***
A wide range of
confounding paradoxes relating to our comprehension of the Godhead can be eliminated
if we understand the difference between notational and connotational language.
Notational languages, such as we use in mathematics or logic, attempt to talk
about objects in detached and unambiguous “true or false” terms. For example,
we might use notational language to say “It is day time” or “It is night time”.
But in notational language statements like “It is both day time and night time”
are liable to be contradictory. Connotational language, on the other hand,
refers not exclusively to the object it describes but binds together the circumstances
of the first person with the object. For example, someone might say “It is both
day time and night time”, a statement which makes sense if we realize (for
example) that in the particular context the statement was made the first person
was telling us that he has depression (say). Connotational language carries
information about both the objective and the subjective.
A statement that has
connotational content leads us into a vista of reintepretation that depends on the
open ended world of the language user and this prevents us from trying to wrap
our minds around nonsense. For example, if the Bible said “Jonah swallowed the
whale” you can bet your bottom dollar that there are some blockheads out there
who would read this as a notational statement and attempt to believe it with a
teeth gritting faith. They might justify this hogwash with the fideist argument
that baloney somehow makes sense in the infinite mind of God but not in finite
human minds. However, “Jonah swallowed
the whale” would make complete sense in a connotational context where, say, it
is being used as a metaphor for people who attempt to swallow colossal
absurdities. The hopelessly incoherent should not be identified with what we
don’t know or don’t understand (or perhaps never will understand)
It is all but
impossible to rid natural language of its connotational content except perhaps
in the disciplined (but artificial) world of mathematics and logic. It is
surely an irony that fideists, who are so strong about their inner connection with
the divine, have never really thought their way past the third person language
of the enlightenment with its objective, logical, and detached notational statements.
To fideists statements like “Jonah swallowed the whale” are to be interpreted
notationally and the resulting claptrap used as a test for the muscles of
faith. A corollary is that reason and
revelation become polarities in opposition.
Instead of faith
being measured by a willingness to imbibe bilge I think we might take a hint
from Emerson about the rational basis of faith: “All I have seen teaches me to trust
the Creator for all I have not seen”.
