Yet, I am fairly confident we can name more things than we can control. So, I don't know why that is such a common misunderstanding. One I often have.
I’ve had a large number of conversations over the years with people over the decision whether or not to pursue a diagnosis for a mental disorder. Naming something doesn’t give you a ticket to understand something, but it does give you something to find in the card catalog or Google. If you have both eyes open, you can answer “Do I have an anxiety disorder?” or “Do I have bipolar disorder?” and understand some of the consequences, both negative and positive, of labeling yourself that way. It’s not a truly binary choice, but when you apply these labels to yourself it both exposes you to the effects of stigma and makes treatment and support available, depending on circumstances. I say “choice” because for many, the diagnosis is a choice… a capable adult who is not a danger to themself has a lot of latitude here.
If you think that “we” speak of naming things as akin to understanding them, then there are very, very few people I know who are in this group “we”.
A name is just a substitute for the infinite complexity of the universe. We can’t understand the universe, so we have to name things, create models, and understand the models as a proxy.
That quote, first page, stopped me in my tracks for a long time. I often recall it when I'm tempted by the naming (categorization, abstracting, ...) of some X imagining I understand more about it than I actually do. Similar to as you note, I think.
Additionally, your statement that this "oriental philosophy"(?) doesn't give "due credit" to abstractions, which seems like a very wide dismissal of an undefined subset of philosophical groups.
Then you go on to dismiss meditation as a practice as well, as an "escape from reality". I am assuming that you would agree that since abstractions and definitions are important, the term "reality" isn't well-defined within your statement.
I am curious as to what you mean in general, because it seems like you're trying to tear down some sort of philosophy that we aren't privy to without offering any meaningful alternative counterpoint.
And I find your tone to be unnecessarily confrontational. People have been writing about consistent differences between Eastern and Western philosophies for at least a hundred years. Hell, there's an entire Wikipedia page dedicated to Eastern philosophy[1]. I'm curious as to what exactly you find "problematic" about GP's post.
Many people's minds spend most of the time in the second type of thoughts("self"), and it can be very helpful to have less of those, both for peace and other psychological benefits, and for having more mental power and clarity for useful thoughts.
But in the context of ancient India, China, where eastern philosophies came from, people don't need that much thought most of the time, but spiritual qualities can be very useful in small interdependent peasent communities.