idle banter

Sunday, October 01, 2006

Your story ... part II

Ok, that was 10 comments more than there should have been on a post. So, I'm now starting a new comment thread here for us to pick up from where we left off, to reorganise our thinking, whateva. But now, I'd like us to get practical:

A little while back in a cell group, I had someone tell the group (when we were discussing hearing God's voice) that they did not have a problem with that. Why? Because God spoke audibly to her. Not just spoke, but met face-to-face with her on a regular basis.

Yep, I can hear it already: the sound of your cynicism hackling up much like a porcupine's quills. Did I hear you say "looney tune"? Stick with me, this is a real example. In such an instance how does one get past, or deal with, or confront, or do what ever you need to do with the instantaneous cynicism we feel when confronted with a story (here I mean both a story told, as above, as well as a meta-Story of one's life) that is so absurd?

12 Comments:

  • So, let me get this started:

    I reckon there is a Lowest Common Coherence (LCC trademarked Aiden Choles)factor we sub-consciously agree on as a society. What I mean by this is that in the process of us engaging with each other and agreeing on how we get on, there is a process whereby we somehow agree on what level of coherence, sanity, rationality and emotion is acceptable in the way we communicate AND in the way we view reality.

    Anything said, or integrated into one's story, that exceeds or doesn;t reach it is qualified as wacko or defunct, looney or autistic.

    Case in point: my fair lady in the comment. Clearly, what whe is saying falls way above the threshold of the LCC thus rendering her as a loone. I mean, come one, when last did Ol JC pop around for coffee in your living room?

    Stepping aside formt he narrative isssues, there is also a faith issue at play here: who are we to decide (and we all do it!!!) that her experience of meetign with Jesus did nto occur? If we are to take the Bible literally, in some part, then surely we must know that this same thing happened with numerous characters in the bible. Just because there is a back cover on the bible must not, and connot, mean that the case is closed in terms of these appearances?

    By Blogger Aiden, at 10/01/2006 10:28:00 pm  

  • Without digressing too far into debating the nature of reality, this is an interesting question.

    I can't help feeling that her perception of reality diverges further from objective reality than mine does (assuming for the purpose of this argument that there is an objective reality). As to dealing with the story, I don't know where to start. My tendency is to try and understand things, and I don't see a rational explanation for this story, so I would reject it. But that's a fairly arrogant approach- to say that my experience of the world over-rules her testimony. If we accept that human ideas can be divinely inspired, that implies God communicating with people, and certainly in the Bible people saw God, heard God, wrestled with God and ate meals with Him.

    So ... did you ask her to invite you around the next time she meets with Him?

    By Blogger Peter le Roux, at 10/02/2006 02:29:00 pm  

  • Pete, you used an interesting word "arrogant" i.e. it is arrogant to think/believe that your perception of the story is higher/better/more valid than hers.

    I wonder which is more arrogant: telling her that she is whacked and a loone, or that every one of us sat in that cell group, nodded, hmmmed and tried to listen attentively without letting our index fingers wave around our temples.

    This little incident shows just how afraid we are of validating someone else's story.

    By Blogger Aiden, at 10/02/2006 04:04:00 pm  

  • But here's the thing Stylek: this is at one moment an theological issue as well as an epistemological. What I mean by this is that at one moment it is really a question of how God/Jesus/Spirit manifest and reveal themselves to us today, as well as an issue of how we approach knowledge and how we know.

    This is a prime case of when our udnerstanding of knowledge and knowing impact the way we view God. So, on the one hand how do we view such a manifestation (if we are to believe she is being honest) and how are we to guage whether she is right or not?

    By Blogger Aiden, at 10/02/2006 06:17:00 pm  

  • Okay, so one person's experience in isolation should not hinder our faith or adversly affect us? Is that what you're saying?

    If so, then there is a heavy reliance on common experience as the qualifier for what it authentic or what is not.

    I'm weary of relying too heavily on "common experience" as a marker to my faith.

    By Blogger Aiden, at 10/03/2006 05:46:00 pm  

  • I know that by saying this Herc will nto be able to resist flying off into his truth monologue, but here it is:

    My background is in narrative therapy. It is well documented that when a client percieves that the therapist is really engaging with their story (with authenticity and trust) that problems begins to dissapear. So, case in point: voices in the head. Typical diagnosis is paranoid schizo or any other concoction.

    Weh the therapist acknowledges the voices as real, the fight against them gets more effective.This is not done to doop the client, but happens from a true point of curoisity that does not judge the voices as not being real : that would be to use my own experience as the benchmark for everyone esle's reality

    So, Stylek, I like your idea of believing her.

    By Blogger Aiden, at 10/05/2006 02:30:00 pm  

  • i think she's a looney!

    By Blogger barry, at 10/05/2006 03:08:00 pm  

  • again, someone displays a profound inability to communicate in more than 6 syllables.

    By Blogger Aiden, at 10/05/2006 04:48:00 pm  

  • i prefer to believe that anyone who takes themselves too seriously is a looney.

    ...like a women who thinks she talks with Jesus, Son of God. Even Jesus discouraged people from calling him that!

    ...or like Stylek who thinks he's close to fathoming the rational basis for life as we know it.

    ...or like this ridiculous discussion thread which reflect the looney ideas of Robin Sharma wannabe's developing gand theories about everything except what will help feed the 2.8 billion people who will starve today.

    to quote the impervious band of Monty Python dimwits, "you're a looney"!

    p.s. i'm adding this thought to my new book which will be published next month...

    By Blogger barry, at 10/06/2006 09:26:00 am  

  • b, looking forward to how your book spells out how to feed 2.8 billion people.

    sometimes i really wonder if you're a 3.

    By Blogger Aiden, at 10/06/2006 01:21:00 pm  

  • Herc, people who step in front of speeding cars are looney to, but we don't call them visionary, we call them departed. Merely contradicting popular opinion does not automatically equate with wisdom.

    By Blogger Peter le Roux, at 10/09/2006 08:54:00 am  

  • ..and a man who shoots someone because the voices told him to is being original, true to himself, experiencing the power of his own imagination and fighting homogeneity?

    By Blogger Peter le Roux, at 10/09/2006 02:03:00 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home