A language's purpose is to be able to define an observed phenomenon and describe it relative to other phenomena. The more detailed the language, the greater the capability of dividing and further differentiating to the ultimate infinity, to the one story, the universe, using fractal concepts showing the patterns that are formed through time and the inevitable inter-connectivity of it all. A description of a part ultimately leads to the description of the whole, with the realisation that there are no parts, only the whole and it is only language ironically which creates the separation.
All languages which describe our reality are missing parts of the picture. We just have different languages to describe the same thing. No one picture has all the parts; no one knows it all and because of the incompleteness of the picture it is not possible to say which are the fundamentally important bits, and because of this you cannot denigrate any language which tries to describe it. All religions are languages. There can be no infidel.
The universe is the divine, and the root of all of ourselves is the universe. Divine revelation is just experiencing a concept — a way of understanding what we are. Language is the framework within which our conceptual models reside. Perhaps without language we would not be able to further such concepts.
If we didn't have any language to communicate with, the mind would still be comparing things, extrapolating associations and forming a concept, in our own peculiar language. This peculiar language of our own is predominantly used in our spiritual conceptions. Every one of us has our own language, which is our minds concept developed from our sensory input and order, and creates our experience and how we react to it. We call it reality, and we each have our very own.
Any language which has the requisite ambiguity necessary to fulfil its function of definition, will also have a substantial propensity for fiction. This includes the languages of mathematics, physics, religion and philosophy. I wonder how much of what we regard as fact is actually fiction? Perhaps more than we would care to admit. Perhaps all!
~
You cannot speak when you are fully conscious; you have to let go for it to come out. Sometimes it means the words come out singly with pauses between, as you are torn between being and 'between being' (inter-est). What is often thought of as being stupid, is just being in a state of base consciousness. The ego wins in society.
One of the first words I tried to make when I was first learning to talk, was very difficult for me because of the need to abandon presence while making it. I knew what was being asked of me and that I had done it before, but it wouldn't come out even though I was trying to make it come out. The only way that I could do it, was to abandon to it and stop trying to do it. I had to let go of my control. It was like having to jump off a cliff with my eyes closed. It was like blacking out. I had to lose the very thing that I knew I should keep — I had to abandon being present. This was the cause of a stutter that I had during my early primary school years.
It is the case that when I speak now, there is this same jumping into oblivion but with an unawareness that this is so. It all just happens now, and the words that are emitted are part of a dance — a social dance, an automatic performance which smothers the detached awareness of pure consciousness. This is why I don't like talking — it is the social world doing it, not the real me. Talking is a total trip out, which is enjoyable of course and why so many people like to do it, but it is the worst thing if you want to keep presence.
But how can I hope to convey my understanding when it can only ever be just a rearrangement of already known words, imprinted upon the prior acquired concepts that have been inculcated into another human being by their society?
It doesn't matter who tells you the story, the story that you hear can only ever be your own story. Your neural matrix is unique and anything that you receive from another is translated into your viewpoint. It is like everyone sees colours differently and although they can agree that a colour has the same name, they don't necessarily see it the same. We all live in slightly different parallel worlds created by our minds. I have never experienced anything that hasn't been created by my mind, and neither have you. It is all our own creation.
None of the words work when you see the preternatural reality anyway. None of it can be communicated. It is all just a silly vanity of relative importance's in an absolute universe.
~
At the end of the day we are just creating a language. Our natural desire shows an insatiable appetite for new things, and this interest is our exploration of the universe. Because we have greater capability of infinitely extending this pursuit, we are the evolved species to create the concept of reality — we are the language makers. The highest description of us would be theophant; the revealer of God, as it is our purpose to discover God by investigating the universe. God is the name for the description of what we conceptualise as our reality, through sensation and thought.
A hierophant is a revealer of the sacred, which is the language that has passed down the knowledge and the understanding, and the development of skills that are needed to be acquired to understand and have knowing — a preserver of a method. A theophant is a revealer of God, and therefore the storyteller of the universe; the one story, the one description; the presentation of God in monotheism.
By finding out who we are we can find out what we need to do: the revelation of our self-purpose by self-investigation. The full revelation of ourselves will be the revelation of the universe as we are only part of it, and this is called God, and so we are the revealers of God, the theophanes. Every human being can define themselves so in some part. We are the only creature capable of creating a concept of the whole. The sensor and conceptor of the whole. It is language that makes this possible.
