Because being uncomfortable about something is not a necessary condition for it to cause the failure of one's verbal or behavioural expression.

>>7520504
To be specific, being uncomfortable with the fixed aspects of words and ideas.

It's as though words are metallic rectangles trying to express the totality of clay that is being constantly molded. Attempting to represent the self with fixed ideas when the self is never fixed.

>>7520512
"The significance of language for the evolution of culture lies in this, that mankind set up in language a separate world beside the other world, a place it took to be so firmly set that, standing upon it, it could lift the rest of the world off its hinges and make itself master of it. To the extent that man has for long ages believed in the concepts and names of things as in aeternar veritates [something everlastingly true] he has appropriated to himself that pride by which he raised himself above the animal: he really thought that in language he possessed knowledge of the world. The sculptor of language was not so modest as to believe that he was only giving things designations, he conceived rather that with words he was expressing supreme knowledge of things; language is, in fact, the first stage of the occupation with science. Here, too, it is the belief that the truth has been found out which the mightiest sources of energy have flowed. A great deal later – only now – it dawns on men that in their belief in language they have propagated a tremendous error."

>>7520512
>It's as though words are metallic rectangles trying to express the totality of clay that is being constantly molded.
Hence the verbs. Natural languages do not solely consist of nouns and adjectives.

>Attempting to represent the self with fixed ideas when the self is never fixed.
But you just successfully DID represent the self with non-fixed ideas; namely, "the self is never fixed", which expresses the thought that the self is in constant flux. This indirectly implies interactivity, change, etc. There's really nothing you can't represent in language; any experience--whether 'religious', or hallucinogenic--can be represented in some form or another.

>>7520527
You can certainly describe things with language, but the problem is with the granularity. Flux is a very simple idea, but trying to satisfactorily express the specifics of one's emotions is something that I imagine escapes everyone. We must be content with less-than-pure ideas.

How can there be a large enough vocabulary to encompass the entirety of experience?

>>7520527
Also
>words 'n symbols r only sterile abstractionssss man...can't rly refer to reality...
(This is the general tone of your woes). To which I can only say: Thanks to our theorizing and computations with--to name one category of symbols/words--well-formed mathematical symbols (grammatically, they are like words) we've now got the Internet, a myriad of fancy electric devices, landed on the Moon, Mars, and god knows what else.

Quit judging something as non-existent or meaningless just because it has no dimensions or cannot physically palpable.

>>7520536
stop writing like a faggot and write what you mean to say

>trying to satisfactorily express the specifics of one's emotions is something that I imagine escapes everyone. We must be content with less-than-pure ideas.
Then either you lack the appropriate vocabulary OR you're merely stressing over aesthetic nuances of how the sentences are heard to one's ear, etc.

>How can there be a large enough vocabulary to encompass the entirety of experience?
Because there are finite amount of things in the world; and to each of these things we can give *names*. Just because some word isn't found in the dictionary doesn't mean you can't coin it, and use it to describe an experience which you think no one ever has experienced before you (you'd have to market your new words, though, if you ever wanted others to know and use them).

>>7520551
>cannot physically be palpable

>>7520551
What a non-sequitur

>>7520536
You are the problem in this scenario, not language. Using the wrong words.

>>7520582
Your mother is a non-sequitur. That post wasn't arguing for anything for it to be a non-non-sequitur. It only suggested a few counterexamples that give weight to the idea that symbols *are* in some way linked to the external world and our experiences of it.