Our language divides our world and our experiences in terms of subjects doing things to objects. - But what if this is not what is actually happening? .. (merely one way of describing it, one point of view).

In "The Way of Zen" Alan Watts desribes how many old languages were made up of pictures. The ancient Chinese is probably the best known.

Watts describes the picture of a stone hitting the water and the water rippling.

He explains how we think it is obvious : the stone hitting the water causes the ripples ... it is clear and logical: without the stone there could have been no ripples.

BUT, without the ripples there could have been no stone !! ... to the Chinese picture language the interdependance of subject, verb and object is obvious ... without the rain there could have been no clouds ...

Alan Watts argues that some of our greatest philosophical problems develop out of our language : free-will and predestination, because a noun has to be something which either does or is done to; cause and effect, because nouns cause an effect on objects.

It seems to me that if our questions about "Who am I?" - are only asked in terms of subjects objects and verbs, then our answers will also be rather limited ..., basically : I am a noun ... an isolated concept which can only exist by doing or being done to.

But this doesnt necessarily mean that language is inadaquet to question or express deeper things. If there is no "I", then its no use asking "who am I?" ... but something is happening ... something is still going on ... so, what is happening? ...

Watts suggests we should ask questions like "who hears?" "who breathes?" "what is this?" or "who thinks?" ... simply "what is happening?"

I Am a Noun
The Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
Laughing at the Cosmic Joke
Death