The Still, Small Voice
I'm fascinated by part of the Dallas Willard quote in my last post (Hearing God p. 74):
I make some sort of noise with my vocal cords that strikes your eardrum, which somehow- in a way no one fully understands- causes you to think of specific things or events. I bring about your thinking, and that is what my communication with you comprises.
Strange as it sounds at first, it's true. When someone says something to me, in a sense they cause me to think about that thing. If you say, "apple," the fruit that the English word corresponds to immediately comes to mind, either as a full-blown mental image or as a vague thought. My mind doesn't jump out and grab the thought out of the air; it simply receives and processes what is delivered to it by my senses, not as something foreign, but as its own thought.
Thomas Aquinas says likewise (Summa Theologica, q. 79, a. 2, answer):
The human intellect...is in potentiality to with regard to things intelligible, and is at first like a clean tablet on which nothing is written, as the Philosopher [Aristotle] says. This is made clear from the fact that we are only in potentiality towards understanding, and afterwards we are made to understand actually...And consequently the intellect is a passive power.
Understanding is passive, not active. Things outside yourself force you to hold this or that in your mind. That's where the real communication happens: I don't understand "apple" when someone says the word "apple," but when the word they say causes me to think "apple." But the second event happens so quickly after the first that I don't even realize that there's a difference.
When we're communicating using a physical medium, there's two parts to communication: the physical symbol (e.g. a word), and the thought that the physical symbol produces in the intellect (e.g. the thought that the word corresponds to). That should be obvious with everyone. But if we're communicating without a physical medium, mind-to-mind directly, then there would be no symbol, only thought. If someone were to communicate to me in this way, I wouldn't experience it as a foreign object coming into and directing my mind, but as a thought just like my own thoughts.
This is what it comes down to. When you say, "apple," I think, "apple," and I experience it as my own thought, even though it's really you causing me to think that. I know the thought comes from you and not me because of the external symbol (the word "apple") you used to cause me to think "apple." But if there's no external symbol- if you influenced my thoughts directly- I would experience your influence purely as my own thoughts, with no external symbol to tell me that came from anyone besides myself.
Dr Willard calls this kind of communication from God "the still small voice" (see 1 Kings 19:11-12). He writes (Hearing God p. 87):
In the still small voice of God....in contrast with other cases, the medium through which the message comes is diminished almost to the vanishing point, taking the form of thoughts that are our thoughts, though these thoughts are not from us. In this way, as we shall see, the human spirit becomes "the candle of the LORD" (Prov 20:27 KJV).
This fits my experience perfectly. I rarely experience communication from God as a big booming voice, or any sort of voice alien from my own; in fact, that's often a sign that the communication is inauthentic and is just hysteria in my own mind. Rather, when God speaks to me, His words take the form of my own thoughts. God's thoughts certainly are not my thoughts, as the Prophet said; but they sure do sound like them.
If God's mental voice "sounds" like our own, how do we distinguish between His speaking and ours? Since there's no symbolic intermediary in this kind of communication, we need to know what a "thought" is composed of, in other words, what the variables are that could be used to identify the "speaker."
But wait. Am I I contradicting what I said last time about God always using a physical intermediary? Can we receive direct communication through physical objects/symbols? What is the difference between using physical intermediaries as a symbolic language and "gifts of 'direct communication'...released in us as we receive the Spirit through the preaching of the Word?" The first one is philosophical, and the second, is theological, so I need to translate them into each others' languages anyway.
I make some sort of noise with my vocal cords that strikes your eardrum, which somehow- in a way no one fully understands- causes you to think of specific things or events. I bring about your thinking, and that is what my communication with you comprises.
Strange as it sounds at first, it's true. When someone says something to me, in a sense they cause me to think about that thing. If you say, "apple," the fruit that the English word corresponds to immediately comes to mind, either as a full-blown mental image or as a vague thought. My mind doesn't jump out and grab the thought out of the air; it simply receives and processes what is delivered to it by my senses, not as something foreign, but as its own thought.
Thomas Aquinas says likewise (Summa Theologica, q. 79, a. 2, answer):
The human intellect...is in potentiality to with regard to things intelligible, and is at first like a clean tablet on which nothing is written, as the Philosopher [Aristotle] says. This is made clear from the fact that we are only in potentiality towards understanding, and afterwards we are made to understand actually...And consequently the intellect is a passive power.
Understanding is passive, not active. Things outside yourself force you to hold this or that in your mind. That's where the real communication happens: I don't understand "apple" when someone says the word "apple," but when the word they say causes me to think "apple." But the second event happens so quickly after the first that I don't even realize that there's a difference.
When we're communicating using a physical medium, there's two parts to communication: the physical symbol (e.g. a word), and the thought that the physical symbol produces in the intellect (e.g. the thought that the word corresponds to). That should be obvious with everyone. But if we're communicating without a physical medium, mind-to-mind directly, then there would be no symbol, only thought. If someone were to communicate to me in this way, I wouldn't experience it as a foreign object coming into and directing my mind, but as a thought just like my own thoughts.
This is what it comes down to. When you say, "apple," I think, "apple," and I experience it as my own thought, even though it's really you causing me to think that. I know the thought comes from you and not me because of the external symbol (the word "apple") you used to cause me to think "apple." But if there's no external symbol- if you influenced my thoughts directly- I would experience your influence purely as my own thoughts, with no external symbol to tell me that came from anyone besides myself.
Dr Willard calls this kind of communication from God "the still small voice" (see 1 Kings 19:11-12). He writes (Hearing God p. 87):
In the still small voice of God....in contrast with other cases, the medium through which the message comes is diminished almost to the vanishing point, taking the form of thoughts that are our thoughts, though these thoughts are not from us. In this way, as we shall see, the human spirit becomes "the candle of the LORD" (Prov 20:27 KJV).
This fits my experience perfectly. I rarely experience communication from God as a big booming voice, or any sort of voice alien from my own; in fact, that's often a sign that the communication is inauthentic and is just hysteria in my own mind. Rather, when God speaks to me, His words take the form of my own thoughts. God's thoughts certainly are not my thoughts, as the Prophet said; but they sure do sound like them.
If God's mental voice "sounds" like our own, how do we distinguish between His speaking and ours? Since there's no symbolic intermediary in this kind of communication, we need to know what a "thought" is composed of, in other words, what the variables are that could be used to identify the "speaker."
But wait. Am I I contradicting what I said last time about God always using a physical intermediary? Can we receive direct communication through physical objects/symbols? What is the difference between using physical intermediaries as a symbolic language and "gifts of 'direct communication'...released in us as we receive the Spirit through the preaching of the Word?" The first one is philosophical, and the second, is theological, so I need to translate them into each others' languages anyway.