Here is a second point arising for me from the phone discussion – this one is on another way to use words:
Words can be thought of as ‘labels, that’s true. In that sense they might be thought of as concepts, and that is certainly how they are used in pure logic. However, what if, in everyday use , words were used like writing on water – where they mean what they do (in the speaker and hearer) ? Can they mean by acting on/in/from/as us, in the speaking (which will include the context we are speaking in and so many non-linguistic, non-conceptual elements, both known and unknown)? That is, can we use them in a way that changes the usual use of words, so that they mean something more than labels, and something before translation into further concepts?
In this way, words can include the ‘label’ aspect, but they can exceed their conceptual or labelling function – in their lived use.  And, relating back to my last post, can the embodied felt sense play a part in generating this living (especially meaningful) use of words? This way they might include models, while not being limited by models; exceeding models.
I’ve been experimenting for some years with speaking this way, and it’s definitely a different experience than relying on them as labels for something that’s already been experienced. This latter kind of use – merely as labels that is limited by the past uses – draws on their public meanings (all those in the memory, library or in the dictionary), but this is exceeded by the embodied use of words.
This way of working with speaking and thinking might also avoid a commitment to ontological models behind such words as ‘self.’ The meaning of the word ‘self,’ then, can be found in how it functions in discourse. It can function to firm up a commitment to a model of self, a limiting fiction – and in Rinpoche’s books it seems that ’self’ usually means this – or it can function more experientially, in which case it won’t ‘thing’ a self. It won’t set  up a self as anything ultimate or ultimately findable.
Experiment: While speaking with another, unify voice, breathe and awareness.
Regards,
Christopher.
Dear Michael, I like your dolphin image – that gets the spirit of my suggestion. And I do find that language can be used without adhering to positions, yes. It can be thought of in the light of ‘expressions’ of a deeper ‘knowingness.’ If it doesn’t require at first a shift into surrendering the idea that the knower could be found, it certainly needs it to develop at all.
Hi Christopher,
Given a choice between saddling my use of language with a second level of responsibilty, or using speech to dive in and out of the realms of being, like a dolphin racing an ocean liner, I’d rather be like the dolphin. Your exploration of how we might look at words as both the invocation of labels, while remaining free to transform it into something more living–like “words written on water.” –is intriguing. I am reminded of the main thrust of this week’s reading, that “positions are expressions of knowledge, rather than structures that limit it” (LoK 272). Perhaps language, and our reliance on it to inquire into our lives, can be thought of in that light also? –Michael