It's all a question of communication

S

SkippingStones

splunk!
Registered Senior Member
One problem with discussing any subject that exists entirely in the mind, namely religion, is that we are all limited by our language. Obviously, most of us can speak, write, and think in English. How do you tell someone "there's this guy named Jesus and if you believe in him you will go to heaven" when they don't have the same concepts of those words as you. Even in the main languages of the earth today, there are word/thought patterns that can't be translated adequately.

This idea can be narrowed even further to the point where you could argue that since we are entirely different people we can't fully communicate our thoughts to one another since we must rely on forms of communication that are quite limited. So in this sense, the ideas of salvation, redemption, and damnation exist entirely on the personal level.

Is it still worth going on and on about what the bible says and where you say I'll go when I die? I think so, but not in the most immediate sense. Even though it may be only a fleeting shadow of a true connection, it lets us know we are human, like everyone else. So, next time you think of contributing to a religious powerplay, think of the personal enviroment in which your beliefs reside. You will never truely "save/convert/enlighten" anyone(including yourself) unless you can understand them and in doing so, communicate.
 
Personally, I enjoy discussing the religion for the clues to human psychology it shows. Religion is one of the base desires common to most humans that have lived. It is a map into the psyche. It shows much of what our ancestors desired, and what we desire, and by extension and extrapolation, what our descendants will desire. Unfortunately, it is hard to get the believers to examine their faith enough to get useful conversation. It is informative to see how believers defend their faith though.
 
Yet, in a way, to explain something is to limit it. But explanation is also conducive to communication. Is it neutering the concept to try to use it in a limitless way?
 
Ahh, but that's the crux isn't it? The believers believe in a book. A book that explains it. If explaining something limits it (something which I believe btw) the various religious works are already guilty of caging god. Even more so than those who question the bible. We wish to free god from the cage he's been put in. If there is a god he cannot be limited to a few thousand (unsure of exact number of words in the bible) words. To do so is a crime.

Neutering the concept if you made it limitless? Well, it would certainly neuter the various faiths who are positive that their interpretation is the correct one and all others are wrong, more than wrong, evil. But, several eastern philosophies do quite well with the concept of balance. Of an infinite number of forces that perch on the scale.
 
SkippingStones,

That's an interesting topic, and very crucial.

I think that one of the main problmes regarding religions and ideologies is that they are pricipally there to *be lived*, and *not* to be talked about.

God -- whichever one -- didn't reveal (in whatever way) himself to people and said: "There you go. Here you have the texts. Now go and argue about them."

Actually, I find it quite a religious fraud to declare oneself as belonging to a certain established religion and then go around *talking* about it. As it is, some religions actually have this "talking about it" build in as one of their premises. But I find this to be in opposition with the premise of "go ye and love one another".
If you love someone, you won't try to change them.


But this also leads to another problem, having to do with language: "to love". This central term in Christianity has some very problematic translations in some languages.

I can speak for my native language, Slovene which is a Slavic language. (Note that the Slavic nations were Christianized, and that Christian terms are not native to these cultures.)

The word "to love" is very general in English, the meaning of it is very stretchable. Maybe it was so in Latin too, the language in which Christianity moved with great waves.

In Slovene, the word that is used in the Bible translation as the equivalent to "to love" is "ljubiti" -- which has a very narrow and specific meaning -- it primaily means 'to have a *very strong* emotional inclination towards someone, esp. for the person of the opposite sex; also 'to have a *very strong* emotional inclination towards someone -- like your child, parent or close friend'.
For other, somewhat milder kinds of love, a different word is used -- "imeti rad".
There is no such word in my language that would have such a stretchable meaning as the English "love".

So when in my native language, the Bible tells me to "ljubiti" everyone -- that comes across as rather absurd.

(According to the statistics of the Catholic Church, about 90% of the population in my country is Catholic. -- This is judged by the number of baptisms.)


But it seems that there are much less problems with translations from Eastern religions -- they seem to translate well into my language.

***
To conclude: As far as communication is concerned, this always come handy:

Grice's Cooperative Principle and the Conversational Maxims

http://coral.lili.uni-bielefeld.de/...des/node18.html


1. Maxims of quantity

Make your contribution as informative as required.
Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.


2. Maxims of quality

Do not say what your believe to be false.
Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.


3. Maxim of relation

Be relevant.


4. Maxims of manner

Avoid obscurity of expression.
Avoid ambiguity.
Be brief.
Be orderly.


But not all discourse is `Gricean': deceit, long-windedness, irrelevance, obscurity, taciturnity are all, for good or ill, part of natural communication ...
 
That's mostly true, it is almost impossible to communicate the subtleties of religious thought due to the linear nature of language, western languages especially so. I would disagree, though, that we all think in language. We are so used to translating thought into language that it is hard to realize thoughts do not always start out that way.
 
It's not just a question of communication. We are not merely limited by our lanauage, but by our thought processes, both adopted and inate, and our perceptions.

People think using very different modes. For example, some people think with words while others think visually. I assume that the majority of people attracted to sites like this tend to think more strongly in words, and some indicate a strong bias against visual thinking. I test very high for spatial visualization, and I have trouble participating in the arguments. It's not that I can't think rationally. I can see flaws in logic or incompatible relationships between ideas almost instantly. But condensing spatially perceived relationships between statements and ideas into words takes me a ridiculous amount of time. I can spend an hour or more parsing a three or four paragragh response (like this one) that a verbal thinker can fire off in a few minutes, although they might miss flawed relationships within their arguments are more obvious to me.

I'm sure this bias is responsible for my attitude that some of the more 'verbal' rationalists on this site are "half-wits", at least to the extent that their extreme over-reliance on rationalism precludes their consideration of non-rational perception as valid or useful - in spite of the proven limitations of rationalism as a means of perception, the limits to the concept of 'proof', and the rarely acknowledged but very real role of intuition and the sub-conscious in scientific progress.

But mostly, its the sloppy boundaries between the different styles of perception that gets to me. In the evolution/creationism debate for instance, sloppy 'scientists' draw a conclusion that can't be justified rationally: that the theory of evolution 'proves' that God can't exist, and that everything observed in nature is solely the result of mechanistic interactions between inherent properties of matter and energy. Informed opinion at best, wishful thinking at worst. On the other side, the 'creationists' feel that any theory which presupposes a Creator has the right to be taught as science when it is, in reality, a philosophic pre-supposition rather than a true scientific theory that can withstand rigorous (albeit limited) scrutiny.
 
Turduckin,

In the spirit of your post, I should add that I am a very audial type. I am tortured here by not being able to hear the words spoken by their authors.
 
I think if the theory of evolution could be more adequately communicated to everyone so that they understood no single person could not believe in it.
 
Words are a compromise between the reality "out there" and its mirror in the mind (meaning). There's a maxim used in translation: words don't have meaning; meaning has words.

I find the correlation between "words" and other abstracts, like love, music and beauty fascinating. They represent incommunicable realities, prompting creative methods like poetry or art to express the image, or feeling, or impression they evoke in the observer.

And let's not forget body language... but tuning back in to RosaMagika's frequency: Greek has four basic words for love: Storgé (relating to the special love existing between parents and children), agape (Godly love - love that is governed or guided by principles), eros (romantic love/attraction) and philia (personal attachment and tender affection among friends).

Eros is never used in the New Testament, but agape was used for the Hebrew hesed, a word meaning loving-kindness.

The best example of how this subtle difference can be lost in translation is John 21:15-17, where Jesus asks Peter "do you love me" three times...
  1. Jesus asks Peter: "Do you love (agape) me?" Peter answers: "yes, you know that I love (phileo) you", upon which Jesus says "tend my lambs".
  2. Jesus asks again: Do you love (agape) me?", and Peter answers with phileo again, upon which Jesus says "shepherd my sheep" (the lambs have matured).
  3. The third time, Jesus changes his question: "Do you love (phileo) me?", and Peter is grieved, confessing "You know all things, you know that I love (phileo) you". Jesus then gives him the command to "tend His sheep" - to promote their spiritual welfare, and simultaneously acknowledges the love between him and his friend.

The inverse progression also shows that even though our phileo might remain human and seem insufficient, obedience to it manifests the requirements of agape.

Words can be used artistically to convey more meaning than they would have otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't you say that a rose to a botanist might be different to a rose from a lover?
 
Jenyar said:
Wouldn't you say that a rose to a botanist might be different to a rose from a lover?
Click to expand...

A ROSE IS A ROSE IS A ROSE.

Now think about it for so long that you figure it out.
:)
 
> Acquiring thought...​
INPUT: A Rose is a r0sE is arose
> Initializing Remote Operations Service Element
> Processing...
> Found...​
"A Rose..."
Adjective
1. Having a dusty purplish pink color; "the roseate glow of dawn".

"...is a rose..."
Noun
1. Any of many plants of the genus Rosa.
2. Pinkish table wine from red grapes whose skins were removed after fermentation began.
3. A dusty pink color

"...is a Rose."
... the language of flowers:
The Burgundy Rose signifies simplicity and beauty.
The Provence Rose, my heart is in flames.
The Yellow Rose, infidelity.
> Reaching Conclusion...​
Cease your efforts to find where the last rose lingers - Horace
 
Last edited:
LOL!

I counter with Rilke:


The Inner Rose

Where is there for this inner
an outer? Upon which hurt
does one lay such fine linen?
And which heavens are reflected within them,
upon the interior seas
of these open roses, these carefree ones, see:
how loose in looseness
they lie, as if a trembling hand
could never tip them over.
They can hardly hold themselves
erect; many allow themselves
be filled all too full and flow
over from inner space
into the days, which, ever
more and more full, close in upon themselves,
until the entire summer becomes
a chamber, a chamber in a dream.


Translated by Cliff Crego

(but must read in German original)

'nuff of roses now, okay.
 
Admire the rose, but do not break its stem... Now, who said that? But I agree, enough roses for now. We'll be making a bed of them soon.

Auf rosensehen.
 
SkippingStones said:
One problem with discussing any subject that exists entirely in the mind, namely religion, is that we are all limited by our language..
Click to expand...
language isnt the problem,me thinks,
people are limited by their minds,
believers brains are either imature or undeveloped(unevolved?)to comprehend reality or lack of it,or maybe they are just easier to brainwash/hypnotize.

how else would you explain that some people think there is invisible man living in the sky controling your life,and will send you to hell if you dont worship/believe in him? :rolleyes:

but he loves you! :D
 
Q25 said:
believers brains are either imature or undeveloped(unevolved?)to comprehend reality or lack of it,or maybe they are just easier to brainwash/hypnotize.

how else would you explain that some people think there is invisible man living in the sky controling your life,and will send you to hell if you dont worship/believe in him?
Click to expand...
This just shows how little you understand about it. I suggest you read Hegel, or better yet, Hans Küng.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top