SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[chockfull]

Samarin's other examples of "non-Christian glossolalia":

1. A medium - Helene Smith - records 2 langauges in her spiritual conversations

2. Two other personal anecdotes - neither of which hold any more weight than socks experience on this thread

[chockfull]

Next, getting to Samarin's main point. He states that glossolalia is "meaningless", and that is one of the big sources of his conclusions. By "meaningless" in his writings, he is mostly referring to the concept that the person speaking doesn't understand the words being said. This he uses as evidence that it is not a language.

[chockfull]

More Samarin

"If a glossa is meaningless, this does not mean it's gibberish. There is something onomatopoetic about the word 'gibber' that makes it incompatible with glossolalic utterances. The principal linguistic feature that distinguishes them from gibberish is the remarkable number of phonological units at various levels. Starting with the highest level, one finds macro segments (comparable to sentences), micro segments (comparable to words), syllables, and sound units (comparable to phonemes). The micro segments are separated from each other by pauses of greater or lesser duration and are characterized by certain configurations consisting of stress and pitch.

... (gives linguistic example)

In other words, glossic syllables are not simply spewed out in a haphazard sort of way; there is in each glossa a kind of microsegmental syntax similar to natural languages"

So when you dig into Samarin's scientific findings as a linguist, he finds that SIT / glossa pretty much has phonetically all the characteristics of a language. His conclusions seem to me to be that "it resembles a language, but it's not a language because nobody understands it".

Samarin after all this research seems to me to state a whole lot of the obvious.

[chockfull]

Another thing Samarin notes where glossas are different from language: Repetition.

He states "on close examination glossas are different from natural language by being simple and repetitious".

I'm not so sure that SIT messages being "simple and repetitious" are any indication that they are not a language. There are plenty of "simple and repetitious" messages present within the use of almost any language. Look at advertisements for example.

Possibly the nature of the intended message is simple and repetitious? Like an uplifting message or praise, possibly repeated for emphasis?

[waysider]

His conclusions seem to me to be that "it resembles a language, but it's not a language because nobody understands it".

No, his conclusion is that it's not a language because it doesn't meet the necessary structural criteria to be considered a language.

A language can meet the necessary criteria without anyone recognizing the specific language.

Edited October 18, 2012 by waysider

[waysider]

There is a considerable amount of data currently available on the subject that includes a variety of studies. Unfortunately, much of this information is not simply "free for the asking". If you are willing and inclined to do so, you can gain access to these various studies. Personally, I'm not inclined to spend any money on the subject at the moment.

[chockfull]

Samarin continued:

Next, Samarin delves into the meat of things - linguists / phonetics specialists definitions of attributes of a language. I don't want to retype all of them - they are found on p. 66 of the Samarin article - http://philosophy-religion.info/handouts/pdfs/Samarin-Pages_48-75.pdf

I'll list the attributes for discussion sake (read the article for more detail):

1. Vocal-auditory channel

2. Directional reception

3. Rapid fading

4. Interchangeability

5. Complete feedback

6. Specialization

7. Semanticity

8. Arbitrariness

9. Discreteness

10. Displacement

11. Openness

12. Tradition

13. Duality (of patterning)

14. Prevarication

15. Reflexiveness

16. Learnability

Samarin writes regarding glossa and these criteria ( I am typing out the references where he says glossa does NOT meet the criteria for a language):

"Glossas, by this standard, are not human languages, primarily because they are not systems of communication. They are not characterized by semanticity (7), arbitrariness (8), displacement (10), prevarication (14) and reflexiveness (15).

Semanticity - linguistic signals function in correlating and organizing the life of a community because there are associative ties between signal elements and features in the world

Arbitrariness - the relationship between a meaningful element in a language and its denotation is independent of any physical or geometrical resemblance between the two.

Displacement - Linguistic messages may refer to things remote in time or space, from the site of the communication

Prevarification - Linguistic messages can be false, and they can be meaningless in the logician's sense.

Reflexiveness - In a language, one can communicate about communication."

First of all, if you take SIT at face value as for private prayer ("I pray with understanding, I pray in the spirit") then as described scripturally from my perspective it is NOT a system of communication between humans. It is human to God. So OK, Samarin, it's not a "human" language in that respect, as it doesn't function in correlating and organizing the life of a community like a native language does.

For pretty much all of his other reasons listed, the sole reason they are valid is because whatever the language is spoken is NOT understood. If a tongue is not understood (and the other is not edified unless interpreted - as I Cor. 14 states), then how can you be certain scientifically whether or not the attributes of arbitrariness, displacement, prevarification, or reflexiveness are being met or not? How can you scientifically ascertain those elements not to be met unless you understood the content of the message? Or is Samarin simply running down a checklist to automatically say NO to those elements because he himself doesn't understand the tongue? To me that is NOT a rigorous or logical conclusion from a scientific perspective. It would be a more honest conclusion to say "unless or until the language is understood, we cannot ascertain whether it meets these criteria".

Three things I'm starting to get as far as a picture of Samarin from reading:

1) The guy really is a linguist - he breaks down concepts and examples very well in terminology of his field

2) He really has a predisposition against SIT

3) I should nickname him "Captain Obvious"

No, his conclusion is that it's not a language because it doesn't meet the necessary structural criteria to be considered a language.

A language can meet the necessary criteria without anyone recognizing the specific language.

Well, read the next post of mine. It's circular logic. It doesn't meet the structural criteria because it's not understood. The elements of the structural criteria Samarin states it doesn't meet cannot be met unless the language is understood.

I mean, for example - displacement - linguistic messages may refer to things remote in time or space. SIT never contains a reference to God? Never talk about the hope? Never refer to abstract concepts like love?

Only if you don't believe the interpretation of those messages is genuine.

There is a considerable amount of data currently available on the subject that includes a variety of studies. Unfortunately, much of this information is not simply "free for the asking". If you are willing and inclined to do so, you can gain access to these various studies. Personally, I'm not inclined to spend any money on the subject at the moment.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0026068206/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used

$31 for Samarin's main work on the topic. Used. I don't know - maybe next paycheck if I'm still so inclined...

[Raf]

Sure. Let me just note that it is impossible for Sherrill to have quoted Samarin as you describe, considering Sherrill published 7 years before Samarin. So clearly and unambiguously, you are mistaken.

You're thinking of Landry quoting Malony and Lovelin, who in turn quote Samarin.

Samarin is polite enough to note the distinction between gibberish and glossolalia insofar as glossolalia contains characteristics of language which are superficial and which Samarin attributes to human ingenuity, not actual language features. I submit it would be unfair to hold that as evidence this really is a language, considering he has already ruled it out as language before getting to a description of what it is.

In other words, the examination of a counterfeit $2 bill and its resemblance to real money may be instructive for a variety of reasons, but that doesn't make it real money.

[waysider]

Look, the whole idea behind excellor sessions is/was to make these "messages" sound authentic. Practice, practice, practice. It comes as no surprise that these messages sound real. When they didn't sound real, what did we do? We practiced some more. If they have to include elements of love, peace, Godliness, etc., how do you explain what has been done by nonreligious people?

[chockfull]

Sure. Let me just note that it is impossible for Sherrill to have quoted Samarin as you describe, considering Sherrill published 7 years before Samarin. So clearly and unambiguously, you are mistaken.

You're thinking of Landry quoting Malony and Lovelin, who in turn quote Samarin.

OK. Suffice it to say that if there are a number of authors who quote Samarin simply to point out that his research and his conclusions are incongruent, that merits consideration. I mean I would have to have a lot of motivation to take the time to write an article to publish doing that.

Samarin is polite enough to note the distinction between gibberish and glossolalia insofar as glossolalia contains characteristics of language which are superficial and which Samarin attributes to human ingenuity, not actual language features. I submit it would be unfair to hold that as evidence this really is a language, considering he has already ruled it out as language before getting to a description of what it is.

In other words, the examination of a counterfeit $2 bill and its resemblance to real money may be instructive for a variety of reasons, but that doesn't make it real money.

I completely disagree. Samarin, as a trained linguist, notes that glossa PHONETICALLY resembles a language. Now it may be your assessment that the relationship between phonetics and language are superficial, but it is not mine, and Samarin never states it that way. The only conclusion I'll draw from it is the same that Samarin notes in the detail of his article - that phonetically linguists find little to no difference between glossa and a natural human language.

That is accurate. And it's pretty much in opposition to your $2 bill example.

[Raf]

Important to recall that the Bible addresses Speaking in Tongues, which are languages. If it mentioned speaking in languagishes, you might have a stronger point. The simple fact that these are not languages is being overlooked in the hopes of extracting enough value from the minutiae to get Samarin to somehow report the exact opposite of what he concludes.

Samarin states it explicitly the way you claim he does not!

[waysider]

What would interest me is to see someone do a study based on computer science/information theory, similar to the one that was done with dolphins in the link I posted several pages ago.

Information theory

Edited October 18, 2012 by waysider

[chockfull]

Look, the whole idea behind excellor sessions is/was to make these "messages" sound authentic. Practice, practice, practice. It comes as no surprise that these messages sound real. When they didn't sound real, what did we do? We practiced some more. If they have to include elements of love, peace, Godliness, etc., how do you explain what has been done by nonreligious people?

The whole idea behind excellor session was basically ego and control. And it probably had to do more with expanding the hold over the cult member than anything else. The whole PFAL class (and BG Leonard's class where it was plagiarized from) was one class. Then split up into 3 classes. The middle class had to take up space. So IMO TWI took a lot of liberty with these things and designed another form of control - excellor sessions.

For me, the jury is still out on nonreligious people. Samarin I note gave 4 examples - two of them by mediums/psychics speaking to their spirit guide, and the other two were personal incidents that were uncorroborated thus I can't give them any more weight than my own or socks experience on this thread where attendees in the meeting understood the tongue in their own language.

Important to recall that the Bible addresses Speaking in Tongues, which are languages. If it mentioned speaking in languagishes, you might have a stronger point. The simple fact that these are not languages is being overlooked in the hopes of extracting enough value from the minutiae to get Samarin to somehow report the exact opposite of what he concludes.

Samarin states it explicitly the way you claim he does not!

Raf, no offense, but I just took the time to post a couple pages of direct references to Samarin. If you want to refute me, why do you expect everyone to hold to your opinion on the work rather than the work itself?

The Bible addresses the topic. It is quite easy to see through basic common sense that if the elements of a language involve a person understanding the language directly, and someone does not understand the language, then it's pretty much plain ignorance to reach the conclusion it's not a language.

That would be like a foreign exchange student coming to my house from France, and me saying since I don't understand French that he is illiterate.

[waysider]

I don't doubt that control was a strong motivating factor for some excellor session officiants. When I was primarily involved with them (1970s), however, the driving motivation was to make these messages as theatrical and believable as possible.

[chockfull]

Important to recall that the Bible addresses Speaking in Tongues, which are languages. If it mentioned speaking in languagishes, you might have a stronger point. The simple fact that these are not languages is being overlooked in the hopes of extracting enough value from the minutiae to get Samarin to somehow report the exact opposite of what he concludes.

So you are saying you believe SIT is a "languish" ??

[hiway29]

Speaking of excellor sessions-which I hated more than just about anything, and ran a lot of them-which was ridiculous since I never believed it was God talking-anyway...

I was leading a session-this was when they decided to combine foundational and intermediate-a big mistake imo, as you took people who barely made it through session 12, then dumped intermediate on them. Let's just say it made for a lot of tense moments with on the fence people-anyway...

I asked a woman to sit and her interpretation included 'help me to change what I can, and to accept that which I cannot change', then the woman next to her shouted "I've got that on my refrigerator !" What could you do but laugh-I was just glad a higher up wasn't there to reprove the way I 'handled' it.

[Raf]

So you are saying you believe SIT is a "languish" ??

I'd say your argument is languishing. ;)

Seriously, I'm on my phone again. Will answer at greater length later

Edited October 18, 2012 by Raf

[chockfull]

Speaking of excellor sessions-which I hated more than just about anything, and ran a lot of them-which was ridiculous since I never believed it was God talking-anyway...

I was leading a session-this was when they decided to combine foundational and intermediate-a big mistake imo, as you took people who barely made it through session 12, then dumped intermediate on them. Let's just say it made for a lot of tense moments with on the fence people-anyway...

I asked a woman to sit and her interpretation included 'help me to change what I can, and to accept that which I cannot change', then the woman next to her shouted "I've got that on my refrigerator !" What could you do but laugh-I was just glad a higher up wasn't there to reprove the way I 'handled' it.

I will say regardless of what people hold as the truth on this topic, the way we handled it in TWI was horrible. Referring to a refrigerator magnet may very well have been the only redeeming quality of that class.

I'd say your argument is languishing. ;)

Seriously, I'm on my phone again.

Yes we would hate for any new posts on this thread to languish around for hours until you are able to get to them.

Edited October 18, 2012 by chockfull

[waysider]

Speaking of excellor sessions-which I hated more than just about anything, and ran a lot of them-which was ridiculous since I never believed it was God talking-anyway...

I was leading a session-this was when they decided to combine foundational and intermediate-a big mistake imo, as you took people who barely made it through session 12, then dumped intermediate on them. Let's just say it made for a lot of tense moments with on the fence people-anyway...

I asked a woman to sit and her interpretation included 'help me to change what I can, and to accept that which I cannot change', then the woman next to her shouted "I've got that on my refrigerator !" What could you do but laugh-I was just glad a higher up wasn't there to reprove the way I 'handled' it.

Ha!

That's funny! It does illustrate an important point, though. We reached into our subconscious and pulled out whatever was most convenient to recall. I think, perhaps, that's why the standard party-line of The Way was that there is no such thing as the subconscious. If it doesn't exist, we've eliminated one more avenue of exposure. Ain't that handy?

Edited October 18, 2012 by waysider

[chockfull]

I don't doubt that control was a strong motivating factor for some excellor session officiants. When I was primarily involved with them (1970s), however, the driving motivation was to make these messages as theatrical and believable as possible.

It was a Stepford activity in a Stepford world.

[Raf]

OK. Suffice it to say that if there are a number of authors who quote Samarin simply to point out that his research and his conclusions are incongruent, that merits consideration. I mean I would have to have a lot of motivation to take the time to write an article to publish doing that.

I do not believe you are accurately reflecting what they're saying. But more detail later.

I completely disagree. Samarin, as a trained linguist, notes that glossa PHONETICALLY resembles a language. Now it may be your assessment that the relationship between phonetics and language are superficial, but it is not mine, and Samarin never states it that way. The only conclusion I'll draw from it is the same that Samarin notes in the detail of his article - that phonetically linguists find little to no difference between glossa and a natural human language.

That is accurate. And it's pretty much in opposition to your $2 bill example.

And where do the phonetic similarities come from? The native language of the SITter. He's talking about the quality of the stuff we're making up, not declaring it to be a hidden, unknown or secret language

[waysider]

It was a Stepford activity in a Stepford world.

I'm not sure what that means, though I've seen the movie several times. All I can tell you is that I never tried to deliberately control any session participants. It was not an ego trip. What I did was to help people make their presentation as believable as possible. I suppose that might put me in the director's chair to some degree.

[chockfull]

I want to obviate something that I'm having a challenge with in this discussion. I really, really, really want to distance myself from TWI doctrine, in the spirit of what Jesus taught about "beware the leaven of the Pharisees".

In this discussion I find myself more on TWI's side of teaching than against it. I am not comfortable with that at all. The last thing I would ever want to do is start another splinter group teaching basically the same thing as TWI does but saying they "didn't do it in love" kind of like CFF and Lynn and others do. I would rather do nothing. TWI doctrine needs to die, not have a whole bunch of bastard children running around for decades.

With that said, I've still got to continue to pick up the pieces of my life, understand the Bible, develop my relationship with God further, and move ahead.

I'm not sure what that means, though I've seen the movie several times. All I can tell you is that I never tried to deliberately control any session participants. It was not an ego trip. What I did was to help people make their presentation as believable as possible. I suppose that might put me in the director's chair to some degree.

I just mean that most of leadership in TWI was about theatrics and believability. So it's not surprising the classes followed suit.

[chockfull]

And where do the phonetic similarities come from? The native language of the SITter. He's talking about the quality of the stuff we're making up, not declaring it to be a hidden, unknown or secret language

Yeah, maybe if you use the words "making up" as many times as you can, the sheer volume of use will convince people that your viewpoint is right.

When Samarin first talks about the phonetic similarities, he says nothing of the similarity to the native language of the speaker. He simply is evaluating the glossa messages, and notices that they have the same phonetical constructs as a real language - sentences, words, phrases, sub-phrases, etc. He literally states in the opening section of his paper - p. 51 P3. "This definition specifies three features that appear to be necessary in any definition of the phenomenon: (a) a phonological structure (that is, the kind of patterning of sound generally typical of real languages), which distinguishes it from gibberish.

Later on in the paper - p.65 P3 - under heading "Compared with the speakers' native languages" he states:

"When a glossa is compared with the native language of its speaker, it is seen to be both derivative and innovative. It is derivative because both its inventory of sounds and its prosodic patterns (means like a speaker's accent) are taken from his first language. This fact is illustrated below, where the consonant phonemes of one glossa are superimposed in boldface on an articulatory chart of the distinctive consonant sounds of English (see chart).

In other words, all of the consonants which occur are those which occur in English, and only six English phonemes are not represented by this glossa. The chart above, which would fit at least in part several other natural languages of the world.... " (next he describes that English glossa people have an English accent).

So to me, this is not compelling proof. First he labels glossa consonants as derivative from English, but notes that they also would apply to "several other natural languages of the world". Next, he describes how people doing glossa would have an English accent.

From Biblical understanding, God does not "take over" vocal chords when SIT. In every occurrence of SIT, the noun in the sentence is the person doing it, not God doing it through them, for them, etc. So a person speaks, and God provides the words in a language through spiritual power. So the mere cataloging of sounds and numbers is not compelling.

I also have personal anecdotes with this one. I know the tongues in my prayer life produce sounds that are outside of English consonants/vowels. And they are different from any exposure to a known language I am aware of. And they change.

Edited October 18, 2012 by chockfull

[waysider]

Here's a dumb question. If tongues, in an assembled group, is the same thing they did on Pentecost, why would we need an interpretation?

Edited October 18, 2012 by waysider