|
Post by Josh on Oct 22, 2009 18:45:10 GMT -8
Elsewhere, RobC wrote:
language is a most imperfect medium for expressing eternal truths. and yeshuafreak wrote:
Manly Hall, writer of The Secret Teachings of All Ages, stated that the english language is almost perfect in describing everything except spiritual and metaphysical truths, where it is lacking fully.
ekhart tolle, writer of A New Earth, said that words are stepping stones- to be left behind as quickly as possible, but needed to reach the goal.
Now, I'll grant that language has limitations, but I don't think it is "most imperfect" or "lacking fully" in regard to how we apply it to spiritual truths.
Would either of you like to put forward some examples? (particularly about the English language)
Also, isn't it, of course, ironic that you're making this spiritual assertion with words?
I'd venture to say that any other medium of knowledge that you could put out there (experience, emotion, intuition, etc.) is only more prone to error or misunderstanding than language ever was.
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Oct 22, 2009 21:55:40 GMT -8
Remember that scene in Contact, right when Jodie Foster has passed through the alien dimensional transporter device, and she is observing the universe from a new vantage point... She says:
"They should have sent a poet."
I think artistic language is the only thing that can come close to describing the spiritual or the metaphysical, but have to agree with robc that language is "a most imperfect medium". (which is beautifully expressed, and almost ironic because of that!)
Spiritual truths I don't think are meant to be fully understood in this reality, anyway. We can only attempt to comprehend, and only attempt to explain. That is why language is limited. We can describe the reflection we see through a glass darkly with the best metaphors we can muster, but language does not exist to describe the real thing. It would be an unknown and unknowable language.
It is because of this fact that faith becomes all that more important...if something can be logically explained, what good is faith? I keep meaning to expand on this idea...maybe more soon.
I've had experiences, emotions, intuitions etc. that are more concrete and real than any oration, writing, or other language expression will ever mean to me, in fact, language is a part of those things, so they seem bigger and more transcendant than language to me. I don't see how they would be more prone to error.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 23, 2009 0:33:23 GMT -8
I have no disagreement with this part.
I also agree that in many cases artistic language is more helpful when discussing matters of faith.
However, I think you're all discounting the value of logic, which God has bestowed upon us and allowed us to accurately communicate via the medium of language.
For instance, I can say "two plus two equals four" and there is no ambiguity at all about that logical statement.
Logic can also be applied to some aspects of spiritual reality as well, and communicated through language, without endangering "faith" (you and I have a different definition of faith- which would be good to discuss further)
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 23, 2009 0:45:42 GMT -8
Has Manly Hall ever read Pilgrim's Progress or the King James Bible or the Chronicles of Narnia?
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Oct 23, 2009 8:59:29 GMT -8
Ok, just to insert my 2 pennies. Words are nothing more than temporary variables or containers for logos (meaning). It's an observable fact that they are ever-evolving and therefore difficult to nail down. Technically, you can communicate without them, but it's very limited. I think two people of the same culture/time/language fluency can get to a high degree of understanding (granted, not all the way) through the use of this medium. I agree that understanding spiritual things is not a matter of the mind at all, but the heart and soul. Therefore words have limited usefulness in communicating spiritual truths (which is why the poets have a great advantage). However, as Josh indicated, we have been given an incredible gift, the ability to exercise logic and cogitate on abstract philosophical concepts. With that ability, I think we can arrive at some core first principles that are universally true no matter what spiritual experiences we have. Such as Rene Descartes "I think, therefore I am"...etc. Is that unreasonable to assume?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 23, 2009 10:28:19 GMT -8
Much agreed, except this:
Not only do I think we can understand some aspects of spirituality with our mind, in fact we must if we are to truly love God.
Matthew 22:37
Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'
And what greater "spiritual thing" is there but love?
A few more verses along this line of thinking.
Colossians 3:2
Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things.
Hebrews 10:16
"This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds."
Revelation 17:9
"This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits.
Note that I'm not saying we can fully understand everything about God with our finite minds. Of course we can't. But our minds are useful in understanding some of the things of God just as our "heart and soul"
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Oct 24, 2009 8:48:07 GMT -8
i do not think that we cannot communicate spiritual truths through the english language, but i do think that it lacks abstract terms. so instead of using a word to denote the abstract term, we have to compare a spiritual truth to a concrete example. this is why eastern concepts are so hard for westerners to understand- the easterners have words for abstract concepts, whereas westerners need to compare it to something solid.
i see the english language as a strenghth and a weakness regarding the communication of spiritual and metaphysical truths.
Manyl P Hall has probably read every holy book there is to offer- the Quran, the Bible, the Masonic degrees by Albert Pike, the Tao Te Ching, the pihlosophers, etc. he is a very smart person, though he deludes himself in some instances- or alot.
anyway... shalom
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Oct 24, 2009 9:43:39 GMT -8
Josh wrote:
This is a great example of what is being discussed here. We probably are closer to agreement than it appears, but we already have an obstacle, a misunderstanding between us about the "meaning containers" (words) "understand" and "mind".
When I say "understand" related to spiritual things, I mean by that an existential understanding rather than a cognitive one. I understand that a sunset is beautiful because I've watched them and enjoyed them. I understand that music is spiritually moving because I've listened to Concerto de Aranjuez and have been moved to tears. This is experiential understanding.
It may all happen in the mind (brain) for all I know, but there is a difference in the way we understand things. Sometimes we refer to it as the "heart" where ancient people would have expressed the same thing as "bowels" or "guts".
I think there is a distinction between the cognitive mind and the experiential mind (i.e heart) and the twain do not overlap IMO. However, one (the cognitive) can be a somewhat effective vehicle to propel the other.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 24, 2009 11:13:05 GMT -8
Yes, but it's also a example of how by continuing to use words, defining our terms, we come closer to understanding.
I think I disagree with this. Although sometimes splicing up human nature into dichotomies or trichotomies etc. is helpful in focusing on some particular human experience, I think such divisions are ultimately artificial.
If you think the cognitive and the experiential don't overlap, can you really say where one ends and the other begins? I sure can't.
|
|
|
Post by robcantrell11 on Oct 25, 2009 3:39:11 GMT -8
I wrote this several days ago while I was sitting in my hooch without Internet, contemplating this topic. Some of it has been covered already, but it could still give some perspective on what I meant about the limitations of language.
Humans are tool users, and language, like so many other things, is a tool we use to adapt to our world. It allows us to pass on information, but it does not pass all knowledge perfectly. So here is what I wrote unedited. This is a great topic, by the way.
I apologize for the length, and for the redundancy in some cases. But this is a meaty topic that points at some of the fundamental misunderstandings between groups. Here you go.
"I am not a linguistics expert. There are many others who are more qualified than I to talk about the limitations of language, and since I am writing this from a firebase in northern Afghanistan I don’t have my books, or time, to do extensive research in order to support my ideas. But I always have time to think, and here are some of my thoughts.
Language is only as strong as the agreements that people have made about that language. Language, to be comprehensible, must begin with an agreement among its users. The story of the Tower of Babel shows this explicitly. When everyone understood each other, they got along. When understanding was lost, they didn’t. The agreements made between users of a language is built into culture, history, and grammar, and from these agreements, understanding arises. When we agree that the word Blue is to be used in the place of, and to describe abstractly a certain objective reality, a color, we then can use the word Blue in any circumstance and we will know what we are talking about. Language begins with an agreement.
Now, suppose we agree that Blue describes a certain color. That is an objective reality true for anyone who can differentiate the color blue in the spectrum of light. If I was to point to the color blue, and say, That is blue, you would not disagree. My wife, whose first language is Spanish, would say, No, esto es azul. And she would be right. We would be talking about the same objective reality, not something different, only from different agreements. In Spanish the agreement is that the color blue is called Azul. In English, Blue. Same objective reality, different agreed terms.
Our understanding of language is based on these agreements, made through many avenues. We learn them in school, in church, at home, and in the street. We learn our world based on these agreements. For my wife, born and raised in Peru, her worldview is full of agreements made there. They differ from mine, but I have taken the time to learn Spanish and explore her world so that I could understand her in a deeper way. Just as my interpreters here in Afghanistan have learned English, and through interaction with us have learned a little better about our American world view. The insurgents we are fighting who have little to no understanding of the American view, just as many Americans have little to no understanding of the Peruvian or Afghani view. Learning a language, and the agreements that stem from it, allows us to see the world from another angle, more complete, so to say. Language describes and defines – but this is just the beginning.
Now, let’s talk about Love. I am making a jump here from Language in general, to words in English, but it is not much different. A man and a woman can have an extensive conversation about Love and never be talking about the same thing. A pastor and a layman can have a conversation about Love, even understand each other in part, but be talking about two completely different ideas. Love is not objective, neither is Faith, or Wisdom, or Truth. I do not side with Pilot and say, What is truth? , but I do understand him. When Jesus talked about Truth, the people did not understand. Neither did his disciples. Everyone brought their own agreements about what that meant – but Jesus knew Truth, was Truth, and could not just use words to convey his meaning, he had to use action. But I digress.
We can talk all day long – I have written a page already on just one idea I am trying to convey – and never fully understand each other because we don’t have agreements about the language we are using. When I am talking to one of my Teachers, and they are imparting wisdom through words, I often do not understand. It is only through contemplation that understanding can be achieved, and meditation. So when we talk about God, Good and Evil, and all the myriad topics we are discussing, words fall short.
From my experience, understandings and epiphanies have only come when words have drifted away, and my mind opens to the possibilities around me. Those are profound moments of understanding, and happen only once in a great while – meditating in the desert at sunrise, walking contemplatively through the forest, listening to the waves of the ocean crash in the darkness – in these moments I experienced the fullness of the Grace of God, and there have never been words that could describe that. When the heart and mind are united and open, and the infinite expanse of the Spirit of God has encompassed me, words fail. That is what I am really getting at. Spiritual truth, though we can talk about it all day long, can only be experienced and not comprehended because there are no words that can capture it. Words bog down and make physical a phenomena that is not. We can only dance around it, point at it, and like Plato sitting in his proverbial cave, see the shadows of it with words. True spiritual enlightenment is beyond words, no matter what, cause words can’t help us to experience something spiritual directly, they can only point the direction. Only with Enlightenment can you directly experience the Truth – up until then you can only talk about it. And until I experience spiritual Enlightenment, I’ll just keep using imperfect words to talk about whatever it is that I have seen and understood. Because that is all we have.
Finally, the limitations of words comes from our lacking an agreement. When two people have two different minds, and they use the same words to describe these, there is often a failure to comprehend. That is why the Buddhists say put away your words and just meditate. It cuts through all the BS and the two different minds can just sit in the lap of eternity and experience bliss. "
|
|
|
Post by robcantrell11 on Oct 25, 2009 3:48:56 GMT -8
YES
I agree here too - one mind. The dualistic separation between body/mind or heart/mind is a vestigial idea that is practically defunct now. The mind and the body are absolutely one thing. I would jump to say that, too, spirit is united with the mind/body as well. It is One thing. A part of it separates at death, that which continues on, and the physical mind/body dies, ends. But when there is life in the body, body/mind/spirit are one thing.
I have absolutely pure monism - that there is One reality and we are all a part of it. Dualism, separation, is the lie that we are working against - and that our work is to reveal the truth that we are One with our creator, that we can turn our face toward God and come into the bosom of the creator. I know that that is not how you see it Josh, but that is ok - because to me we are talking about the same thing. Since we are using two different world views to describe it, the words we are using seem to be contrary. When you say that God is One and we are created as individuals that can have a relationship with the Creator, I do not disagree. But the words that I use describe that relationship are different than the words you use. That's ok, because you are my brother, and that is all that matters.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Oct 25, 2009 12:29:21 GMT -8
the spirit is an old fashioned term for consciousness, which is produced by the mind (not the brain) and is, as one philosopher said it "the thing that refuses to be defined." science has whole organizations and fields of study to try to understand what consciousness is. i believe we are finally reaching the era where we can empiraccly prove that there is a spiritual reality.
shalom
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Oct 25, 2009 12:29:58 GMT -8
i am sorry- that last post was a little off topic. My B
shalom
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Oct 25, 2009 20:17:23 GMT -8
I don't disagree with this, but I think it does illustrate the obstacles. Josh wrote: And RobC wrote: Ok, let me clarify. What I'm talking about is simple taxonomy, I'm not trying to create an "artificial" dichotomy/trichotomy or whatever. It's no more artificial than saying there's a distinction between your liver and your gall bladder. It's a matter of function. Yes, they are all part of one body, but each has a function that the other doesn't have. I believe the human pysche is at least as complex as the human body. I may be wrong, but how would we know for sure? I like to categorize these things this way to help me sort what to expect with words and what to expect with experience. Josh wrote: I don't know why I would need to know that. But, the test I would give it is how it affects me. The part of me that is dispassionate about information, is cognitive. It moves to experiential once I have emotion about the information. What I'm saying is that, IMO, the information itself can't contain that which gives me spiritual understanding, it can only provide a partial path to it. Dorothy's yellow brick road was not the way back to Kansas, but it got her to the place where she could find the true way home. Oz couldn't give that to her, she had to believe her way home through longing. I think it's the same with the things of God. Jesus said to ask, seek, and knock and the truth will be given. Rob, I like a lot of what you wrote about "agreements" in language, but one thing I want to comment on. you wrote: I don't think that is true. Jesus said: John 6:63 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. NKJV Even Peter affirmed that later in the same chapter when he said: John 6:68 "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. NKJV It is true that many didn't understand Jesus, but many others did and believed. It wasn't always His goal that people understand what He said. He intentionally spoke things He knew would stumble some. His words did not fail at all IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 25, 2009 20:24:29 GMT -8
Just so you know, I'm chewing on this stuff. Good thread! I hope to respond sometime soon.
|
|
|
Post by robcantrell11 on Oct 26, 2009 7:07:02 GMT -8
Agreed. I never meant to construe that the unity implied a simplification. What I wanted to say was that body and mind are not separate entities - but they create a whole. Really, that the mind is an extension of the body, and the body the mind. Distinct yet one. That's all.
Again, agreed. During his time here many understood much, but I was talking about Peter who thought he was bringing a physical kingdom, or the Pharisees, or Pilot, or so many of the others who he talked to who could not see past their own expectations and desires. Of course Peter figured out later, little by little, through the Spirits teaching, but for the most part the world did not understand. One of the reasons why he was crucified, at least the mundane explanation. Of course the real reason was a mystery that we have been exploring and gaining understanding in since it happened. It was a real event, and it shook the world. But in spite of all that has been written, all that has been said, the world still does not understand. That is why we strive, and that is another example of how language has failed us, and helped us.
Another thought I had today while I was walking through an Afghani village pulling security, and talking with the people, was that the primary argument I have is that language is limited, not inappropriate. It is limited, imperfect, but since it is our main form of communication, it is what we use. We all have to seek ways to overcome those limitations by making our words as full of love as possible to convey that. But I'm tired and hope to get more out later.
And I know Josh, it is a lot. Thanks for the opportunity to flex my mind. Don't get a lot of that out here on deployment.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 1, 2009 15:42:43 GMT -8
Good stuff. Much agreement it seems, actually.
One thought occurred to me: the interesting idea that God used words themeselves to create the universe.
I had a question of you on this, RobC. Maybe another thread. Let me see...
|
|