The semantics of religious experience

[Thomas]

I am increasingly interested, being led here by a tutor, from 'simple' religious symbolism to the semantic and linguistic aspects of religious experience. Obviously I believe that religious experience is 'real', but when Moses saw the burning bush, was it actually a burning bush, was it a symbol that approximated a burning bush, was it a burning bush to symbolise something other, or was it something that semantically Moses, or more precisely his audience, had no suitable linguistic referants to translate in any other form more meaningful form.

For example, to pick up on Z's text I am drawing a parallel between 'super-intelligent beings' as a post-modern secular society would classify them, and God, gods, angels/demigods, heroes etc., as a pre-modern religious society would classify them.

I'm dabbling my toes in semantics, linguistics, the cognitive sciences, and this bit on cognitive linguistics leapt out at me:
'Finally, cognitive linguistics argues that language is both embodied and situated in a specific environment ... that language and cognition mutually influence one another, and are both embedded in the experiences and environments of its users.'

and this:
'Linguistic inquiry is pursued by a wide variety of specialists, who may not all be in harmonious agreement; as journalist Russ Rymer put it: "Linguistics ... is soaked with the blood of poets, theologians, philosophers, philologists, psychologists, biologists, anthropologists, and neurologists, along with whatever blood can be got out of grammarians."'

and this:
'Diachronic linguistics ... examines how language changes through time ...'

I am particularly interested in the development of Christian theological language in the meeting of Hebrew (existential) and Greek (philosophical) culture ... for example the development of Trinitarian Theology, which required terms like 'essence', 'substance', 'person', 'being', 'soul' and of course 'theos' and 'logos' to be redefined to try and explain something rationally, that itself lies beyond the capacity of the reasoning faculty to comprehend independently, if we allow that 'Revelation' signifies that data which cannot be deduced by the function of human reason alone.

... and vaguely wondering if any of this makes sense?

Thomas

[Tao_Equus]

Perhaps I am a reductionist/rationalist first and foremost. I tend to look for the obvious meaning before invoking the supernatural. And so i see the metaphor of the burning bush as descriptive of the actual nature of the bush (ie contact with that species caused severe itching/burning) rather than as a symbolism rich in esoteric meaning. But language is so fluid and dynamic, it varies from street to street, community to community and so on up. It is constantly evolving so that parents often cannot tell what their own kids are talking about. So much more spurious to infer we know with any certainty the true meanings of words written in antiquity. And regardless of the intent of any author or orator lets face it people take their own meaning according to their own experience and slant. This combination of the dynamism inherent in language and an individuals disposition to drag from it what he/she wants renders all interpretation as possibly very wrong. Something I strive to bear in mind at every turn.

Not sure this comes anywhere near a decent reply to your thread, which would prove my point, at least in regard to me

regards

Tao

[Thomas]

It does actually. The reductionist/rationalist dimension should not be ignored, if religion cannot provide a rational argument/alternative — not necessarily a rational proof — then it lacks a very real dimension.

But we have to take the synchronic and diachronic perspectives, what Scripture says, and how the receiving community and the world reacts to it? Then we have to balance that with the David Koresh-type 'cultic' effect — by which I mean that a 'cultural' response is no necessary guage of what is regarded as the 'truth' of experience in a wider context?

It's late...

Thomas

[Tao_Equus]

I would agree that it is wise to come at things from as many angles as possible before reaching any fixed opinion and even then hold it open to change subject to new information. How many can truly profess this to be the fact of their every reasoning tho? We all cut corners.

I think the synchronic overtures of scripture are as lost to us as Atlantis. We can only understand the diachronic interpretations we learn within the environment of our age and even then we apply them according to our preconceptions based on the system of belief we individually hold dear. They are myriad. To me this is a cause for celebration not despondency, it shows human ingenuity and creativity knows no bounds.

Tao

[Francis king]

ooh, sounds interesting...

[Impqueen]

I'd also like to throw in the issue of translation. Even if you can read hebrew, the translation for a word that you have learnt may not convey the connotation that it would have done to the original writer. (Is this what you meant by synchronic overtones Tao? Sorry - I'm not up on the jargon )

On the burning bush question there is actually a bush (members of the Dictamnus genus) that will spontaneously burst into flames on a very hot day. So there is always the possibility that the voice came out of an unignited Dictamnus bush, which due to its alarming habit, is quite likely to have been named 'burning bush'. Indeed, that is still its common name.

What book are your quotes from Thomas?

I love the way language is a living thing - though that does make for an awful lot of problems .

[Tao_Equus]

Hi IQ . as indeed you do have.. you are spot on. Have to admit I had to use the dictionary before replying to Thomas. But hey I learned 2 new words!!

Tao

[wil]

The bible is full of that yes? burning bush or metaphor? never knew about the burning bushes...plants that give off gas that can be lit...I want one!!

But there are many more yes...sea of reeds...did Jesus walk on, or along the water...

[Thomas]

Whoops, sorry folks ...

The quotes are from wikipedia under the relevant topic titles (one of the tutors on my course discounts anything quote taken from wiki as a source).

My own tutor ended a crit of an essay on the origins of the Pentateuch with the following:

"As your concluding reference to Rhetorical Criticism suggests, the Zeitgeist has moved on from the trench warfare between the fundamentalists and the scientific determinists, both of whom, in their wildly differing ways, assume that reality is univocal. The new intellectual frontier is the semantic web, quantum physics and the high probability universe. Time to reach for Heidegger, Derrida and Lacan."

He has a quite unique way of writing, you're never immediately sure if your essay was a work of genius, or a pile of crap!

I've been reading a bit of Paul Ricoeur on language, but am trying to put things in order, the subject is, to say the least, broad.

Thomas

[flowperson]

Hello All:

My opinion Thomas is that your tutor is spot on regarding the context of linguistic imagery. The whole exercise is determined in our brains with regard to the time and place contexts of the event in question. And the new sciences and philosophies that go along with them are forcing us all to seriously question what "reality" really is .

Maybe it was autumn, maybe the bush was a sumac which turns flame red in the autumn, maybe a quantum magician entered another dimension (should I dare call it the bush dimension?) and threw his/her voice into Moses' cortex, maybe it's all a symbolic representation of today's world in the beginnings of a global warming so profound that bushes do erupt spontaneously due to mere static electricity discharges, maybe the story of this was hurled backwards in time for the ancient Hebrews to relate in their sacred writings?

All of these interpretations and more are possible according to the differing views of the realities around us. But try as we may, we cannot go back to the mountain with Moses and discover the "real" context which surrounded the actual event, if it really occurred. But "something" did happen to the man Moses or the story wouldn't be there in the first place.

Like it or not we are all embedded in a space/time fabric that enfolds all life in our locality, and the linearity of events cannot be altered, but their interpretive aspects can be at least be partially understood through effective and lucid mythmaking and storytelling.

Toot Sweet...flow....

[Thomas]

Can we know the real at all, d'you think?

(I obviously think 'yes').

Thomas

[flowperson]

Ahhh...the real. I've always held fast to the opinion that it is what one's brain and heart in combination leads one to experience. So as much as we'd like to pin down objective versions of reality to serve the masses, it is and always will be an individual and subjective set of experiences. But then my belief also is that's how we were designed and made.

flow....

[Thomas]

OK —

But what if we move beyond the individual to the collective?

Can we not then ascertain the real beyond the empirical? I would argue that to say 'no' is to be hostage to the philosophy of Kant and of the Enlightenment?

There might be much in it, and indeed there is, but has not gone unchallenged?

I'm really just poking around here, Flow ...

Thomas

[lunamoth]

I think the 'real' is what the story tells us about God and our relationship with God. Was there a literal-factual burning bush? An ark with all the animals? Manna from heaven and loaves and fishes? Wrong question. Does God touch us in ways that are powerful, life-changing, real? Absolutely. I know that's a rather shallow explanation of an image/experience as magestic as Moses and the bush, but I've not thought about that particular example very much. I hope though my approach to such events in the Bible is at least minimally explained by this poor example of mine.

[flowperson]

I'd tend to agree with your take Luna. The traditional stories bear the messages of that which is unfathomable in human terms. The stories relate others, in the past, with the divine, and from that we learn to interpret our own unique experiences. But of course we all view our experiences in the world in unique ways because of our diversity. I'd venture that religion tends to try to bring unity of vision to our interetations of the stories. Anything more that that is speculative IMHO.

flow....