You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
But it really is, though. I love this topic because just about everytime you look closely everything goes down the rabbit hole and it is hard to pinpoint any form of self.
I believe that the term is called 'ineffable' ie not capable of being described by language . It means not describable by "any" words, not just those that 'exist'. Creating neologisms to describe such things doesn't seem to be an advance in my view.
Sort: Top
[–] Danbear 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
Yes.
[–] Benstillerfaggot69 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Ha!
But it really is, though. I love this topic because just about everytime you look closely everything goes down the rabbit hole and it is hard to pinpoint any form of self.
[–] Hemingwell 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Well, what do you define to be the self? I would say that it is the ego that is the illusion, but the self without that ego is very much real.
[–] nanocyde 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
An intriguing proposal, hamstrung by its reliance on existing words.
[–] burtzev [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I believe that the term is called 'ineffable' ie not capable of being described by language . It means not describable by "any" words, not just those that 'exist'. Creating neologisms to describe such things doesn't seem to be an advance in my view.
[–] nanocyde 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
How would we know if something is not capable of being described by language?