Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Free vocalization


WordWolf
 Share

Recommended Posts

This thread, to a degree, is a follow-up on a previous 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.

Ok, first of all, how we get the names for things.

All names, as far as it goes, are made up. Someone finds a new concept and starts using a new name.

Sometimes the new name catches on, sometimes a different name catches on, and sometimes nobody

uses it and it fades into obscurity. So, if someone has a new idea or discovers something new,

it's fair to try to come up with a decent name for it. For that matter, bad names become famous,

too- the "googol" is 1 followed by 100 zeroes, and exploring caves is "spelunking", from

"speliation" (cave studies) and a sillier ending for the word.

So, the phrase "free vocalization." It wasn't a phrase coined to promote a specific agenda.

When studying different things and discovering they were the same thing with different window dressing,

someone coined the phrase in order to discuss it better.

The name "free vocalization" refers to a speaking, thus, a vocalization. It is a speaking that is not

directed in any formal sense of speech, thus it is "free" (unguided) in the same sense as free verse.

So, what, exactly, is it?

Free vocalization is actually a pretty common practice, used under a number of

concepts. When children pretend to be speaking and pronounce nonsense syllables,

they're doing this. (No, not when babies are starting to speak- when older

children know they're not speaking a language and intentionally PRETEND to do so

to amuse themselves and their friends.)

Actors do this as well when studying acting. They will study how to move, and

how to intone, and that can be studied independent of dialogue. Much can be

portrayed by tone, movement, and gesture even if no language is held in common-

or no language is used at all. My study group surprised our acting teacher

with how complicated a concept we conveyed in such a scene-where 5 people got

together, decided the scene, and acted it out- all speaking without actual words

but with lots of speaking, intonation, movement and gestures. But that's

drifting off-topic...the point is that actors will do this very thing while

learning- as practice with other things, and it is not difficult once you get

the idea.

Some people have pointed out similarities between those practices and each other-

because they differ only in intent, and are the same activity concerning

language and cognition (thinking.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

"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

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

  • 2 weeks later...

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

  • 2 years later...

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:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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.

I hope this helps.

Love,

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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.]

Edited by WordWolf
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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...