Glossolalia, Transcendence and Philosophical cosmology
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3220
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: Glossolalia, Transcendence and Philosophical cosmology
I definitely like the idea that being 'ordinary' is 'pathology' and I have never really wished to be 'normal' really. But, I do know many people who think that normality is essential. I think that the most conventional aspect of my life was training and working as a psychiatric nurse, but, even then, it involved working with people who were 'different'. However, I can remember patients joking with me, telling me that I was not normal. Actually, when I was first working in that role, there seemed to be so much scope for being unique and creative, but in the last few years that seemed to disappear and staff were meant to be practically identical to one another and be almost robotic. So, I am hoping to do some other kind of work in the future.
I think that I am aware of my own meta- motivations. My biggest one, especially when I trained in psychiatric nursing was to heal myself and others. As far as being on the positive scale as opposed to negative side of 'pathology' I think that healing is extremely important. Here, I think a sense of wellbeing is so important. The reason why I buy and listen to a lot of music is because I find that it has a healing quality. I also feel that awareness of one's shadow, in the Jungian sense, rather than being destructive is helpful, but this is not particularly easy. In addition, I do gravitate to Maslow' s emphasis on self-actualization. Of course, the lower aspects of the hierarchy are important but some people seem to focus more on the lower ones. I think that the peak experiences can make so much in life, including suffering of some kind, far more bearable.
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: Glossolalia, Transcendence and Philosophical cosmology
Indeed Jack. Being normal is boring.JackDaydream wrote: ↑August 4th, 2021, 1:42 pm @3017Metaphysican
I definitely like the idea that being 'ordinary' is 'pathology' and I have never really wished to be 'normal' really. But, I do know many people who think that normality is essential. I think that the most conventional aspect of my life was training and working as a psychiatric nurse, but, even then, it involved working with people who were 'different'. However, I can remember patients joking with me, telling me that I was not normal. Actually, when I was first working in that role, there seemed to be so much scope for being unique and creative, but in the last few years that seemed to disappear and staff were meant to be practically identical to one another and be almost robotic. So, I am hoping to do some other kind of work in the future.
I think that I am aware of my own meta- motivations. My biggest one, especially when I trained in psychiatric nursing was to heal myself and others. As far as being on the positive scale as opposed to negative side of 'pathology' I think that healing is extremely important. Here, I think a sense of wellbeing is so important. The reason why I buy and listen to a lot of music is because I find that it has a healing quality. I also feel that awareness of one's shadow, in the Jungian sense, rather than being destructive is helpful, but this is not particularly easy. In addition, I do gravitate to Maslow' s emphasis on self-actualization. Of course, the lower aspects of the hierarchy are important but some people seem to focus more on the lower ones. I think that the peak experiences can make so much in life, including suffering of some kind, far more bearable.
Actually, in following Maslow's theories, his lower level gratifications/motivations are basically existential in nature (both literally and figuratively). And philosophically, some consider him a bit of an Existentialist in that he provided a critique of Existentialism (the existential thought process) in his first book The Psychology of Being. (I have all his books). In any case, those lower level needs that he suggests are hierarchical, must be gratified before doing things like philosophizing and are what he calls deficiency-needs. Existentially, one could live in a sort of 'topical' or superficial value system and be content with just the satiation of those needs. But boredom sets in.
To that end, some would argue that we can become complacent with these lower, but important needs. Then, instead of working toward self-actualization people become consumers: keeping up with the Joneses, being the first on our block to have the newest gadget, over-indulging in "entertainment needs" (movies, television, trips) and otherwise trying to fill the yearning for a higher purpose with purchases, rather than self-reflection and perhaps a kind of spiritual enlightenment. A kind of connection to yourself and the world. A purpose which you know you were made for. That also could mean working through the variety of 'intrinsic fears' to reach a level of newness that comes through doing something different or novel. Something out of the ordinary. Conversely, yes, once again, being normal is boring.
While he said that life is both a discovery and uncovery of Being, perhaps at least one other takeaway there would be from Aristotle: Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom. It's a bit off-topic I know, but worth a quick sound bite, I think.
I do see a common theme here in that any form of verbal expression is logically necessary in some way shape or form. We are creatures that seemingly need to be heard. Communication is the medium for purpose. Communication in itself seems the thing that not only makes us happy (or sad of course), but if life is about relationships, what are the alternatives(?).
Be well Jack!
― Albert Einstein
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3220
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: Glossolalia, Transcendence and Philosophical cosmology
Keeping this within the limits of the thread discussion, I am wondering how glossolalia and the mystical works as an individual or social experience. Maslow definitely places an emphasis on the social aspects of needs. Personally, I do too and I think that relationships are extremely important. However, I am aware of some writers and, other people, who emphasise a relationship with the 'divine' outside of social experience, including those who have become hermits in their mystic quests. I am not sure how they manage this really, but people vary so much. As far as your initial discussion of speaking in tongues is concerned, I know that this usually happens in a group setting, but it does make me wonder how much is about socially constructed expression and how much is about a human being relating to the transcendent. I definitely believe that they are interconnected, but they are also two different components, and they are probably both valuable.
When I was a teenager I spent a few days in an Roman Catholic abbey which was a silent order, but I didn't have to maintain silence because I was in a separate house with a friend. But, the members of the order maintained silence and I can't remember how much of the services involved verbal communication. However, I did partake in many activities, such as meals, in silence. The members of the order did speak to outside members of the community and had an hour a day in which they could talk to one another. However, I am just thinking how silence is an interesting contrast to speaking in tongues, and it must be extremely hard to live like that permanently, but it is only a few who choose the monastic life.
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: Glossolalia, Transcendence and Philosophical cosmology
Jack!JackDaydream wrote: ↑August 5th, 2021, 4:29 pm @3017amen
Keeping this within the limits of the thread discussion, I am wondering how glossolalia and the mystical works as an individual or social experience. Maslow definitely places an emphasis on the social aspects of needs. Personally, I do too and I think that relationships are extremely important. However, I am aware of some writers and, other people, who emphasise a relationship with the 'divine' outside of social experience, including those who have become hermits in their mystic quests. I am not sure how they manage this really, but people vary so much. As far as your initial discussion of speaking in tongues is concerned, I know that this usually happens in a group setting, but it does make me wonder how much is about socially constructed expression and how much is about a human being relating to the transcendent. I definitely believe that they are interconnected, but they are also two different components, and they are probably both valuable.
When I was a teenager I spent a few days in an Roman Catholic abbey which was a silent order, but I didn't have to maintain silence because I was in a separate house with a friend. But, the members of the order maintained silence and I can't remember how much of the services involved verbal communication. However, I did partake in many activities, such as meals, in silence. The members of the order did speak to outside members of the community and had an hour a day in which they could talk to one another. However, I am just thinking how silence is an interesting contrast to speaking in tongues, and it must be extremely hard to live like that permanently, but it is only a few who choose the monastic life.
Your post reminded my of an analogous observation about glossolalia:
1. Consider someone who speaks normal dialect/English, and continues with a run-on sentence pattern. Or someone who talks too much without pause, who you would wish for them to be quiet.
2. Consider the metaphysical language/sounds of music, when hearing unending sounds without pause or breaks. A common example might be an improvisational solo, or similarly, a dog who continues to bark without pause. In many ways, without breaks or pauses/phrases, it becomes just noise (or droning).
3. Consider droning sounds coming from the natural world (the sound of wind/velocity), or sounds that are inaudible to the human ear beyond certain frequencies.
In any of those cases, the shared attributes there seem to be a need or a cause for an expression of energy. But what is this cause/need for expression? In Ontology (concrete v. abstract), is it some sort of sentient/metaphysical will in nature? In other words, ontologically, something is causing the need for these sounds that are in-turn coming from biological creatures that may/may not make sense in the usual way of understanding that same logic of communication. But there remains a need of some kind to express something. An kind of energy force (for a lack of better word) that needs release. Why is something so important that it needs to be communicated without pause? (Like some droning sounds in nature.)
Almost redundant or rhetorical questions I know, but I think it may be worth parsing as perhaps a starting point. Afterall, in ontology, one central tenet of language (the logic of) is "What is".
Anyway, you mentioned those aforementioned/analogous pauses (your/my notion of solitude/silence) might in fact be necessary for a reason. Kind of like ineffable communication, which is commonly referred to as the power of silence. Silence or pauses then, seem to be logically necessary for discernable communication, yet sounds and communication without pauses seemingly also have purpose...
― Albert Einstein
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023