The languages of spirituality witness their historical period
In the Foreword of this level of the course I referred to the distinction between universal and human spirituality. From a point of view of universal spirituality, since everything is spirituality, everything is also its language; therefore, if we consider instead human spirituality, all human languages are languages of spirituality as well. To narrow down the filed, we can refer only to word languages. Even in this area it will be possible, at start, to take note that all kinds of words, phrases or speeches are languages of spirituality. We can further narrow the field to those languages in which with more explicit intention we intend to do spirituality or talk about it. If it comes to talk of spirituality, to study it, to try to give explanations, then the reference language that still remains fundamental is that which belongs to the Greek philosophy, that is, a language that moves between abstractions and particular cases, concepts and examples. An alternative to this language is the narrative one, but in this case we begin to go beyond from talking about spirituality to making spirituality.
Then there are languages that are beyond the combination theoretical language / narrative language and are able to convey, obviously, spirituality. The phenomenon is similar to what happens in the literature, in which the styles, the forms, the possible languages are virtually endless. As happens in literature, it can come out the difficulty of assessing the consistency of what is produced, together with the opposite risk of being unaware of being in front of masterpieces. On the other hand, in the literature there is also the history of criticism, which confirms, if it were needed, the subjectivity of literary criticism.
In summary, the languages of spirituality, as well as witnessing the personality of those who use them, also reflected sensitivities, spiritualities and critical trends circulating in their historical period.
Multiple languages and DNA
Resuming what has been said in the previous post about acoustic waves, we can observe that a communicative event of spirituality may also contain, in addition to multiple messages, even multiple languages simultaneously, we can even say infinite. It is noteworthy that all of these messages and languages assume values and meanings when they come in contact with subjects predisposed to recognize them and to use them. In other words, what appears purely human, valid and interesting, does it because it is recognized as such by the predispositions to this recognition contained in our DNA. It follows that no computer, however complex and powerful, could ever select, highlight, appreciate what a human being is able to highlight; in this sense there it is not a problem about power: it is rather a problem of structure. A computer could never suggest a beautiful music piece, because that song must appear nice to our DNA and the computer does not have the structure of our DNA. Perhaps in the future maybe it will contain a digital copy of this structure and thus also try to replicate the tastes, but it will lack a flesh body.
