Ship of Fools: Spiritual insights and communication

Thread: Spiritual insights and communication Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029139

Posted by Candide (# 15755) on :

Hi folks.

I'm currently struggling with a few ideas, and I was rather hoping to get some insights from the people on SoF. The short version can be summarized in two questions:

1. Is it possible to gain insights of a higher order than a "personal reality" through other means than the intellectual? Here I refer to various techniques and methods such as prayer, meditation, yoga (or even simply those rare moments in life where reality seems to be a little at odds with itself).

With "personal reality" I mean an entirely subjective truth, with little relevance to the world as it is. My personal discovery that I enjoy a beer, doesn't really say anything about beer in general. My personal viewpoint that theft is largely immoral, is still also just my perspective on the world. (There's obviously quite a few arguments against this claim - philosophers have long attempted to build a system of ethics that can be argued to be true irregardless of perspective - but leaving that aside for now, to avoid too many digressions).

With truths of a "higher order" I mean in this case an awareness of moral right and wrong, which can be perceived as true beyond the personal level. And furthermore, an awareness of some qualities of the spiritual world (for lack of a better term).

Whether or not these insights come as a consequence of revelation by a deity, by accessing a higher level of human understanding, by getting in touch with a spiritual network or whatnot - can such techniques actually give you something beyond simply a personal preference?

(Obviously - the number of charlatans, madmen and idiots who have claimed to learn something through such means has been considerable. However, that a medium is repeatedly used by dubious people, does not belittle the medium. Case in point : the Internet).

2. If so, can what you learn from this be communicated? This is the really problematic one to me. Communicating an idea, requires logic and symbols that are most definitively of this world, not any other.

Wittgenstein famously said that "The limits of my language means the limits of my world." While I'll hardly claim more than a sketchy understanding of the most basic of Wittgenstein's work, but his statement rings (sadly) true to me. If we answer "yes" to the first question, then we're still left with the unenviable task of figuring out how to pass this along. (If we so desire).

A common topic in (at least monotheistic) religious thought is how indescribable God is, and that every description of Him/Her is flawed. But is this not also true of anything otherworldly you might have experienced through prayer and the like?

I can't claim to ever have experienced a "revelation" that granted certainty, without evidence or logic. Yet it is an experience sometimes described in a religious context (and occasionally elsewhere), looked upon with both awe and worry. If such a thing exists - how can that insight ever escape the "prison" that is the mind of the one who received it?

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

In my opinion (based upon both my own experiences and my thinking about them), "experience" trumps logic ...

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

We are by God's grace (ie not by our using specific techniques, therefore by God's will not by ours) given insights into the realm of God's kingdom, ie the highest level of spirituality there is. God is the source of truth and love.

We may approach God by engaging with the teaching, words and practices of the Christian faith, as handed down through testimony over time, which increase the likelihood of our connection with God but do not guarantee it.

Our limitations are recognised within the Biblical texts. We 'see through a glass darkly' now, while looking forward to the day when we will come face to face with God.

Spiritual communication may come through either side of the brain, in pictures such as visions or in words or thoughts, as much as we might grasp at any one time, arriving through the spirit as opposed to through the physical senses.

We may close our minds to make them a prison, or open them to all possibilities. The balance between caution and freedom is one to tread carefully. God helps us by insisting that we co-operate with each other, so that over imaginative fancies and over cautious denials may be avoided.

Awe, yes. Worry, no. In God we may trust.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

@OP
The truth of language forming limitations to thought is a truism. We are forced to call some mental experiences thoughts and others feelings. We are forced to call some things true and others beautiful. Is there a secret chord, a magic phrase, a door through which I can walk to make all the difference?

Frankly, I'm not sure you can do very much except to cultivate a receptivity to experience. Like deciding to be spontaneous, the very act of trying contaminates the experience. From personal experience, I'd recommend falling in love as a better pathway that many other things that may come less naturally; I have tried a few.

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
In my opinion (based upon both my own experiences and my thinking about them), "experience" trumps logic ...

on the nail.

I went through a phase some 20 or so years ago of going to see mediums - I stopped when I realised that most of them were not really seeing some amazing spiritual landscape but rather were tuning into the rather murky recesses of my non-conscioous and the general collective unconscious. There are a very small number of people who are really capapble of reliably "seeing" higher realities in sufficient detail so as to maybe give some beneficial advice, but even those I rarely even think of asking these days because the development of my own personal capacity to feel for myself what is right for myself seems to be one of the most important things. Otherwise - how can we possibly act correctly, if there is not a sensory system provided for us so that we may know what is correct?

As for comunication - yes - some spiritual insights are communicable, but a lot are not - and if one really feels what is "right", clearly sharing them is usually fraught with problems - the language of communication being only one.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

I would answer the OP "yes but" -

Q1 yes it is possible, but it's really hard to know what is insight beyond personal, what is personal insight being assumed to be broader, and what is indigestion (or whatever). You can think an insight is just personal, and be wrong; think an insight is beyond personal, and be wrong; think you have a great insight, and be wrong, dismiss a passing thought/experience as not an insight at all, and be wrong.

Have fun!

Q2 -I see two possible different questions.

A. If I have an insight with broad application, is there a way to express it that will convince the other it is a insight affecting them? No. You can offer the insight, they decide if it applies to them. Note, they can say "no" today and change to "wow, yes!" ten years from now - or change from yes to no, or have an insight of their own later and totally forget you had said exactly that, or see in your insight a very different but important to them message, or -lots of or's.

B. Is there such a thing as an insight that cannot be expressed adequately to communicate the insight to another person? Yes, unless the reader/hearer had their own parallel insight so that you already share an understanding without the help of words.

(There are also things better expressed in non-word ways such as graphic art or instrumental music.)

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
In my opinion (based upon both my own experiences and my thinking about them), "experience" trumps logic ...
on the nail.

I went through a phase some 20 or so years ago of going to see mediums - I stopped when I realised that most of them were not really seeing some amazing spiritual landscape but rather were tuning into the rather murky recesses of my non-conscioous and the general collective unconscious. There are a very small number of people who are really capapble of reliably "seeing" higher realities in sufficient detail so as to maybe give some beneficial advice, but even those I rarely even think of asking these days because the development of my own personal capacity to feel for myself what is right for myself seems to be one of the most important things. Otherwise - how can we possibly act correctly, if there is not a sensory system provided for us so that we may know what is correct?

As for comunication - yes - some spiritual insights are communicable, but a lot are not - and if one really feels what is "right", clearly sharing them is usually fraught with problems - the language of communication being only one.

Yes … It is possible to read about and study "the oceans" at many levels -- the chemistry and fluid mechanics of sea water, the nature of tides and currents and waves … and to learn everything known about the biomechanics of "swimming" … but if I want to understand "swimming in the ocean," sooner or later I simply must eventually just take the plunge … and swim …. in the ocean … in person … It's like that ...

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Candide:
2. If so, can what you learn from this be communicated? This is the really problematic one to me. Communicating an idea, requires logic and symbols that are most definitively of this world, not any other.

Only to the extent that someone else is willing and ready to understand your description. You can use words to paint a picture of what you have learned, but the other person needs to have enough experience with the ideas you are describing to recognize something true in your picture. And the more abstract those ideas are, the less likely it is that what they do recognize is very similar to what you are trying to communicate.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:
Originally posted by Candide:
2. If so, can what you learn from this be communicated? This is the really problematic one to me. Communicating an idea, requires logic and symbols that are most definitively of this world, not any other.
Only to the extent that someone else is willing and ready to understand your description. You can use words to paint a picture of what you have learned, but the other person needs to have enough experience with the ideas you are describing to recognize something true in your picture. And the more abstract those ideas are, the less likely it is that what they do recognize is very similar to what you are trying to communicate.

Which doesn't mean "don't say anything until you perceive he is ready to hear it." If God has given you insight, share it.

Just don't expect others to jump up and down in excitement. They may not be able to "hear" it yet; they may have had that insight years ago and have moved way beyond it; you may be one of a long chain of people who will cross that person's path in person and in books and blogs, and the long term effect of those many encounters is what gets that person into that insight.

Posted by Candide (# 15755) on :

Thanks for all replies.

One avenue of thought is that a possible spiritual insight, needs to stay as closely connected to the "original language" of the message as possible, to actually be translatable.

Let's say that you experience a moment of certainty, where the love God has for you is without question. And that you want to pass that moment on to others. You can either try to express that love to another human being through words, or display it by showing a similar emotion. Which is closer to the original message?

Obviously, both of these happen in the real world. There are people trying to convince others both through words and through feelings. (Or more specifically, through various mixtures of those two).
But, at least in my (obviously limited) experience, the attempt of convincing another human being of your spiritually learned truths, is a recipe for confusion, disagreement and possible discord. The reason can often be that the person listening will only hear half the "original statement" - it is a description of an apple, but devoid of the flavor of the apple.
On the other hand, passing it on through not putting it into words, but through actions, emotions, etc.? This perhaps stretches the definition of "communication" somewhat, but can it be the loophole through which something otherworldly (be it God-given or otherwise) can best be shared?

(I see that No Prophet suggests falling in love as the best approach. It sounds like a great option, and perhaps not entirely dissimilar?)

And if this is true - does that affect the more "academic" approach to religion and spirituality (and if so, how so?)? While it obviously does not negate a more logical approach, can it change the relation of the two extremes?

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

But immediately poses questions as to exactly what is the Love he means, and how does one fall into it?

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

I used to think the "original language" was to be conveyed.

After many failures I accepted that the language that was best for conveying something to me is often not a good choice for conveying that insight to someone else. If you know French and God "spoke" to you in French (directly, or a line in a French film that clicked a chunk of the universe into a new place for you) and you are telling someone who speaks only English, reciting the French phrase will convey nothing. French does not communicate to a non-French speaker.

Language, especially spiritual language, is symbols, and symbols are very individual in impact.

What works most often in my experience is using the hearer's language in a natural and honest way to communicate the insight.

A simple insight that took years for God to really get through to me to the point where I rely on it, not just parrot an intellectually trained abstract theology, is "God loves you with an unendable love. Nothing you can do can ever cause God to not love you."

At a Bible study a young woman mentioned fearing she'll do something that annoys God and he'll stop loving her. (This seems to be a common human problem starting with Adam and Eve who hid from God, not believing God's love is unconditional.)

I knew this young woman had two little children on whom she doted, her face glowed at any mention of them. So I said "what could your children do that would cause you to stop loving them?"

Her eyes widened at the ridiculous thought. "Nothing! There's nothing they can do that would stop me loving them!"

"We are God's little children."

"Oh!"

Did she deep down totally "get" it? I don't know, but all the doubt left her face for that moment.

"Mother of a little child" is NOT the language or imagery God used with me (I've never been a parent); and I know parents who will tell you exactly what their kid could do that would cause the parent to reject the kid, so it's not the best imagery to use with that parent.

Find your audience's language they instinctively relate to, and you'll more often get somewhere in conveying an insight. (Then let them have time to absorb and react and talk to God and enjoy and wonder over the insight.)

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Candide:
Whether or not these insights come as a consequence of revelation by a deity, by accessing a higher level of human understanding, by getting in touch with a spiritual network or whatnot - can such techniques actually give you something beyond simply a personal preference?

As an atheist, I do not accept that there is any deity, or that there is some ‘higher level of human understanding’ which, from all that I have read over the years, nobody can reach! Some claim to have done so, but that claim is, of course, entirely subjective. For me, I’m completely content with being entirely human; if I have what I decide is some kind of special insight – I never use the word revelation – then I know that it is my brain doing the work.

One of the posts above mentions mediums. There are no mediums. There is cold reading, practice, and some ‘don’t know quite how that works just at the moment’, but zero objective evidence of any ‘spiritual network’ outside of what humans have imagined there to be.

I see that you come from Norway, a country recognised as being far more secular than many European countries and wonder whether you think this has affected your outlook?

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:
Originally posted by Candide:
Whether or not these insights come as a consequence of revelation by a deity, by accessing a higher level of human understanding, by getting in touch with a spiritual network or whatnot - can such techniques actually give you something beyond simply a personal preference?
As an atheist, I do not accept that there is any deity, or that there is some ‘higher level of human understanding’ which, from all that I have read over the years, nobody can reach! ...

There are lots of things that can be described in books and by words but which are radically different experientially. And books (like every one of us here) offer opinions - rather than experience. A good author may invoke some level of second-hand experience, but that is not like the direct experience. Yes - it's all subjective, so by definition, there is no "proof", as you define the word. Prove to me how much you enjoyed your last holiday. Tell me why you have chosen one specific colour of yellow paint in your house. Tell me in words I will unfailingly and fully understand your experience of how you know you have a body and are alive. In fact, show me a consistent scientific definition of consciousness that matches the qualitative experience. The fact that all these are "real" (to use a rather dangerous word) but virtually incommunicable should give some pause for thought.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
Yes - it's all subjective, so by definition, there is no "proof", as you define the word.

Actually,, I have learnt to be cautious about using the word proof! Whatever answers are considered to be proof, then they remain the best answer only until a better one takes its place.

quote:
Prove to me how much you enjoyed your last holiday. Tell me why you have chosen one specific colour of yellow paint in your house. Tell me in words I will unfailingly and fully understand your experience of how you know you have a body and are alive. In fact, show me a consistent scientific definition of consciousness that matches the qualitative experience.

Of course, there is not a definitive proof of consciousness yet, but people using the scientific method are getting closer; and on the opposing side, no-one has yet come up with any useful idea that it has any existence without a living brain.

quote:
The fact that all these are "real" (to use a rather dangerous word) but virtually incommunicable should give some pause for thought.

I agree with that.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0