Glossolalia has more to do with epilepsy than philosophy. — Banno

:up: And vapid gullibility.

I've actually witnessed glossolalia. By "witnessed" I mean hearing it and seeing people (apparently) speaking in tongues; I have no desire to "testify" to it in any religious sense.

I attended a gathering of Pentecostals quite some time ago. As the meeting progressed, people seemed to become more and more excited, and eventually some of them began what I would describe as singing--making a kind of ululation or ebullition. They didn't speak as one normally would speak a language. They didn't, for example, do something similar to speaking Latin or Greek or Italian, suddenly, in the midst of a group of English speakers. Thoughtfully, someone would then "translate" the burbling or fluting sound into English. It would have something to do with Jesus.

A kind of tension preceded the singing. I don't know if anyone here has been in a crowd of people who suddenly start rioting, but the feeling of tension was similar if less threatening. My guess would be glossolalia is the result of strong excitement or emotion.

I've actually witnessed glossolalia. — Ciceronianus the White

The times I've witnessed it, it did not sound like language. It struck me as forced.

I may have replied to Amen, but perhaps he may still be able to look at this online. As far as speaking in tongues I do know people who have witnessed it, but some have thought that a lot of it may be contrived. Perhaps, it is in between, because I am sure that if we tried we could all make strange sounds, like unusual words, especially in a state of altered consciousness.

A related idea is the idea of channeling. I have a friend who is a professional artist, and she is does a lot of religious art. She told me that when she is painting and doing other artwork, she sees herself as channeling the Holy Spirit. However, I am aware that many religious people and non religious people are very sceptical of the idea of channeling. From the more traditional approach, it can be queried what entities is one channelling, and are they good or evil? Skeptics, on the other hand, often dismiss the process as being complete nonsense. The way in which I probably see it is more in connection with Jung's idea of active imagination, in which a person is getting in touch with aspects beyond the persona, and connecting with aspects such as those from the collective unconscious.

As far as speaking in tongues — Jack Cummins

Probably so that the Devil cannot understand what's being said.

And I hereby bid 'Amen' to my old friend Amen.

I used to be religious, and thought my experience of "creative flow" was something akin to the Holy Spirit moving in me. I've since lost that religious perspective, but would not equate that experience with glossolalia. I've seen Glossolalia happen too, and think of it more in terms of a mania; there is certainly something happening, as @Ciceronianus the White illustrated, of a riotous nature. It's certainly not epileptic or vapidly gullible as all stars such as @Banno and @180 Proof like to assume (presumably out of fear of the unknown). It seems to be more akin to being swept up in a herd environment and momentarily losing one's sense of individuality; almost a momentary psychotic break.

"Creative flow", on the other hand is distinctly different from glossolalia, in my view. As an artist myself, I tend to become less and less interested in whatever the mechanics may or may not be behind creative flow. I don't care about whatever nomenclature is used to attempt to set the experience in resin. The "unconscious" feels the closest to my own experience, in that I find myself following some sort of bread crumb trail that feels (experientially) outside of myself (like that text formatting @180 Proof? :razz: ). I'm not dogmatic enough at this point in my life to label it "brain chemistry", the "collective unconscious", or "the Holy Spirit". Whatever it is, it's something not normally present in every day "non-creative" life that does seem to interject when I'm in the process of trying to create something. I've even gone so far as to set up rules for myself that I think I have to follow in order to fall into "flow", only to realize later that there are no rules; if a set of circumstances brought great creative results at one point in time, the only thing maintaining those circumstances as necessary is my own thinking that they are so. So I can wrench the "flow" of my creative thinking out of that particular vein and willfully place it in a new vein, and see if any new creative "flow" begins. Sorry for the ramble.

Glossolalia is simply a set of symbols (here sounds and their combinations) begging, entreating, for a referent. When the two (symbol & referent) finally meet, we have language. I suspect no one has ever considered the other side to this story - grapholalia (writing that's, well, gibberish). A few examples come to mind: the Voynich Manuscript, the Rohonc Codex.

Communication, language one, consists of the following pairs,

1. Speak (transmission) - Listen (reception)
2. Write (transmission) - Read (reception)

An intriguing aspect of the issue is that glossolalia/grapholalia both can't be distinguished from cryptography (coded information) - in both cases, we have on our hands a set of symbols (spoken/written) the listener/reader can't understand. This could be one of the reasons why people have devoted quite a lot of time and energy trying to decipher the Voynich manuscript and the Rohonc codex. Unbeknownst to them, the large number of never-before-seen symbols may simply be in want of a referent. In some sense, glossolalia/grapholalia may simply be linguistic atavism (reenactment of the very first steps humans took in the language department).

What excites me, what I find intriguing, is are there referents that haven't been assigned a symbol [words (written/spoken)]? How much of the universe have we explored? The furthest a usable man-made object has ever been is the Voyager spacecraft (launched 1977) and after 44 years and counting it hasn't even left the solar system. Also let's not forget we haven't explored the oceans in any meaningful way. I'm sure there's a lot we don't know and if these unknowns are to be part of a productive discussion, the unkown would require their own preferrably unique symbols. Glossolalia/grapholalia seems like the first port of call.

I guess it all boils down to ignorance - the unknown, incomprehensible words of glossolalia & grapholalia reflect the state of our knowledge, a mere drop in the ocean of what is knowable. Ignorance, I hear, is religion's wingman - deadly duo!

Thus, as the OP (sadly, 3017amen has been banned) states, the cosmos has a big role to play in glossolalia/grpaholalia as there's nothing we know so little about than the domain of cosmology.

It feels rather sad writing in Amen's final thread, and I do feel sad that he cannot reply. I had a fair amount of replies from him. It is perhaps ironic that his final one was about speaking in tongues, and I am sure that he will find some outlet for communicating. Whenever I see the famous little drawing of Kierkergaard I always think, oh, there's Amen. I imagine he will also probably be remembered on the site for the actual idea that atheism is not logical.

final one was about speaking in tongues — Jack Cummins

:rofl: :rofl: Jack's eulogy for 3017amen



:rofl:

My very first interaction on the site, when I first joined, was with @3017amen Only a fortnight ago, I was out in Wimbledon engaging in discussion with him about the Bible, and someone wrote that I was 'tripping'.

I also wonder what happens when people are banned and whether they are able to log in at all. I don't know if they get some kind of message saying that they are banned, or simply can't log in at all. But, I would prefer to walk away from the site oneday if I thought that I was just about to be banned, and I don't know if that means that I am a coward. But, we can say that consciousness definitely exists after being banned. He may still be able to see the discussion here, even though he can't speak at all.

But, we can say that consciousness definitely exists after being banned. — Jack Cummins

Avatar