The Meaning of Spiritual Experiences

[busybee]

5 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

I would qualify your assertion with the following: how the Spirit affects the individual likely differs from person to person (hinging on their different temperaments), and can differ even more hinging on the kind of message being conveyed.

Differing Temperaments

The experience can differ somewhat from person to person because God speaks to each person's understanding, in their own language. Some people's primary language is emotion, while others' is further towards the logic/intellect spectrum.

In my opinion, the surprisingly-common assertion that ideas and intelligence are the only things conveyed by the Spirit is asserted by relatively unemotional people who assume God primarily speaks their "language" of intellect.

Differing Messages

If the message being conveyed is an intellectual matter, I could tentatively agree with your general assertion that it would more often be perceived as intelligence or insight. In the beginning was Logos.

However, if the message being conveyed is, "You are loved," or "accepted", or "clean" one would expect a more emotional conveyance/reception, and even more so with someone who has an emotional temperament. God is love.

 

Thoughts/impressions?

Out of rep points, but I agree 100%.

It is so far beyond our scope of stewardship (no matter what our position) to dictate how others should feel the Spirit. I think it is the height of arrogance to tell someone that what they have experienced as a spiritual experience couldn't possibly be that just because we perceive the Spirit differently.

[consiglieri]

On ‎12‎/‎12‎/‎2015 at 11:53 AM, mfbukowski said:

No. it is about what you THINK of God.

You are looking in science for what can be found in poetry.  You need the Comforter, not a god of stone made with hands.

The marble not yet carved can hold the form of every thought the greatest artist has.--Michelangelo

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

I would qualify your assertion with the following: how the Spirit affects the individual likely differs from person to person (hinging on their different temperaments), and can differ even more hinging on the kind of message being conveyed.

Differing Temperaments

The experience can differ somewhat from person to person because God speaks to each person's understanding, in their own language. Some people's primary language is emotion, while others' is further towards the logic/intellect spectrum.

In my opinion, the surprisingly-common assertion that ideas and intelligence are the only things conveyed by the Spirit is asserted by relatively unemotional people who assume God primarily speaks their "language" of intellect.

Differing Messages

If the message being conveyed is an intellectual matter, I could tentatively agree with your general assertion that it would more often be perceived as intelligence or insight. In the beginning was Logos.

However, if the message being conveyed is, "You are loved," or "accepted", or "clean" one would expect a more emotional conveyance/reception, and even more so with someone who has an emotional temperament. God is love.

 

Thoughts/impressions?

Yep totally agree.

I have not brought that up because the nuances of what you said are so.... nuanced.... that they are hard for me to describe in my hamfisted approach to language.

"Ya got your logical reason ovah heah, and your spiritual feeling stuff ovah thayah- and nevah the twain shall meet"

I am fighting so hard for the division between experience and langauge that I do not get into the nuances, as you have.

On the other hand you have to realize that to be "philosophical" if I take a statement like 

Quote

The experience can differ somewhat from person to person because God speaks to each person's understanding, in their own language. Some people's primary language is emotion, while others' is further towards the logic/intellect spectrum

how does one define a person's "understanding" as differentiated by "emotion" vs "logic/intellect spectrum"?  You are completely right in expressing that colloquially but to me there is no difference definable between experience and an "emotional experience" as opposed to a "logical experience".  Every single experience is imbued with logic and emotion, purpose and motivation.  We do not open our mouths without a reason to speak and that reason itself drives what comes our of our mouth.

Every statement in every debate is an assertion of ego, of why I am right and you are wrong.

You cannot separate logic and emotion.  For me there is only the raw experience vs language.  How do you express "red" to a blind man?

That gulf is what its all about.  Language cannot go there- to me all the rest is exerience, which means logic emotion true and false all at one time bundled into that "experience" itself.

But you are right to slice it as you do to express it.  I just think the differentiations do not match what can be philoosphically justified.  In a hurry forgive typos

[consiglieri]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 

That gulf is what its all about.  Language cannot go there- to me all the rest is exerience, which means logic emotion true and false all at one time bundled into that "experience" itself.

But you are right to slice it as you do to express it.  I just think the differentiations do not match what can be philoosphically justified.  In a hurry forgive typos

I think you have done a good job of expressing how it is that different, and even conflicting, truths can exist.

I don't know if that is what you were intending to do, and I am not trying to put words in your mouth, but the way you expressed it really resonated with me.

Thanks!

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

I think you have done a good job of expressing how it is that different, and even conflicting, truths can exist.

I don't know if that is what you were intending to do, and I am not trying to put words in your mouth, but the way you expressed it really resonated with me.

Thanks!

Well thanks

I am not quite I would put it that way, but I hope it was helpful.

The problem is that truth is undefinable in an abstract way because language itself is ambiguous and the gulf between language and words is huge.

Truth is a property of justified sentences and they must be justified within "their own sphere".   I don't think that is quite the same as "conflicting truths can exist", just that in any given sentence we have to make sure we are on the "same page" in any attempt to justify our beliefs as "true"

To a carpenter building a church building "the church is true" means he put a plumb-bob against a wall, but that means something else entirely in a sacrament meeting.  I don't know if those are "conflicting truths" or not but I hope it helps.

 

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, consiglieri said:

The marble not yet carved can hold the form of every thought the greatest artist has.--Michelangelo

Yes, exactly!  I love that quote.

And every sentence is an opportunity to mess up our carving if we are not the greatest artist with words. 

[consiglieri]

21 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Truth is a property of justified sentences and they must be justified within "their own sphere".   I don't think that is quite the same as "conflicting truths can exist", just that in any given sentence we have to make sure we are on the "same page" in any attempt to justify our beliefs as "true"

I have come to think that Section 88's discussion of all truth being independent in that sphere in which God has placed it opens the door to conflicting truths existing in independent spheres.

 

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I have come to think that Section 88's discussion of all truth being independent in that sphere in which God has placed it opens the door to conflicting truths existing in independent spheres.

 

There could definitely be different sentences in different contexts both justified as being "true" but then the question would arise as to whether or not they "conflicted" because the subject matter of the sentence was actually different due to context.

A metaphor for the moon which works as a poetical description and which could be described as a "true metaphor" because it is an apt poetic description might at face value conflict with a scientific description of the moon.  Assume all are considered "true" within their context.

"The moon is the glory of the terrestrial"

"The moon was a ghostly galleon tossed among cloudy skies"

"The moon was a debris ring caused by a meteor impact"

All of these might well be considered "true" within their contexts- the first as a description of a symbol, the second as an apt poetic description ("Isn't that true??  Doesn't the moon sometimes look like a ghostly ship sailing on the sea?  Yes it certainly does!" ) and the third as a scientific description of a theory about the origin of the moon.

On a literal base, I suppose those could be seen as "conflicting" and therefore "conflicting truths".

I would not characterize those as "conflicting truths" but I can see how some might see them that way.   I see that similarly to "Adam was the first man on earth".  That kind of a sentence I think is in a symbolic context, others take it literally.  Yet I acknowledge that in certain contexts it could be literally true and yet compatible with evolution if one took "Adam" to be a title for the first human of a certain kind (the first placed specially by God, the first with a covenant with God, the first to be defined linguistically as a "man" etc etc)

Every statement has a context and before one can say they "conflict" one has to examine the contexts carefully.

That's what IRS lawyers get paid for!!   What kind of transaction is this?  Is it a trade or a sale?  Which rules apply here?  Is this whatever eligible for whatsis treatment?

And saying that therefore "conflicting truths exist" I think misrepresents the nature of truth.

On the other hand, I think you are on the right track!    The point is that "truth" remains definable only within contexts and communications to a specific audience.

[hagoth7]

I had to return to the forum to make one public correction:

Earlier in this thread, I had said:

Quote

...I've never before or since heard the Spirit shout (or speak any other specific "words", for that matter)...

I do need to say that I had forgotten (I am somewhat ashamed to say) one other brief sentence of assurance from deity that was very distinct, not too many years ago.

...And that one wasn't a man's voice.

But what it said/meant/implied might as well have been a shout for what it means to me. I have been an ungrateful cur for forgetting it.

Color me an infidel once again.

Happy New Year. May God bless each one of you. :0)

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

I had to return to the forum to make one public correction:

Earlier in this thread, I had said:

I do need to say that I had forgotten (I am somewhat ashamed to say) one other brief sentence of assurance from deity that was very distinct, not too many years ago.

...And that one wasn't a man's voice.

But what it said/meant/implied might as well have been a shout for what it means to me. I have been an ungrateful cur for forgetting it.

Color me an infidel once again.

Happy New Year. May God bless each one of you. :0)

Same to you, you ungrateful cur! 

And welcome to the ungrateful cur club!

[Guest]

I once had a very Spiritual experience upon entering a Jewish Synagogue, union entering I asked should I cover head. They told be no, "so should you feel better" so I made them comfortable, and covered my hear. 

[salgare]

wrong thread

 

Edited January 3, 2016 by salgare