[Buddha-l] Jinapanjaram

[JKirkpatrick]

 Hi Stan,

I used the term 'label' in a general sense, *not* as pejorative
terms. I was using short-hand.
I'm not at all naive about the linguistic and thought functions
of words or names. As Richard and Loy asked the question, names
per se were the least of their concerns, I should think.
Die-hard identifications associated with exclusionistic and
non-mutual communication behavior strike me as part of the
problem they were getting at. So we agree about the problem.

Joanna



 Joanna,

 Part of my thinking about names and naming, pejoratively termed
"labels" and "labeling," is that, as nouns, they are essential
for our ability to conceive, reason, and communicate the
realities and rationales of things with others in both daily and
technical registers of discourse.  The problem does not originate
in names and naming so much as in how we choose to interact with
others by our use or manipulation of these names.  The question,
then, pertains primarily to the ethical or moral sphere, the
sphere of right action, with attending questions of
responsibility, loving, etc., though it is clearly allied to
right thought forming the theoretical basis of action.  It does
not, to my mind anyway, concern meditative and contemplative
practices per se or how we subsequently articulate whatever
experiences arise from these practices.

Stan



Joy,
Great way to save money and make for wider sharing of
communication and inclusiveness.

Now Richard has dropped a new bomblet into the list, on labels
and affiliations--do we need them? Looking forward to reading
what denizens have to say about that idea, also to pondering it
as well.

Joanna