Free vocalization was part of the training I received when I studied improvisational acting. I don't remember it actually being referred to by any particular name but, that's what it was. The process involves learning how to let go of your inhibitions, a quality that is quite valuable in ad-lib situations. I think this is why it was so easy for me to *speak in tongues* when I was introduced to it. It was sort of a reverse epiphany for me. Instead of thinking that speaking in tongues was free vocalization, I guess I thought that the free vocalization I had been doing was really speaking in tongues.
"In short, it seems that the capacity for free vocalization is a normal, God-given human capacity. The person who was unable to do it would be unusual. We regard free vocalization as abnormal only because, in our modern Western cultural milieu, people usually cease to do it after childhood."
"Can the average person be taught to produce free vocalization?
Yes. Learning to free vocalize is easier than learning to ride a bicycle. As with the bicycle, the practitioner may feel foolish and awkward at first. But practice makes perfect. Moreover, though at first a person may feel self-conscious, after he has learned he may sometimes forget that he is doing it. It is something that he can start or stop at will without difficulty.
One easy way for a person to learn is to pretend that he is speaking a foreign language. He starts speaking, slowly and deliberately producing syllables. Then be speeds up, consciously trying to make it sound like a language would sound. Once he is doing well, he just relaxes and does not worry any longer about what comes out."
"Picture this...You're in improvisation class and the director hands you a prop. He says, "Make up a language and sell this to Joe." Can it be done? Yes. I've seen it and done it myself. Is it really a language? No, but, it sounds like one."
There is really no special training required. It's simply a matter of letting go of your inhibitions. Relaxation techniques might help. (close your eyes, deep breaths, etc.) That's what session 12 was about...relax and let go....Remember the first time you let go of the handlebars and rode your bike with no hands? It's kinda like that.
"Theatrical training frequently includes exercises in improvisation. In one type of improvisation, the actor invents a "language" (on the fly) and has his/her character use that language in a conversational context.
I posted an example of Andy Kaufman doing this in one of my earlier posts. It's not Biblical, it's not spiritual, it's not evidence of anything other than a latent ability of the human mind. It's not difficult to do. It can, however , present a stumbling block for participants who have inhibitions that impair their ability to do it.
That's why it's included in improvisation classes. I personally saw this being done by a wide variety of subjects, some of whom I am quite sure were not Christian. (Oy Vey! Am I being vague enough on this point?) Decidedly, not everyone can overcome their inhibitions to do it but, the possibility to do so is still there."
"Any acting student will encounter these exercises-and sooner rather than later.
(I encountered them, and my acting studies were very short-which means they're
pretty much around the beginning exercises.)
I've been in classes where it was done.
I've seen stand-up comedians do it on television.
I've seen SMALL CHILDREN do it for entertainment- which they came up with on their own.
None of them CALLED IT "free vocalization", but that's what it was.
Any acting teacher (and most students), for that matter, could set up an exercise where the students
set up a skit, setting it in a religious revival, church meeting, or whatever,
announce the holy speaker, and have the actor do free vocalization.
With enough props, it would look and sound exactly like any modern SIT church usage.
With a different setup, the same exercise would be indistinguishable from a twi meeting
complete with "manifestations."
For that matter, lots of people who do things CLAIM they do them "supernaturally."
Some of them-who are non-Christians, claim to "speak in tongues" (by that name or another)
and do free vocalization dressed up to look special and holy.
It's no different than the actors doing it-except this person MIGHT actually THINK it was
supernatural and not mundane. This doesn't make it any less mundane."
And perhaps this is one of the workings of the holy spirit, freeing up the mind, abandoning the fear of looking silly ? Much to do of the workings of the holy spirit especially in the areas of signs, miracles and wonders appear to look absurd ! I'm thinking cursing fig trees, bathing in the Jordan, coins out of fishes mouths etc...are/were played out with the potential to end up looking 'silly'. perhaps believing really is the absence of fear ?
Word Wolf, can you please explain the purpose, scope and restrictions to this thread. Reading through the thread it seems very sporadic though you identified a "doctrinal" root to it. So, "Free Vocalization", sounds like an invite to kaos to me but what the hey to I know. Am sure it will soon be shut down by the power broker if it were to get outa hand - looking for the speach police.
Word Wolf, can you please explain the purpose, scope and restrictions to this thread. Reading through the thread it seems very sporadic though you identified a "doctrinal" root to it. So, "Free Vocalization", sounds like an invite to kaos to me but what the hey to I know. Am sure it will soon be shut down by the power broker if it were to get outa hand - looking for the speach police.
This is the Open forum MRAP. You can start a thread about anything you want here.
What you want to post on a particular thread depends on the intent of the person who starts the thread (WordWolf in this case) and how well you respect it.
This thread is a spin off of one of the "speaking in tongues" threads, but it's not WordWolf's intent to focus on speaking in tongues here, so it seems people are even intentionally avoiding those words. That's okay.
I have a few thoughts regarding free vocalization, but if anybody wants to read them, they can always do so on the other threads where I've posted. I consider reading these threads useful, even if I don't actively participate, because they give me insight into how my friends think.
The point of this thread is to discuss free vocalization OUTSIDE THE CONTEXT OF SIT. It has nothing to do with SIT. That's why it's not in doctrinal. That's why it's not in About the Way. It belongs here and was only resurrected for ease of accessibility.
Word Wolf, can you please explain the purpose, scope and restrictions to this thread.
[Actually, MR AP,
I explained that in the first post of the thread.
"It's not meant to be a discussion of Doctrine- feel free to revive the Doctrinal thread or start a new one
if you want to explore the doctrinal implications.
This is about the mechanics of "free vocalization", what it is and is not.
I think this is a subject worth discussing by itself- that got buried in a previous discussion
addressing a lot more. So, I've meant to start this thread for some time."
It's neither DOCTRINAL (nor religious nor theological)
nor ABOUT THE WAY (its about the practice done by actors, small children, etc.)
This practice has been called "baby talk" and "gibberish" in different contexts,
but also "free vocalization" when someone wanted a more proper term to discuss
the practice. It's more respectful, and lacks the pejorative elements the other
phrases contain.]
Reading through the thread it seems very sporadic though you identified a "doctrinal" root to it.
[by saying I was diverging completely from Doctrinal to discuss something completely
independent of Doctrine, yes, the discussion started with doctrine but I felt an
entirely separate discussion of exactly this was called for, and we can clearly discuss
specifically this practice- those of us who honestly want to and not attempt to
drag it off-topic.]
So, "Free Vocalization", sounds like an invite to kaos to me but what the hey to I know. Am sure it will soon be shut down by the power broker if it were to get outa hand - looking for the speach police.
[Less than a page in, and it seems you didn't get what the thread's about.
It's been clearly explained above. Rather than repost everything a few lines
below where they were posted, I'll just recommend re-reading it slower and
paying attention. I was clear and stayed on-topic, and the same was true of
waysider.]
And perhaps this is one of the workings of the holy spirit, freeing up the mind, abandoning the fear of looking silly ? Much to do of the workings of the holy spirit especially in the areas of signs, miracles and wonders appear to look absurd ! I'm thinking cursing fig trees, bathing in the Jordan, coins out of fishes mouths etc...are/were played out with the potential to end up looking 'silly'. perhaps believing really is the absence of fear ? :rolleyes:/>/>
[Allan, sounds like you want to take the one thread SPECIFICALLY
designed to AVOID DOCTRINE,
and take it OFF-TOPIC into Doctrine.
There's an entirely other thread in Doctrine already about that.
This thread is valuable all on its own, discussing non-Doctrinal things.
I would rather you not attempt to rob it of its focus and uniqueness by
making it a duplicate of an existing thread.]
This is the Open forum MRAP. You can start a thread about anything you want here.
What you want to post on a particular thread depends on the intent of the person who starts the thread (WordWolf in this case) and how well you respect it.
This thread is a spin off of one of the "speaking in tongues" threads, but it's not WordWolf's intent to focus on speaking in tongues here, so it seems people are even intentionally avoiding those words. That's okay.
I have a few thoughts regarding free vocalization, but if anybody wants to read them, they can always do so on the other threads where I've posted. I consider reading these threads useful, even if I don't actively participate, because they give me insight into how my friends think.
I hope this helps.
Love,
Steve
[if you have a post that actually addresses "free vocalization" without being
specifically Doctrinal or About the Way,
PLEASE repost it here, or link it and I'll do so.
(Providing it actually isn't Doctrinal or About the Way.)
We have threads in those fora about those things already, this is intentionally separate.
And, rather than bury this discussion deep in a separate discussion, I thought it was
valuable all on its own and deserved to be available on its own. It appears waysider,
at least, agreed with me.]
The point of this thread is to discuss free vocalization OUTSIDE THE CONTEXT OF SIT. It has nothing to do with SIT. That's why it's not in doctrinal. That's why it's not in About the Way. It belongs here and was only resurrected for ease of accessibility.
[This thread, rather specifically, is about discussing "FREE VOCALIZATION",
a practice common OUTSIDE OF TWI.
This practice is not "About the Way."
It's about a practice of small children and aspiring actors.
This practice is not about "Doctrine."
I know the posters CAN understand this, and most do.
Those who REFUSE to understand this are doing so INTENTIONALLY,
since I do not accept they're too stupid to see the difference
when the CONTENT of the thread is otherwise.
Then again,
we're probably getting people SKIPPING THE CONTENT OF THE POSTS and then posting
and objecting to both the thread and the posts.
That's intellectually dishonest as well as dishonorable.]
Recommended Posts
WordWolf
==========================
"What's new in your life, Latka?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Free vocalization was part of the training I received when I studied improvisational acting. I don't remember it actually being referred to by any particular name but, that's what it was. The process involves learning how to let go of your inhibitions, a quality that is quite valuable in ad-lib situations. I think this is why it was so easy for me to *speak in tongues* when I was introduced to it. It was sort of a reverse epiphany for me. Instead of thinking that speaking in tongues was free vocalization, I guess I thought that the free vocalization I had been doing was really speaking in tongues.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
A lot of people weren't following the previous thread.
I really DON'T want to get into Doctrinal concerns.
What I want is to explain this to people as much as possible.
You've had a LOT more acting training and experience than I've had,
so I'm hoping you'll go into that for the benefit of the people who've never
heard of this sort of thing and never had an acting lesson.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Vern Polythress:
"In short, it seems that the capacity for free vocalization is a normal, God-given human capacity. The person who was unable to do it would be unusual. We regard free vocalization as abnormal only because, in our modern Western cultural milieu, people usually cease to do it after childhood."
"Can the average person be taught to produce free vocalization?
Yes. Learning to free vocalize is easier than learning to ride a bicycle. As with the bicycle, the practitioner may feel foolish and awkward at first. But practice makes perfect. Moreover, though at first a person may feel self-conscious, after he has learned he may sometimes forget that he is doing it. It is something that he can start or stop at will without difficulty.
One easy way for a person to learn is to pretend that he is speaking a foreign language. He starts speaking, slowly and deliberately producing syllables. Then be speeds up, consciously trying to make it sound like a language would sound. Once he is doing well, he just relaxes and does not worry any longer about what comes out."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
"Picture this...You're in improvisation class and the director hands you a prop. He says, "Make up a language and sell this to Joe." Can it be done? Yes. I've seen it and done it myself. Is it really a language? No, but, it sounds like one."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
There is really no special training required. It's simply a matter of letting go of your inhibitions. Relaxation techniques might help. (close your eyes, deep breaths, etc.) That's what session 12 was about...relax and let go....Remember the first time you let go of the handlebars and rode your bike with no hands? It's kinda like that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
"Theatrical training frequently includes exercises in improvisation. In one type of improvisation, the actor invents a "language" (on the fly) and has his/her character use that language in a conversational context.
I posted an example of Andy Kaufman doing this in one of my earlier posts. It's not Biblical, it's not spiritual, it's not evidence of anything other than a latent ability of the human mind. It's not difficult to do. It can, however , present a stumbling block for participants who have inhibitions that impair their ability to do it.
That's why it's included in improvisation classes. I personally saw this being done by a wide variety of subjects, some of whom I am quite sure were not Christian. (Oy Vey! Am I being vague enough on this point?) Decidedly, not everyone can overcome their inhibitions to do it but, the possibility to do so is still there."
"Any acting student will encounter these exercises-and sooner rather than later.(I encountered them, and my acting studies were very short-which means they're
pretty much around the beginning exercises.)
I've been in classes where it was done.
I've seen stand-up comedians do it on television.
I've seen SMALL CHILDREN do it for entertainment- which they came up with on their own.
None of them CALLED IT "free vocalization", but that's what it was.
Any acting teacher (and most students), for that matter, could set up an exercise where the students
set up a skit, setting it in a religious revival, church meeting, or whatever,
announce the holy speaker, and have the actor do free vocalization.
With enough props, it would look and sound exactly like any modern SIT church usage.
With a different setup, the same exercise would be indistinguishable from a twi meeting
complete with "manifestations."
For that matter, lots of people who do things CLAIM they do them "supernaturally."
Some of them-who are non-Christians, claim to "speak in tongues" (by that name or another)
and do free vocalization dressed up to look special and holy.
It's no different than the actors doing it-except this person MIGHT actually THINK it was
supernatural and not mundane. This doesn't make it any less mundane."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Please note that in acting, it's referred to as "gibberish." There's no OFFICIAL, FORMAL name,
but "free vocalization" works better for discussion. Some people disagree as to the meaning
of "gibberish", and will count it as gibberish only if it is obviously nonsensical,
or meant only as a child's game, and will mean something else when discussing it.
So, it is important to know what is MEANT by a term as well as the actual word.
(It's like the word "spirit"- does the person mean an alcoholic beverage,
or emotion, or some entity?)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
So, no matter what it's called, "free vocalization" is a normal, human ability that children
can use, and adults can use-as long as they can disregard their adult hangups over looking silly.
Theater students and acting students learn to do it all the time, and any poster or lurker
hear can learn to do it as well. It is neither exotic nor unusual.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
In case they wanted to discuss this also,
here's this thread bumped with the others.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I'm glad it's still free. I don't buy much of anything without a senior discount.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
And perhaps this is one of the workings of the holy spirit, freeing up the mind, abandoning the fear of looking silly ? Much to do of the workings of the holy spirit especially in the areas of signs, miracles and wonders appear to look absurd ! I'm thinking cursing fig trees, bathing in the Jordan, coins out of fishes mouths etc...are/were played out with the potential to end up looking 'silly'. perhaps believing really is the absence of fear ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MRAP
Word Wolf, can you please explain the purpose, scope and restrictions to this thread. Reading through the thread it seems very sporadic though you identified a "doctrinal" root to it. So, "Free Vocalization", sounds like an invite to kaos to me but what the hey to I know. Am sure it will soon be shut down by the power broker if it were to get outa hand - looking for the speach police.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
This is the Open forum MRAP. You can start a thread about anything you want here.
What you want to post on a particular thread depends on the intent of the person who starts the thread (WordWolf in this case) and how well you respect it.
This thread is a spin off of one of the "speaking in tongues" threads, but it's not WordWolf's intent to focus on speaking in tongues here, so it seems people are even intentionally avoiding those words. That's okay.
I have a few thoughts regarding free vocalization, but if anybody wants to read them, they can always do so on the other threads where I've posted. I consider reading these threads useful, even if I don't actively participate, because they give me insight into how my friends think.
I hope this helps.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mod Kirk
Leaving it here for now
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The point of this thread is to discuss free vocalization OUTSIDE THE CONTEXT OF SIT. It has nothing to do with SIT. That's why it's not in doctrinal. That's why it's not in About the Way. It belongs here and was only resurrected for ease of accessibility.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
[Actually, MR AP,
I explained that in the first post of the thread.
"It's not meant to be a discussion of Doctrine- feel free to revive the Doctrinal thread or start a new one
if you want to explore the doctrinal implications.
This is about the mechanics of "free vocalization", what it is and is not.
I think this is a subject worth discussing by itself- that got buried in a previous discussion
addressing a lot more. So, I've meant to start this thread for some time."
It's neither DOCTRINAL (nor religious nor theological)
nor ABOUT THE WAY (its about the practice done by actors, small children, etc.)
This practice has been called "baby talk" and "gibberish" in different contexts,
but also "free vocalization" when someone wanted a more proper term to discuss
the practice. It's more respectful, and lacks the pejorative elements the other
phrases contain.]
[by saying I was diverging completely from Doctrinal to discuss something completely
independent of Doctrine, yes, the discussion started with doctrine but I felt an
entirely separate discussion of exactly this was called for, and we can clearly discuss
specifically this practice- those of us who honestly want to and not attempt to
drag it off-topic.]
[Less than a page in, and it seems you didn't get what the thread's about.
It's been clearly explained above. Rather than repost everything a few lines
below where they were posted, I'll just recommend re-reading it slower and
paying attention. I was clear and stayed on-topic, and the same was true of
waysider.]
[Allan, sounds like you want to take the one thread SPECIFICALLY
designed to AVOID DOCTRINE,
and take it OFF-TOPIC into Doctrine.
There's an entirely other thread in Doctrine already about that.
This thread is valuable all on its own, discussing non-Doctrinal things.
I would rather you not attempt to rob it of its focus and uniqueness by
making it a duplicate of an existing thread.]
[if you have a post that actually addresses "free vocalization" without being
specifically Doctrinal or About the Way,
PLEASE repost it here, or link it and I'll do so.
(Providing it actually isn't Doctrinal or About the Way.)
We have threads in those fora about those things already, this is intentionally separate.
And, rather than bury this discussion deep in a separate discussion, I thought it was
valuable all on its own and deserved to be available on its own. It appears waysider,
at least, agreed with me.]
[This thread, rather specifically, is about discussing "FREE VOCALIZATION",
a practice common OUTSIDE OF TWI.
This practice is not "About the Way."
It's about a practice of small children and aspiring actors.
This practice is not about "Doctrine."
I know the posters CAN understand this, and most do.
Those who REFUSE to understand this are doing so INTENTIONALLY,
since I do not accept they're too stupid to see the difference
when the CONTENT of the thread is otherwise.
Then again,
we're probably getting people SKIPPING THE CONTENT OF THE POSTS and then posting
and objecting to both the thread and the posts.
That's intellectually dishonest as well as dishonorable.]
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
Thanks for that WW ! I posted without even realising I was taking it back to doctrine
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.