You'll have to forgive me, Chi65 san, I just can't seem to put together a coherent image of what you are trying to get across. Please don't think bad of me for this; I just can't quite get it.
Could I please get you to rephrase this section a little more concretely? I would guess that you were speaking of the act of attaching the word 'god' (in English, at least) on a certain thing which otherwise has a name...say, energy, love, or money...am I correct in my understanding?
Again, after going over it a number of times, predicate by predicate, syntactically, and by association, I still cannot feel settled about it. I'm missing something here, and just can't pin it down either. One point is the referent for the connecting element of those possible 'common denominators.' It appears that you are speaking of this as an intersecting point for several things, and I kind of speculate that those several things might be those which people sometimes want to call 'god' for some reason. Is that understanding anywhere correct? or am I still too far off?
Then, I have gut feeling that my earlier point, being somewhat skimpy on information I know...my bad...sorry, was misconstrued. I had been talking about the classic referent for the source word 'god' in the English language, which historically speaking, has definite references. For that reason, we cannot historically ascribe the term 'god' to, say, a wave length, because a wave length is a wave length.
If it were that easy, no one would have any problems with each other's understanding. . .and the system of this forum does not make it much easier for me.
We could sit together and I could draw it pretty quickly, but...
No way of thinking bad of you (I find you very stimulating most of the time!), please don't with me either, english simply is not my native language, and the theme a never ending story anyhow.
But, OK. As for the attaching, you are right, but not far enough, because there are understandings, that say everything IS (includes) god, thus every name as well, yet no name is fixed, because in other languages and cultures it keeps on changing, also its meaning, you see?
The idea in several thought-/belief-systems often is, only all, everything is god, but as well every smallest aspect can lead you to the top/center, or can be seen as an as important part of the whole, even the emptiness. . .
and out of the smallest seed you can get a whole wood and more etc.
Thus, whenever you relate to just one name, you maybe stuck pretty soon, if you cannot draw a cycle, circle of constant faster or slower changes.
Words are limitations like "one way of looking at things", yet, if one is aware of the interwoven structure of a wordweb, you can accept other words as well. But if not, you will maybe defend "your" word, simply because it is your personal keyword, while your neighbour maybe uses another one. And he/she may have found out another path to be good for him/her too.
How puzzling, if as a child you get told, there is only your way and the others are non-believers and have to be told or changed, rather than listen to them first.
I am just trying to relate to a german proverb:
"Name ist Schall und Rauch", name means nothing, free translation.
but also to the fine story from Herbal Shin, in a way (with its: all and everything could be god)
If one starts fighting over the "right" name, understanding, one has already lost the point.
As for the other quote, no, you are not too far off at all, but ask someone about a concert experience for example. One would talk about complete emotional bliss, others about musical qualities, again others about the whole band/orchestra and the surrounding hall and acoustics etc.
Lets pretend, everybody was happy and it was a real fine concert.
In that case, you only get the idea like a puzzle, if you have not been there yourself, but even if, you may become aware of the many ways of seeing/perceiving it, while talking about it afterwards.
Do you get an idea, what I mean with the common denominator?
In this case, its the concert, that has touched them, but it can as much be an important aha-moment, or what is "holy" (or touches or has touched you very deeply) for you and why etc., to make it more easy(I hope).
And as for synnies, we perceive many different "wavelengths" of all kinds from a word, and nothing is "solid" anyhow, even if at first glance it appears to be so (this still excites me since childhood), which is why I can "reorganise" under special conditions and also send out "informations".
Sorry, but my usual artistic non verbal perception feels pressed into a little black wordbox here and probably adds to confusion today.
Not quite, what a language teacher would be comfortable with (but I as much appreciate your view!).
I just feel reminded on an english teacher in Tokyo, who had some interesting ideas for an exhibition, also using forms of bread etc. to combine with (western) letters and colours and other stuff for some words or associative installations on the walls., that could be read, touched, smelled, etc.
And during the opening, of course, several of his students were there, it was very interesting!
(Sorry, will be busy with some work at home next time maybe, a visitor coming).
