LIBRARY, LIBRARIAN (English words related to Greek words)

Here you can discuss all things Ancient Greek. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get help with a difficult passage of Greek, and more.
Post Reply
User avatar
Neos
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 44
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 7:10 pm
Location: HELLAS - ROMANIA (ΡΩΜΑΝΙΑ) - ROUMELI
Contact:

LIBRARY, LIBRARIAN (English words related to Greek words)

Post by Neos » Sun Jun 08, 2008 7:54 pm

The word library came into English from the old French librairie (collection of books) noun use of adj. librarius from the Latin librarium (chest for books) from liber (gen. libri; book, paper, originally the inner bark of trees) which is related to the Greek Aeolic form λέποÏ￾ (lepor; bark of a tree) from the verb λέπω (lepo; to peel, to strip off the bark of a tree or plant). Books were anciently made by the inward bark of a plant

λέπω (lepo) -> λέποÏ￾ (lepor) - libri -> librarium -> librairie -> library

See the blog: 'English Words of no Apparent Greek Origin' at: http://ewonago.blogspot.com/
Last edited by Neos on Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.

quendidil
Textkit Member
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:39 am

Re: LIBRARY, LIBRARIAN (English words related to Greek words

Post by quendidil » Mon Jun 09, 2008 3:47 pm

Neos wrote: which is related to the Greek Aeolic form λέποÏ￾ (lepor; bark of a tree) from the verb λέπω (lepo; to peel, to strip off the bark of a tree or plant).


If they are related by having the same Indo-European root, they have a common origin, but neither is derived from the other.

Is anyone else bored of these pseudo-linguistic etymologies?

Bob Manske
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 7:37 am

Re: LIBRARY, LIBRARIAN (English words related to Greek words

Post by Bob Manske » Mon Jun 09, 2008 5:20 pm

quendidil wrote:
Neos wrote: which is related to the Greek Aeolic form λέποÏ￾ (lepor; bark of a tree) from the verb λέπω (lepo; to peel, to strip off the bark of a tree or plant).


If they are related by having the same Indo-European root, they have a common origin, but neither is derived from the other.

Is anyone else bored of these pseudo-linguistic etymologies?


I agree with quendidil. this is stupid. It has gone on far enough. Quite a number of very knowledgeable contributors to this site have, over the years, built up Textkit's reputation of reliability. Their hard work is smeared and spat upon by Neos. His puerile babblings, it seems, quite deliberately reduce the level of trust and confidence that this site so richly deserves.

Bob

User avatar
Neos
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 44
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 7:10 pm
Location: HELLAS - ROMANIA (ΡΩΜΑΝΙΑ) - ROUMELI
Contact:

LEPROSY, LEPER

Post by Neos » Wed Jun 11, 2008 4:10 pm

Moreover, from the same verb λέπω (lepo; peel) the Greek word λέπÏ￾α (lepra; leprosy, Hansen's disease) was created, which is related to the Latin lepra , the root for the words leprosy and leper.

In modern Greek.
α) λέπÏ￾α: leprosy [lepra]
β) λεπÏ￾ός: leper [lepros]

λέπω (lepo)-> λέπÏ￾α (lepra) - lepra -> leprosy, leper

See the blog 'English words of no Apparent Greek Origin' at http://ewonago.blogspot.com/

User avatar
Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

Post by Amadeus » Wed Jun 11, 2008 4:42 pm

This feels like spam now. :?
Lisa: Relax?! I can't relax! Nor can I yield, relent, or... Only two synonyms? Oh my God! I'm losing my perspicacity! Aaaaa!

Homer: Well it's always in the last place you look.

User avatar
Gonzalo
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 9:58 am
Location: Τηλόθι πάτρης

Post by Gonzalo » Wed Jun 11, 2008 5:00 pm

Poor Neos seems not to know what a neologism is.

Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Post by Bert » Thu Jun 12, 2008 1:37 am

Gonzalo wrote:Poor Neos seems not to know what a neologism is.
I don't think he is questioning that the meaning changes with time.

Essorant
Textkit Fan
Posts: 282
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 6:35 pm
Location: Regina, SK; Canada
Contact:

Post by Essorant » Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:36 am

Well, If you see something wrong, why not help him correct it, instead of just name-calling it "pseudo" or "stupid" or "spam"? I believe this site is supposed to be helpful not discouraging. Personally I enjoy looking at the related wordshapes and how they vary among the languages. It acquaints us to connections that otherwise are often not known or recognized.

User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2018
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Contact:

Post by Lucus Eques » Thu Jun 12, 2008 4:17 am

Essorant wrote:Well, If you see something wrong, why not help him correct it, instead of just name-calling it "pseudo" or "stupid" or "spam"? I believe this site is supposed to be helpful not discouraging. Personally I enjoy looking at the related wordshapes and how they vary among the languages. It acquaints us to connections that otherwise are often not known or recognized.


The reason, Essorant, is because this has gone on for weeks, and Neos seems to refuse to hear reason on the matter. Altho, this thread of his is not as bad as others have been.

I believe we might be a bit more patient than some of us have here been, but the sentiment is justified. There are limits to patience. Moreover, I think the criticism that follows en masse after such posts is actually quite good and necessary; fears about newer members being confused at the pseudolinguistics of Neos's posts are immediately dissolved by their very expression.
L. Amadeus Ranierius

SCORPIO·MARTIANVS

Kasper
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 799
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 3:01 am
Location: Melbourne

Post by Kasper » Thu Jun 12, 2008 4:51 am

on a positive note, the comments following Neos' posts have often been very informative for people who, like me, are ignorant of the relationship between latin and greek, as well as other languages referred to. it even prompted me to look up PIE on Wikipedia, which i surely would not have done, or at least not yet, were it not for the inflamatory postings of Neos.

plus, the resulting discussions tend to be quite amusing to those watching from the stands.
“Cum ego verbo utar,” Humpty Dumpty dixit voce contempta, “indicat illud quod optem – nec plus nec minus.”
“Est tamen rogatio” dixit Alice, “an efficere verba tot res indicare possis.”
“Rogatio est, “Humpty Dumpty responsit, “quae fiat magister – id cunctum est.”

User avatar
IreneY
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:27 am
Location: U.S.A (not American though)
Contact:

Post by IreneY » Thu Jun 12, 2008 6:01 pm

Lucus Eques wrote:
[...]and Neos seems to refuse to hear reason on the matter [...]



Why do you think I went up in flames from the word 'go' as it were? I could have told you that if you asked me you see. People like Neos never listen to reason, treat the one book that supports their views as Holy Writ and discard the others giving any number of reasons and, in a nutshell, they are not interested in correcting their mistakes (in this particular subject or similar -i.e. that Greeks are actually aliens, one my uncle is particularly fond of- ).
So the only thing you can do is either ban such (mis)users of the forum or reply giving the right etymology (or whatever; depends on the subject) so that others will know the truth without however expecting this will really change anything for the original poster.

User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2018
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Contact:

Post by Lucus Eques » Thu Jun 12, 2008 6:37 pm

IreneY wrote:
Lucus Eques wrote:
[...]and Neos seems to refuse to hear reason on the matter [...]



Why do you think I went up in flames from the word 'go' as it were? I could have told you that if you asked me you see. People like Neos never listen to reason, treat the one book that supports their views as Holy Writ and discard the others giving any number of reasons and, in a nutshell, they are not interested in correcting their mistakes (in this particular subject or similar -i.e. that Greeks are actually aliens, one my uncle is particularly fond of- ).
So the only thing you can do is either ban such (mis)users of the forum or reply giving the right etymology (or whatever; depends on the subject) so that others will know the truth without however expecting this will really change anything for the original poster.


I understand your sentiments, Irene. I share them.

However, believe it or not, we who oppose Neos are, in a way, just as guilty as Neos. Allow me to explain.

Neos is guilty of over-identifying with Hellenism. Believing collective Greek culture to be part of his very self, Neos unconsciously seeks to increase his sense of self by proliferating his interpretation of Hellenism, as he has identified with it. And part of this collective Greek "ego" is that Greek is of course the source of all words, et cetera.

This is the nature of the mind unaware: dominated by the ego; and the ego, always fearing annihilation, seeks to expand and to grow.

Now, on the other side of this debate, here we are, who identify with a much more "reasonable" sense of history and language, one which even shuns such illogic as that of Neos. In fact, our collective identity as "enlightened" linguists depends upon our alienation of "ignorant" ones like Neos, which means that we form our identity from making Neos and his ideas our enemy.

So when Neos presents ludicrous concepts such as "milk" being a word of Greek origin, we balk. We shun. We feel our sense of self, our identity is being attacked. And it is. The error was in believing that our identity was us.

We are not the things with which we identify ourselves. We are not limited to thoughts, forms, or creeds. We fear annihilation, because we believe we are fragile material possessions, fragile bodies, fragile concepts capable of succumbing to attack. Yet that is not what we are. We are the awareness behind the events, the forms, the feelings.


So I understand your frustrations. But all such frustration, of which we have all been guilty at one time or other, comes from a sense of our prized knowledge being attacked by the "ignorant," our "enemies." In such times, we are dominated by ego. And the ego is not personal; that is to say, it is not who we are. We are the awareness in the background, the Watcher always watching.

When we are conscious and aware, then the good and the joy become visible. For example, altho you find the process of correcting Neos's mistakes annoying, I find it enlightening, since I then benefit from the knowledge of the origin of words whose etymologies I had not thought about prior in such detail. Good is to be found everywhere.

In the simplest things, the greatest things.
L. Amadeus Ranierius

SCORPIO·MARTIANVS

User avatar
Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

Post by Amadeus » Thu Jun 12, 2008 8:49 pm

Uh.... yeah... no. I just said Neos' posts feel like spam because they are unsolicited. Instead of posting a query, or helping others with their Greek, or inviting people to join in this activity of searching for etymologies, he keeps writing new threads in this one-sided, I-am-the-teacher manner, when no one is asking to be taught.
Lisa: Relax?! I can't relax! Nor can I yield, relent, or... Only two synonyms? Oh my God! I'm losing my perspicacity! Aaaaa!

Homer: Well it's always in the last place you look.

annis
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3399
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 4:55 pm
Location: Madison, WI, USA
Contact:

Post by annis » Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:44 pm

Regarding the odious Neos I will have more to say in a different post. Lucus' most recent comment, however, is appalling to me in two ways, one personal and one that frankly undermines the goals of Textkit more than Neos' nattering could.

On the first point, Lucus — the others you include in the sweep of your preaching can speak for themselves — you don't know me well enough at all to imagine you know my thoughts or motivations. Frankly, sometimes I don't even know my own mind that well, and the notion that anyone else would know it better is laughable. Anyone who wants to be taken seriously in a discussion with me will not tell me what I think or want. In my experience it somehow always works out that when someone can read my mind they find some character flaw or other defect that just happens to deflect attention or meaning from something I've just said.

As human beings we naturally spend a lot of time trying to discern other people's motivations, and sometimes we're even good at it, for simple things at least. Too often, however, it's just a tool to ignore what someone else has said. The practice makes me cranky.

As to the second point, when you started off with epistemological relativism and all that identity talk I assumed you had been exposed to a lethal dose of some post-modern theoretical delirium. But then you moved on to the ego and the "Watcher" which takes us into doctrinal grounds I'm not sure I've been to before. Whatever it is, I reject it outright. Because this is terrible —

Lucus Eques wrote:However, believe it or not, we who oppose Neos are, in a way, just as guilty as Neos.


No, we aren't. We're not talking about a dispute about whether one can use Europensis in elegant, modern Latin, nor are we arguing over the colometry of some gappy fragment of Bacchylides. The etymologies Neos is offering are manifestly, terribly false. By ignoring this matter and instead focusing on imaginings about egos and identities you have removed the question of truth from discussion entirely. When everything is ego and identity even provisional knowledge becomes impossible. By positing this stunning moral equivalence between Neos' false etymologies and textkittens' objections to them you turn everything that happens here into a game (a stance some post-modernists freely embrace, actually). Under your moral regime there's simply no reason to ask a question about the grammar of ἄÏ￾ιστον μὲν ὕδωÏ￾, because it means whatever we want it to mean — to offer an interpretation, even a provisional one, is no more than ego stroking.

Finally, there are lots of good reasons to be annoyed when presented repeatedly with falsehood. If I ask someone if it's raining outside, and they mislead me, then I can get annoyed for reasons that have nothing at all to do with my self-concept or identity, though getting soaked might have an impact on my ego. There are sound practical, personal and moral reasons to want to have sound knowledge. Bad information gets to us easily enough as it is. To have it deliberately foisted upon us is just another thing making it hard to make good decisions.
William S. Annis — http://www.aoidoi.org/http://www.scholiastae.org/
τίς πατέρ' αἰνήσει εἰ μὴ κακοδαίμονες υἱοί;

annis
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3399
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 4:55 pm
Location: Madison, WI, USA
Contact:

Post by annis » Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:50 pm

Amadeus wrote:Uh.... yeah... no. I just said Neos' posts feel like spam because they are unsolicited. Instead of posting a query, or helping others with their Greek, or inviting people to join in this activity of searching for etymologies, he keeps writing new threads in this one-sided, I-am-the-teacher manner, when no one is asking to be taught.


Right.

There are a small set of Textkit visitors who are a serious pet-peeve of mine — the people who offer nothing to the Textkit community but instead parasitize what κλέος (fame, reputation) Textkit has for their own sites. One guy has never said anything outside the Academy, and there only does drive-by inflammatory posts about once every two months.

Some moderator other than me is going to have to deal with Neos, though, if at all. I made an extensive comment to one of his blog posts, which was then completely deleted (his post and my comment). Yet he continues to duplicate his blog material here. He has used up all my good will. A cooler head should decide about him.
William S. Annis — http://www.aoidoi.org/http://www.scholiastae.org/
τίς πατέρ' αἰνήσει εἰ μὴ κακοδαίμονες υἱοί;

User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2018
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Contact:

Post by Lucus Eques » Fri Jun 13, 2008 2:10 am

Whoa! Will, sorry man, I really must have lacked clarity if you took what I said in that way.

On the first point, Lucus — the others you include in the sweep of your preaching can speak for themselves — you don't know me well enough at all to imagine you know my thoughts or motivations.


So first of all, terribly sorry if this sounded anything like preaching; that's the last thing I would want to do. Preaching is synonymous with leading or driving in a very specific direction of thought, and has a very close minded sound to it. I didn't want to preach. I just wanted to share my interpretation of things.

My purpose for the above post about identification: a lot of unnecessary negative emotions are produced when we, as human beings tend to do, over-identify with a form or an idea. These attachments can and do lead to strife, discord, even violence. My musings were meant to illustrate that this basic source of all human conflict is something all of us, myself included, are succeptible to. I think the closest I came to recommending or "preaching" anything was that "good is to be found everywhere."

I'm not sure what "others" you think I included. I thought I spoke as generally as I could about how people can easily choose sides, and that this can lead to unnecessary frustration and unhappiness. Why did you take this so personally, φίλε?

Frankly, sometimes I don't even know my own mind that well, and the notion that anyone else would know it better is laughable. Anyone who wants to be taken seriously in a discussion with me will not tell me what I think or want.


Yeah, I'm confused. Especially since I think correcting Neos is critically important! as much as you think he should be corrected, as much as anyone with a right head. I wasn't talking about your mind specifically, at all, Will.


As human beings we naturally spend a lot of time trying to discern other people's motivations, and sometimes we're even good at it, for simple things at least. Too often, however, it's just a tool to ignore what someone else has said. The practice makes me cranky.


I can tell it makes you cranky! I'm sorry it seemed to you that I was 'trying to read your mind'. I was drawing a general picture of human interaction into the specifics of this debate — yet I named no one but Neos, and certainly not you, good sir! As for a tool to ignore what someone else has said, if you mean that it seemed like I was ignoring what you had said, let me say again:

I'm going to agree with you, and Irene, and Amadeus again, as I did in my previous posts, that Neos's illogical etymological derivations are to be emended, and every time. I really want that sentiment to be clear, since I don't feel it was (did you think I was actually defending Neos?).

As to the second point, when you started off with epistemological relativism


I am not a relativist, and certainly not in matters of science. Not only am I fully convinced of a single truth, I believe we can come to know it. Not sure where you got relativism from. I was talking about human nature, not etymology.

and all that identity talk I assumed you had been exposed to a lethal dose of some post-modern theoretical delirium.


Man, altho it's a shame you're kind of peeved at me, I love your word choices! :)

But then you moved on to the ego and the "Watcher" which takes us into doctrinal grounds I'm not sure I've been to before. Whatever it is, I reject it outright. Because this is terrible —

Lucus Eques wrote:However, believe it or not, we who oppose Neos are, in a way, just as guilty as Neos.


No, we aren't.


Well, in the way I was describing (which has nothing to do with etymology), we are; specifically, all people at one time or another are guilty of being emotionally attached to ideas and beliefs, concepts that may or may not be true. The danger is then getting all bent out of shape about being "wrong" — every war I can think of is founded in such a formula.


We're not talking about a dispute about whether one can use Europensis in elegant, modern Latin, nor are we arguing over the colometry of some gappy fragment of Bacchylides. The etymologies Neos is offering are manifestly, terribly false.


Right, and I totally agree with that, and always have, as you can read above and in other posts. But like I said, I wasn't talking about etymology, or defending Neos's pseudo-etymology.

When everything is ego and identity even provisional knowledge becomes impossible.


Well, that's not what I said, and I don't agree with this (who would? Maybe some relativists I suppose). The speed of light is faster than the speed of sound. Neos is, in effect, by this metaphor, saying that sound travels faster than light. So, we correct him, and ought to! But you're not dealing with a man who is solely interested in facts, but a man who is also over-identified with facts, and has probably formed a significant emotional attachment to them. Why else would he be so resistent?

So when people go "up in flames," as Irene said of herself, or get "annoyed," we are doing something similar: feeling emotional attachment to facts. And by doing so, we cover up the truth behind emotions, rather than expose it. That is what I was seeking to express in the above.

By positing this stunning moral equivalence between Neos' false etymologies and textkittens' objections to them you turn everything that happens here into a game


Yeah, I must not have been clear, since I did not equate Neos's false etymologies with Textkittens' objections to them; I compared a man's mind, blinded by emotional attachment, with getting bent out of shape ('cause I did too!) about something that really is just so trivial in the scope of life in all it's beautity, complexity, and simplicity. As for a game, you are right to bring up that concept; wars and arguments of all kinds are much like games, the way people interact, dance almost balletically in an often predictable, rhythmic way. It is as cyclic as it can be destructive.

Under your moral regime there's simply no reason to ask a question about the grammar of ἄÏ￾ιστον μὲν ὕδωÏ￾, because it means whatever we want it to mean — to offer an interpretation, even a provisional one, is no more than ego stroking.


Not at all. I suggest no moral regime. I feel, friend, that this debate against relativism is one you've had before, because I've had it before too with others — heh, we're on the same side, in that sense.

Finally, there are lots of good reasons to be annoyed when presented repeatedly with falsehood. If I ask someone if it's raining outside, and they mislead me, then I can get annoyed for reasons that have nothing at all to do with my self-concept or identity, though getting soaked might have an impact on my ego.


This is going tangentially away from the whole etymology thing entirely, but lets explore it.
Why do you feel annoyed when you get soaked?


There are sound practical, personal and moral reasons to want to have sound knowledge.


Hear hear!

Bad information gets to us easily enough as it is. To have it deliberately foisted upon us is just another thing making it hard to make good decisions.


Damn, I'm sure glad we agree! :) I just wish you thought I did.


So yeah, as for a comment that "undermines the goals of Textkit," that sounds like a bit much to me. Though, now that I understand what you thought about my comment, although it was misinterpreted, I fully see where you were coming from.
L. Amadeus Ranierius

SCORPIO·MARTIANVS

annis
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3399
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 4:55 pm
Location: Madison, WI, USA
Contact:

Post by annis » Tue Jun 17, 2008 1:14 am

Lucus Eques wrote:Whoa! Will, sorry man, I really must have lacked clarity if you took what I said in that way.


I am easily mystified.

My purpose for the above post about identification: a lot of unnecessary negative emotions are produced when we, as human beings tend to do, over-identify with a form or an idea. These attachments can and do lead to strife, discord, even violence.


This is the center of our disagreement, I think. It's not clear to me at all that over-identification with an idea is the source of crankiness about Neos' etymologies.

I am not a relativist, and certainly not in matters of science. Not only am I fully convinced of a single truth, I believe we can come to know it.


Woah. I'm not prepared to go that far myself (the "knowable single truth" idea). I'll stick with statistical empiricism.

and all that identity talk I assumed you had been exposed to a lethal dose of some post-modern theoretical delirium.


Man, altho it's a shame you're kind of peeved at me, I love your word choices!


I'm glad you liked it! :) I expect most people with an interest in Greek and Latin, even dilettantes such as myself, would eventually develop a taste for the well-turned phrase.

Well, in the way I was describing (which has nothing to do with etymology), we are; specifically, all people at one time or another are guilty of being emotionally attached to ideas and beliefs, concepts that may or may not be true.


Well, I'm not going to dispute that. However...

Finally, there are lots of good reasons to be annoyed when presented repeatedly with falsehood. If I ask someone if it's raining outside, and they mislead me, then I can get annoyed for reasons that have nothing at all to do with my self-concept or identity, though getting soaked might have an impact on my ego.


This is going tangentially away from the whole etymology thing entirely, but lets explore it.
Why do you feel annoyed when you get soaked?


Well, you know, squooshy wet shoes are noisy and uncomfortable. If I had received good information I might have been able to avoid sloshing my way to a meeting or something. A minor nuisance, obviously.

So, you're not an epistemological relativist, despite the warning signs in the form of scare-quotes around the words reasonable and enlightened. And I still have no clear idea what doctrine involves the idea that we're not our egos, along with the Watcher. I have a very hard time seeing that as no more than random dilation on the subject of ego.

Of all the threads to throw out the phrase "we're just as guilty as so-and-so" in, this, I maintain, was the wrong one to do it in. From time to time we obtuse and information-poor disputes on political, religious and philosophical topics. In those some encouragement to step back and think about the passions seems in order — not when someone is spouting nonsense on a topic for which we have really firm foundations.
William S. Annis — http://www.aoidoi.org/http://www.scholiastae.org/
τίς πατέρ' αἰνήσει εἰ μὴ κακοδαίμονες υἱοί;

User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2018
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Contact:

Post by Lucus Eques » Tue Jun 17, 2008 2:00 am

(As I mentioned above, this is getting to be quite a tangent I'm taking us on; apologies in advance.)

annis wrote:
Finally, there are lots of good reasons to be annoyed when presented repeatedly with falsehood. If I ask someone if it's raining outside, and they mislead me, then I can get annoyed for reasons that have nothing at all to do with my self-concept or identity, though getting soaked might have an impact on my ego.


This is going tangentially away from the whole etymology thing entirely, but lets explore it.
Why do you feel annoyed when you get soaked?


Well, you know, squooshy wet shoes are noisy and uncomfortable. If I had received good information I might have been able to avoid sloshing my way to a meeting or something. A minor nuisance, obviously.


I can empathize, as anyone else can surely empathize, with the "nuisance," as you rightly put it, of squooshy wet shoes.

Let us imagine you are sloshing your way to the meeting right now. At this time, you feel annoyed, think unpleasantly about the person who mislead you, maybe even deliberately, and you might even dwell on how to get back at them, what you will say to them, how to punish them ...

Given that these are your present circumstances, wet and in the rain, can you accept that, for now, for this moment, you are wet and in the rain? Is it possible for you to let go of the thoughts which pull you into the past, the thoughts about the deception, and let go of the thoughts about what you'll have to do later to get dry again?

Feel the wetness. Allow your senses to observe the stimulation. Avoid labelling the sensations with words, or applying judgements or future consequences of the wetness. As you walk, just observe. Watch.

Listen to the raindrops. Feel them on your face. Do they cause you pain? Altho they are unpleasant, avoid judging the sensation as "good" or "bad." Can you see your breath in the cool air? Are things outside shiny now that they are all wet? What do the leaves look like? How do they respond to the weight and force of rain drops as they plummet onto the bushes and trees and grass?

Listen to your breath. In, and out. Watch the cloud of vapor from your mouth in response.



These are all imaginings which take us out of the present moment, but right now, wherever you stand or sit to read this, you can do the same thing: just observe. This activity allows one to temporarily turn off the "autophone," as I call it, the constant inner monolog that most of us have running in our heads all the time without end. And this activity of observation without thought is a way of "clearing our heads," as it were. By being in the present moment, á¼￾ν Ï„á¿· νῦν, we can approach the circumstances or dilemmas of the present moment with much greater quality in our actions. The solution presents itself, and we react effortlessly.

It is a pleasurable experience to "turn off" the mind for a brief moment, for then when we use the mind, we use it with great quality, and purpose. The delight of this freedom is a reason why people enjoy roller coasters, daredevil activities, racecar driving, and other exciting things to do that "get the adrenaline pumping," and for a time make one "speechless." Artists and other creative people make ample use of "turning off the mind," as I put it, and not labelling the objects they see. When Vincent Van Gogh saw a chair once, he didn't say, "It's just a chair. So what?" He looked. And he looked. And he looked. Through long observation, he came to know a certain essence, you might call it, about the chair that could not be simplified in the sounds or letters of "chair," but something much more impressive:

http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/Vincen ... 41441.jpeg

That chair cost something like a few dollars. Now the essence of that chair rendered in paint on canvas sells for hundreds of thousands or millions, and is a priceless work of art.



So, you're not an epistemological relativist, despite the warning signs in the form of scare-quotes around the words reasonable and enlightened.


Heh, you're right, they were scare-quote-ish. I meant by the scare quotes not to suggest their opposite (i.e. unreasonable and unenlightened), but merely to have us question the meaning of those words, evaluate their implication to ourselves and what we might think of ourselves, etc. — it was Socratic in inspiration.


Of all the threads to throw out the phrase "we're just as guilty as so-and-so" in, this, I maintain, was the wrong one to do it in. From time to time we obtuse and information-poor disputes on political, religious and philosophical topics. In those some encouragement to step back and think about the passions seems in order — not when someone is spouting nonsense on a topic for which we have really firm foundations.


I respect this opinion, and on the whole I think you've convinced me of this.
L. Amadeus Ranierius

SCORPIO·MARTIANVS

quendidil
Textkit Member
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:39 am

Post by quendidil » Thu Aug 28, 2008 11:42 am

I've just finished The Power of Now and I think Lucus here is referring to the concepts presented in it or its sister book A New Earth. It's an interesting book and I definitely completed it feeling more enriched having (re)discovered the ability to stay mindful throughout my daily life instead of at specified times for meditation.

Post Reply