It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Thats one of the more unpopular aspects of truth telling.
Which is why an image of a "shaman" being highly thought of by their group is kinda wishful thinking.
Generally speaking, as I am sure many of you must know, "what is" is often in discord with "what the majority wishes or believes is." Not always, of course, but frequently. I think the image of someone who kind of sits on the fringe of their group, and during the prosperous times is generally ignored by most, but during dangerous times is sought or listened to (or blamed and killed) is a more accurate image of what a "shaman" or mystic would look like.
I agree. Born or switched on, or even both. (Born with the inclination, then ignoring or repressing it to try and fit in better, then having it suddenly switch on with a vengeance, for instance)
I have noticed the same thing. I read the spiritual texts to hear nuance, and differing positions/angles of the insights, but not to get the insight itself. That always seems to arise or become apparent inside first. Sometimes unbidden, suddenly, but often a question begins the process
that ends in insight. I find some of the texts useful in helping to frame new questions. I also read them to give myself more word choices to explain a concept to another if I am asked. More imagery to use. The "thing in itself" is impossible to put into words cleanly, without error, and having a larger arsenal of imagery and words and concepts from various cultures makes it a bit more likely that I can communicate that concept to another. Though I have found that even then, more often than not the word(s) is/are grabbed, not the underlying concept. People tend to look at the finger, not the moon.
I did not, however, give a complete exposition, nor did Dionysios ask for one. For he professed to know many, and those the most important, points, and to have a sufficient hold of them through instruction given by others. I hear also that he has since written about what he heard from me, composing what professes to be his own handbook, very different, so he says, from the doctrines which he heard from me; but of its contents I know nothing; I know indeed that others have written on the same subjects; but who they are, is more than they know themselves. Thus much at least, I can say about all writers, past or future, who say they know the things to which I devote myself, whether by hearing the teaching of me or of others, or by their own discoveries-that according to my view it is not possible for them to have any real skill in the matter.
If you read the letter in full, buried in it, (around the middle) is a very good analysis of why words do not suffice to convey. Plato was an incredibly intelligent man who just happened to be a "mystic" or "shaman" (though he isnt thought of as that by most moderns) and he considered very carefully the language problem. Perhaps thats why so many inclined towards both writing and "the things to which he devoted himself" express this in poetry, or harmless tales, rather than direct exposition.