How does one penetrate the ineffable? gently. At least have dinner first.

How does one penetrate the ineffable?  gently. At least have dinner first.

===

But seriously tho’, there’s a courtship involved.

====

It’s a dance. A courtship. Known and unknown. Some things may be temporarily ineffable : not every mystery is a universal-for-all-time-and-all-humanity mystery.

===

I start distinctions (what is it a “this” and not a “that”, and not both “this”).

Areas where the boundaries are.

Then I look at the relationship between the boundary areas. I don’t always have to know the entirety of each of the “what” (What A and What B), but if I know the differences and how those differences relate to one another, then I can have some kind of categories.

Man, that sounds like nonsense when I write it out.

I’m pondering a ‘something’. There’s knowable parts. But then there’s a boundary zone. Beyond the boundary zone is the unknowable parts.

So, understand the boundary zone, then what’s “just past” the boundary zone into the interface part where the two meet and interchange – where things are confusions and uncertainties… until you reach the entirely ineffable. In the ineffable zone, there’s nothing you can do.

but in the space just beyond the boundary of the known you *can* explore where the known and ineffable mix.

====

Or: You can take a shortcut:
‘Everything is fiction”.

Then you’re free to explore anything in any way you wish without being tethered to this notion of “true and false”.

You can learn and explore without worrying about truthvalues. Have a ball.

Then later once you’ve learned both useful and stuff that will end up being useless, THEN you can start cutting away what doesn’t fit.

====

Yup. Less pressure too. Take a fuckitall pill and have a good time. Figure out the truth later on.

====

Or: Explore paradoxes. That’s a good starting point. Figure out “What do all paradoxes have in common?”

That was useful to me at least. Don’t know how useful it is to others.

===

Exploring the ineffable is often (or usually or always – I don’t know) – experiential.

Like Zac said, having to put words to things that don’t yet have words is hard. There’s a ‘something’ and you know it’s there but you can’t describe it properly. When you try to describe it, you sound crazy because the vocabulary isn’t invented yet.

====

I’ll give an example: Tonight, my 12 yr old nephew is on his 2nd day in 7th grade.

During his first class he was describing what caused him to go to the nurse. He told me about a bunch of voices in his head that were loud and yelling at him, everything they said, his chest feeling like it exploded and his organs were spilling out on the floor, everything was very very cold, and he felt like he wasn’t really there in the classroom.

At the end of the class he asked to go to the nurse, where he laid there for a 1/2 hour before going back to classes.

Whole thing lasted 45 minutes.

But because I had the same things, I knew what it was and what to call it and gave him examples from myself that he related to 100%. Now he has a name for it and knows better what to expect in the future. I also gave him some coping skills (a breathing technique)

====

They’re not all linked to words though. There’s other languages we use such as images, music and such.

===

The larynx is just one method of communication which can produce “effable” ideas.

We also have hands, when combined with tools that leave marks on other objects for example.

====

Metaphors. This somewhat corresponds to that.

It doesn’t have to be in words.

Example: Draw image of Sun. Show Sun in sky.

The drawing is a representation of the Sun in the sky. No words needed.

Yet, that same drawing of the Sun can also gain qualities unrelated to the Sun. The feeling of warmth could be related to the arms of a mother and you end up with a Sun Mother God. Or the rays burning can be related to getting sunburnt and it becomes a vengeful punishing Sun Father God.

No words. Just imagination linking metaphors together.

====

Why do humans “anthropomorphize” everything?

We use our own selves as models and imprint that model upon everything around us.

So, people are objects.
Therefore,
All objects are people.

Objects gain human-like qualities.

You don’t even need verbal language from that. Just the experience of dealing with people and making assumptions about other things around as *also* being like the people you know.

==

chicks imprinting on a bot for an example of anthropomorphizing. We do it to objects. So do chicks. No verbal language needed.

====

Well, your solution was great but in my mind it turned the ineffable into a 40 foot blow up Pikachu and us penetrating the ineffable in that manner into the kids using the Pikachu slide…. with the addition of KY to make for a smoother journey through the inefable…
..and i couldn’t get that mental image out of my head.

====

True Zac. Like; “What is Love?”

The problem with that question is that Love is a verbal thing describing a relationship process. It’s not properly a noun, although we’ve nominalized it. It’s easier to move concepts around as nouns than as verbs.

But then we can a mistake in thinking: If love is a noun, what is it? And we try to describe this “thing” called love in terms that properly describe physical objects that have a static unchanging permanence.. and get frustrated because Love doesn’t have those qualities because it’s not properly a noun.

====

you know the name of the singer? oh, you get points for that somewhere. [I looked up Haddaway and did a facepalm… my cultural knowledgometer did a fail]

====

STEP BY STEP PROCESS OF PENETRATING THE INEFFABLE:
1) Find ineffable
2) Draw large circle around ineffable.
3) Ignore everything that isn’t within the circle.
4) Refine the circle by moving the edges towards the boundaries of the ineffable.

CONGRATULATIONS! You have circumscribed the uncircumscriable!

5) Erase a portion of the boundary.
6) Look inside.

DONE!

====

===