Quote:
Originally Posted by Jway
I find this to be inaccurate. Voice could sing inaudible words with uncommon 'meaning' and still communicate.
Clicking languages don't rely on typical syntax in order to communicate.
|
I agree, but birds and insects can do that too. I'm taking about a consciousness that can only manifest in the form of a symbolic language with syntax. Birds and insects don't have that, and I think human consciousness is quite different from the awareness of birds and insects.
Quote:
Via feelings. This actually precedes symbolic languages.
I would also say via Revelation, though would reckon some here may not understood this intellectually, even while I know you know. Revelation that is transcribed as textual doctrine, is after the fact, and is indirect. It is symbolic of the actual communication that occurred. Revelation is knowing without words. IMO, this happens often.
|
What silent revelation could a human have in the woods that a deer couldn't?
Quote:
|
Au contraire. Symbolic language when spoken aloud is literally noise. Divine communication is entirely silent, where no noise is heard (by human faculty or senses). Also 'noise' is subjective interpretation. Is human voice singing a song with inaudible words only "noise?"
|
I've never had the privilege of divine communication, so I wouldn't know for sure. But, yes, the noise a is subjective interpretation; it's the language that is objective.
Quote:
|
Interesting dialogue. Thanks for sharing.
|
And thank you too. I used to think human consciousness had something to do with chakra or tantra or something like that, but I came to see that kind of approach as just another belief system. To me, the human consciousness inside Helen Keller was coaxed out and given voice on the back of a symbolic language. Nothing else could have helped here the way words helped her.
