2 2 S p i r i t ua l i t y S t u d i e s 5 - 1 S p r i n g 2 0 1 9 ing to consider that probably also our feelings, to the extent they are creations of our biological equipment, do not correspond very well to reality itself; the knowing-potential of our conscious states opens even deeper question, which we will refer to briefly in the conclusion. Anyway, it is quite possible that our language is severely limited in its ability to grasp the true reality of that in which we live. We looked at scientific language when we considered scientific theories. Ordinary language seems to exhibit additional problems (which can also be its strong side in many respects), which are connected to its vagueness, nature of meaning and categories and so on. It is worth consideration in relation to our topic that cognitive linguist George Lakoff says that so called cognitive models need not be consistent. He and other cognitive linguists postulate these cognitive structures as an explanation of how we understand words and concepts, but also of how our knowledge of the world, or at least that part of it which is connected with the structure of language, is implemented: “We use our cognitive models in trying to understand the world. In particular, we use them in theorizing about the world, in the construction of scientific theories as well as in theories of the sort we all make up. It is common for such theories not to be consistent with one another. The cognitive status of such models permits this.” (Lakoff 1987, 118). Lakoff investigates both scientific and folk cognitive models and finds that indeed they do not need to be consistent with one another. This gives them, in my opinion, paradoxically also their strength, because we can grasp some phenomena of the world even if we are not able to construct complete, consistent and exact theories about them. On the other hand, this inconsistency may suggest that our language is really not able to grasp reality in its fullness. 10 Conclusion What we said earlier about scientific theories holds also for our philosophical theories, for religious conceptions and so on. Because of that it maybe would be wise not to take them so seriously and to consider them rather to be only the tools which help us – to work on us, to suffer less, to live better and more meaningfully, to be happy and joyful, to be better, and so on. If they work, there has to be some truth in them, in my opinion, but it need not be, as we said about science, more than a keyhole view at what reality really is. Here, the question of spiritual and mystical experiences opens up: Are these experiences of unity, connectedness, peace, unconditional love, stillness or being beyond time a way to experience reality as it is in itself? We do not know, although according to the reports, it often feels like it. But even here there seem to be differences, including maybe the differences in depth and stage. So, looking from outside, we should be humble. These reports also often talk of deep (and peace-bringing) not-knowing, anyway.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MzgxMzI=