Not a fan of "ineffable", really.
I believe the universe is absolutely effable; and if anyone says otherwise, I think that just casts doubt on their own effing ability.
True, but would just like to point out that 'Cete', as in the plural noun for a group of badgers, is not the same as 'Sett', as in a badger's home...
Collective noun, but yes, absolutely correct. Which is why I've always thought it was a 'sett of badgers'.
Gosh life is confusing, even without drugs.
But a psychedelic experience is just a chemical reaction in the brain producing a distorted perception of reality. The reason why it defies understanding is simply that there is no intrinsic meaning to be understood (or not).Then we must have had differing psychedelic experiences.
Why would they, save for failure of imagination on someone's part? If a speaker of language A can articulate a given concept, then it's expressible. And if a concept is expressible in one language, then it is expressible in any language. And the only thing stopping a speaker of language B from articulating the same concept is the need to invent a new word (or just borrow the existing word from language A).Do you not believe some vocabularies have mutually exclusive (untranslateable from one language to the other) words?
But language does not constrain abstract thought. Otherwise, nobody would ever be able to express a new concept. But we can most certainly conceive of things that don't yet have words to describe them.Do you not recognize that, e.g Chinese has a totally different thought structure behind its language than does English?
I'm not disputing its validity. I'm just not sure that anything satisfies the definition, is all.Can you therefore not see that even on this non-psychedelic level, the word ineffable has validity?