make the brownies the way they prefer with no consideration for the repulsiveness of bitter walnuts to children. But all joking aside, we get lost when we state that one is absolutely right and the other is wrong, because 3 can equal 5 if we add the necessary expressions, such as +2 to make our communication clearer, and chicken soup might taste better if we add salt and pepper, or maybe not. To many kids 5 brownies(b) are yummy(y), but 5 brownies(b) are less than(<) yummy(y) when walnuts(w) are added. Therefore, to most kids: 5b=y, but 5b+w<y.
“A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.”
―William James
©2014 Laren Grey Umphlett
