No Trinity in the NT

[Shadow Link]

I generally think of 'true' as meaning 'conforming with reality'.

In some of the environments I enter 'Truth' is supramundane.

 

[Muffled]

It is a Historical fact, Jesus pbuh was considered divine by the Gentile Church, who then sought to find verses to fit this Doctrine, later they also added the Holy Spirit to the God-head. This is why verses like 1 John 5-7, Matthew 28:19 are considered later fabrications. The style of writing in John's prologue is also evidence of this popular poem, borrowed from Greek philosophers being added later.

However there is little doubt the non Jewish writers of the Gospels, thought Jesus pbuh to be more than a mere man. Paul too indicates as much. It's a shame none of them met Jesus pbuh for themselves, instead they relied upon hearsay and legends that were circulating to bring more people into the new faith.

I don't believe I have seen any such fact but it seems more reasonable to me that Jesus wold be considered divine by those reading the Bible than to make such a wild claim without evidence.

I believe there is no evidence of that.

I believe even if someone using high criticism thought so there are plenty of verses that are solid.

I believe John has a good understanding of spiritual things and if he borrowed anything it was only because he believed it correct through the leading of the Holy Spirit.

I believe John was an Apostle of Jesus and John Mark reputedly lived in the house where the Last Supper was held. I also would not denigrate Luke since as a good journalist he reputedly went to the sources for his account. Matthew may have been an Apostle and there are indications that he was at least a follower who would have met Jesus.

 

[Muslim-UK]

I don't believe I have seen any such fact but it seems more reasonable to me that Jesus wold be considered divine by those reading the Bible than to make such a wild claim without evidence.

His Family and Jewish Companions did not think him divine.

I believe there is no evidence of that.

4th Century Council of Constantinople debated status of Holy Spirit and added Him to Father and Son.

I believe even if someone using high criticism thought so there are plenty of verses that are solid.

Acts 2:22 "Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.

I believe John has a good understanding of spiritual things and if he borrowed anything it was only because he believed it correct through the leading of the Holy Spirit.

The anonymous author of the Gospel was a Greek, who referred to 'The Jews', 'their' Laws, 'their' festivals etc. Perhaps he was having a identity crisis following successfully going from illiterate Aramaic speaking fisherman, to expert in Greek theology and able to articulate himself in perfect Greek.

I believe John was an Apostle of Jesus and John Mark reputedly lived in the house where the Last Supper was held. I also would not denigrate Luke since as a good journalist he reputedly went to the sources for his account. Matthew may have been an Apostle and there are indications that he was at least a follower who would have met Jesus.

Can you prove from the NT, any of them giving first hand accounts to back your claim up?

 

[Muslim-UK]

btw in case you forgot, I'm still waiting for you to show me Prophecies related to Jesus pbuh from the Torah:

Prophecies

 

[eldios]

Hmm. Is prejudgment always wise? He's a reputable writer and his book is interesting and informative.

But of course it's a matter for you.



And what did he tell you about the theology of the Trinity?
.

It's a pagan idea that has nothing to do with the Truth.

 

[Augustus]

4th Century Council of Constantinople debated status of Holy Spirit and added Him to Father and Son.

The idea is centuries older than that though.

 

[Muslim-UK]

The idea is centuries older than that though.

So was the idea that Jesus pbuh was a spirit and never made flesh. I'm talking about when the Church decided the status of who was Divine, and when that decision was taken.

 

[blü 2]

Muslim-UK

Thanks for your notes. I've found them informative in several directions.

 

[blü 2]

I believe I have heard it all before and all the arguments against the Trinity don't hold water and all the arguments for the Trinity are cogent. I do agree the wording of the Apostles Creed meant to be clear actually lead to some confusion.

I'm not the only one saying the Trinity is an incoherent doctrine. The Catholic Encyclopedia and the OxDCC said it long before I did. And if you examine image No 6 from the Wikipedia 'Trinity' page (also reproduced above) you can see for yourself what the problem is.

Or are you using a different definition of 'Trinity' from the two I cited in the OP? If so, please set it out.

As for the quotes I set out in which Jesus denies that he's god either on earth or in heaven, I'd have said that evidence made it game over.
.

 

[blü 2]

I believe the true wound to Allah are those who speak against the Trinity.

Why? If Jesus on many occasions says very plainly that he's not god, and if the doctrine saying that he nonetheless is, is incoherent even in the eyes of its proponents, in what sense could it wound Islam?

 

[blü 2]

The idea is centuries older than that though.

The idea that the Holy Ghost and Jesus were entities distinct from each other and from Yahweh can be faintly found in the first century, but the idea that the Holy Ghost and Jesus are each god isn't doctrine till the 4th cent.

 

[metis]

The issue of the interrelationship of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit is really not clear even in the 2nd century church, and it took until the 4th century for the church to try and iron this all out, thus "the mystery of the trinity". IOW, it wasn't clear even from the 4th century on as the belief was and is that they are somehow intertwined, thus there not being three different gods.

BTW, an excellent book that covers this is "How Jesus Became God" by Bart Ehrman, and he well gets into the confusion of this relationship.

 

[Windwalker]

This is incoherent, of course, and not just incoherent but acknowledged to be so.
OxDCC calls it ‘a mystery in the strict sense’ ie the doctrine ‘can neither be known by unaided human reason apart from revelation, nor cogently demonstrated by reason after it has been revealed’. ...

(The Cath Encl also says that such incoherence is ‘not against reason but above reason’. Nice one!)

I'm not sure why this is a problem? Yes, things we describe like ineffable, incomprehensible, transcendent, mystical, paradoxical, etc. are all real things, but just beyond the mind's ability to define or comprehend in terms of logic and language. Their nature is such that it of necessity is beyond the reasoning mind, yet nonetheless very real.

Does all of reality have to make sense to your mind in order for you to know its real first? I personally don't see the Trinity as being a scientific statement, but rather an expression of ineffable, mystical truth. One is a finger defined, the other is a finger pointing. The Trinity is the latter.

What does the NT say about the Trinity?

Nothing.

That's obviously not what those who read it and participated in religious and spiritual practices thought. It says plenty that they cite to fit into this later formulation about the nature of the divine essence. Obviously it's not taught in its later form. Those later formulas were interpretations of scriptures through various insights and experiences.

Are you saying those are not allowed? Then tell all these preachers to just shut up with what they think the Bible says, say nothing about it, but instead just read the words in flat monotone intonations without any suggestion of what they think any of it means or teaches. You don't need teachers, when the words alone have all you need to hang on to.

Of course you should realize there are multiple ways to read and look at and interpret the same things? Are you suggesting here there is one and only one right way to think and believe about things? If so, then aren't you doing exactly what you accuse the Catholic church of doing?

Worse, Jesus makes a number of statements which can’t be reconciled with his being a member of the Trinity, and none that support it.

Jesus makes a number of statements which can't be reconciled with other statements of Jesus. This is the nature of scripture. They are words of people with certain perspectives about the divine, and sometimes they just can't be reconciled with each other. I reject the notion the Bible is a magical book of absolute divine truth without contradiction. Divine truth is expressed in many ways, sometimes in ways that conflict with other modes of perception.

(That makes sense, since he’s a 1st cent. Jerusalem Jew, whereas the doctrine is devised by 4th and 5th cent Christian politicians (‘bishops’), whose purposes are altogether different.)

It's really more a formulation that is 1st and early 2nd century. That it became a 'doctrine' was only because they needed to settle disputes of what the church should officially teach together as a whole. That's an administrative layer imposed upon what really should be open ended inquiries in the divine. When you say "this is it," end of discussion, that's a problem, I believe.

In other words, says John's author, the oneness is of a kind available to all believers, not an equality with Yahweh.

And how is that Oneness of all believers not an equality with God? To me this validates what Jesus says when he says "Before Abraham, I AM." The pharisees certainly understood what that meant as they are said to have taken up stones to kill him for him, 'being a man make yourself God". What the church failed is when they "kicked Jesus upstairs", as Alan Watts put it. That Oneness is the realization that we are all the Divine incarnate. We are all the Sons and Daughter of God, just as Jesus realized in himself and could declare, "When you have seen me, you have seen the Father." This is a statement of realizing one's true Identity. It is in fact a mystical realization of the Paradox of the fully transcendent and fully imminent divine.

The doctrine of the Trinity is incoherent. The church agrees that it's incoherent ('is a mystery')

It's a Mystery, not in confusion but in transcendence. Again, if the world is only real because you can smash and compress it down into what your mind can hold and comprehend, then it's a very small human-mind only universe and nothing beyond that for us to explore and grow into beyond the limits of mind. The human mind is a tool, a lens through which we peer out into Reality beyond it and try to capture bits and pieces of it into neat little wrappers our little minds can hold and look at in memories.

But to step out beyond that into the Mystery itself, this is the mystical journey. It is not a violation of rationality, which is irrationality, but an acknowledgement and exploration of that Reality both in ourselves and the word, beyond merely highly limited tools of language and mental ideas, which themselves are always in a state of growth and change.

If thoughts, words and ideas are the keys to truth, then considering those change in nature over the course of one's own lifetime, let alone over the course of human history itself, then we are adrift hopelessly disconnected from Reality, or God as it were, utterly isolated into only that which we can comprehend rationally. The mystical on the other hand is the non-rational, the experiential, the inspirational, the imaginal, etc. All of which are 100% human, and 100% reasonable to accept. To be purely 'rational' to the exclusion of all other modes of knowing, is what is in fact completely irrational.

Jesus (to his credit) gives it not the slightest support.

He also doesn't teach how stars and planets came to be, or the theory of evolution, but does this mean we can't know some things Jesus either didn't, or could not at the time?

But despite all that, experience shows that those who’ve grown up with, find it hard to let go.
.

Well, this is true of any limits of our minds we don't let go off, such as believing all of life, or statements about God, has to make rational sense in order for it to be held as true.

 

[blü 2]

I'm not sure why this [incoherence] is a problem? Yes, things we describe like ineffable, incomprehensible, transcendent, mystical, paradoxical, etc. are all real things, but just beyond the mind's ability to define or comprehend in terms of logic and language.

It's a problem because if you don't know what it means, you don't know what you're talking about.

So no one else can grasp the point either, and may even use derogatory and dismissive words from animal husbandry.

In such a situation I'd give up and have another beer.

I personally don't see the Trinity as being a scientific statement, but rather an expression of ineffable, mystical truth.

Again, how can something be true if it's ineffable? If you can't articulate it, you don't understand it ─ ask anyone who's ever tried to teach ─ and it may very well be a personal emotional state and have zero information content.

One is a finger defined, the other is a finger pointing. The Trinity is the latter.

Ahm, meaning what?

That's obviously not what those who read it and participated in religious and spiritual practices thought.

Would that not be further evidence that all they're talking about is personal emotional states, again with zero information content?

It says plenty that they cite to fit into this later formulation about the nature of the divine essence.

What plenty does it actually say at an information level?

Are you saying those [reports of experiences?] are not allowed?

Put it this way ─ if they're just emotional experiences, I prefer a nice rum.

Of course you should realize there are multiple ways to read and look at and interpret the same things?

Ambiguity is fine in humor, and games, and evasion, but not so useful when it comes to honestly informing folk.

Are you suggesting here there is one and only one right way to think and believe about things?

No, but I strongly hold the view that a good understanding starts with clear thinking, clear definitions, examinable evidence; and only then is a sensible debate possible.

If so, then aren't you doing exactly what you accuse the Catholic church of doing?

I don't accuse the RCC and the others of admitting that the notion of the Trinity is incoherent, because it is. But 'not against reason but above reason' is the RCC's ludicrous fudge, a meaningless sop to the uncomprehending.

Jesus makes a number of statements which can't be reconciled with other statements of Jesus.

Yeah, I can think of times when I've done that. Women!

I reject the notion the Bible is a magical book of absolute divine truth without contradiction.

No argument from me.

It's really more a formulation that is 1st and early 2nd century. That it became a 'doctrine' was only because they needed to settle disputes of what the church should officially teach together as a whole.

It's not as polite as that. In the 2nd and 3rd centuries they were competing with the Jews for followers and the Jews had the ace that they were exempt from worship of the Roman gods. In the slanging matches to and fro, one claim was that the Jews had the one true god while the Christians had two or more. It was this problem that the Trinity was invented to solve. Or so I gather from Robin Lane Fox's Christians and Pagans, and it's hard to think of another reason.

And how is that Oneness of all believers not an equality with God?

Because there's only one boss, one commander of the power, and that's Yahweh. Jesus says so again and again ─ see my quotes in the OP. Whatever 'oneness with God' means, it doesn't mean power-sharing.

To me this validates what Jesus says when he says "Before Abraham, I AM."

Taken with Jesus' many explicit and unambiguous denials that he's god (see OP) that can't mean he IS god. It could, I suppose, be a claim to have existed for a long time in heaven, but that's contradicted by Jesus' only becoming son of god at his baptism (Mark 1:10-11), or by insemination (Matthew 1:18, Luke 1:31) or at his resurrection (Acts 13:33).

What the church failed is when they "kicked Jesus upstairs", as Alan Watts put it. That Oneness is the realization that we are all the Divine incarnate.

That's a much more manageable notion. Pity the text doesn't support it. Well, I suppose John 20:23-27 supports it, but only subject to conditions.

It's a Mystery, not in confusion but in transcendence.

With respect, it's meaningless and incoherent no matter what term you use for it.

Again, if the world is only real because you can smash and compress it down into what your mind can hold and comprehend, then it's a very small human-mind only universe and nothing beyond that for us to explore and grow into beyond the limits of mind.

We have brains. We use them to see the world. We make A.I. Our HALs / droids / cyborgs will have brain-like-things which will also dictate the limits of their sensory perceptions. No way out of that, at our present state of knowing,

But as far as I can tell, all that's out there is natural, and all our brain functions operate naturally, and no meaning can be attached to 'supernatural' until we wander in the realms of the imagination, and (if we're educated in science) suspend our well-based disbelief. (Don't get me wrong ─ I love a good ghost story. And I can get the creeps, but that's an evolved response to potential danger.)

If thoughts, words and ideas are the keys to truth

Accurate statements about reality are the keys to truth ─ in my view true means conforming with objective reality ─ and we employ them as concepts in our brains in search of greater understanding.

we are adrift hopelessly disconnected from Reality, or God as it were

External reality, objective reality, is the same thing as the realm of the physical sciences. The contents of our dreams, visions, sensory illusions, hallucinations, designed fictions, are just that.

The mystical on the other hand is the non-rational, the experiential, the inspirational, the imaginal, etc. All of which are 100% human, and 100% reasonable to accept.

As phenomena of our mentation, no doubt, but not as accurate statements about objective reality.

 

[Windwalker]

It's a problem because if you don't know what it means, you don't know what you're talking about.

One of the beauties of experiences is that they can be understood in many ways, and the meanings of them are not fixed or static truths. Rather they are dynamic and unfolding, self-creating truths. Meaning making is a participatory act, not some discovery of something outside yourself. Meaning involves you as the subjective experiencer. And when you as the experiencer says 'this is what this means to me,' you obviously have some idea what you are talking about.

So no one else can grasp the point either, and may even use derogatory and dismissive words from animal husbandry.

If they have similar experiences, similar frames of reference, then even though the language spoken about it is not exact, as it in fact cannot be if you are talking about the experiences of the ineffable, then the other probably can 'grok' the meaning. If they have no such referent, if what is described is outside their experience, then they have no place to put what is said into personal context. Such descriptions are metaphoric, not definitive.

In such a situation I'd give up and have another beer.

Or go gain such an experience yourself so you have a common frame of reference.

Again, how can something be true if it's ineffable? If you can't articulate it, you don't understand it ─ ask anyone who's ever tried to teach ─ and it may very well be a personal emotional state and have zero information content.

But personal subjective experience is absolutely contentful. It is a direct experience, which is information. That we struggle to find words to articulate it, it is a good sign. Not everything in life can be stuffed into boxes of categories. When you attempt that, that is in fact when you empty them of information and meaning. "It means this, period", shuts down creativity. It shuts down the mind. It hobbles the human imagination and creative act of meaning-making.

Ahm, meaning what?

Metaphors point the mind to something beyond concrete descriptors. A metaphor points to something beyond itself, to the 'possible'. A descriptor puts a boundary around something and then mistakenly assumes that descriptor is the reality of the object itself.

When a metaphor becomes a descriptor, it becomes a dead-metaphor, no longer serving to point to something beyond the pattern it tries to create for the mind. To take a metaphor literally, is mistaking the finger pointing at the moon as the moon itself. Same thing with the Trinity formula.

Would that not be further evidence that all they're talking about is personal emotional states, again with zero information content?

Mystical states are not 'emotional states'. They go considerably beyond that, and may or may not include any emotions whatsoever. But even so, if it does include emotions, it all is rich in information content. Why do you think people struggle to put words to it? If there was nothing there, they'd just walk away without any further thought about it. So the fact we do, meanings there is a huge amount of data there. That data is information.

What plenty does it actually say at an information level?
Put it this way ─ if they're just emotional experiences, I prefer a nice rum.

They are not "just emotional experiences". They are information. They are very direct immersion of the mind in less restricted ways in which the mind operates during so-called 'normal' states of consciousness, where language and ideas creates images of itself in the mind. Mystical states break this pattern and allow the conscious mind to see beyond these 'normal' constructs and to explore a far deeper state of awareness.

From there, with that information in hand, the 'normal' thinking mind then tries to make sense of it using all its linguist tools in hand. The doctrine of the Trinity, I believe, is a way to talk about this "Transcendent" reality in which the mystic finds themselves in direct communion with experientially, with their what you could call, 'superconscious' mind. It is not that that 'formula' is meant as a definitive ontology descriptor that "God" has 3 "people" in it, like some cosmic triumvirate of deities. The words used become confused like that when held in a mind bound to understand reality only in concrete literal terms. What is meant by "person" in this context? Some dude with arms and legs? No, hardly.

Ambiguity is fine in humor, and games, and evasion, but not so useful when it comes to honestly informing folk.

So, you're saying to "Just say no," to art, music, poetry, dance, etc?

I'd like to share something I find perfectly captures this. It's from an Essay by Conrad Hyers, professor of comparative mythology, called Constricting the Cosmic Dance:

Our situation calls to mind a backstage interview with Anna Pavlova, the dancer. Following an illustrious and moving performance, she was asked the meaning of the dance. She replied, “If I could say it, do you think I should have danced it?” To give dance a literal meaning would be to reduce dancing to something else. It would lose its capacity to involve the whole person. And one would miss all the subtle nuances and delicate shadings and rich polyvalences of the dance itself.

The remark has its parallel in religion. The early ethnologist R. R. Marett is noted for his dictum that “religion is not so much thought out as danced out.” But even when thought out, religion is focused in the verbal equivalent of the dance: myth, symbol and metaphor. To insist on assigning to it a literal, one-dimensional meaning is to shrink and stifle and distort the significance. In the words of E. H. W. Meyer- stein, “Myth is my tongue, which means not that I cheat, but stagger in a light too great to bear.” Religious expression trembles with a sense of inexpressible mystery, a mystery which nevertheless addresses us in the totality of our being.​

No, but I strongly hold the view that a good understanding starts with clear thinking, clear definitions, examinable evidence; and only then is a sensible debate possible.

We define meaning. It's not inherent in the object. If we are talking about concrete objects, like a rock and analyzing it, these tools work sufficiently well enough. But if we are talking about subtle, nuanced realities of human experience, those are dull instruments to say the least. They only work if you gut out any sort of actual complexities, and subtle truths to them. Not everything can, or should be stuffed in our little boxes of reality. When we don't, they remain a reality.

Sometimes it's far better to not use words, to not try to hold an understanding of something, but to rather let it simply flow over you and impart its own understanding upon you, free from your ideas about it imposed into it. Now to me, THAT is understanding Reality. Not these constructs of the mind we draw boundaries around everything with.

I don't accuse the RCC and the others of admitting that the notion of the Trinity is incoherent, because it is. But 'not against reason but above reason' is the RCC's ludicrous fudge, a meaningless sop to the uncomprehending.

There are things in the life that I describe as being both before and beyond reason at the same time. Rather that should be said "rationality", as the non-rational is in fact completely reasonable. It is completely reasonable to be a human being engaging in all manner of non-rational living. If all we ever do as a human is to engage the world and ourselves a rational objects, that that is the most irrational thing one could do that I would imagine!

I'll finish my reply in the next post.....

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

"God" is not a trinity. That idea limits "God" to only three persons. God is a family. The Bible says people can become part of this God family. Right now there is a father and a son in the family. The Father is a spirit ( not flesh and blood ) and because that spirit is of God, it is holy. It is the Holy Spirit. It is not a separate person. When you limit God to only three persons you hide the fact that people have the opportunity to join this family and become part of "God". And that is exactly what Satan wanys. Satan wants to hide the fact that you can be part of God's family.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't think I will ever understand why the Trinity is seen as a Big Thing, let alone why it so incenses so many people.

Once one overcomes the hurdle of believing an Uncreated God Creator of Existence and actually making him somehow a central belief, it should come without even a mention that he transcends any human conception of quantity or delimitation.

If he manifests at all, he will of course manifest as one, as three, as billions, as however number any person feels more confortable with.

There is no room for a logical contradiction there. Logical contradictions were left behind once that belief in a creator God was accepted.

How come those believers keep seeing room for controversy in such a matter?

 

[Windwalker]

Because there's only one boss, one commander of the power, and that's Yahweh. Jesus says so again and again ─ see my quotes in the OP. Whatever 'oneness with God' means, it doesn't mean power-sharing.

I wouldn't say "power sharing", but essence awareness. If you realize you are God, and that all living beings participate in this in themselves, it's not a case of distributed parts. Think of it terms of the ocean. There are many different forms of waves, but the 'wetness' of the wave is neither greater nor less in the biggest or the smallest of them. It's not a matter of volume or 'power', but a matter of essence or being. So when one says they are One with God, they are acknowledging their essence or Being, not largeness or some hierarchical ranking. There is no hierarchy. "That they may all be one, even as we are one", they they may share in the fullness and joy of this condition of all our being.

Taken with Jesus' many explicit and unambiguous denials that he's god (see OP) that can't mean he IS god. It could, I suppose, be a claim to have existed for a long time in heaven, but that's contradicted by Jesus' only becoming son of god at his baptism (Mark 1:10-11), or by insemination (Matthew 1:18, Luke 1:31) or at his resurrection (Acts 13:33).

Well, again your are drawing from different authors with different ideas about who or what Jesus was to them. The author of John on the other hand had some pretty lofty images of his own, such as John 1:1's description of the Logos. I do find it pretty hard to say that John didn't view the essence of Jesus as eternal God, without doing a certain violence to his words.

With respect, it's meaningless and incoherent no matter what term you use for it.

Why on earth would you say it's meaningless? It clearly is not without meaning. People who have such experiences of the transcendent more often than not have their entire lives transformed by it. That it is beyond words, hardly by any means translated into being meaningless.

Accurate statements about reality are the keys to truth ─ in my view true means conforming with objective reality ─ and we employ them as concepts in our brains in search of greater understanding.

The problem with this notion is that we think we can understand objective reality excluding all that goes into programming the very modes of thinking we employ in this pursuit. It irrationally assumes the glasses the eyes are looking through don't exist. This notion has for some time now been made clear, and logical positivism is a popular, but long ago disproven philosophy. We can't know reality without these filters, including how we approach our sciences. "All science is metaphor", said Timothy Leary quite accurately.

External reality, objective reality, is the same thing as the realm of the physical sciences. The contents of our dreams, visions, sensory illusions, hallucinations, designed fictions, are just that.

Facts don't support this. We are dreaming reality will ultimately exclude our subjective dreaming....

As phenomena of our mentation, no doubt, but not as accurate statements about objective reality.

Objective reality as best experienced by the subject which always is part of that reality it sees. Objective reality that excludes the subject, is an illusion of the mind.

 

[blü 2]

One of the beauties of experiences is that they can be understood in many ways, and the meanings of them are not fixed or static truths. Rather they are dynamic and unfolding, self-creating truths.

I had to think about 'self-creating truths' and sub 'accepted data', but I think your statement is a good start to discussing experiences.

Meaning making is a participatory act, not some discovery of something outside yourself.

By 'meaning', do you mean 'significance' here?

Meaning involves you as the subjective experiencer. And when you as the experiencer says 'this is what this means to me,' you obviously have some idea what you are talking about.

I'm not sure that 'feels right' is a very useful way of communicating the significance of an experience. That's the trouble with emotional states, they're important personally but they're not often very informative outside of 'how are you?'

If they have similar experiences, similar frames of reference, then even though the language spoken about it is not exact, as it in fact cannot be if you are talking about the experiences of the ineffable, then the other probably can 'grok' the meaning. If they have no such referent, if what is described is outside their experience, then they have no place to put what is said into personal context.

I suspect I'm a lot more skeptical about the importance of ineffable experiences than you are.

Or go gain such an experience yourself so you have a common frame of reference.

I've had weird experiences ─ who hasn't? ─ but I can't say they added up to much in the end.

But personal subjective experience is absolutely contentful. It is a direct experience, which is information.

If it's 'information' then it's effable. Otherwise it's simply an emotional state, however satisfying to its owner.

That we struggle to find words to articulate it, it is a good sign.

If we find the words, that's fine ─ we can say what we're talking about, and go from there. Otherwise not, in terms of information. Of course as a parent or friend, one can become very concerned or happy about the other's mental state, but that's quite different to what we're discussing.

Not everything in life can be stuffed into boxes of categories.

The medieval philosophers had a box to put those in: lapsi naturae, 'slips of nature'. When I was younger, a lot more things puzzled me than puzzle me now.

It shuts down the mind. It hobbles the human imagination and creative act of meaning-making.]

Well, yes and no. It's good to let the imagination soar, and it's good to be careful about what's imagination and what's fact.

Metaphors point the mind to something beyond concrete descriptors. A metaphor points to something beyond itself, to the 'possible'. A descriptor puts a boundary around something and then mistakenly assumes that descriptor is the reality of the object itself.

I'm a define-our-terms man. I like to understand things or know why I don't. (That's when I'm not reading ghosts stories; and it's a long while since I went a-courtin', where rapport is everything and information more peripheral.)

To take a metaphor literally, is mistaking the finger pointing at the moon as the moon itself. Same thing with the Trinity formula.

If by that you mean that the Trinity doctrine is wishful thinking justified by the agreeableness of Jesus being a god without supplanting his dad, well, enjoy. I think it's an acknowledged nonsense ('mystery').

Mystical states are not 'emotional states'.

Well, they're not states in which information about reality is transferred, so what are they good for? Beautiful thoughts?

Why do you think people struggle to put words to it?

Because it may feel emotionally important but it has no information content.

there is a huge amount of data there.

Give me an example of this information. If you can't then I've made my point, no?

The doctrine of the Trinity, I believe, is a way to talk about this "Transcendent" reality in which the mystic finds themselves in direct communion with experientially, with their what you could call, 'superconscious' mind.

I strongly disagree; I'll be honest and say I find it silly. What's the Trinity a metaphor for, that matters?

So, you're saying to "Just say no," to art, music, poetry, dance, etc?

I know my way around the arts ─ literature, languages, history, philosophy ─ so I'd hardly argue against them.

an Essay by Conrad Hyers, professor of comparative mythology, called Constricting the Cosmic Dance:

Dancing's emotional. I like good hoofin' like A Chorus Line but I'd rather watch traffic than Swan Lake. Opera's emotional but fun, and at least you get a story, though one you already know ─ any of the biggies by Puccini, a handful from Verdi, most of Mozart, Bizet's Carmen, and that only leaves scraps.

The remark has its parallel in religion. The early ethnologist R. R. Marett is noted for his dictum that “religion is not so much thought out as danced out.”

That translates as, Religion is emotional, not reasonable, doesn't it?

To insist on assigning to it a literal, one-dimensional meaning is to shrink and stifle and distort the significance.

And that translates the identical way, no?

Sometimes it's far better to not use words, to not try to hold an understanding of something, but to rather let it simply flow over you and impart its own understanding upon you, free from your ideas about it imposed into it.

That sounds like why people get drunk ─ so as to feel and not think. We all need that occasionally, but only as recreation.

 

[Windwalker]

I had to think about 'self-creating truths' and sub 'accepted data', but I think your statement is a good start to discussing experiences.
By 'meaning', do you mean 'significance' here?

I'd day by meaning I'm saying significance to where it imparts value. What does it signify, what value does it impart, how can one build upon that, what does it inspire one towards, and so forth. Very much less to do simple 'what is it, what's it's definition' meanings. This is where symbols enter into the picture.

I'm not sure that 'feels right' is a very useful way of communicating the significance of an experience. That's the trouble with emotional states, they're important personally but they're not often very informative outside of 'how are you?'

A couple things here. First it's not a case of it "feels right". I did not suggest that. When I say it is what it means to them, that means how they translate what the experience is to them, and the expression of what that is has truth and meaning to it, not just to them, but potentially to other. It is informative outside of themselves alone. Humans live in intersubjective realities, and the subjective experience of individuals has meaning to others, and vice versa.

I suspect I'm a lot more skeptical about the importance of ineffable experiences than you are.

Why do you suppose I'm not skeptical?

I've had weird experiences ─ who hasn't? ─ but I can't say they added up to much in the end.

I would never describe the ineffable as a "weird experience". Why did you chose that rather dismissive word? What experience of your own you could share that you've had you'd call weird and consider it to be what other's who claim mystical experiences are also referring to?

If it's 'information' then it's effable. Otherwise it's simply an emotional state, however satisfying to its owner.

You apparently ignored how I explained that these experience are not emotional states? Did you just assume I don't know what I'm talking about? Can you make a case to say they are nothing more than "simply an emotional state"? Frankly, in my experiences, these are beyond emotions, as well as beyond thoughts, even though they may or may not be part of them. Emotions are also part of thoughts. Are you saying thoughts are "simply an emotional state"? You would need to with this logic.

Again, they are beyond both. They are a state of being, not a state of emotion. Again, your word choices show your dismissiveness of all other's claims that don't square with your individual views of reality. I don't find that very satisfying to my mind in considering these things rationally.

And to add, as far as "If it's 'information' then it's effable," that is false. If there is an actual experience of something, that is information. "The term ‘information’ in colloquial speech is currently predominantly used as an abstract mass-noun used to denote any amount of data, code or text that is stored, sent, received or manipulated in any medium". That experience is by default offering data. That's information. It's just that that information is beyond putting into words. That it is beyond words, does not translate into there is nothing there! Simply example. When you look up at the night sky, and the universe floods you mind where you find yourself speechless, does this mean no information hit your senses? There's definitely something there, there is data there, there is information, even though you can't put it into words.

The medieval philosophers had a box to put those in: lapsi naturae, 'slips of nature'. When I was younger, a lot more things puzzled me than puzzle me now.

I'm of the view that when I was younger and learning some new stuff, I thought I had a handle on everything. Then of course the more I learned, the less certain of things I became, which is a good thing. Like the old saying goes, 'the more you know, the more you know you don't know." This is the beginning of wisdom. It comes to a point that you realize all these boxes and categories, as useful as they are, are ultimately little boxes that we replace reality with. Reality becomes our models to our minds. This is what happens when you push dialectical thought to its limits. This is fairly well-recognized at this point in our history. This is where Khun starts talking about new paradigms. Logical Positivism is a bit of a house of cards this way that breaks down at a certain level. Uncertainty is the key to shifting beyond this view of reality.

Well, yes and no. It's good to let the imagination soar, and it's good to be careful about what's imagination and what's fact. I'm a define-our-terms man. I like to understand things or know why I don't. (That's when I'm not reading ghosts stories; and it's a long while since I went a-courtin', where rapport is everything and information more peripheral.)

I think most who are where I am at have long ago settled knowing what is magical fantasy and what is not. But there turns out there is something even being the 'rational' view of reality. This is where you move into 'transrational" which does not ignore rationality, saying "Ghosts could be real", or some such thing. But it recognizes there are other ways of knowing that include, but transcend the rational without violating it. Confusing the difference between the prerational (superstitions), and the transrational is what is known as the pre/trans fallacy. To someone at the rational mode only, what is being spoken of from the transrational stage looks the same as the prerational because there is no actual experience with it, so the mind makes it look like what it is familiar with in its own history. It has no experience of its own yet with it to recognize the radical differences between the two. Yet, if asked, "Do you believe in fairies, or deities that act like fairies," the answer is a resounding no! But if it were truly prerational superstition, you wouldn't hear that answer. So it doesn't quite compute.

If by that you mean that the Trinity doctrine is wishful thinking justified by the agreeableness of Jesus being a god without supplanting his dad, well, enjoy. I think it's an acknowledged nonsense ('mystery').

You see, you equate Mystery, with "wishful thinking". Nothing could be further from the reality of this. Here's a wonderful quote from Einstein where he speaks of this Mystery. Now, would you evaluate what he is saying in the following as "Wishful thinking"? If so, you are way off beam here:

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom the emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe, is as good as dead —his eyes are closed. The insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion. To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness."

Albert Einstein, Living Philosophies​

You notice how he speaks to our reasonings, and by extension our sciences, as being relatively "our dull faculties"? He is obviously not prescience and prerational, but recognizes their limits in regards to that which stands beyond them. This does not mean we are hopelessly removed from this "Mystery", but rather that we should not limit our experience of Reality to what our minds can comprehend. Amen, to that.

Well, they're not states in which information about reality is transferred, so what are they good for? Beautiful thoughts?

Again, such dismissive cynicism? Why is that? Bad experience where you bought a load of malarkey from some prerational magical guru or preacher who promised you the answers which ended up falling short, so therefore now it's all nothing but woo-woo and you'll never trust your inner awarenesses anymore? What they are actually good for, is transforming your mind and being. It's good for putting you in touch with reality, where your feet are firmly planted in the real world, and your soul soaring to the heights of heaven above, much like Einstein said above. When you realize the limits of yourself, and acknowledge them, then you can move to the next steps beyond yourself. Such states expose both the illusion and the validity of the way our minds think and how we view and understand ourselves. It puts us outside ourselves, objectively.

That's right. Such experiences take you out of yourself, and allow you to see yourself. Once you can see yourself from outside the "normal" set of eyes we assume aren't there, then you can begin to move beyond that singular, subjective point of view. In other words, mystical states of consciousness (not emotion), gives us objectivity about our subjectivity. Imagine that!

Because it may feel emotionally important but it has no information content.

Once again, without support, you dismiss these as "emotional". Why are you doing this, exactly? Do you have some actual data and research that shows it's nothing more than just "warm fuzzies" or some such derogatory thing? Where's your evidence? Please cite the research.

And again, I have no idea why you say there is no information content. If it's an experience, there's information imparted. We may not fully understanding what it is, but there is most certainly data there. It's not a blank wall and an blank mind where we black out and there's nothing there. Imagining that, is pure fantasy.

Give me an example of this information. If you can't then I've made my point, no?

Oh, I certainly can. Assume for a moment someone has an experience where time stands still and they find themselves experiencing the interconnection of all things, living and nonliving, with themselves in the midst of all this as both participant and source of everything arising in this living reality moment to moment. That is a mystical experience. What information is there? Wow! For starters, who they imagined themselves previously as this 'person' whom they saw themselves as is vastly beyond that little image of their own mind about themselves. And the the same applies for everything they imagined previously about everything else in the world, as well as everyone else in the world. The information is that we are not isolated, but all interconnected.

I could go on at length here. Now are you going to say there was no information that the experience imparted to the person? I hope I have made my point here.