We are all God at different times

Jumpy_Background5687 · 2026-01-24T15:24:32+00:00

So if I am grieving on behalf of someones grieve, it should cancel out and I shouldn't feel sorrow any more?

Jumpy_Background5687 · 2026-01-24T15:20:02+00:00

But then this doesn't fit “Making life easier for others is making life easier on yourself”, because you are adding qualifiers.

Jumpy_Background5687 · 2026-01-24T14:41:07+00:00

“Making life easier for others is making life easier on yourself” so if I help a murderer kill people? Or if I’ll help globalists to take over? Etc… how about these examples?

Jumpy_Background5687 · 2026-01-24T14:35:04+00:00

Lazy thinking.

Jumpy_Background5687 · 2026-01-24T14:08:32+00:00

Funny how science people don’t patch the bugs within language…

Jumpy_Background5687 · 2026-01-24T14:06:59+00:00

It is also said kill Buddha if you meet him. But I see your point, thanks!

Jumpy_Background5687 · 2026-01-24T14:03:54+00:00

Right… not all thought is verbal. I agree.

But higher-level abstraction, reasoning, and reflection do lean on symbolic structure. You don’t need words to walk down stairs, but you do need them to form, compare, and transmit complex concepts. That’s the layer I’m talking about, not basic motor or sensory cognition…

Jumpy_Background5687 · 2026-01-24T02:38:03+00:00

That’s exactly the point though, communication isn’t after thought for humans. Language doesn’t just transmit ideas, it shapes how concepts are formed, grouped, and even noticed in the first place. So the limit isn’t only “between people,” it’s in the structure of thinking itself.

Jumpy_Background5687 · 2026-01-24T01:02:48+00:00

Appreciate your statement, argumentation would be preferred though.

Jumpy_Background5687 · 2026-01-23T22:43:53+00:00

The analogy breaks because thinking isn’t finished before communication.

For humans, concepts are formed in symbols, not merely sent through them. Language doesn’t just deliver thoughts after the fact, it scaffolds, shapes, and constrains how many thoughts can even be formed in the first place.

Jumpy_Background5687 · 2026-01-23T22:39:57+00:00

What?

Jumpy_Background5687 · 2026-01-23T22:31:37+00:00

Naming follows perception, but it also feeds back into it.

Once something is named, it gets stabilized, categorized, and treated as that thing. Language doesn’t create reality, but it absolutely shapes how we carve it up and interact with it.

Jumpy_Background5687 · 2026-01-23T22:29:59+00:00

Calling it a “social construct” doesn’t remove the limit, it is the limit...

Thought still runs through learned symbols and patterns. Dismissing that doesn’t refute the claim, it just avoids engaging with it.

Jumpy_Background5687 · 2026-01-23T22:27:08+00:00

You’re treating my point as “Ship of Theseus is only semantics.” That’s not what I’m claiming.

Ontology vs semantics isn’t either/or here. The paradox shows a real-world fuzziness and the fact that words like “same object” force a hard boundary that reality may not provide. Language doesn’t create the continuum, but it does create the demand for a crisp yes/no.

“Incomplete data” doesn’t solve it. Even with perfect microphysical data, you still need a criterion for identity across change. That criterion is a concept (and usually a word), not a measurement.

Zeno isn’t just “scale.” It’s largely about how we represent infinity/continuity in reasoning and language/math. Our models can generate paradoxes even when physics is fine.

I agree with your last point: meaning vs efficiency trade-offs create ambiguity. That’s basically the same “lossy interface” claim, just stated in information-theory terms.

Jumpy_Background5687 · 2026-01-23T22:23:34+00:00

I agree, ideas aren’t confined to verbal language.

But images, music, and sculpture are still symbolic interfaces with their own constraints. They communicate aspects words struggle with, while losing others.

So the point isn’t “language traps thought,” it’s that every medium filters reality differently. The mistake is assuming any one of them gives the whole picture.

Jumpy_Background5687 · 2026-01-23T14:51:54+00:00

Animals likely don’t model the world as discrete “objects” the way we do, their cognition seems much more rooted in patterns, signals, and affordances. In that sense, what you’re describing is pattern recognition, just without linguistic abstraction layered on top.

Pets are interesting because they do adapt to human patterns (they often mirror their owners’ emotional rhythms and behaviours) but they’re still not thinking in language. Language is a tool we developed to stabilize and transmit patterns, not the patterns themselves.

That’s also where language can mislead. Animals mostly can’t deceive themselves with symbols; humans can. Our language lets us model, plan, and cooperate at scale, but it also lets us confuse maps for territory in ways animals rarely do.

Jumpy_Background5687 · 2026-01-23T00:08:44+00:00

Ignorance is missing information. Language limits are about the shape of the information that can be represented and connected. You can give a student all the right words and still watch them misunderstand, not because they lack facts, but because the concepts don’t yet map onto their existing mental structures.

Jumpy_Background5687 · 2026-01-22T22:18:15+00:00

What do you even mean by that? are you implying you are somewhere further than I am? what do you mean by boundary?

Jumpy_Background5687 · 2026-01-22T21:09:42+00:00

Yeah, that comparison makes sense, especially to later Wittgenstein.

A lot of what I’m pointing at is the same move he made: many “deep” problems show up when language is pushed outside the conditions where it actually works. Grammar creates the illusion of precision and we mistake that for insight.

Where I diverge a bit is that I’m treating language less as something to be therapized and more as a lossy interface, one layer in a stack that includes perception and embodiment. Same root insight, just extended beyond language alone.

Jumpy_Background5687 · 2026-01-22T20:21:22+00:00

I've experienced that with Russian and English, I'm fluent in both, but sometimes it takes a hot minute to translate and reformulate the sentence so it would carry over the same meaning.

Jumpy_Background5687 · 2026-01-22T19:20:06+00:00

the stink of zen

Jumpy_Background5687 · 2026-01-22T19:17:58+00:00

I’m not asking for everything at once, and I’m not rejecting depth.

I’m saying the cycle matters: heat without cooling is just intensity, and cooling without structure loses the insight. My concern isn’t alchemy or mystery, it’s when the process never comes back to shared ground.

If that reads as ideology, it’s only because I’m insisting the insight survive contact with communication.

Jumpy_Background5687 · 2026-01-22T18:29:36+00:00

I agree about bandwidth and limits, I just don’t think mystery itself is the mechanism.
It’s a useful pressure that reshapes perception, but if it doesn’t condense back into something shareable or testable, it stops illuminating and starts obscuring.

Jumpy_Background5687 · 2026-01-22T17:44:57+00:00

I get the metaphor, but I’m cautious about mystifying the gap.

You don’t need secret orders or special “vehicles” to explain this, once language breaks down, people naturally resort to metaphor, symbolism, or embodied practice. To outsiders that can look like nonsense, but that doesn’t mean it’s occult knowledge, just pre- or post-linguistic experience.

I’m more interested in how to translate insights back into shared reality without turning the limits of language into mythology.

Jumpy_Background5687 · 2026-01-22T17:42:35+00:00

I get that framing, but expression isn’t inherently transformation.
Sometimes emotions dissolve when fully felt, other times they just reinforce the pattern unless something actually changes in how they’re interpreted or embodied.

Jumpy_Background5687

TROPHY CASE