Forest Wisdom and Val have discussed the topic of labels on their respective blogs -- "Labels" and "If there's one thing I hate...". While I agree with both writers to some extent, there are some areas of this topic I'd like to expand on here.
Almost everything we humans do involves labeling. In fact, I dare say life, as we know it, would cease to exist if we didn't have labels. Every word I type in this post is itself a label -- it's shorthand for an understanding of a concept.
For example, the word "the" is shorthand for something in a singular and/or specific form or number.
Another example is the word "sky". The sky is a label for that blue expanse over our heads.
We could say then that words are labels for definitions. It's the shorthand we use every day to communicate with each other.
Both Forest Wisdom and Val were addressing a specific form of labeling; labeling people. I agree with both of them that such labels can be very problematic because we too often view complex individuals solely by the definition of the label we've ascribed to them. That said, there is nothing inherently wrong with labeling people any more than it would be wrong to label that blue expanse above our heads.
In the end, all of these things, ideas and people we label are illusions anyway. It's just our methodology for distinguishing between one illusion or the other. When the illusions vanish, so too does the need for labels.
Almost everything we humans do involves labeling. In fact, I dare say life, as we know it, would cease to exist if we didn't have labels. Every word I type in this post is itself a label -- it's shorthand for an understanding of a concept.
For example, the word "the" is shorthand for something in a singular and/or specific form or number.
Another example is the word "sky". The sky is a label for that blue expanse over our heads.
We could say then that words are labels for definitions. It's the shorthand we use every day to communicate with each other.
Both Forest Wisdom and Val were addressing a specific form of labeling; labeling people. I agree with both of them that such labels can be very problematic because we too often view complex individuals solely by the definition of the label we've ascribed to them. That said, there is nothing inherently wrong with labeling people any more than it would be wrong to label that blue expanse above our heads.
In the end, all of these things, ideas and people we label are illusions anyway. It's just our methodology for distinguishing between one illusion or the other. When the illusions vanish, so too does the need for labels.
It's a tricky one as both camps are right in their own way.
ReplyDeleteIt has been said by many that you can't even see without applying a label. They say unless your mind says tree when there is a tree in vision then it is not seen.
There is also the odd mediation of deliberately naming everything (so as to become aware of the way the mind wanders and to eventually catch it before it does).
I like to ask those who are multilingual what language they think in.
Yet all in all, when I am at my most content, I don't label a thing and I can see with great clarity.
No labels works best for me, yet they are essential to language, a useful tool.
Concluding this is tough.
People use labels.
ReplyDeleteI am a people.
I use labels too.
This is not ideal.
Labels should come with warnings about overuse and addiction.
But in a world addicted to labels, it is reassuring to know that if and when one arrives at a fully-conscious state, the labels fall away and dissolve into nothingness.
All that's left is what is.
And whatever it is needs no label.
Tao and Crow, you both write much wisdom on this one. You make me think about it. Thank you.
ReplyDelete