Can you observe the world without translating what you see into internal dialogue?

Question

I would like to thank JKrishnamurti for this insightful idea.
Since we look at the world and translate it into words in our own minds. That causes the world, rather than to exist on its own as it is, to become an interpretation.

Ignoramus thats a good point if we can observe the world without interacting with it by our interpretation its possible to see things just as they are. The Heisenburg principle guides this: Its the act of the photon (or measuring system) that alters the electron position or spin. If you can observe the world mentally without changing it by how you observe then you can see clearly

Answer 1

Good thought, and I agree. An on line friend cites the Talmud, and I will paraphrase it: "we see what WE are." Personal frame of reference is the most taken for granted human characteristic in the world, and the very hardest one to overcome. Of course it occurs to very few of us that our particular view of ourselves,others, and the world may be skewed. Among others Buddha, Jesus, and Gandhi sought to help us overcome our narrowly confined egos. Its a shame that so many people "have ears, but cannot hear" these messages.

Answer 2

No I can't - and I think none can ever do that. There are certainly moments when you just look without realizing what you see, when you observe but does not feel anything about what you find; but those are moments when the mind is almost unconscious (no difference than when man is asleep) - humans aren't made like that. Insights such as this (and many of J. Krishnamurti's) definitely contribute to the understanding of man's psychological frame. But their practicability is highly questionable as it won't work according to the processes of human nature. Translating external observations into internal dialogues happen automatically and even unconsciously. We may have the pains for that, but the best of life is also achieved through positive interpretations.

Answer 3

Obviously, but this might not be the intelligent thing to do. Buddhists do not try to empty themselves of dialogue until they have one (I imagine a buddha lightly whacking me with a stick on this one). This seems like a critical distinction.

Berkeley holds the view that the mind is what is perceived, even reality as-it-is. Although in a certain sense that is a basis for thought considered seriously.

Translating the world into a dialogue brings up the question of sanity, for it becomes an issue of whose motives are whose, if for example others intentions are part of what is perceived? Maybe it is simply a matter of health.

There has been an enormous difference in my life between engaging with words, and engaging with life-as-thought. It is completely possible to write poems that seem profound or scary without connecting with the act of thought as a form of life. This kind of poetry is an example of how life can seem like a dialogue, even subconsciously or in a simple sense, before it is legitimately translated per se into living experience.

Is living experience a dialog? I would argue that it is not unless we use a very broad definition of the word, or there is an understanding that life consists in having them.

To me your question translates as one of the following:

1. "do you believe you think?"
2. "are you not Plato?"
3. "are words a vague means to an academic image end?"
4. "are you a philosopher AND wasting your time?"
5. "are your thoughts out of this world (I have created hee hee hee)?"
6. "are you a literalist? how is that relavent?"
7. "do you, like many other fools, rely on an infernal teleprompter to tell you what means, or what is (for lack of any intellectual grounding) worth talking about?"

Answer 4

Infants dont use internal dialogue as they grow, it is only as we teach them the understanding behind the words they will learn later in life that we begin the rigorous path to closing thier minds.

To be a true observer is to be completely free of any misconceptions and prejudices and see an act for what it is. I dont know if we will ever be capable of this kind of innocence. But it would be a glorious thing... Baffling but glorious.

Like watching a truly original event take place and being so innocent as to not know what was happening or even be able to put it into words.

Answer 5

Doesn't that disallow thought on anything? In addition, how could we communicate information to others about the world without using words?

In physics the mere observation of an event means that we have interfered with the object, we are in a relationship with the object. How can we not interfere or interpret, while we are still a part of the world?

Answer 6

Well, yes.

The world is here to interpret, by my beliefs. Something can be indescribable. But by saying it's indescribable, you are describing it.

Answer 7

No. Isnt it a little too obvious that we all interpret our our perceptions of reality?