How Many Languages Does God Speak? Part 2

(This is a continuation of How Many Languages Does God Speak? Part 1 in which we explored the three components of conversation, divination (the God’s end of the dialogue), and metaphors highlighting the dance between “signal” and “noise.”

C. The Languages of Reality

Ferdinand de Saussure was a Swiss linguist who posited three stages to spoken languages: a) the Referent, meaning the ‘real’ object in the physical world, b) the Signified, meaning the internalized, multisensory image of the referent; and c) the Signifiers, meaning the verbalized effort to transmit your image of the referent to another person.

This model is elegant but is also problematic. First, I have no guarantee that the signifiers I use are understood by you in the way I mean them. And second, the philosophical fallacy called, ‘the myth of the given’, tells us that we have no guarantee that the signifieds (our internalized images) bear any resemblance to what’s ‘out there’ in the ‘allegedly-real’ world (the referents). Quantum Mechanics (QM) also tells us the same thing because what’s out there, as far as QM is concerned, is just the Electro-Magnetic spectrum (EM) which is collapsed by human observation into our version of reality.

Even if we could take refuge in telepathy, we are still trading signifieds (internalized images) that brutalize the referents.

Boolean Algebra or Binary Numbers (0’s and 1’s) may even be more basic than the EM spectrum. So, are we then ultimately merely jugglers of numbers in order to birth the EM spectrum itself, which we then morph into our sensory model of reality? Jesus turning water into wine pales in comparison.

Birds and fish seem to have tapped into this EM grid, much more efficiently that we, for they traverse continents and oceans with the EM as their GPS. And land animals seem to be able to detect the initial subsonic rumblings of earthquakes hours before humans do – and they often ‘get out of Dodge’ before the tremblors arrive on the surface.

D. The Art of Inference

It’s one thing to internalize an image of a real chair (creating a signified from the referent), but it takes a lot more brain power to infer the abstract notion of ‘chair-hood’ so that no matter what shape, color, size or material it is, you can hold a meta-image of what it means to be a chair. But it gets even more curious. How does one infer a metaphysical quality from that which has no previous physical form? How does one create an image of say, ‘loyalty’ or ‘misery’ or ‘patience’? And yet we manage to create signifieds and signifiers for these. So, for example, we translate, interpret and codify human behaviors into metaphysical categories. We somehow manage to go from a non-physical referent to an intermediary signified (half physical, half non-physical) to a fully physical signifier (a written or spoken word.) Then the process becomes an endless loop.

The result is that we’ve learned to read and infer all manner of natural, revealed, invented or discovered symbol systems in order to speak to and listen to Source. Prayer, then, is a conversation initiated by us – as part of God’s Immanence, whereas meditation is a conversation initiated by God’s Transcendence. All divination is an attempt to interpret the latter. Unfortunately, the birthright to exercise these gifts is often hijacked and hogged by religious hierarchies – hence the warnings in the scriptures and in theologies against self-initiated sessions. In actual fact, each living being whether physical (e.g., plant, animal or human) or metaphysical /extradimensional (e.g., Angels, ET’s) has the ability to be a receiver, a processor and a transmitter in these conversations.

The cosmos itself is multilingual and uses, not just the senses and brain, but primarily the heart and soul, in order to communicate. Carl Jung defined intuition as ‘perception via the unconscious’. If archetypes, as he suggested, are symbols of the Collective Unconscious of the human species, I would propose the existence of ‘Super Archetypes’ as symbols of the Collective Unconscious of the Cosmos itself.  These Super Archetypes may well be the only language that enables us to speak with angels – or even ET’s when they finally land on the White House lawn!

When interpreting dreams, it’s important to be familiar with two types of symbols –Archetypal symbols, which have the same meaning for all dreamers e.g., a mountain encounter as a theophany, and Associative symbols which only the individual dreamer can interpret e.g., why a particular mountain?

Aristotle proposed four causes for each object. Let’s go back to our chair discussion. The formal cause is the ‘idea’ of a chair; the material cause is the stuff out of which the chair will be made; the efficient cause is the work of actually building the chair; and the final cause is the purpose of the chair i.e., as a seat.

This essay will continue in Part 3 with an examination of Mathematics, Art and Mysticism; Entanglement; Memory; and Astrology.