Yeah. That is actually true. In a way ... you know ... well, it kinda bothers me that we speak as much as we do then. Don't we know anything, or ...?
No, I don't think the quote is meant to be taken literally. I get the point - I really do - but in my opinion it is a wrong interpretation that leads to "you a an idiot" if you speak.
But yeah, insufficiency of language is something really exciting. Another question that is brought with it is; how do we think? Are our minds as bound to the language as our communication.
Well in my opinion it can be interpreted in several ways - I have to say I only stumbled over the quote when reading "Sun Tzu's" Art of War, and it just seemed a suitable opening remark to continue our conversation on the limits of expressing our thoughts and ideas through the use of language - not to mention the limiting effect of language on our thoughts inside our head.
So in the moment of posting the quote, I interpreted it as: If you know, you also realise that describing IT is impossible - as soon as you attempt to describe it by language, you will be describing something which exists beyond the that natural conventions of our society by the means of something based on our society - as you said yourself - trying to convince a being living in two dimensions that there are four of them.
But what I, the signer of this text, originally meant with the quote when I wrote it was this: "Tao is to be understood as a spiritual principle which upholds everythings harmony - This principle can be acknowledged through the observation of nature but cannot be conveyed through the use of language - you can only approach its essence through the use of metaphors and other rewritings."
I do not believe necessary to describe the other interpretation since you put it our quite neatly in your previous comment.
Yeah. That is actually true. In a way ... you know ... well, it kinda bothers me that we speak as much as we do then.
SvarSletDon't we know anything, or ...?
No, I don't think the quote is meant to be taken literally. I get the point - I really do - but in my opinion it is a wrong interpretation that leads to "you a an idiot" if you speak.
But yeah, insufficiency of language is something really exciting. Another question that is brought with it is; how do we think? Are our minds as bound to the language as our communication.
Well in my opinion it can be interpreted in several ways - I have to say I only stumbled over the quote when reading "Sun Tzu's" Art of War, and it just seemed a suitable opening remark to continue our conversation on the limits of expressing our thoughts and ideas through the use of language - not to mention the limiting effect of language on our thoughts inside our head.
SvarSletSo in the moment of posting the quote, I interpreted it as: If you know, you also realise that describing IT is impossible - as soon as you attempt to describe it by language, you will be describing something which exists beyond the that natural conventions of our society by the means of something based on our society - as you said yourself - trying to convince a being living in two dimensions that there are four of them.
But what I, the signer of this text, originally meant with the quote when I wrote it was this: "Tao is to be understood as a spiritual principle which upholds everythings harmony - This principle can be acknowledged through the observation of nature but cannot be conveyed through the use of language - you can only approach its essence through the use of metaphors and other rewritings."
I do not believe necessary to describe the other interpretation since you put it our quite neatly in your previous comment.
/Lau Tzu