One would like to reiterate that language oftentimes plays a tremendous role in regard to how we view the world. Language, whether we care to admit it or not, predisposes us to see the world… usually in rather primitive, erroneous, crass ways. After all, language evolved millennia ago (in its basic forms) and we, for the most part, continue on with — and accepting — the same crude, old thing. Our conditioning goes much further in its entrapment by language, further and much deeper than we realize.
As i’ve mentioned before, Professor David Bohm, Einstein’s protege, whom one has talked to a lot many years ago, developed new ideas for a more evolved style of language (via the Rheomode) wherein verbs play a much more predominant role, rather than nouns (as the rather isolated, static objects that nouns generally are). These days, we continue to use language rather primitively and wrongly. The extent of this goes far deeper than many of us suppose. Language loads us with presuppositions and inaccuracies that have trickled down from the primitive past.
When someone says, for example, “I had an insight,” it presupposes that the observer is separate from the observed; it presupposes that some supposed “static” center was at some psychological distance from what the process of insight was and “had it”. In reality, deep insight exists as a movement that no central, isolated “I” actually “has” or can legitimately take credit for. A supposed central agency (that is not really central whatsoever), being static, conceptual, essentially virtual, and essentially fragmentary, cannot justifiably take credit for having what is a movement of substantiality, a holistic movement. An empty sealed jar cannot hold the wind.
When we look, we see — via language, as we were taught — a world of separate things. We see fragmentarily, in a (set, prearranged) sequence developed by language. “This” as separate from “that,” “this” following “that.” Language consists of sequence and fragmentary movements through (and “as”) time.
Do not be a slave to language. This movement asks you to please look deeply beyond it.
______________________________________________________________________________
A poem from E.E. Cummings:
n
ot eth
eold almos
tladyf eebly
hurl ing
cr u
mb
son ebyo
neatt wothre
efourfi ve&six
engli shsp
arr ow
s
Tom's Nature-up-close Photography and Mindfulness Blog 
When I have insights I routinely have them as part of being with nature – rather than separate I see insight as an example of my participating in the wonder around me offering me some new way of perceiving. However, Ia tree with you completely when you talk about language separating us from nature. Bohm’s emphasis on verbs like the Indigenous way of speaking moves us directly into experiencing. Not separating.
This movement feels that Bohm’s way and some of the indigenous ways (linguistically) are steps in a more correct direction but they are not perfect by any means. Even verb-based language is symbolic, representative, and fragmentary.
Insights with nature are good to a point, but much of nature (even though we can look at it very holistically) is often full of conflict and violence and that is where the point ends. Insight can go far beyond nature and the influence of nature. (But, all the same, to be in-tune with nature is a very beautiful thing.) 🙂
You are right of course. Nature is a ‘both and’ reality possessing both light and dark aspects but human evil is missing. Nature is always focused on survival the whole – not the parts and so what we perceive as violence and conflict in nature is always in service to a larger picture.
Language will always have drawbacks – this is why being in one’s body in a conscious way can help us escape words through pure feeling/sensing – but the caveat here is projection – we have to learn how to separate what is real from what we want to see/feel etc….
Because of the intimacy I experience in nature I have a tendency to err on the positive side of nature – but frankly it’s a relief to do so because the reality of human darkness is becoming so overwhelming – for the most part I am aware of my bias and I think that’s the most important kind of knowing…what do you think?
Yes, Sara, the older i get, the more i see the plight of poor nature due to the indifference and dark-side of man in terms of the environment and overpopulation. It’s so sad to see the nutty U.S. administration, at this time, kissing the butt of the fossil-fuel industry and dismantling environmental regulations. We used to see praying mantises in our yard every year… lots of them. Now, we see none. The many butterflies that would flock to our river bank to get needed minerals are now not to be seen. There are far fewer snakes and frogs here. Yes, even the carnivorous animals are part of a larger, harmonious whole. Man has adulterated that harmony and balance. My premonition as a kid is (sadly) turning out to be coming true all too quickly.
Stay safe and rise above the chaos.
That photo is phenomenal Tom. The wings appear as lush fabric which, I suppose, they are!
My pictures are 2-dimensional and are very superficial. Don’t be the type of mind that focuses on them long.
Our brains are very complex and can hone in on information and processes right away so I was able to read part of the poem, but on the other hand, I got turned around with the buttefly that was bigger than a breadbox. 🙂
We are used to seeing everything within certain set parameters; outside of that, we don’t function well. We love Magrette’s art. He saw how we see! 🙂
We are a sorry lot sometimes aren’t we Tom? This painting is really different – the comb in the corner. I Googled this artist and checked out some more of his many works.
Magritte, like M.C. Escher, were artists with much insight. Pay attention to their works carefully! 🙂
Pingback: Language and Meditation/Mindfulness – The Translator
meditating is great