One claim by some followers of Eastern religion is that spiritual truth is “inexpressible.” I doubt that claim. I believe that anything is expressible, if you are good enough at expressing. — Ilya B Shambat

A bit cliche but: what is the sound of one hand clapping?

A man breaks into a house intending to rob it. He hears, "Jesus is watching you." He turns on the light and finds a parrot. He asks the parrot his name, and the parrot says, "Moses." He laughs and says, what kind of people will call a parrot Moses? The parrot says, "The same kind of people who would call a rottweiler Jesus."

One claim by some followers of Eastern religion is that spiritual truth is “inexpressible.” I doubt that claim. I believe that anything is expressible, if you are good enough at expressing. — Ilya B Shambat

I think that anything which is expressed, is first thought, which says nothing of the ease or difficulty of expression (either verbal or non-verbal).

Dostoyevsky, who was an epileptic, was able to express amazing insight and wisdom. One thing that may have helped is that in epilepsy there is heightened contact between the left brain and the right brain, allowing what is accessible through intuition to become expressed in reason and in speech...

Rationalism sees reason and scientific inquiry as path to wisdom, and romanticism sees feeling and intuition as path to wisdom...

Combining the rational and the intuitive creates a fuller, more integrated, picture, and it does so faster than either modality acting alone... — Ilya B Shambat

By juxtaposing reason and intuition, you are implicitly (perhaps unknowingly) referring to dual process theories of mind.

Cognisance (Smith & Kirby, 2000), learning (Sun, 2002), mental coding (Paivio, 2007), problem-solving (Evans, 1984), and creative thinking (Christoff, et al., 2009) involve combined (automatic and controlled) processing, being interactive automatic/parallel and controlled/serial tacit and declarative knowledge processing.

However, I don't understand how dual processing relates to insight and wisdom. Perhaps if you provided a definition of insight and wisdom?

One claim by some followers of Eastern religion is that spiritual truth is “inexpressible.” I doubt that claim. I believe that anything is expressible, if you are good enough at expressing. — Ilya B Shambat

I can relate to this, but I think perhaps the problem is more communication than expression. I believe that anything is expressible, but not everything can be communicated in plain words.

I think when we attempt to express ‘spiritual truth’, we fail to recognise or clarify that we are really expressing an experience of that truth, and not stating the truth itself. While we understand this to be the case when we use artistic expression, including poetry, drama and literature, when we use words to express ‘truth’ outside of these parameters, people find it easier to take the words as the ‘truth’ itself - and this can cause problems in understanding what is meant.

An expression of spiritual truth is always subjective. This doesn’t mean that it is ‘my truth’ as opposed to ‘your truth’, but that it is my expression of my subjective experience of a spiritual truth. I don’t believe you can plainly state a ‘spiritual truth’ with words that can be understood objectively. But I think you can express this spiritual truth in such a way that enables many people to ‘feel’ a connection with your personal experience of this truth. That doesn’t mean the words you use are an accurate or objective expression of the ‘truth’ itself.

I think we experience truth as a combination of thought and feeling. I agree that we should be taught to both think and feel in equal measure, and to synthesise both approaches in order to understand and communicate truth as a complete experience.


@Galuchat - I disagree that everything that is expressed is first ‘thought’. We are more than capable of expressing ‘feeling’ that has not first been translated into thought. I see this every day in emails and posts fired off in haste.

I disagree that everything that is expressed is first ‘thought’. We are more than capable of expressing ‘feeling’ that has not first been translated into thought. I see this every day in emails and posts fired off in haste. — Possibility

"Feeling" is an awful word because it is used in so many different ways. I have been working on an informal domain ontology of the human mind for the past seven years, and decided to completely avoid using "feeling" for just that reason (preferring to use less equivocal words instead).

However, even emotion (passion) requires cognisance of the circumstances of an object of concern (cf., Theory of Constructed Emotion, Barrett, 2016).

The word "feeling" is used five times in the OP (not including the title) as a synonym of "intuition", or as an antonym of "thinking". Intuition and cogitation (thinking) being types of mental processing, as opposed to types of mental condition (e.g., consciousness, affect, mood, emotion, temperament, motivation, etc.).

By the way, nice point in your first paragraph about communication.

Only the wise can know if there are paths to wisdom. Do we know that they followed a path or walked a path that can be followed?

One claim by some followers of Eastern religion is that spiritual truth is “inexpressible.” I doubt that claim. I believe that anything is expressible, if you are good enough at expressing.
— Ilya B Shambat

I can relate to this, but I think perhaps the problem is more communication than expression. I believe that anything is expressible, but not everything can be communicated in plain words.

I think when we attempt to express ‘spiritual truth’, we fail to recognise or clarify that were are really expressing an experience of that truth, and not stating the truth itself. While we understand this to be the case when we use artistic expression, including poetry, drama and literature, when we use words to express ‘truth’ outside of these parameters, people find it easier to take the words as the ‘truth’ itself - and this can cause problems in understanding what is meant. — Possibility

Well said.

A bit cliche but: what is the sound of one hand clapping? — praxis

Silence. :clap:

"Feeling" is an awful word because it is used in so many different ways. I have been working on an informal domain ontology of the human mind for the past seven years, and decided to completely avoid using "feeling" for just that reason (preferring to use less equivocal words instead).

However, even emotion (passion) requires cognisance of the circumstances of an object of concern (cf., Theory of Constructed Emotion, Barrett, 2016).

The word "feeling" is used five times in the OP (not including the title) as a synonym of "intuition", or as an antonym of "thinking". Intuition and cogitation (thinking) being types of mental processing, as opposed to types of mental condition (e.g., consciousness, affect, mood, emotion, temperament, motivation, etc.). — Galuchat

I agree that ‘feeling’ is often misunderstood - it may very well appear synonymous with ‘intuition’, but this term has its own connotations as being (as you say) a mental process. And I don’t see it as necessarily opposite to thinking any more than religion is opposite to science - although it can certainly seem that way. It’s not an ideal term, but I don’t think there is an ideal term, so at this point I hope you don’t mind if I continue to use it (although I’m open to alternatives).

I don’t think ‘feeling’ is the same as emotion, either - I agree that we’ve already begun to apply thinking when we name, define or articulate ‘how we feel’ or determine its source, direction or ‘object of concern’. When I talk about ‘feeling’ in this context, I’m referring to something more basic than that.

I think ‘feeling’ refers to a deeper response to the universe that appears to come from ‘every fibre of our being’. It’s not a mental process, but neither is it a mental condition - I’d say it’s more metaphysical, but that description isn’t always well received. In the same way that cogitation informs ‘how we feel’ or how we respond to the universe through emotion (as described above), so ‘feeling’ can inform our mental processes alongside traditional/physical sense data (sight, sound, smell, touch, taste), logic/reason and memory. This can lead us to intuition, including sixth sense or ‘gut instinct’ experiences that we may learn to trust in particular circumstances, but I think that ‘feeling’ can and does occur - and also influences our actions - independent of thinking.

We’ve learned to distrust ‘feeling’, as a rule, because of its ability to bypass our mental processes. Like we do with most things in the world that resist definition/confinement/control/manipulation, we tend to deny its existence, legitimacy or benefit - because to acknowledge it would be to admit that we don’t have the universe under control.

We recognise intuition to a certain extent, and we recognise emotion, but the underlying element of our subjective experience that informs both is tricky to pin down. We can’t locate it in the mind or in any particular organ of the body. It is ‘felt’ deep in our core, tingling in our extremities and also in the air around us and between us. It occurs in the present moment, hits us without warning and leaves no physical trace of evidence except a vague sense of its interaction with our mental processes. This makes it easy enough to dismiss or explain away after the moment has passed. But in the moment it is as real and influential as any other part of our experience.

I think if we learn to recognise, legitimise and incorporate ‘feeling’ as a way of interacting with the universe alongside traditional/physical sense data, logic/reason and memory, we may find our ‘thinking’ will start to more closely match our experience in the world.

We recognise intuition to a certain extent, and we recognise emotion, but the underlying element of our subjective experience that informs both is tricky to pin down.

We can’t locate it in the mind or in any particular organ of the body. It is ‘felt’ deep in our core, tingling in our extremities and also in the air around us and between us.

It occurs in the present moment, hits us without warning and leaves no physical trace of evidence except a vague sense of its interaction with our mental processes. This makes it easy enough to dismiss or explain away after the moment has passed. But in the moment it is as real and influential as any other part of our experience. — Possibility

Exactly this. Thanks for such clear, concise and beautiful writing.

Only the wise can know if there are paths to wisdom. Do we know that they followed a path or walked a path that can be followed? — Fooloso4

Who are 'the wise' ?

Well the problem is feeling is a reaction and plus can't be wilfully directed. In other words it's something we can't control. Additionally feelings are reactions to both external and internal states. The reasonableness and ergo worth of these feelings can only be adjudged through rational thinking.

The only value of feeling is to what extent it motivates rational thought.

What say you?

An expression of spiritual truth is always subjective. This doesn’t mean that it is ‘my truth’ as opposed to ‘your truth’, but that it is my expression of my subjective experience of a spiritual truth. I don’t believe you can plainly state a ‘spiritual truth’ with words that can be understood objectively. But I think you can express this spiritual truth in such a way that enables many people to ‘feel’ a connection with your personal experience of this truth. That doesn’t mean the words you use are an accurate or objective expression of the ‘truth’ itself.

I think we experience truth as a combination of thought and feeling. I agree that we should be taught to both think and feel in equal measure, and to synthesise both approaches in order to understand and communicate truth as a complete experience. — Possibility

There is some good sense here; an ability to connect words and experience with self and others.
It is not an easy task to accurately describe feelings. Often words come out my mouth and I wonder where they came from ! It wasn't at all what I meant to say, or even what I was thinking...

What is a 'spiritual truth' ?

Combining the rational and the intuitive creates a fuller, more integrated, picture, and it does so faster than either modality acting alone. People should be taught both to think and to feel. And then they should be taught to synthesize both, creating a more complete understanding doing so faster than can be done either through feeling or through thinking by itself. — Ilya B Shambat

I agree about the importance of understanding all human capacitites. How to carefully think, feel and describe so as to improve communication and action.

I am not sure that a combination is 'faster than either modality acting alone'.
Why would you think that- or what is your source for that belief ?

One claim by some followers of Eastern religion is that spiritual truth is “inexpressible.” I doubt that claim. I believe that anything is expressible, if you are good enough at expressing. — Ilya B Shambat

Easy for you to say, and maybe you're right. :chin: But many of us simply don't have such accomplished powers of expression. As an autist, I feel this especially. There are ways of expressing things that you do without thinking, that I am completely unable to do. It's not that I need training or instruction, it's that I actually lack the spark that could be fanned into a flame. Not everyone is autistic, of course, but many of us share shortcomings in our means and ways of expression. In practice, I think there are many things that many people are unable to adequately express.

And then there is the intended meaning of "inexpressible truth" that you mention. I think there are such truths. Truths that can be learned and understood, but not expressed in words. For these things, words are insufficient. Perhaps because their understanding, if one can reach it, is visceral (yes, not a great word, but I couldn't think of a better one) more than intellectual? Perhaps the matter concerns something that must be experienced personally before it can be understood? Maybe it's like me trying to appreciate what it's like to grow a baby, and give birth to it? I dare to guess that this might be something that cannot be adequately expressed using only words?

Who are 'the wise' ? — Amity

Good question. Can one who is not wise recognize the wise? Do those who are not wise, out of their ignorance, only imagine what it is to be wise?

People should be taught both to think and to feel. — Ilya B Shambat

You think people can be taught to feel? To think, yes, there are definitely ways in which we can improve our thinking, and many of them can be taught. But teaching someone to feel? How would/could that work? :chin:

Who are 'the wise' ?
— Amity

Good question. Can one who is not wise recognize the wise? Do those who are not wise, out of their ignorance, only imagine what it is to be wise? — Fooloso4

Is that an example of wisdom ? When you have more questions than answers ?
When you can say 'I do not know' but still be willing to broaden perspective...and change if necessary.

Interesting to consider how we imagine 'the wise' to be. To look.
What image comes to mind ? Don't think about it too hard.
How programmed are we...

Is that an example of wisdom ? When you have more questions than answers ?When you can say 'I do not know' but still be willing to broaden perspective...and change if necessary. — Amity

The term skeptic comes from the Greek meaning inquiry and doubt. Eventually doubt came to overshadow inquiry, to the extent that it was doubted that inquiry was of much use. But such a conclusion is antithetical to Socratic inquiry. It assumes an answer, leaves off questioning, and instead sets about making arguments to prove the validity of radical doubt.

One problem when answers take precedence over questions is that we do not ask whether the question it answers was a good question.

In the Apology Socrates claims that human wisdom is worthless. One way in which this is true is that knowing you do not know does not allow you to do the kinds of things that those who do know something can do with their knowledge. As with his daimon who warns him what not to do but never advises him as to what he should do, there is no certainty as to what is the best course of action, the best way to live. It is the question of what is best that leads. And in the absence of knowledge of what is best perhaps human wisdom has something to do with knowing how best to proceed knowing that one does not know what is best.

When one talks about words, we have to examine where words came from.
They came from a tradition of communicating by talking.
Talking came about via the evolutionary development of humans, and their culture/s.
We can theoretically trace our shared origin with chimpanzees, and if you think about how they seem to communicate, they use body language in conjunction with verbal expressing...we could add in other things like scent etc.
So out present use of words emerged from that state.
We can also go further back in history and think about what we and the chimps evolved from; some kind of vole/mouse type species...and look at how they communicate..similarly they make vocal sounds, like squeaks, also body language etc...so we can maybe trace language back to the first cells, and how they came about, which science doesn't have much idea about.
If the origins of the first cells were supernatural, then you can maybe trace back words and language right back to whatever supernatural forces may be; God, or whatever you might believe in..

So I think words are not quite as straightforward as some people think they are, and from what I have argued there does seem to be the potential at least, to be able to express spiritual stuff with words, if words are rooted in the spiritual/supernatural.

As for teaching people how to feel, and think; by doing that you would be trying to separate those two things, and then to get people to think and feel at the same time, rejoin what you might have separated....

also, the term 'spiritual truths'....are there any spiritual untruths?
If not then the term 'spiritual truths; seems like a bit of a tautological statement...or something.

A bit cliche but: what is the sound of one hand clapping? — praxis

Ah, the sound of a rhetorical question. It's a good example of a loaded question or a riddle which stumps some people and gets them to think. The wise ones don't get stuck there forever, but learn to solve it and move on.

What is a 'spiritual truth' ? — Amity

I would describe pure ‘spiritual truth’ as an element of knowledge, understanding or wisdom that we recognise as universal or eternal. It is true (consistent) regardless of who experiences it, where, when or how they experience it and under what circumstances.

This truth does not directly translate to anything other than experience, however. Despite countless attempts to substantiate or declare universal or eternal truths, we have yet to succeed at this in any language.

Take the statement ‘all men are created equal’, for instance. There is an experience of spiritual or eternal ‘truth’ underlying this statement, and yet the statement itself is flawed as an objective expression of that truth. We can attempt to reword it in a way that might be seen as more inclusive or sensitive to alternative experiences or points of view, but at the end of the day, the words only point to a subjective experience of spiritual truth - they cannot become that truth objectively, no matter what words we may use.

This doesn’t sit well with some people. Does this mean we should dismiss the statement as false, or accept it as ‘basically true’? How do we acknowledge that a statement is objectively flawed, and yet points to a ‘truth’ subjectively experienced by the authors/signatories that we also recognise to be true? How can we know something we cannot accurately state as fact? And how do we reliably share this knowledge with others if we can’t rely on the words?

You think people can be taught to feel? To think, yes, there are definitely ways in which we can improve our thinking, and many of them can be taught. But teaching someone to feel? How would/could that work? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

I think everyone can feel already - it’s more a matter of learning to notice ‘feeling’ as part of our overall experience, to pay attention to it, and give it a seat at the table, so to speak. We need to learn not to be afraid of feeling, not to dismiss or restrict its influence on our thinking (and remember I’m not talking about emotion - which is feeling influenced by thought), but instead to value the unique contribution that ‘feeling’ can bring to our understanding of the universe.

Well the problem is feeling is a reaction and plus can't be wilfully directed. In other words it's something we can't control. Additionally feelings are reactions to both external and internal states. The reasonableness and ergo worth of these feelings can only be adjudged through rational thinking.

The only value of feeling is to what extent it motivates rational thought. — TheMadFool

This is a common misconception, especially for those who have given reason/logic a privileged position. I don’t think feeling is a ‘reaction’ we can’t control or wilfully direct, but a valuable, informative response to the universe, much like traditional/physical sense data. I think when we try to oppress feeling by subordinating it to ‘rational thinking’, it finds an outlet of expression through irrational emotion. ‘See - I told you it can’t be trusted!’

You think people can be taught to feel? To think, yes, there are definitely ways in which we can improve our thinking, and many of them can be taught. But teaching someone to feel? How would/could that work? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

Empathy tasks. You know, like, imagine how you would feel if that were you?

Ah, the sound of a rhetorical question. It's a good example of a loaded question which stumps some people and gets them to think. The wise ones don't get stuck there forever, but learn to solve it and move on. — S

it's a question with no actual answer...a hand can't clap at all on its own, so the sound of something which is impossible doesn't exist, and by getting people's minds to contemplate something which doesn't exist gets them to contemplate nothingness...which leads to the death of some parts of the mind, in my opinion....the reaction of someone's mind to part of its own death may lead someone to think they are having a spiritual experience....there is much death in Buddhism I think, and I speak of it as someone who was sort of interested in it, still am a little....I read a Glimpse of Nothingness twice...there sometimes is the illusion of peace in mind death, but it will only be temporary......
I do wonder about the wisdom that might come from spiritual death experiences...this all sounds very negative, and I don't think Buddhism is all negative; I like the concept of mindfulness for example...there is life in that.

it's a question with no actual answer... — wax

Like a rhetorical question. Rhetorical questions get people to think. Getting people to think can lead to wisdom. You're not supposed to answer it in the usual way. You're supposed to analyse and solve.

also, the term 'spiritual truths'....are there any spiritual untruths?
If not then the term 'spiritual truths; seems like a bit of a tautological statement...or something. — wax

I wonder if ‘spiritual’ might be an unnecessary qualifier - perhaps the question is: are there other types of truths that are not spiritual? Mathematical truth? Do they fit the description of spiritual truth?

rhetorical questions are questions that have implied answers, or obvious answers.
the question of the hand clapping doesn't have an answer, so isn't really a rhetorical question imo.

The question is a kōan, and it, I think is asked in order for the person asked to attain a new state of being...not just to get people to think;.

rhetorical questions are questions that have implied answers, or obvious answers.
the question of the hand clapping doesn't have an answer, so isn't really a rhetorical question imo.

The question is a kōan, and it, I think is asked in order for the person asked to attain a new state of being...not just to get people to think;. — wax

Well, that was my own take on it. What it has in common with rhetorical questions is that you're not supposed to answer it in the usual way. I would ask it to trigger critical thinking. I wouldn't be asking it in the usual way. I would be asking it to give an opportunity to identify a problem with the question itself or to come up with a creative answer which fits.

are there other types of truths that are not spiritual? Mathematical truth? Do they fit the description of spiritual truth? — Possibility

Interesting. Mathematical truth is defined to be true, so it's true by definition. A lesser form of truth, I believe. :chin: But that doesn't invalidate your question. Truths that are factual might be independent of spiritual truth. ... But how to verify facts to that degree of certainty? I'm not sure. :chin: