Is The Ineffable an empty concept?

Trees are ineffable?

A

Of course they are. Otherwise, why would you want to climb in them? Of course if there is a bee hive with a bit of honey up there…
Cottleston, Cottleston, Cottleston pie…

Tentative writes:

I claim God is more knowable then we can know for ourselves at this time. This knowledge of God is expressible and communicated in sacred art as in sacred text which uses the written medium. As such, this knowledge differs in quality between people.

This is the nature of the Atheist. He is out to prove the believer wrong by demanding proof. There is nothing wrong with this… If a person doesn’t sense a certain validity about their beliefs.and doubts, they have no personal value?

The problem isn’t that a person values what they believe but in how it is expressed. The problem is attitude. The fashionable attitude is to complain, become insulted, and express ridicule and condemnation. This cannot be helped so why fight it. The alternative attitude is mutual respect for peoples personal convictions and the desire to share them where they are respected and not condemned for their personal importance. IMO this attitude leads to more meaningful discussion at the cost of the satisfactions of the previously mentioned delights. That is why the alternative board is necessary. It is for those sensitive to the value of attitude in meaningful discussion.

Everyone must begin by verifying from their own point of view. We cannot deny we have one. Bob claims to be a mystic and as such has penetrated this veil. He presents his view from a secular perspective. I don’t feel “forced” to believe it. I am curious about it in the sense of why people are drawn to this perspective but it is what it is. Who knows, in ten years I may be the same but as of now, I feel value in my beliefs. I can only know what I know.

Yes, this is the purpose of the New Board. It begins with the agreement that one opinion out of context is as bad as another. Yet as bad as our opinions are, there is something real behind them that they mask. How can we together come to grips with this higher reality that exists only as distorted fragments within us. Of course one has to sacrifice the condemnation, ridicule and belief in the impossibility of such a venture by exaggerating this concept of the “ineffable” but it can be worth it.

I’ve often read you doing just that. Some people like Ned were not on the level to understand the profundity of the exchange between you an Mastriani.

What lies behind the green door is objective reality. We live in the realm of opinions. How does one grow from opinion to verification? It begins first with a healthy attitude which IMO does not include justifying ridicule and condemnation.

Hi Ucc.,

First of all, ineffable doesn’t mean “unknowable”. But I believe it was Thomas Aquinas who said that rational thinking can only perceive a few aspects of God, like his existence, his eternity, his incorporality etc. but for other important aspects we need to consult the revelation. This could seem to be falling back upon the assumption that the revelation given to men thousands of years ago cannot be wrong – whether we understand it or not. But I find that it is true and that revelation can only be measured by one thing: Faith. Now if that faith is not disappointed,but rather encouraged by “experience”, where is the problem?

The experiences I have had have strengthened my faith in scripture, even though I have received the insight to see that it is meant differently to the way it has often been interpreted. This doesn’t weaken scripture in my eyes, but rather strengthens it. In fact, add to that the imagery of Aramaic and things become so clear. The role of the Pharisees in scripture, for a long time the epitome of hypocrisy, becomes very clear under such circumstances – the Pharisees are in fact the epitome of the pious. We need to see their portrayal as a mirror of our own behaviour.

From the same source I understand that the reality which is our God is not examinable like physical objects can be examined. To know, as you are aware, means more than examination, and requires more than our senses. It is this kind of “knowing”, which I would separate from “knowledge”, which is possible – but still it is a “knowing” in part. At the end of such knowing, I do not have knowledge in the sense of cognitive comprehension or recognition, but more in the sense of enlightenment, insight or awareness on the level of emotional intelligence (emotional sensitivity, emotional memory, emotional processing and emotional learning ability). We use these aspects of emotional intelligence to transport the experience of communion with the Ineffable.

You can find a description of an experience and the reference to the God of scripture. If I am quoting the Bible or parts of it, I may say that “God is…” meaning that God is portrayed as such. In the same way, when Jesus uses an analogy for God and asks, “how will **** react when…” he is not saying that God would definitely deal that way, but that according to the rules of mankind, God would have a right to behave in that way. The use of figurative speech is understandable in such debates.

Modern man makes much more use of pictures than the ancients – not just because the ancients couldn’t do that. His speech has become much less pictorial and we often have difficulties with figurative speech because we don’t use it ourselves. That is why our first understanding of a statement is literal. Our common sense normally tells us that certain statements are paradox, and we reject them, unless we have been conditioned to adjust this automatic facility. One way to make this adjustment is to look at the paradox figuratively until it is proven to be meant literally and then look for facts to support the statement, another is to assume a literal meaning until proven otherwise.

Of course, but when you say “God is shown to be …” then you are talking about a portrayal within a certain context – which may by all means have its value. Don’t forget that I believe scripture. But more important, if things are “the way God wants them”, this must encompass the “good” and the “bad”. Both poles must be Gods will and simply portray the opposite sides of a story or the alternative paths of a certain behaviour. The righteous are called to understand that God is Unity (One) and with him our own polarity and consequent fear can be overcome. Without this Unity, we remain at odds with the environment, antagonistic towards our fellow man, and personally unbalanced.

In the end, the attributes that men give God are unimportant, except in understanding scripture. We only fall into pitfalls when trying to say what omniscience or omnipotence actually mean. When we start talking about God having a mind but no body, we start trying to give God a physical form of some kind, which becomes proposterous.

Shalom

Well, without getting off onto tangents again, the easiest way to deal with confrontation is to become the ‘victim’ of of being picked on. So to set the record straight: It has nothing to do with what particular opinion any member might have, but on the insistence that other points of view are either ‘less than’ or invalid. It isn’t about the content, but the implications behind the presentation.

Disagree all you want with another’s viewpoint, but don’t imply that they are wrong, or fail to see that you are right. What lies behind the green door is objective reality - and much more. It is the much more that is the heart of any understanding of the ineffable, and that understanding is personal. Manifest reality can be examined through logic and language structures, but that which is more than, remains ineffable. For some of us, it must be so, for without it there is no sponteniety, no novelty, no creativity. The tautology, “a man can only see what he can see” is none the less valid. See whatever you will for yourself, but do not attempt to ‘see’ it for others. Otherwise, you might get ‘picked on’.

All commentary; verbal, written or digitally transmitted; by this poster is expressly a matter of personal opinion, individual belief, personal experience, and is not intended to purport necessity of change(s), implied/perceived, to other posters; physical, mental or emotional. Any attempt to treat this post in a manner contradictory to what has been thusly stated is erroneous, and is the fault, entirely, of the reader of said post.

Thank you Bob, the only necessary point of this entire thread, well done, as always.

I don’t feel like a victim. I just know what is lost from these attitudes normal for these times and encourage an alternative.

I will insist though that the New Testament is far more valid then the teachings of the Great Flying Green Wombat, and will insist on asserting an objective difference between them,.

Yes, this implies that there are quite natural differences in quality between beliefs. Very Politically Incorrect but true non the less. It is our duty as human beings to begin to acquire the ability to objectively distinguish between the wheat and the tares within.

Objective reality is all that is. Below that are interpretations. IMO you exaggerate your sponteniety, novelty, and creativity. IMO you do not experience your limitations in this regard. You will find this insulting but yet it is necessary to say and anyone that has truly worked on a path would know what I mean. Why should you be allowed to deny the consideration of these essential truths?

If you want to pick, then pick; but I’ll pick back.

Speaking of sophistry, I don’t think I can touch your ‘knowing for others’ concept, tentative, I haven’t a clue what you precisely mean by it, and I have a suspicion that if we wanted to sidetrack the thread that much more, we could explore it to find out that it doesn’t mean anything reliable at all.

This is a contradiction, and makes zero sense. If you say the sky is green, and I disagree, I also think you are wrong. They are equivalent, and you can’t do one without the other. I would encourage you to delve into this if you really disagree with me here, since it seems to be foundational to everything. This idea of having particular beliefs while not thinking contradictory beliefs are wrong is sophistry in it’s purest form. It doesn’t mean anything, but the wording serves a function to let some people criticize other views in the name of open-mindedness, while when others do the same thing, they are apparently bigots.

 This quite simply seems like bull****  to me. I can't think of another word for it. The closest I can think of is Nick_A wanting a forum where no atheists are allowed. That would certainly be an example of attempting to force discussion. Beyond that, YOU are the main culprit guilty of what you're talking about here. YOU are the one who condemns anyone who claims to have an idea stronger than one shade up from "I haven't a clue", and YOU are the one first to whip out words like 'bigot', 'ignorant', and so on. You aren't tolerant of any views, because any view that is strong enough to even be properly [i]called[/i] a view, you condemn as judgemental, exclusionary, and so on- you know, except for the Tao. Nothing but praise for that. 
 The ironic thing is, there's nothing at all wrong with any of that at all- but you yourself [i]insist that there is[/i]. 
 The dogmatic believers in this and that have seemed here willing to engage atheists, skeptics and other faiths of all stripes.  Yes, they argue, because they disagree- but they don't fault each other for the very act of disagreement like you seem to, they understand that to have different views MEANS to disagree.
 Now, take this in the spirit in which it is intended. You've been good to me, and I haven't forgotten that. I'm not trying to be a jerk here, call it an intervention. It's something you need to see, to take you further down the path you're after.  Who am I to tell you what you need to see?  Well, use that deflector if you need to, but also realize- it [i]ain't just me saying this. [/i] I think what you're after is eliminated all strife from your methodology. Since this is impossible, all you can do is convince yourself you've succeded, which is another thing altogether. 

And by saying such, you have taken a position against every religious believer on Earth with strong enough views to actually have views. You’ve sided with the folks who shrug and say “I dunno” when asked religious questions, and sided most firmly against everyone else. Just as those everyone else’s side against each other.

And yet you have certain knowledge of this, and have told me that everyone else should have certain knowledge of it too. The key tenets of what YOU believe are absolute, and everyone else’s are subjective, in other words.

Bob

I would agree in general that what we can know about God without revelation is limited and insuffecient. 

So far, no problems at all. That's exactly how it has to work- we accept an old revelation in the form of dogma (for that's all docrtine is, is personal revelation written down and applied to us all), and our faith strengthens as our personal experiences (also revelations in their own way) validate the dogma we've accepted.  

Taken literally, this has to be true, since God isn’t a physical object. Consider psychology. It’s an attempt to examine human minds in much the same way as physical objects- but the processes involved are totally different, because the rules change when you’re dealing with a conscious mind. With God, the nature of things changes again, not only are you dealing with a Mind, but a vastly superior Mind, who could conceal or reveal Himself to any degree He chooses, with no ability from man to push that envelope.

 We don't have to take something literally to find value in it, and a useful metaphor still has to point to the truth.  For example, it is said that God is Love.  Now, when I read this, I don't discount all I have learned about God as a Person, a Mind, and instead come to realize God as a sociological phenomenon between humans. However, at the same time, I know that God isn't full of hate and evil, either. So, a statement like "God is Love", even when taken metaphorically, still points at something related to the words. 
 I guess what I'm trying to say is, either a metaphor tells us something about God or it doesn't. If the story says God met Moses on a mountain and talked to him, then there is an element of metaphor there- God wasn't standing there on two legs, talking with a mouth and vocal cords, and so on. However, if the truth is, God isn't even remotely like a Person, and is and never was the kind of thing that could literally communicate ideas to a human, then the story becomes less of a metaphor, and more like a lie. 
 So, even a metaphor can (and should, if it is useful) tell us specific things about God when properly understood, things that can be believed to any degree of certainty, or expressed in language. 

Oh yes, this is something that has been in the back of my mind for a while, but has risen to the forefront recently. Yes, the good and the bad are, in a sense, the way God wants them. I don’t believe He controls the minutae of how the universe and the people in it function, but I do believe He created a world fully knowing the potential was in it for all the greatest good and evil we’ve seen.

So if I said the opposite, that scripture is unimportant except to give us an understanding of God, what would you think of that?

Hi Ucc.,

Is that the opposite of “the attributes that men give God are unimportant, except in understanding scripture”?

Taken as a statement for itself, I think that the statement is correct. Scripture is trying to demarcate the phenomena called “God” with varying experiences and in a number of literary styles. However, I find that scripture tells me more about myself than it gives me a description of God. I get the feeling that we have an outline, or even a shadow, but we are left guessing what the full picture would be. Like a 1000 piece puzzle, we get one piece at a time and gradually we gain an impression. Occasionally, we have a vision which excites us for a moment but then fades again.

Scripture has often been the initial inspiration for my visions too. I often get a flash of the “heavenly Jerusalem” but I’m unable to grasp it and hold it tight. I can only say that it is a lot different to what human beings have ever manufactured but I would do that vision a disservice if I pretended I could describe what I saw precisely. I just had the impression that it was something whole, complete and absolute – containing an unreduced variety of life living unharmed and in accord with each other.

But don’t take me literally

Shalom

Ucc,

I don’t know how to say it any other way. Am I dogmatic? YES! But not about whether we agree or not. You and I have disagreed plenty!
I very much enjoy passionate argumentation about anything of the manifest universe, but when I say ineffable, I mean that which can be sensed, but not expressed. I don’t know how to say it more simply than that.

As far as the rightness or wrongness of another viewpoint, it is neither nor. It is just different, a view from another perspective. It may be "wrong’ from my particular point of view, but that means nothing to anyone but me. So that fact that we may disagree, and it is wrong for me, doesn’t mean it is wrong for you. THAT is the issue, and THAT is what has been missed in too many threads too many times. Does that make sense to you? If not I’ll try again, but it seems very simple to me, and there is no arrogance or "knowing’ intended on my part in all of it.

You say that the dogmatic believers don’t fault each other? Ucc, you really need to read a bit more. I won’t single out any members, enough of that has been done, but the language of those ‘strongly’ held views have been more the derisive to any but their own.

I’m not tolerant of other views? I most certainly am, but I am definitely not tolerant of intolerance. The difference may be subtle, but there IS a difference. Do I condemn a view as judgemental or exclusionary? Yup. I sure do. BUT only when that point of view includes “knowing” for me.

Do I praise Tao? Yes, and I don’t have any problem expressing my opinion on Tao any more than you do on Christianity.

I do understand that my poor language skills keeps me from conveying both meaning and intent. Of course, I have a LOT of company in this. Perhaps that is my real concern. We all need to be very careful in two things: Our assumptions that others will know exactly our intent and meaning by the words we use, and invalidating other points of view simply because it doesn’t ‘fit’ our own.

FWIW, I am an advocate of an OPEN discussion forum and that includes disagreeing without invalidation of other POV. I’ll be responsible for what I say, but others have to be responsible for how they take it.

tentative

I have to leave aside the question of whether or not there could be such a thing- I doubt it, but obviously that’s impossible to prove by the very nature of ineffable. What I can say, though, is that God is not ineffable- or at least, there’s no reason to hold Him as such.

“Wrong for you” is another one of those statements that doesn’t really mean anything- unless all you mean it to say is “You think it’s wrong, and I don’t,” which really isn’t a question of wrongness. Look here:

“The fact that we may disagree, and that it is wrong for me, means categorically that it IS wrong for you.”

Here is a statement I’ve made, which is the opposite of what you’ve said above. Do you disagree with it? Can it be ‘right for me’ somehow, or am I just incorrect?

Another example:

“Everyone who doesn’t believe X is going to hell.”

How can a statement which applies to [i]everybody[/i] be wrong for you, and not for me? You obviously can't go to hell 'for me' and go to heaven (or no place at all) 'for you'.  Most religious claims are claims about everything and everybody, and thus, are not personal by nature. Either the statement above is true, or it isn't. 

No, there is no such thing as ‘wrong for you’, there’s just ‘wrong’. This gets to metaphysics. What seem to differ on some very basic claims about what reality is like, in order for you not only to make such statements, but to find them to be simple and obvious.

Let us discuss metaphysics. I am creating a thread. I want you to question me hard on this, because I know I’m going to do the same to you.

Hello F(r)iends,

You’re right, LA. I knew it too, at least, intuitively.
I must reflect on this for a while…

So if she were not speaking about the manifest universe, she would be incorrect (aka wrong)? You are advocating something each time you call it right or wrong–even if you qualify it by saying it is “wrong for you, right for me”.

So why do you insist that it is impossible to express something about god? Maybe it is impossible for you to exress something accurate about god to others, but not for me, or Uccisore, or LA, or {insert name here}. Admit it, even you try to express your notions of god in hopes that others will see it your way in hopes that others realize they are “wrong” and find the “Truth” about concept X.

But you can’t have it both ways, Mr. T.

-Thirst

Most people of faith (other than faith in the undefined ineffible) are intolerant of something or other. Therefore, you position is one of the most intolerant positions around here.

I do not say that you will go to hell without saving faith in Jesus because I have some personal vendeta against you, but because this belief statement is one of the fundamental principles of my faith. You clearly find this approach intolerable and will not tolerate those like me who hold this view. So we end up having the same degree of intolerance against one another’s views. The difference is that I can see my intolerance whereas you usually claim to have none.

This may be a good time to talk about the word tolerance. I think the meaning has shifted slightly as we move into a post-modern world. In the old days I could claim the bible to be true and Jesus the only way to heaven. But as long as I could sit and listen to an athiest, a muslim, or hindu friend talk about their beliefs, without being rude or violent, then I would have been defined as a Christian who is “tolerant” of others. Gradually the word “tolerance” has changed it’s meaning and is now taken to mean that I must accept the validity of your faith for you, and accept that your faith may be correct for your path in life. And if I cannot admit that your alternaive faith may actually be correct then I am branded intolerant, irrespective of my willingness to listen to you.

I can be polite, I can listen, I can debate, I can discuss, I will not swear at you (usually), or personally threaten you. These are acceptable standards for civilised discussion. However, I will not validate you faith as being OK for you, when it clearly rejects the central tenets of orthodox Christianity and is clearly unbiblical. If this makes you nervous and makes me “intolerant” then so be it.

Hi thirst,

Why is this so damned difficult to understand? We can cuss and discuss the manifest (knowable) universe as a part of that which is, but that which is metaphysical understanding or knowing is personal and can only be put in words of “God is like …” Throw all the metaphors at the ineffable you like, we may even use some of the same words, but all the words in the world will not encompass that which is. God is more than words. Is that really such a difficult concept to grasp?

Tell you what. For all those who are convinced that the words are an accurate description of that which is beyond the manifest universe, by all means, have at it. I promise to to not discuss it any further. After you’ve all compiled your knowing of God then everyone will be tickled and you can proclaim to the world that everything about God is now known.

And thirst, you are absolutely right. it is impossible for me to express anything accurately about God to others. I’m delighted to hear that you, and Uccisore, and LA, et al are capable of doing so. Again, I promise to not express my ‘notions’ simply because I have none expressible, and I wouldn’t want to leave the impression that I’m trying to “have it both ways.”

Ned,

I would respond to your post, but it would be a waste of both our times. Please join the others in detailing all the words that explain God. I’m sure your expertise will be invaluable to those who can accurately describe who, what, and how God is.

Tentative, this isn’t the massive challenge you suppose it is:
God is the omnipotent, omniscient, Being responsible for the creation and sustaining of the Universe.

What’s so hard about that?

Because it requires a leap of faith, for those who haven’t established the grounds by which to accept it?

The question isn’t whether or not the description is accurate, or even if God exists. The point is, if God is anything like the above, then God is effable- because I just described Him.

For God to be ineffable, he could not be Omnipotent, Omiscient, or the Creator of the Universe, because we have words for all those things. He also could not be un-Omnipotent, Non-Omniscient, or a contingent Being within the Universe, because we have words for those things too.

Hello F(r)iends,

Mr. T, come on! I found it ironic that you suggested that no one should imply that another person is wrong:

Yet you had just implied this when you addressed LA:

So when you ask:

You will forgive my frustration with you!
You sit back and tell us not to imply that someone is wrong, yet the very fact that someone else disagrees with your assertions on metaphysics bugs you to no end. It is quite clear that you feel that all discussion about metaphysics can only be discussed in certain terms: “that which is metaphysical understanding or knowing is personal and can only be put in words of…”

Does this not imply that it is wrong to discuss it in any other way?
If your reaction to “God is” vs. “God is like” is so strong I would suggest that you have failed to apply your earlier advice about implying that someone else’s point of view is wrong.

EDIT: I just realized you have said that god is the ineffable.
Perhaps you should adjust it to: god is like the ineffable.

Again, if I happen to think that god is not more than words, then according to you, you should not imply that I am wrong. Why would you wonder at the difficulty in grasping such a concept? Unless of course you are willing to recognize that IMPLYING that someone is wrong is sometimes (or often) necessary).

I didn’t mean to imply you were wrong…

It’s too bad you can’t. To LA, god is in the rain. To Uccisore, god reveals himself through scripture. To me, I am god. What is god to you? Oh wait, I forgot, you can’t relate that. What’s the value of trying? Why try at all?

-Thirst

Ned wrote

This topic could give a psychologist gray hairs. It is amazing how this is rationalized. Consider first the definition of intolerance:

wordreference.com/definition/intolerance

Notice the switch. In the first case it is the interruptions that are now defined as intolerance.

In the second case it is now it is the differences of opinion that are defined as intolerant.

So the person on the “right” side that in the past that used to be considered intolerant, is now considered demonstrating expressions of educated discrimination in response to the intolerance they are subjected to. And all this is done with a straight face. Ya gotta luv it.