Yesterday in Communication Theory class, we debated whether intrapersonal communication (i.e. communication with the self) qualifies as communication. Now, I've never taken any psychology classes, and maybe this isn't an important question, but what does intrapersonal communication mean for the Christian? As soon as we started talking about it, I thought, wait a minute, if I'm dead to myself but alive in Christ, and if I no longer live but Christ lives in me, does that mean I'm not really talking to myself? And, considering that our professor doesn't believe that intrapersonal communication counts as true communication because there is no "other" involved, does that mean the Christian can communicate in that way? As a Christian, I am theoretically talking to someone else (Christ) when I talk to myself. Not just talking, of course, but thinking and acting. That's the conclusion to my logic.
But then again, I once logically concluded that when you get married, it's like you're marrying yourself. And that doesn't make any sense.
In class, I brought up the point that, on a philosophical level, it's hard to say what communication with the self is, when it's not certain that mind, body, and soul are separate entities (take that, Descartes), so, ontologically, we can't say for sure that we can communicate with ourselves. However, once you comprehend the Christian belief that we have to deny ourselves and that Christ lives in us, the situation gets a lot more mystical. That's one of the things I love about Christianity - how it seems like magic, and yet it is grounded and takes form in physical realities.
Anyone well-versed in pscychology or philosophy have any ideas? How do I, as a self, exist, and yet am dead to myself? Also, if intrapersonal communication really isn't communication, what should we call it? Does intrapersonal communication exist for Christians? This last question is probably too abstract and unimportant to answer, but I suppose that's what my philosophy classes were for.
sorry, i just realized that many of you may recognize the verse i allude to in the first paragraph - it should be dead to SIN and alive in Christ. but i will leave it as is because the idea of dying to self is supported by other Scriptures.
ha, I am well-versed in neither philosophy nor psychology, but I think you're just doing simple word substitution here without really looking at the ideas behind the words. When the Bible says we are dead to self it doesn't mean we are not ourselves anymore. The essence of us is loved by God and he's not going to obliterate it. So communication with the self is possible, and probably a very good thing. St. Macrina said some great things about the Soul (the essence of self, only the word self has such negative connotations in Chistianity, which makes me sad) and God and how we can only truly know ourselves (and, then communicate with ourselves, except I don't think she talked about that) when we know God.
Good points, Linnea. I realized that if I took my logic all the way, I would be saying that Christian intrapersonal communication is really Christ talking to himself, and that's ridiculous. And I do believe that the self still exists; I suppose it sounded like I didn't. I think the self is wonderful and beautiful. God is wholly "other" and wholly in us, a mysterious paradox.
Anyway, Christian or not, I'm still not convinced that intrapersonal communication is really communication. What is communicating with what? The body with the soul? The mind with the body? I think it's safer to talk about knowing ourselves than communicating with ourselves, although perhaps that's just semantics.
I think you are getting hung up on the "who" of communication rather than focusing on the "what" of communication.
Perhaps your prof has a technical definition of communication that would rule mine out, but I understand communication to be the expression of SOMETHING to SOMEONE. Now...if I talk to myself, I am expressing something (my thoughts) to someone (myself); hence, I am communicating. The alternative is to stumble about by half-conscious instinct.
One might argue that a rock can probably communicate, since it expresses, say God's creative design, to someone, namely me. And there is room in Scripture to go that far (rocks crying out, etc.), but I will stipulate that the NORMAL and far more prevelent understanding of communication involves sentient beings.
That is my communication for the day.
I read somewhere (some marriage book probably) that when we're 'in love,' we love all the ways the other person really knows us. "He just gets me. That's why I love him!" The book went on to say that this is narcissism, marriage for the sake of being with someone who is just like you. But then reality hits, and it's hard to be married to someone who really is just himself, not like you at all. So we grow out of narcissism into truer love (Biblical love) as we grow in marriage-maturity.
So in a way, it is like marrying yourself. Then you realize you're stuck and you really didn't marry yourself.
Sarah, our prof said essentially what you are saying, except she added that communication is the expression of something between TWO entities, or someones, thus it involves two separate humans. And of course from there it could go from someone(s) to other someones - it doesn't just have to be singular. Thus she ruled out intra-personal communication, although of course she left plenty of room for us to disagree with her.
A wise man once said that we are first humans and only then Christians. He was a Christian. What does it mean to be human? Genesis has a lot to say about that. Indeed I think you might be creating a false dichotomy between knowing yourself and communicating with yourself. After all, Christ was the LOGOS, the word. We are the images of God. God is a triune God. He is three persons in one... He therefore must communicate within Himself perfectly; intrapersonal communication at its best. However, the Son is not the Father and the Father not the Son. Neither am I my father or mother... but somehow I am of them... Also, I can convince myself and I can also deceive myself... It is also possible to burn my conscience -sear it away from self- which is a part of me, by lying to self.
Shouldn't there be a distinction between "the image of God" and "being made in the image of God"? Jesus is the "image of the invisible God" and we are made in God's image. All the same, we do reflect God. You raise an important point that the Trinity is both a familial and a personal relationship. We reflect the Trinity in our community with each other and in our communication with ourselves. I think that is the clearest way for Christians to think about it, though yet mysterious.
(As you can see, I'm waffling on my position on intrapersonal communication - although I suppose the point is that I don't know what my position is.)
Hans Urs Von Bulthasar once said "There is really no such thing as solitary speech; speech is essentially mutual, a sharing of thoughts and minds, union in a common spirit, in a shared truth." from his book Prayer.
I say the very act of speech is based upon a created agreement of symbolic meaning. I am always part of the Church. I am always part of the body of Christ. I am always part of my family, culture, ect. Even when I am talking to myself the way I talk is tempered by an agreement of meaning that my parents taught me. I am intrapersonal and I am interpersonal at the same time. When I talk to God I am talking to a trinity. When I talk to a single person I am talking to a group identity (family, friends, culture, an image of God). I just think that no matter how hard you try you can't get away from the other. The other is you; which makes me have strong feelings about grace.
Hope. No, The other is not you. The other may be having a similar notion of what you may mean, but the fact is that you are not the other.
Laura. By being yoked to Jesus we partake in the image of God and become part of the image of God, thus not only are we made in the image of God, we share in his image. This is the profound mystery of family, as you yourself have mentioned.
Hope, another thing. I am not sure what you mean by agreement of symbolic meaning. Sounds too sociological to me. Not that sociology is bad, more that it gives too much credit to human consensus. I am not sure that we have or have ever had enough consensus to render all communication understandable.
Linnea: so that's where your email address comes from!
Lauri,yes I am. For me to say anything I must in some small degree see the other as relevant as myself. I must acknowledge a shared human existance. Children first start understanding how to talk and interact with play that is other based. The other based play is lived out by the child i.e. I am a Fireman or Mom. They are learning a role. Later we get to more organized transitory roles like a part of a team. We are learning to see our role with the other. I am not say that man does not interact with other beings that are not themselves. I am saying (rather abruptly) that I can't interact even with myself without the rules. Those rules are made by the other(s). I as a member of society am part of and the other. I am they. They is me. Together we have a consensus of the rules of communication, manners, nonverbal ques. For example see the dictionary its a consensus that is always changing as words go out of style and meannings become 3 or 4th in the list of meannings.
What language do I dream in? English. That language was made out of a consensus. I am the other because I cannot think or talk even to myself without the rules. Yes, Lauri all communication is not understandable to everyone all of the time but if it was wouldn't we have kept that big ol' tower we were building? So I think solitary speech does not exist because I am and cannot escape the other. Intrapersonal communication exists because for me and you in a consensus. Now, do you want to talk about farrel children?
Hope, I was confused about the term Other, as that implies difference. Since it seems you are using other to mean something more like society then I concede that there is a sense in which it takes more than one persons to develop a language (This might be case in point). However, language is not the soul way of communicating. I am glad that you dream in English. I dream in pictures and emotions and rarely is anything actually said. If anything is said, it is gibberish, but I understand it. As to the tower reference, how can I disagree, but that was not my point. Rather than the feral children, I would point my fellow debaters to the Jabberwocky.
this is a funny conversation. it brings joy and humor to my day. (i'm not saying this tongue-in-cheek...i'm being totally serious.)