-
Posts
-
First, let’s define creative reading.
“Creative reading is defined as reading for implied and inferred meanings, appreciative reactions, an critical evaluation. The act of critical reading goes beyond LITERAL COMPREHENSION to the demand that the reader produce fresh, original ideas not explicitly stated in the reading material. The reader becomes an active participant and adds to what the author has written.”
I retrieved the above definition from the web.
Is it forbidden to approach TUB by using creative/critical reading as a literary tool?
My personal feeling on this is that it is not. Besides other UB references, I draw from the following revelation to substantiate my belief –
“[…] Literally and figuratively, spiritually and personally, the Father and the Sons are one. ” (32:3.6)
What are your thoughts? At a later date, I will produce a few examples of creative reading that I have come up with from UB narratives.
I look forward to your opinions.
Please visit the following site to familiarize yourself with critical reading:
http://www.criticalreading.com/index.html
BB
Hello BB!
“Forbidden”? By whom? I know of no agency or authority that claims such power. I think it is always important to utilize our highest and greatest thinking and attempt insight and critical analysis in all reading that is not fiction to determine the truest realization of what is written as we seek to understand. Regarding the UB specifically, I think the religious nature of its teachings also requires prayer and the help of the Father’s fragment and Spirit of Truth within us each and all to discover, confirm, and understand its contents. The UB has over 1000 of humanity’s highest self-discovered concepts in addition to thousands of other facts in a whole new paradigm of universe reality.
While it gets easier and easier to read as it is read more and more, the UB is challenging to the mind of everyone I think. I have found a certain meter or rhythm throughout….remarkable when one considers how many different personalities are involved. Repetitive readings reveal how superior the text is compared to any other compilation or single author’s work. The more it is read, the more form it seems to take….texture, dimension, pattern, integration, harmony, lyrical….symphonic in a way. Raising questions and then answering them in an interesting form of sequential presentation adding layer upon layer to the increasing dimensionality of concepts and understanding.
Logic and reason to engage critical thinking and analytical applications will (or can) help the student in understanding the text written to be sure. And the study group helps a great deal. Read, ask, discuss, debate, read and repeat. One of the reasons we are taught to seek out other religionists is to expand the number of perspectives and understandings beyond our own to help us expand our own. Another, and often more difficult reason might be to learn how to disagree without being disagreeable.
Literalism also requires creative/critical reading and reasoning. Turning words written and read that are presented as a factual account of our origin and destiny, gifted to reduce confusions and errors in our thinking, into analogy and metaphor is not creative reading or critical analysis….it is transforming what is written into something else, not written. Those who attempt to re-write the UB as though the authors did not mean what they wrote or did not write what they meant is a most curious form of “reading” to me. Closer to palm and head bump reading…interpreting the lines on ones hands and the bumps on one’s head. An entertainment perhaps?
Naturally the great danger in applying metaphoricalism onto the UB is that then requires the ‘interpretor’ or ‘medium’ to facilitate understanding. But certainly each reader must apply all their faculties and knowledge and skill, in addition to the mind ministries, to discover the value of the text in our attempts to understand what the authors say and what they meant by what they say.
Comprehension is an interesting term. Both that which is comprehended and how we comprehend scientific fact and religious truth are important to understand and incorporate into our lives. Best wishes in your studies of both the UB and also comprehension of the written word. And the UB provides much to consider on how to improve our thinking, comprehension, and understanding for our assistance in all matters great and small. Or so I’ve found to be true.
It is always important I think to try and determine any writer’s angle or agenda as well as their motive and intention. Fortunately, the UB authors clearly state all of those. My reading has not resulted in any disagreement with those so given in text. Their angle, agenda, motive, and intentions are very precisely and redundantly provided throughout. I look forward to the discussion.
I completely agree with you, Bradly. Thank you for participating and sharing your thoughts!-BBHello BB! “Forbidden”? By whom? I know of no agency or authority that claims such power. I think it is always important to utilize our highest and greatest thinking and attempt insight and critical analysis in all reading that is not fiction to determine the truest realization of what is written as we seek to understand. Regarding the UB specifically, I think the religious nature of its teachings also requires prayer and the help of the Father’s fragment and Spirit of Truth within us each and all to discover, confirm, and understand its contents. The UB has over 1000 of humanity’s highest self-discovered concepts in addition to thousands of other facts in a whole new paradigm of universe reality. While it gets easier and easier to read as it is read more and more, the UB is challenging to the mind of everyone I think. I have found a certain meter or rhythm throughout….remarkable when one considers how many different personalities are involved. Repetitive readings reveal how superior the text is compared to any other compilation or single author’s work. The more it is read, the more form it seems to take….texture, dimension, pattern, integration, harmony, lyrical….symphonic in a way. Raising questions and then answering them in an interesting form of sequential presentation adding layer upon layer to the increasing dimensionality of concepts and understanding. Logic and reason to engage critical thinking and analytical applications will (or can) help the student in understanding the text written to be sure. And the study group helps a great deal. Read, ask, discuss, debate, read and repeat. One of the reasons we are taught to seek out other religionists is to expand the number of perspectives and understandings beyond our own to help us expand our own. Another, and often more difficult reason might be to learn how to disagree without being disagreeable. Literalism also requires creative/critical reading and reasoning. Turning words written and read that are presented as a factual account of our origin and destiny, gifted to reduce confusions and errors in our thinking, into analogy and metaphor is not creative reading or critical analysis….it is transforming what is written into something else, not written. Those who attempt to re-write the UB as though the authors did not mean what they wrote or did not write what they meant is a most curious form of “reading” to me. Closer to palm and head bump reading…interpreting the lines on ones hands and the bumps on one’s head. An entertainment perhaps? Naturally the great danger in applying metaphoricalism onto the UB is that then requires the ‘interpretor’ or ‘medium’ to facilitate understanding. But certainly each reader must apply all their faculties and knowledge and skill, in addition to the mind ministries, to discover the value of the text in our attempts to understand what the authors say and what they meant by what they say. Comprehension is an interesting term. Both that which is comprehended and how we comprehend scientific fact and religious truth are important to understand and incorporate into our lives. Best wishes in your studies of both the UB and also comprehension of the written word. And the UB provides much to consider on how to improve our thinking, comprehension, and understanding for our assistance in all matters great and small. Or so I’ve found to be true. It is always important I think to try and determine any writer’s angle or agenda as well as their motive and intention. Fortunately, the UB authors clearly state all of those. My reading has not resulted in any disagreement with those so given in text. Their angle, agenda, motive, and intentions are very precisely and redundantly provided throughout. I look forward to the discussion.
BB
. . . a literary tool?
What is meant by your phrase *a literary tool*? Thank you.
I apologize. I meant literary device.. . . a literary tool?
What is meant by your phrase *a literary tool*? Thank you.
BB
Is it forbidden to approach TUB by using creative/critical reading as a literary [research] tool? [emphasis added]
As mentioned later the use of “literary tool” would have more meaning when applied as “literary device”, where “literary tool” can be more associated to the “Psychology” of the comprehension of the text in question. Nevertheless “reading comprehension” has been associated to having “two levels of processing”, the “shallow (low-level) processing and deep (high-level) processing”. Each having variations based on a readers overall psychological experience level. “Deep processing involves semantic processing, which happens when we encode the meaning of a word and relate it to similar words. Shallow processing involves structural and phonemic recognition, the processing of sentence and word structure and their associated sounds.”
If one were to assume that their Thought Adjuster makes notations or records a humans basic intellectual understanding of the Urantia Book text, it may also be assumed that the subjects comprehension of what is being read can be associated to the overall psychological makeup of the reader. It has been mentioned in the UB that there a few “deep thinkers” on Urantia, where is might also imply that the majority function at the “shallow (low-level)” and as has been experienced on this forum, from past experiences, that the interaction between contributors has become an emotional effort to validate the “self” as understood by the “self”.
From Psychology: “Literature allows readers to access intimate emotional aspects of a person’s character that would not be obvious otherwise. It benefits the psychological development and understanding of the reader. For example, it allows a person to access emotional states from which the person has distanced himself or herself. An entry written by D. Mitchell featured in The English Journal explains how the author used young adult literature in order to re-experience the emotional psychology she experienced as a child which she describes as a state of “wonder”.
Hogan also explains that the temporal and emotional amount which a person devotes to understanding a character’s situation in literature allows literature to be considered “ecological[ly] valid in the study of emotion”. This can be understood in the sense that literature unites a large community by provoking universal emotions. It also allows readers to access cultural aspects that they are not exposed to thus provoking new emotional experiences. Authors choose literary device according to what psychological emotion he or she is attempting to describe, thus certain literary devices are more emotionally effective than others.
Furthermore, literature is being more popularly regarded as a psychologically effective research tool. It can be considered a research tool because it allows psychologists to discover new psychological aspects and it also allows psychologists to promote their theories. For example, the print capacity available for literature distribution has allowed psychological theories such as Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs to be universally recognized.”
Therefore, when attempts are made to associate the applied variations of text with different methods for comprehension of the context of the UB, it has become “forbidden” by some to even imply that there can be a “deeper” meaning to the content of its text as might be examined through different methods, which then implies that the lower-level, emotional understanding, dominates those of the higher-level of deep thinking.
Profound and thought provoking reply, Midi!Is it forbidden to approach TUB by using creative/critical reading as a literary[research]tool? [emphasis added]
As mentioned later the use of “literary tool” would have more meaning when applied as “literary device”, where “literary tool” can be more associated to the “Psychology” of the comprehension of the text in question. Nevertheless “reading comprehension” has been associated to having “two levels of processing”, the “shallow (low-level) processing and deep (high-level) processing”. Each having variations based on a readers overall psychological experience level. “Deep processing involves semantic processing, which happens when we encode the meaning of a word and relate it to similar words. Shallow processing involves structural and phonemic recognition, the processing of sentence and word structure and their associated sounds.” If one were to assume that their Thought Adjuster makes notations or records a humans basic intellectual understanding of the Urantia Book text, it may also be assumed that the subjects comprehension of what is being read can be associated to the overall psychological makeup of the reader. It has been mentioned in the UB that there a few “deep thinkers” on Urantia, where is might also imply that the majority function at the “shallow (low-level)” and as has been experienced on this forum, from past experiences, that the interaction between contributors has become an emotional effort to validate the “self” as understood by the “self”.
From Psychology: “Literature allows readers to access intimate emotional aspects of a person’s character that would not be obvious otherwise. It benefits the psychological development and understanding of the reader. For example, it allows a person to access emotional states from which the person has distanced himself or herself. An entry written by D. Mitchell featured in The English Journal explains how the author used young adult literature in order to re-experience the emotional psychology she experienced as a child which she describes as a state of “wonder”. Hogan also explains that the temporal and emotional amount which a person devotes to understanding a character’s situation in literature allows literature to be considered “ecological[ly] valid in the study of emotion”. This can be understood in the sense that literature unites a large community by provoking universal emotions. It also allows readers to access cultural aspects that they are not exposed to thus provoking new emotional experiences. Authors choose literary device according to what psychological emotion he or she is attempting to describe, thus certain literary devices are more emotionally effective than others. Furthermore, literature is being more popularly regarded as a psychologically effective research tool. It can be considered a research tool because it allows psychologists to discover new psychological aspects and it also allows psychologists to promote their theories. For example, the print capacity available for literature distribution has allowed psychological theories such as Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs to be universally recognized.”
Therefore, when attempts are made to associate the applied variations of text with different methods for comprehension of the context of the UB, it has become “forbidden” by some to even imply that there can be a “deeper” meaning to the content of its text as might be examined through different methods, which then implies that the lower-level, emotional understanding, dominates those of the higher-level of deep thinking.
BB
Midi wrote:
“Therefore, when attempts are made to associate the applied variations of text with different methods for comprehension of the context of the UB, it has become “forbidden” by some to even imply that there can be a “deeper” meaning to the content of its text as might be examined through different methods, which then implies that the lower-level, emotional understanding, dominates those of the higher-level of deep thinking.”That is quite a statement and more than a little judgmental. You are essentially saying that if some don’t accept the ‘creative’ interpretations of others then it is because they are using low-level thinking while the ‘creative’ interpreter’s thinking is superior.
I have been active on this forum for years and I have never seen anyone’s attempt to find meaning in TUB “forbidden”. Here’s what I have seen though. Sometimes, and it’s quite rare, someone will post their interpretation of TUB in a way that is attempting to tell others how they should interpret the book for themselves. That is where I see pushback; because no one is authorized to tell someone else what the meaning of The Urantia Book is for the other person.
I see no harm in creative reading as an individual approach to understand the meaning; if that is what works for that individual. I am wary, though, of someone sharing their creative reading interpretations as if they are true for everyone.
Profound and thought provoking reply, Midi!
I appreciate Keryn’s thoughtful and creative/critical reading of Midi’s post. I’m left wondering what you found so impressive BB? Can you read motive and intent in his post? Did you also detect self importance/superiority and the related insinuations toward others (unnamed but classified and stereotyped)? That would require critical analysis as per the topic you began here.
Per the website you referenced, I would suggest that those skills and process described should also be applied to that which is written and posted by readers at websites like this one. From above: ““Creative reading is defined as reading for implied and inferred meanings, appreciative reactions, an critical evaluation….”
Midi says above: “Therefore, when attempts are made to associate the applied variations of text with different methods for comprehension of the context of the UB, it has become “forbidden” by some to even imply that there can be a “deeper” meaning to the content of its text as might be examined through different methods, which then implies that the lower-level, emotional understanding, dominates those of the higher-level of deep thinking.”
An interesting claim don’t you think and with significant implications? Midi evidently feels dominated by those who are inferior in critical/creative thinking than he himself claims to be. Hmmmmm…………. Do you know what results when a declared conclusion is based on a faulty premise? ….a false conclusion results.
Sometimes “deeper meanings” are neither deeper or meaningful….just subjective, speculative and wishful thinking or the desired so called confirmation of misconception. Just sayin’………….
BB asks in his original post: “Is it forbidden to approach TUB by using creative/critical reading as a literary tool?”
It might be interesting to apply the following to that original post: “…..implied and inferred meanings, appreciative reactions, an critical evaluation….”. So, let’s deconstruct the original question:
“Is it forbidden….” implies there exists those who claim such authority.
“…to approach….using creative/critical reading….” implies many or some do not already use such tools in study of the UB.
Can you see the implications and inferences in the question??
Three years ago, almost to the date, BB started this topic back on page 15:
“Creative reading”… Are we allowed to approach UB in that manner?
Funny how some things never change.
An interesting claim don’t you think and with significant implications? Midi evidently feels dominated by those who are inferior in critical/creative thinking than he himself claims to be. Hmmmmm…………. Do you know what results when a declared conclusion is based on a faulty premise? ….a false conclusion results.
Yes Bradly, I do find it an interesting claim that you have made, which it would seem by your statement, that you have validated any claim being made, although it would seem to be your claim?
You state: “Midi evidently feels dominated by those who are inferior in critical/creative thinking than he himself claims to be.” Where you are the person making a claim based on your opinion of what I have stated because, you have not phrased it in the form of a question(?), therefore you think that you know what I have written and in what context it was written. This is the underlying premiss to my original post, where you have made a claim that your conclusion is what I have said or the meaning behind the text in question. Based on various psychological definitions your response is an emotional one, and having presented your own “false conclusion”, where you state “a false conclusion” is defined as “faulty premise”, which has not been argued or debated, it can be assumed your direct response indicates that my assessment as posted is not allowed, by your standard.
Not to mansion that you presume to put words in my mouth based on your misinterpretation, or maybe just to present a false conclusion to satisfy your emotional distress?
Many years ago I took a “Reading Comprehension 101” course where one of the exercises was to listen to a short story, specifically written in such a way as to hide specific details and the nature of the first person character narrating the short story. Out of the 33 students in the class, only one was able to present an accurate assessment from the text being that it was written specifically to show how an author can present facts within the narrative without having to present details behind the implied reason for the story. Many speculations were presented but all were incorrect other that those presented by that one person.
I’m sure that if specific sections of the Urantia Book were taken, and actually digested as literally presented, that I could present UB text which the average reader would have no idea of what is being presented without defining or attempting to define the actual words used and the characters being presented. Even when taking the definitions of those characters, it would not be possible to ascertain what the authors are attempting to present to the reader. As in the following:
(7.11) 0:4.13 Paradise is not a creator; it is a unique controller of many universe activities, far more of a controller than a reactor. Throughout the material universes Paradise influences the reactions and conduct of all beings having to do with force, energy, and power, but Paradise itself is unique, exclusive, and isolated in the universes. Paradise represents nothing and nothing represents Paradise. It is neither a force nor a presence; it is just Paradise.
So I ask you, what is paradise?
Here is the UB’s definition of PARADISE:
(7.9) 0:4.11 PARADISE is a term inclusive of the personal and the nonpersonal focal Absolutes of all phases of universe reality. Paradise, properly qualified, may connote any and all forms of reality, Deity, divinity, personality, and energy — spiritual, mindal, or material. All share Paradise as the place of origin, function, and destiny, as regards values, meanings, and factual existence.
Also, take into consideration that there are 56 notations in the UB for the following, “paradise is”, therefore explain to me how any normal reader can actually know what “paradise is”, without using additional analysis where ever it has been presented.
(179:5.4) In instituting this remembrance supper, the Master, as was always his habit, resorted to parables and symbols. He employed symbols because he wanted to teach certain great spiritual truths in such a manner as to make it difficult for his successors to attach precise interpretations and definite meanings to his words. In this way he sought to prevent successive generations from crystallizing his teaching and binding down his spiritual meanings by the dead chains of tradition and dogma. In the establishment of the only ceremony or sacrament associated with his whole life mission, Jesus took great pains to suggest his meanings rather than to commit himself to precise definitions. He did not wish to destroy the individual’s concept of divine communion by establishing a precise form; neither did he desire to limit the believer’s spiritual imagination by formally cramping it. He rather sought to set man’s reborn soul free upon the joyous wings of a new and living spiritual liberty.
It seems like Jesus would like a little imagination here.
Formal cramping destroys divine communion.
So I ask you, what is paradise? Here is the UB’s definition of PARADISE:
(7.9) 0:4.11 PARADISE is a term inclusive of the personal and the nonpersonal focal Absolutes of all phases of universe reality. Paradise, properly qualified, may connote any and all forms of reality, Deity, divinity, personality, and energy — spiritual, mindal, or material. All share Paradise as the place of origin, function, and destiny, as regards values, meanings, and factual existence.
Also, take into consideration that there are 56 notations in the UB for the following, “paradise is”, therefore explain to me how any normal reader can actually know what “paradise is”, without using additional analysis where ever it has been presented.
I agree with you that readers must use additional analysis/ speculation/ creative devices in order to attempt to discover for themselves “what paradise is”. Speaking for myself only, the question of “what paradise is” doesn’t really engage my quest for spiritual growth and development. I take it on faith that there is a thing known as Paradise and that, when I have evolved enough to know more about it, I will be provided with the means to more fully understand it.
That is what being agondonters is all about; to have faith in things not seen. Also, to accept that we are not given all knowledge the moment we demand it, like children. There is a time and a season for knowledge of the cosmos to be known – our wisdom (individually and collectively on Urantia) must evolve first.
101:4.2 Mankind should understand that we who participate in the revelation of truth are very rigorously limited by the instructions of our superiors. We are not at liberty to anticipate the scientific discoveries of a thousand years. Revelators must act in accordance with the instructions which form a part of the revelation mandate. We see no way of overcoming this difficulty, either now or at any future time. We full well know that, while the historic facts and religious truths of this series of revelatory presentations will stand on the records of the ages to come, within a few short years many of our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision in consequence of additional scientific developments and new discoveries. These new developments we even now foresee, but we are forbidden to include such humanly undiscovered facts in the revelatory records. Let it be made clear that revelations are not necessarily inspired. The cosmology of these revelations is not inspired. It is limited by our permission for the co-ordination and sorting of present-day knowledge. While divine or spiritual insight is a gift, human wisdom must evolve.
I find the description/definition of Paradise clear enough for me, according to my comprehension:
The Eternal Isle of Paradise
11:0.1 (118.1) PARADISE is the eternal center of the universe of universes and the abiding place of the Universal Father, the Eternal Son, the Infinite Spirit, and their divine co-ordinates and associates. This central Isle is the most gigantic organized body of cosmic reality in all the master universe. Paradise is a material sphere as well as a spiritual abode. All of the intelligent creation of the Universal Father is domiciled on material abodes; hence must the absolute controlling center also be material, literal. And again it should be reiterated that spirit things and spiritual beings are real.11:0.2 (118.2) The material beauty of Paradise consists in the magnificence of its physical perfection; the grandeur of the Isle of God is exhibited in the superb intellectual accomplishments and mind development of its inhabitants; the glory of the central Isle is shown forth in the infinite endowment of divine spirit personality — the light of life. But the depths of the spiritual beauty and the wonders of this magnificent ensemble are utterly beyond the comprehension of the finite mind of material creatures. The glory and spiritual splendor of the divine abode are impossible of mortal comprehension. And Paradise is from eternity; there are neither records nor traditions respecting the origin of this nuclear Isle of Light and Life.
So….what then might the purpose of speculation be in this circumstance or that which is “…utterly beyond the comprehension of the finite mind….” and “…are impossible of mortal comprehension.”?? Logic, reason, analysis, and creative/critical reading will not bring more comprehension I do not think than the information provided for our education and illumination in Paper 11…and elsewhere.
Login to reply to this topic.
Not registered? Sign up here.