richard_rca wrote:danieLion wrote:richard_rca wrote:And yet is it assumed that this name & form relationship is fundamentally the same for everyone?
Are you asking me? I guess it's assumed by some. Not by me though. Plus, I'm not sure what you mean by "fundamentally."
What I meant was that even though you say that words can never really accurately describe anything and that an experience is a thoroughly subjective experience it seems that you would believe that the name & form interactions with the rest of, say, the factors of dependent co-arising would fundamentally be the same for everyone and thus an underlying 'truth'.
Is that a fair assessment?
No. I did not say words can
never "really" (whatever that means) accurately describe
anything and I did not say experience is
thoroughly subjective. We (particpants of any discourse)
might agree that
in this time and place this word or these words mean roughly the same thing for us but we cannot, as Habermas has argued, know this
intersubjectively through mere communicatve acts (barring reading each other's minds which I believe is possible but very rare). The way you've re-prhased my words ontologizes my perspective, something I, following the Buddha
et al, have no interest in.