SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[waysider]

People frequently perceive speaking in tongues to be originating from a source outside themselves. Seeing how the ability to think critically is diminished during the process gives me a deeper understanding of why it might be perceived that way. That's part of the value of this study....a more comprehensive appreciation of the mechanics involved.

..........................................................

At one time, the general thinking in Way Theology was that the only way a person could improvise music with high levels of fluency was if a devil spirit was directing the process. It wouldn't surprise me to find this thinking persists in Way circles.

Edited November 1, 2012 by waysider

[OldSkool]

..........................................................

At one time, the general thinking in Way Theology was that the only way a person could improvise music with high levels of fluency was if a devil spirit was directing the process. It wouldn't surprise me to find this thinking persists in Way circles.

--- I had no idea improvised Jazz and other styles of music were from the devil.

Does TWI's ignorance know any bounds?

[Raf]

Most people performing musical improvisation would be really bad at it. Now and then you get someone who's good. Rarely is someone great at it. But whether you're bad at it or great at it, it's all you. To presume spirit must be involved is quite a presumption. There is nothing that is produced that is not consistent with natural human ability.

Now, if someone improvised on the piano and somehow came up with "Prelude/Angry Young Man" without ever having practiced or heard it before, THAT would be evidence of spiritual activity. I mean, you can't come up with THAT at random. Well, you can, but the odds against it are prohibitive and can't be taken seriously.

But to merely produce music that sounds good, even great? Nothing miraculous there. Impressive, yes. But not miraculous.

Similarly, a beginning glossolalist might produce a limited range of sounds. The more he does it, the better he gets at it. Excellor sessions might help with that, developing "fluency," as it were. What were excellor sessions if they were not efforts to make comparatively "bad" glossolalia sound like better glossolalia?

Producing a glossa that sounds really impressive is not, in and of itself, miraculous. Impressive, yes, but not miraculous. Producing a known human language you've never practiced or learned? That would be miraculous.

But there it is.

[waysider]

--- I had no idea improvised Jazz and other styles of music were from the devil.

Does TWI's ignorance know any bounds?

Oh, there was a seemingly endless list of musicians we were to avoid for that very reason. They were either "possessed" or "born of the wrong seed". That was part of the driving force behind Uncle (he wasn't MY uncle) Harry Day.

Edited November 1, 2012 by waysider

[OldSkool]

Most people performing musical improvisation would be really bad at it. Now and then you get someone who's good. Rarely is someone great at it. But whether you're bad at it or great at it, it's all you. To presume spirit must be involved is quite a presumption. There is nothing that is produced that is not consistent with natural human ability.

I attended Musicians Institute in Hollywood CA. I'm a lead guitarist and I was taught to improvise as part of the Jazz based curriculum. A LOT of Jazz players are excellent at improvisation. Once someone has mastered the fundamentals of music then improvisation is almost natural. A appropriate parallel is someone talking once they have mastered language fundamentals. Language and music are simply expressions of what's inside a person. To attribute that to the devil is in itself devilish, since it's part of the beauty that God created in people.

[Raf]

A significant problem with musical improvisation compared to what we've been calling free vocalization is the fact that musical improv, done well, requires the exercising of a (normally) developed talent, where free vocalizing merely requires the exercising of a common and ubiquitous human ability: to produce sounds. So I would expect the brain scans to be substantially different. The musical improviser first has to think of what sound could come next, make a lightning-quick decision as to whether that sound follows harmoniously or melodically, rule it in or out on that basis, and then hurry up and play it. Would that affect the frontal lobe? We know it affects the creative center of the brain. We can see that in the video and it is, predictably, different from anything described in the SIT study. But would a comparison teach us anything useful to this conversation? I don't know.

I suspect it's an apples and oranges comparison, in ways that make a brain-scan comparison problematic.

All interesting stuff, no doubt.

[waysider]

I attended Musicians Institute in Hollywood CA. I'm a lead guitarist and I was taught to improvise as part of the Jazz based curriculum. A LOT of Jazz players are excellent at improvisation. Once someone has mastered the fundamentals of music then improvisation is almost natural. A appropriate parallel is someone talking once they have mastered language fundamentals. Language and music are simply expressions of what's inside a person. To attribute that to the devil is in itself devilish, since it's part of the beauty that God created in people.

I couldn't agree with you more. Before I became involved with The Way, I had worked (with mild success) as a musician and actor. They "broke" my creative spirit. I've tried many times to rekindle it, mostly through improvisational music, but, my success has been limited. It's no surprise to me now that speaking in tongues seemed so easy at the time.

[Raf]

I attended Musicians Institute in Hollywood CA. I'm a lead guitarist and I was taught to improvise as part of the Jazz based curriculum. A LOT of Jazz players are excellent at improvisation. Once someone has mastered the fundamentals of music then improvisation is almost natural. A appropriate parallel is someone talking once they have mastered language fundamentals. Language and music are simply expressions of what's inside a person. To attribute that to the devil is in itself devilish, since it's part of the beauty that God created in people.

I agree. We're just talking on different scales. I'll bet a lot of Jazz musicians are GREAT at improv. I'll bet most people are lousy at it. I'll bet a beginning jazz musician is not as good at it as one whose played for a significant period of time.

We are in agreement, really, but I understand how you read what I said.

[OldSkool]

Oh, there was a seemingly endless list of musicians we were to avoid for that very reason. They were either "possessed" or "born of the wrong seed". That was part of the driving force behind Uncle (he wasn't MY uncle) Harry Day.

That's nucking futts.

I agree. We're just talking on different scales. I'll bet a lot of Jazz musicians are GREAT at improv. I'll bet most people are lousy at it. I'll bet a beginning jazz musician is not as good at it as one whose played for a significant period of time.

We are in agreement, really, but I understand how you read what I said.

We are on the same page.

[waysider]

"The musical improviser first has to think of what sound could come next, make a lightning-quick decision as to whether that sound follows harmoniously or melodically, rule it in or out on that basis, and then hurry up and play it."

This is very true when you are in your early stages of learning to improvise. After you get a few miles behind you, though, you start to just let it flow, disregarding the potential for mistakes. I think this is sort of what happened for many people in session 12. Somewhere deep inside the brain, there is still information being processed (in both musical improv. and SIT) but it becomes more of what people call second nature. That's where I can see these brain scan type studies helping us better understand how we think and process information.

[OldSkool]

This is very true when you are in your early stages of learning to improvise. After you get a few miles behind you, though, you start to just let it flow, disregarding the potential for mistakes. I think this is sort of what happened for many people in session 12. Somewhere deep inside the brain, there is still information being processed (in both musical improv. and SIT) but it becomes more of what people call second nature. That's where I can see these brain scan type studies helping us better understand how we think and process information.

Yes. Same way for me when I learned how to improvise. Musical studies are all about getting to the music a person has in their head, so to speak. Once a person learns to express it then playing without thinking about it is just natural. A person has trained themselves through countless hours of practice over the years. After a while the fingers just hit the note. And if and when a mistake is made, you just keep rolling and learn to cover the mistake. But it becomes second nature. Like speaking.

[Raf]

I'll take your word for it, but I would bet the complex creative juices that work in musical improvisation are distinct from the more fundamental creativity of free vocalization, and that difference can be picked up in a brain scan.

That's my bet. I have no evidence because no one has compared the two.

A hypothesis for Newberg to consider in his next study?

Edited November 1, 2012 by Raf

[waysider]

I'll take your word for it, but I would bet the creative juices that work in musical improvisation are distinct from the more fundamental creativity of free vocalization, and that difference can be picked up in a brain scan.

That's my bet. I have no evidence because no one has compared the two.

A hypothesis for Newberg to consider in his next study?

Absolutely. I would love to see a study that compares the two activities, along with a similar study of TIP and prophesy.

Along with that, if someone did some mathematical mapping of the above, it would make for some fascinating reading, as well.

[OldSkool]

I'll take your word for it, but I would bet the complex creative juices that work in musical improvisation are distinct from the more fundamental creativity of free vocalization, and that difference can be picked up in a brain scan.

I would think so too.

[Raf]

Absolutely. I would love to see a study that compares the two activities, along with a similar study of TIP and prophesy.

Along with that, if someone did some mathematical mapping of the above, it would make for some fascinating reading, as well.

I could see where TIP could be compared to the improve in rap music that they showed in that video. Again, there is a challenge there. The rappers are deliberately trying to rhyme. A creative juice is flowing that is not present in TIP. Could that show up in the brain scan? Is there a way to isolate and correct for that? Who knows? But a study would be interesting.

[waysider]

Toss some excellor session type exercises into the mix, too. That might add a whole other element to the study.

[Raf]

That would be pretty long term. Newberg apparently compared the brain scans of his subjects to themselves, not to each other. In other words, the scan of Subject A with the understanding was compared to the scan of Subject A while speaking in tongues. It does not appear the scan of Subject A was compared to the scan of Subject B in either state.

That would mean the beginning jazz musician would have to be compared to himself before and after he developed a bit of expertise in improv. Not sure how practical that is.

Come to think of it, that also makes it problematic to compare an admittedly fake SIT to a presumed real one. Unless the same person were performing both activities. And that would be problematic for a host of different reasons.

Edited November 1, 2012 by Raf

[Raf]

I don't mean to be critical of Newberg's study. I'm only pointing out its severely limited applicability to the discussion we're having (an opinion supported by the evidence that I am stating as a perceived fact).

[waysider]

Now

is a brain scan I would really like to see.

[Raf]

Been keeping my eye on the poll. It looks like a vote changed. Am I right? Anyone else keeping track?

No need to step forward. I just didn't know you could change votes.

Edited November 1, 2012 by Raf

[OldSkool]

Been keeping my eye on the poll. It looks like a vote changed. Am I right? Anyone else keeping track?

No need to step forward. I just didn't know you could change votes.

I did it just to stir the pot.

[chockfull]

Here, let me use smaller words.

Sure. Just go with the word size and communication strategy that is inverse to the size of your ego, and you should have a good guideline there.

You keep saying, as fact, that Samarin had languages in front of him but failed to detect them. This is not a fact. It is your speculation. I am not obliged to account for your speculation.

And you are not Zoltar, Master of the Universe such that I need your permission for raising questions of this sort. Samarin never claimed that I could read anywhere that he was able to detect samples of a language he didn't speak and identify them. In fact, I've never really read ANY linguist claim that they could do this as part of their expertise.

This is fact. Not speculation.

The speculation is yours, where you think that you can automatically assume that because Samarin had some pretty boldly stated opinion on the subject, that you find that he claimed the ability to take a sample of a foreign language and detect it and identify it even if he did not speak the language. He did not. The easy way to verify that would be to mix in half and half glossa samples with samples of one person speaking a praise type speech in a foreign language.

But that really isn't necessary, because linguists aren't claiming about themselves what you are claiming about them.

And what is it about "a glossa is never a human language" that you don't understand?

Why a semi-intelligent human being would say something that stupid?

In Acts 2 on Pentecost, SIT is referred to in the Bible as glossa and lalia, and the historic record in Acts was that everyone understood them speaking in their own native languages. So that clearly is an example that immediately contradicts this inane statement.

Actually, let me rephrase my question.

Why would a semi-intelligent human being not only say something that stupid, but present it like it is an argument that is proven fact? Do they expect the thread audience all to have IQ's under 60 at this point?

[waysider]

"a glossa is never a human language"

Chock

This was stated in a context that was specifically referencing modern examples. I don't think it was ever meant as a reference to Acts 2....I'm just sayin'.

[chockfull]

Last thing for the night: are we going to just act like this is the first time anyone's mentioned Newberg's study, like we never demonstrated why it doesn't address this thread like dozens of pages ago? Because I've seen this movie before. I know how it ends.

Newberg did not consider the question of fakery. Does the frontal lobe activity of a person faking it look any different from a person doing it for real? Can those differences, if they exist, be accounted for by intent of the speaker ( the emotions would presumably be different). Can one person be compared to another? Or can a subject only be compared to himself during a different activity.

Newberg's study IS interesting. But it doesn't address the first thing about this thread. Nor, I suspect, can it.

Actually, any study related to SIT would be on topic for this thread. SIT is the first word in the thread topic. Actually, now that I'm looking at that, how weird of a thread title is this anyway? SIT, TIP, Prophecy, and Confession? All right, we're talking about the inspiration manifestations and "confession"???? Like "Bless me father, for I have sinned, I called a man a dumb-@$$"???????

I mean, is this thread the place for "confessions"??? Like the lying and faking confessions??? I mean, no offense, but can't people just confess their sins to God in the privacy of their closet or something? I mean the thread audience is not their mediator or anything. And nobody is a Catholic priest on here. So if we could just leave out all the sin and guilt of people with their past lying and faking, and the need for them to have others to share in that guilt with them, then we could have a lot of discussion going on about many things related to SIT, and interpretation and prophecy.

[chockfull]

"a glossa is never a human language"

Chock

This was stated in a context that was specifically referencing modern examples. I don't think it was ever meant as a reference to Acts 2....I'm just sayin'.

Then let the sentence be modified so that it stands on its own and does not confuse what YOU mean by glossa with what the charismatic world means by glossa.

Otherwise it's just a guilt by association term that is NOT DISTINCT from Biblical glossa or the general charismatic discussion of glossa.

The assumed definition of terms on this thread is enough to gag me with a pitchfork.