What is 'Enlightenment'?

[Age]

So, you decided to go ad hom. Which is also a form of reasoning, but a poor one.

The main problem with this response is that inside the larger argument against reason, there are smaller arguments with conclusions about reality and perception. So, you are not just using reason to undermine reason, but also drawing subconclusions about other things.

There seems to be an odd spate of identifying anyone who posts here as a philosopher and using it as pejorative term. I'm not a philosopher. I'm interested in philosophy.

No ad hom. I'm simply saying that I would expect those on a philosophy forum to be resistant to an idea which invalidates all philosophy.

'you', "truthagenda", are on a philosophy forum, are you resistant to an, your own, idea which, supposedly, invalidates ALL philosophy?

[Age]

Now, what is 'Reason'? 'Reason', is thinking with words. That's all it is.

No, sorry to disagree with you, but that's not "all" it is. That is what it is, in part, but not "all."

Reasoning can also be done through logic symbols, not using any actual "words."

How is ANY or ALL 'logic symbols' 'thought of or about' if NOT through actual 'words'?

But even if it couldn't, it would be much more than just using words. Just as the scientific method is a way of thinking disciplined by special rules, "reasoning" rightly understood, is a disciplined form of connecting premises to conclusions in order to maximize the likelihood of locating truth.

So what?

'it' is ALL done through and with 'words', or 'a language'.

You were given symbols (words) by your language, of abstract concepts, like 'good' and 'evil', like 'god', like 'identity', and even 'separateness'. Then, you use those symbols to create a reason; a philosophy; a doctrine; or a purpose.

Here, you are using the word in its informal sense, as a synonym for "rationale," or "argument." You're not using it the precise sense in which philosophers assess the word, as a rule-governed, disciplined, rigorous form of connecting premises to conclusions.

And, 'you' are NOT using the 'philosophers' word PRECISELY, NOR even Correctly.

But HOW 'you', adult human beings, 'access' words is VERY DIFFERENT among 'you'.

This, then, renders your argument what philosophers call "invalid," because you're guilty of shifting what they call your "middle term," ("reason") in the middle of trying to make a point. This error renders the conclusion not rationally compelling to a logical thinker anymore.

AND 'you', "immanuel can", are just PROVIDING MORE PROOF of how you LOVE to 'try to' TALK here as though you KNOW what 'you' are TALKING ABOUT.

But, sadly, you STILL can NOT do 'this' WITHOUT your CONDESCENDING undertones SHOWING through VERY BRIGHTLY.

Keep in mind, these abstract concepts, which you take to be truth, or real, were created by someone other than you, whom you don't know.

The words were. The objects and entities they signify were not created by other people;

Unless, OF COURSE, the 'objects' and 'entities' were ACTUALLY human being created 'objects' or 'entities'.

they're realities in the external world, things at which your words 'aim' but do not depend on whether or not you find words for them, for their existence.

Words become our world.

No, they don't, actually.

LOL and this coming from the one 'whose world' is made up of a 'male gendered' Creator of ALL 'things'.

If 'words' do NOT become 'your world' "immanuel can", then HOW and WHY do 'you' have such a DISTORTED and TWISTED VIEW of 'things'?

What IS CREATING this DISTORTION and TWISTING if it is NOT 'those internal words' that 'you' USE, "yourself"?

Although 'your' human being made up and created 'words' are NOT necessarily aligned to the ACTUAL and True 'world', 'words', themselves, do become 'a world' to the USER of 'those words'. Which is the VERY NATURE of BELIEVING and ASSUMING one ALREADY KNOWS what is true and right.

Not in anything other than a metaphorical and hyperbolical sense. Words don't "become" the world. The world is whatever it is. And our words are better or worse in dealing with it, depending on how effectively the identify the phenomenon found in the external world.

And an example of one of the WORST case of words NOT effectively identifying the phenomenon found in the 'external world' is the BELIEF that the Creator of ALL 'things' is A "he".

A symbol (word) is only a reference to a real or abstract thing, and therefore all of its' 'life' is lost to the symbol.

That's clearly not so.

Words don't actually have a "life" to lose, and they are a kind of symbol. So they can't "lose their life" to themselves.

'you' are CLEARLY MISSING the POINT that was being made here "immanuel can".

(If this post is suddenly deleted, rest assured it is because there are people who do not want this information propagated.)

That seems unlikely. But there may be people like me, people who would wish to help you refine your ideas.

LOL and WHO is going to HELP 'you', "immanuel can", REFINE YOUR, OBVIOUSLY, False, Wrong, AND Incorrect ideas?

And we might say something about the problems we see with the theory. That would be probable.

[Age]

No, sorry to disagree with you, but that's not "all" it is. That is what it is, in part, but not "all."

Reasoning can also be done through logic symbols, not using any actual "words." But even if it couldn't, it would be much more than just using words. Just as the scientific method is a way of thinking disciplined by special rules, "reasoning" rightly understood, is a disciplined form of connecting premises to conclusions in order to maximize the likelihood of locating truth.

How can you reason without words? Your 'discipline' is formed by words. Words, are merely symbols, and therefore "logic symbols" are little different.

The words were. The objects and entities they signify were not created by other people; they're realities in the external world, things at which your words 'aim' but do not depend on whether or not you find words for them, for their existence.

However, naming something - creating that symbol, inherently influences your perception of it. For example, our names. Would people feel as separate from their reality and from each other, if we hadn't names - names which designate "you are separate"'? Can you account for and justify every separation/division that is created by our language? Do all the dichotomies (like 'good' and 'evil') have merit? Words shape our perception, and this has been studied if not proven by researchers in the past:
Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
Language shapes how the brain perceives time

Words don't actually have a "life" to lose, and they are a kind of symbol. So they can't "lose their life" to themselves.

That was actually my point. Words/symbols have no life. Reality (the things words are referencing) does. Therefore the life of the thing is lost. The symbol for a leaf, is not a leaf. The leaf is alive and changing with every moment. That "living reality" of the leaf, is lost when you make a symbol of it.

Is not EVERY 'thing' ALIVE, and CHANGING.

Are 'words/language', definitions and meanings, EVER NOT ALSO CHANGING, ALWAYS, or with EVERY moment?

That seems unlikely. But there may be people like me, people who would wish to help you refine your ideas. And we might say something about the problems we see with the theory. That would be probable.

That would be appreciated. Though you'll have to forgive my lack of familiarity with philosophical discipline and diction.

But please do NOT apologize for NOT YET SEEING or RECOGNIZING the CONDESCENDING WAYS of "immanuel can".

Those WAYS are so SUBTLE that even "immanuel can" does NOT YET RECOGNIZE just HOW CONDESCENDING "immanuel can" ACTUALLY IS.

This ATTITUDE is NOT necessarily the DIRECT RESULT of "immanuel can" WANTING to be THIS WAY, but 'this' has just ARISEN because of BELONGING to a VERY JUDGING group of people, who ALSO BELIEVE that they are CLOSER to and KNOW the ACTUAL Truth of 'things'.

[TruthAgenda]

Is there a way to 'think' without words, or language?

If yes, then how, exactly?

Now you see the importance of my message. Not only are there people who aren't aware that you can 'think' without the inner-monologue, they can't even imagine it.

IF there IS A WAY to 'think' WITHOUT words, or language, then will you TELL us HOW this can be done, EXACTLY?

Now, HOW can 'things' be understood, deducted, and/or cognized WITHOUT words, nor language?

Tell you 'how'? There is no way to describe 'how'. Rid your mind of words, and you are left with thinking and understanding that is not in the form of words. This, causes your understanding/cognition to transcend the limits imposed by words, including, the rate with which you can think, while reciting those words to yourself. Thinking with words is a handicap. It is also in the process of word-thinking, that you often lose the true understanding of something; because every word relates to another, and so along the process of word-reasoning, your thoughts necessarily engage in a literary process, vs raw cognition.

If you want to come here and make CLAIMS, then I suggest you have the ACTUAL PROOF that backs up and supports YOUR CLAIMS BEFORE you make YOUR CLAIMS public here.

I thought this was a philosophy forum, not a science journal. Since when does every claim and position require *proof*?

But, LOL, what happens when the 'inner-monologue' is expressing the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE view of 'things' EXACTLY how they ARE?

The inner-monologue, and language, is capable of producing 'truths'. However truths and reason are man-made things. What language is incapable of capturing, is reality. Necessarily, every symbol made of reality, or a real thing, is lacking the LIVING REALITY of it. That's what a symbol is.

Are 'you', as an adult for example, able to sit, or rest, in PERFECT SILENCE, without words nor language, and OBSERVE what is in FRONT of 'you'?

If yes, then for how long?

And, if yes, then what is the actual purpose of doing so?

I have been without an inner-monologue for months at a time.

BUT HOW the Universe ACTUALLY works, and what the Universe ACTUALLY IS, is NOT beyond our comprehension AT ALL.

Also, it is THROUGH words AND language how ALL 'things' come to be KNOWN, UNDERSTOOD, and COMPREHENDED.

That's quite the claim, which I know, though their names are unknown to me, many philosophers would disagree with. "Not beyond our comprehension at all"? That's an impossible claim; unless you comprehend the entirety of the universe, you cannot make that assertion.

IF the words, or language, that you are USING is NOT aligned with what IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True, and you are BELIEVING your OWN words, or language, as being true, then you are, OBVIOUSLY, deluding "yourself".

Also, are you NOT deluding "yourself", or are you deluding "yourself", here with what you are SAYING and CLAIMING above?

Astute. I am deluding myself to an extent. I actually have a very hard time conveying the understanding I have, because through the speaking of it, the reality of it is tainted/defiled/misrepresented.

Though what I am speaking of is not a 'belief'. Like I said, I removed my own inner-monologue from my mind, and experienced that 'transcendent' cognition. The things I'm describing to you now, resemble the theories and logic I used before the step, from hypothetical to experimentally proven.

So, if you KNOW what is NOT 'a turtle', then what IS 'a turtle', EXACTLY?
The so-called 'inner-monologue' is, ESSENTIALLY, made up of 'thought', which IS comprised of WORDS, and/or LANGUAGE, which ARISES, Naturally, and GROWS, as the human being GROWS.

And, it is THROUGH WORDS and LANGUAGE human beings COME to UNDERSTAND 'the world', the Universe, AND the 'things' around them.

There is 'thought' without words.

Here is where you're wrong, and why what I'm saying is significant also. It is NOT through words and language that human beings come to understand anything. Again, you can describe the sky to a blind man, and he'll never understand it. You can give the same words to two different people about the same thing, and one may 'understand' it better than the other. Therefore it is not the words which carry understanding, and any 'understanding' you have which is premised on words, is a 'belief' and a representation which exists within the confines of your known language.

There is NO 'inner-monologue' in the 'Mind'. But, then this all depends on by what you MEAN, EXACTLY, with your USE of the words 'inner-monologue'. And, what, EXACTLY, comes from the 'Mind' should NEVER be gotten 'rid of'.

Sure there is. The inner-monologue 'resides' "in the mind". That's what we've called the practice of talking to ourselves "within our minds".

[TruthAgenda]

"What is Enlightenment?" It is to shed superstition, dogmatism/religion, magical thinking and give wonder free range.

In a way. And what is the source of all superstition, dogma, doctrine, and magical thinking? Reason. (Or shall I say, thinking with words?)

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is the abandonment of reason.
..........

The difference between humans and an animal is the rational mind, i.e. the ability to reason.

While the Latin term itself originates in scholasticism, it reflects the Aristotelian view of man as a creature distinguished by a rational principle.
In the Nicomachean Ethics I.13, Aristotle states that the human being has a rational principle (Greek: λόγον ἔχον), on top of the nutritive life shared with plants, and the instinctual life shared with other animals, i. e., the ability to carry out rationally formulated projects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_animal#:~

However, the function of reason has many levels of competences, i.e. there is

1. Proto-reason
2. Primal, crude Pure Reason
3. Progressive logical thinking
4. Reasoning with wisdom

A person who has abandoned reason in general will be the mercy of his animal instincts.
Worst is when a person rely on crude reason exposed to the basic instincts, e.g. theists clinging to an illusory God.
Worst still when a person rely on slightly higher reason but is dominated by the basic instincts, e.g. the malignant psychopath who is basically very intelligent.

Enlightenment is one who has the competence to optimize his well being with intelligence, reasoning with wisdom, in complementarity with his inherent and necessary instincts & emotions.

This is like Aristotle's anger management;

• Anybody can become angry - that is easy, but to be angry
  with the right person and
  to the right degree and
  at the right time and
  for the right purpose, and
  in the right way
  - that is not within everybody's power and is not easy.
  Aristotle

An enlightened person is one who can apply the above principle optimally to all his human functions which is controllable by any human.
In this case, the person must have the corresponding neural states to exercise the above.

When I speak of 'reason' within this context, I am speaking of "thinking with words".

I'd say the difference between animals and humans simply lies in scope/degree of intelligence. Even without language, and without what I'm referring to as reason, we are leagues above the animal mind.

Nah, thinking with words is 'linguistics' or language.

What is Reason?
Reason is the capacity of consciously applying logic by drawing conclusions from new or existing information, with the aim of seeking the truth.[1][2]
It is closely[how?] associated with such characteristically human activities as philosophy, science, language, mathematics, and art, and is normally considered to be a distinguishing ability possessed by humans.[3]
Reason is sometimes referred to as rationality. -WIKI

[Iwannaplato]

"What is Enlightenment?" It is to shed superstition, dogmatism/religion, magical thinking and give wonder free range.

In a way. And what is the source of all superstition, dogma, doctrine, and magical thinking? Reason. (Or shall I say, thinking with words?)

And what is the source of all violence, aggressiveness, rudeness, farts, zits, and vomit?
The body.
So, let's get rid of our bodies.

[Age]

No, sorry to disagree with you, but that's not "all" it is. That is what it is, in part, but not "all."

Reasoning can also be done through logic symbols, not using any actual "words." But even if it couldn't, it would be much more than just using words. Just as the scientific method is a way of thinking disciplined by special rules, "reasoning" rightly understood, is a disciplined form of connecting premises to conclusions in order to maximize the likelihood of locating truth.

How can you reason without words? Your 'discipline' is formed by words. Words, are merely symbols, and therefore "logic symbols" are little different.

Can you do mathematics? But in mathematics, you can operate without words.

LOL HOW, EXACTLY, could one do 'mathematics' WITHOUT 'words'?

Like in logic, the symbols relate to each other rationally, within a closed symbol system. Nobody has to speak at all, or write a single linguistic utterance or word.

REALLY?

So you can LOOK AT 'symbols' WITHOUT READING and WITHOUT THINKING, and STILL KNOW whether they are 'logical', 'rational', and/or 'related.

The words were. The objects and entities they signify were not created by other people; they're realities in the external world, things at which your words 'aim' but do not depend on whether or not you find words for them, for their existence.

However, naming something - creating that symbol, inherently influences your perception of it.

"Influences"? Yes, perhaps. "Distorts"? Not necessarily. Having a name doesn't make you a different person from the one you are. It just puts a label on what you are, the label "Tom" or "Harry" or "Bernice" or whatever. Will that be somewhat different than if you were named "David" or "Gertrude"? Maybe. But not different in very much, or in a way that, in most situations, limits your options in any way.

Words don't actually have a "life" to lose, and they are a kind of symbol. So they can't "lose their life" to themselves.

That was actually my point. Words/symbols have no life.

They're not supposed to "have a life." That's a metaphor, not a reality.

For example, the word "birch" is not a tree. But it indicates a kind of tree. It has no "life," and the tree does. But words are not supposed to have "life." They're only pointers or signposts to something that may or may not have life, but has reality outside of mere words. So nothing's wrong there.

Reality (the things words are referencing) does. Therefore the life of the thing is lost.

Nothing at all is "lost."

The word does its job -- it draws your attention to the real tree. That's all it's ever supposed to do.

The symbol for a leaf, is not a leaf. The leaf is alive and changing with every moment. That "living reality" of the leaf, is lost when you make a symbol of it.

I think you're worrying a lot about something terribly obvious. Words aren't the things they designate. So what? We knew that. That's why we invented a word to use...because we didn't want to cart around a bunch of trees all the time, and have to point to them every time we wanted to say something about a birch.

That seems unlikely. But there may be people like me, people who would wish to help you refine your ideas. And we might say something about the problems we see with the theory. That would be probable.

That would be appreciated. Though you'll have to forgive my lack of familiarity with philosophical discipline and diction.

That's okay. It's what this site is all about.

Here (at least ideally), we're supposed to be helping each other to refine our ideas. So we're not just throwing up a theory to other people and expecting them to agree with us, and getting offended if they don't; we're coming to make use of them as agents of questioning and conversation, so as to make our ideas better, or to help them improve their own. Ideally, it's a cooperative process in which both sides "win." We both get to walk away smarter, and maybe with some new ideas to work on. That's the best outcome, and what we should be doing.

Unless, OF COURSE, one BELIEVES, for example that God is a "he", and then that 'idea' can NOT be worked on, as it is the ABSOLUTE truth to the one with THAT BELIEF.

Unfortunately, too many people here don't seem to get that, I'm afraid.

With "immanuel can" being OBVIOUSLY 'one of those people'.

We have our share of people who come with other things they think they want to do. But that's how it is in any online forum, I guess.

[Age]

"What is Enlightenment?" It is to shed superstition, dogmatism/religion, magical thinking and give wonder free range.

I agree.

Yet 'you' are one of the MOST dogmatic and religious here "lacewing".

As CLEARLY PROVED and SHOWN above.

I think it points to a way of seeing beyond (and without) the restraints of conventional thinking.

I think it points to tapping into a clearer form of awareness that (in some ways) transcends traditional knowledge, reason, perception, and ego... and it may even be felt/sensed as a 'knowing' beyond human language and concepts.

'it' is NOT a 'knowing' 'beyond' human language and concepts.

'you', human beings, in the days when this is being written have just NOT YET evolved enough to FIND and FORM the Right language and Right concepts.

If we try to define it in detail, we create something else.

Is this what 'you' have been doing here "lacewing"?

[Iwannaplato]

In a way. And what is the source of all superstition, dogma, doctrine, and magical thinking? Reason. (Or shall I say, thinking with words?)

And what is the source of all language???????
Humans.
Let's get rid of humans.

[Age]

Is there a way to 'think' without words, or language?

If yes, then how, exactly?

Now you see the importance of my message. Not only are there people who aren't aware that you can 'think' without the inner-monologue, they can't even imagine it.

Now here we can SEE ANOTHER EXAMPLE of ANOTHER one who can NOT back up and support 'its' OWN CLAIMS.

your INABILITY to EXPLAIN how 'you' can, SUPPOSEDLY, 'think' WITHOUT words, nor language, PROVES that 'you' can NOT even do 'it' "yourself" "truthagenda".

IF there IS A WAY to 'think' WITHOUT words, or language, then will you TELL us HOW this can be done, EXACTLY?

Now, HOW can 'things' be understood, deducted, and/or cognized WITHOUT words, nor language?

Tell you 'how'? There is no way to describe 'how'.

Here we have ANOTHER EXAMPLE of 'one' who had NOT ACTUALLY 'thought' through PROPERLY and FULLY what they had just PREVIOUSLY PRESUMED was true and right. And, which they came here to CLAIM what ACTUALLY true and right.

And, we ALL KNOW WHY there is NO WAY for 'you' to describe HOW. OBVIOUSLY, 'you' can NOT 'think' WITHOUT words, NOR language, so we NOW KNOW 'you', at least, can NOT 'think' WITHOUT words, NOR language.

'Knowing', on the other hand, can be done WITHOUT words, and language. And, it is the 'inner-KNOWING-monologue', which, if LISTENED TO and FOLLOWED, creates a MUCH BETTER 'world', for Everyone. The KNOWING 'inner-monologue' is one 'monologue' which is BETTER left NEVER wanting to relinquish NOR disolve.

Rid your mind of words, and you are left with thinking and understanding that is not in the form of words.

LOL
LOL
LOL

PROVE 'this'.

Oh, and by the way, KNOWING and UNDERSTANDING, WITHOUT words, EXISTED within ALL human bodies BEFORE they began to learn how to 'think', WITH and through 'words', and 'language'.

This, causes your understanding/cognition to transcend the limits imposed by words, including, the rate with which you can think, while reciting those words to yourself. Thinking with words is a handicap. It is also in the process of word-thinking, that you often lose the true understanding of something; because every word relates to another, and so along the process of word-reasoning, your thoughts necessarily engage in a literary process, vs raw cognition.

LOL you speak here as though 'you' do NOT do 'this' and it is ONLY "others" who do 'this'.

Also, ALL Wrong 'thinking' is a so-called 'handicap'. BUT, 'thinking' IS what 'you', adult human beings, DO.

I much prefer to LOOK AT and USE 'knowing', INSTEAD, of 'thinking'.

If you want to come here and make CLAIMS, then I suggest you have the ACTUAL PROOF that backs up and supports YOUR CLAIMS BEFORE you make YOUR CLAIMS public here.

I thought this was a philosophy forum, not a science journal. Since when does every claim and position require *proof*?

They do NOT.

But I suggest that if 'you' do NOT YET HAVE THE PROOF, then 'think about' if 'you' REALLY DO WANT TO MAKE THE CLAIM, in the FIRST PLACE.

But, LOL, what happens when the 'inner-monologue' is expressing the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE view of 'things' EXACTLY how they ARE?

The inner-monologue, and language, is capable of producing 'truths'.

GREAT. So, as I asked previously, WHY would ANY one WANT to 'relinquish' OR 'dissolve' THAT 'inner-monologue'?

However truths and reason are man-made things.

IF 'truths' and/or 'reason' are coming out of 'human beings', then 'they' are, ACTUALLY, human-made 'things'.

BUT, SO WHAT?

Just because a 'truth' or some 'reason' came out of A 'human being', this does NOT, necessarily, mean that there is some 'thing' False, Wrong, NOR Incorrect here.

What language is incapable of capturing, is reality.

It NEVER ceases to AMAZE me just HOW MANY of 'you', human beings, here 'TRY' your HARDEST to make CLAIMS like, 'The truth can NEVER be known', WHILE expressing this CLAIM as though it is some ABSOLUTE and IRREFUTABLE TRUTH.

The CONTRADICTION and HYPOCRISY is SO TOTALLY BLATANTLY OBVIOUS, YET, the Fact that 'you', people, can NOT YET SEE the OBVIOUSNESS here is Truly ABSURD and LAUGHABLE.

LOOK, IF 'language' was Truly INCAPABLE of 'capturing' so-called 'reality', then making 'that CLAIM WITH 'language', then PROVES 'itself' False AND Wrong.

YOUR CLAIM here therefore is A 'self-refuting' CLAIM.

Necessarily, every symbol made of reality, or a real thing, is lacking the LIVING REALITY of it. That's what a symbol is.

And is what you CLAIM here, WITH 'language', 'reality', itself?

If yes, then the CONTRADICTION here should be BLATANTLY OBVIOUS to ALL, NOW.

But if no, then what you CLAIM here IS NOT 'reality', itself, and therefore just plain old False AND Wrong.

Are 'you', as an adult for example, able to sit, or rest, in PERFECT SILENCE, without words nor language, and OBSERVE what is in FRONT of 'you'?

If yes, then for how long?

And, if yes, then what is the actual purpose of doing so?

I have been without an inner-monologue for months at a time.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Talk about one who is DELUDING "them" 'self' and who is in complete and utter DENIAL.

BUT HOW the Universe ACTUALLY works, and what the Universe ACTUALLY IS, is NOT beyond our comprehension AT ALL.

Also, it is THROUGH words AND language how ALL 'things' come to be KNOWN, UNDERSTOOD, and COMPREHENDED.

That's quite the claim, which I know, though their names are unknown to me, many philosophers would disagree with.

1. you speak as these so-called "philosophers" are some kind of KNOW-IT-ALLS.
2. WHY do you 'think' you do NOT know 'their names'? Or, maybe MORE CORRECTLY, HOW CONVENIENT, FOR 'you', that you do NOT KNOW 'their names'.
3. I do NOT care one iota HOW MANY people DISAGREE with me. What I Truly CARE ABOUT is IF what ANY one SAYS and CLAIMS is ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True, or NOT, and whether one can back up and support what they SAY and CLAIM.

"Not beyond our comprehension at all"? That's an impossible claim; unless you comprehend the entirety of the universe, you cannot make that assertion.

I suggest you START to READ the ACTUAL WORDS that I SAY and USE here.

AND, LOL, HOW do 'you' KNOW that my CLAIM is a so-called IMPOSSIBLE CLAIM? Going by 'your' OWN so-called "logic" here 'you' could NOT make that assertion, unless 'you' comprehend the entirety of the Universe.

Also, YOUR "logic" FAILS here, as you did NOT READ NOR UNDERSTAND what I ACTUALLY SAID and MEANT.

IF the words, or language, that you are USING is NOT aligned with what IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True, and you are BELIEVING your OWN words, or language, as being true, then you are, OBVIOUSLY, deluding "yourself".

Also, are you NOT deluding "yourself", or are you deluding "yourself", here with what you are SAYING and CLAIMING above?

Astute. I am deluding myself to an extent.

GREAT. We have ALL done this.

I actually have a very hard time conveying the understanding I have, because through the speaking of it, the reality of it is tainted/defiled/misrepresented.

'you', like a LOT of "others" here, have just NOT YET FOUND the Right words, AND language.

But, just because the Right words, and language, has NOT YET been FOUND, or UNCOVERED, this does NOT mean that 'it' does NOT exist NOR will NOT come-to-light, eventually.

ABSOLUTELY EVERY 'new' human being idea, thought, dream, design, and creation was once 'thought' as IMPOSSIBLE. Just like a LOT of people, in the days when this was being written 'thought' that words, or language, could NEVER 'describe', 'define', 'explain', 'show', NOR 'illustrate' the One and ONLY True and Right 'Reality' of 'things'. Yet like ALL the OTHER 'things' that have come to exist through human intervention so to CAN the Right words, AND language.

Though what I am speaking of is not a 'belief'. Like I said, I removed my own inner-monologue from my mind, and experienced that 'transcendent' cognition.

That 'you' STILL 'think' that (the) 'you' has its OWN 'mind' SHOWS and PROVES that 'you' are NOT YET RID "yourself" of 'your' OWN 'inner-monologue'.

WHEN 'you' have Truly 'transcendent' ALL of 'your' OWN 'inner-monologue' and REACHED the 'depths' of the One and ONLY True AND Right KNOWING, in Life, which is the Truly, and literally, 'inner-MOST-monologue', of thee One, SHARED by ALL, then I suggest 'you' get BACK to 'us' here.

The things I'm describing to you now, resemble the theories and logic I used before the step, from hypothetical to experimentally proven.

If 'it' IS 'experimentally proven', then GREAT. We are WAITING, patiently, to SEE 'this'.

So, if you KNOW what is NOT 'a turtle', then what IS 'a turtle', EXACTLY?
The so-called 'inner-monologue' is, ESSENTIALLY, made up of 'thought', which IS comprised of WORDS, and/or LANGUAGE, which ARISES, Naturally, and GROWS, as the human being GROWS.

And, it is THROUGH WORDS and LANGUAGE human beings COME to UNDERSTAND 'the world', the Universe, AND the 'things' around them.

There is 'thought' without words.

'Think', (of some 'thing'), WITHOUT words.

THEN,

EXPRESS or SHOW 'us' THAT 'thought', WITHOUT words.

THEN, get back to 'us' with YOUR CLAIM here.

Here is where you're wrong, and why what I'm saying is significant also. It is NOT through words and language that human beings come to understand anything.

Let us SAY that 'this CLAIM' of YOURS IS TRUE.

How do 'you', human beings, come to UNDERSTAND ANY 'thing' WITHOUT words NOR language?

Again, you can describe the sky to a blind man, and he'll never understand it.

Are you REALLY SURE that you would like to come to a philosophy forum and TELL "others" that so-called "blind people" can NOT UNDERSTAND 'the sky'?

Are you AWARE that so-called "blind people" can NOT SEE 'things' with the physical eyes, and that they are NOT SO STUPID, NOR SO BLIND, that they can NOT SEE and UNDERSTAND something as SIMPLE and as EASY to UNDERSTAND as 'the sky'?

you speak as though one NEEDS physically working eyes to be ABLE TO UNDERSTAND, or SEE, 'things'.

You can give the same words to two different people about the same thing, and one may 'understand' it better than the other.

OF COURSE, but this is ONLY FURTHER REFUTING YOUR CLAIM here.

It takes some LONGER to UNDERSTAND that the earth is NOT flat and that the earth is NOT at the center of the Universe than it does "others". Just like it takes some LONGER to UNDERSTAND that 'thought' and 'thinking' are, themselves, words and language, themselves.

And, WHY it takes some LONGER to UNDERSTAND some 'things' than for "others" is BECAUSE of things like ASSUMING and BELIEVING. That is; WHEN one is ALREADY ASSUMING or BELIEVING some 'thing' to be true, then they are, OBVIOUSLY, NOT OPEN to SEEING and UNDERSTANDING what the ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY.

Therefore it is not the words which carry understanding, and any 'understanding' you have which is premised on words, is a 'belief' and a representation which exists within the confines of your known language.

Sounds here like you are 'TRYING TO' sound 'smart', as though will somehow give your OWN CLAIM, some back up and support.

But, OBVIOUSLY, what you just SAID and CLAIMED here now is False, Wrong, AND Incorrect. Unless, OF COURSE, when you SAID and USED the 'you' word here you were, literally, MEANING 'you' and that is what 'you' DO.

There is NO 'inner-monologue' in the 'Mind'. But, then this all depends on by what you MEAN, EXACTLY, with your USE of the words 'inner-monologue'. And, what, EXACTLY, comes from the 'Mind' should NEVER be gotten 'rid of'.

Sure there is. The inner-monologue 'resides' "in the mind". That's what we've called the practice of talking to ourselves "within our minds".

Ah, I get it now, you are USING very specific 'words' AND 'language' to DESCRIBE and EXPLAIN 'the reality', which you ALSO CLAIM can NOT DESCRIBED and EXPLAINED IN and WITH 'words', nor 'language'.

And, to this point, you are EXACTLY Right. As the 'words' and 'language' that you are USING will NEVER DESCRIBE and EXPLAIN the One and ONLY ACTUAL 'Reality', which EXISTS.

It is like you are DOING EXACTLY what you SAY and CLAIM just to PROVE that YOUR CLAIM is RIGHT, all along.

[Age]

"What is Enlightenment?" It is to shed superstition, dogmatism/religion, magical thinking and give wonder free range.

In a way. And what is the source of all superstition, dogma, doctrine, and magical thinking? Reason. (Or shall I say, thinking with words?)

OF COURSE these 'things' come from 'thinking', with words. And this is just because ALL 'thinking' ARISES FROM 'words'.

And, by the way, the 'source' of these 'things' is OBVIOUSLY, 'thinking', because it is 'thinking', itself, which, literally, does NOT 'know'.

[Age]

"What is Enlightenment?" It is to shed superstition, dogmatism/religion, magical thinking and give wonder free range.

In a way. And what is the source of all superstition, dogma, doctrine, and magical thinking? Reason. (Or shall I say, thinking with words?)

And what is the source of all violence, aggressiveness, rudeness, farts, zits, and vomit?
The body.
So, let's get rid of our bodies.

BUT, 'the body' is NOT the 'source' of ALL 'violence', 'aggressiveness', NOR 'rudeness', AT ALL.

These 'things' might COME THROUGH human bodies, but human bodies are CERTAINLY NOT 'the source' of these 'things'.

[Age]

In a way. And what is the source of all superstition, dogma, doctrine, and magical thinking? Reason. (Or shall I say, thinking with words?)

And what is the source of all language???????
Humans.
Let's get rid of humans.

I suggest just getting RID OF the False, Wrong, AND Incorrect 'language' AND 'thinking', and, keeping ALL of the True, Right, AND Correct 'language' AND 'thinking' INSTEAD.

[Iwannaplato]

In a way. And what is the source of all superstition, dogma, doctrine, and magical thinking? Reason. (Or shall I say, thinking with words?)

And what is the source of all breaking promises, cheating, theft, murder and advertising????
Being awake.
It is nearly impossible to do these things if one is asleep.
We need to get rid of wakefulness.
Sleep, brothers and sisters and we protect each other from us.
Enlightenment is being asleep.
Or not having a body.
Or not being human.