CC BY
1
ХРИСТИАНСКОЕ ЧТЕНИЕ
Научный журнал Санкт-Петербургской Духовной Академии Русской Православной Церкви
№ 1 2024
Протоиерей Вацлав Ежек
Специфика религиозных форм взаимодействия и их актуальность для современных проблем общения
УДК 316.28+316.77:26/27 DOI 10.47132/1814-5574_2024_1_49 EDN XGVASJ
Аннотация: Данная статья посвящена изучению некоторых элементов религиозной коммуникации и теории, с фокусировкой на иудеохристианский контекст. Автор считает, что многие аспекты и проблемы, связанные с современной коммуникативной теорией и проблемами, уже присутствуют в этой религиозной традиции и открывают возможности для размышлений и решений. Такие проблемы, как отчуждение, одиночество, иллюзия, обман, а также базовая диалектика и разрыв отношений содержания и формы, присутствуют и решаются в этих религиозных традициях. Автор основывается на наблюдении, что обнародование и сам объем информации могут привести к путанице и искажениям, препятствующим возможности значимого общения. Коммуникация может парадоксальным образом отрицать себя своими собственными средствами.
Ключевые слова: коммуникация, религия, иудаизм и христианство, современная коммуникативная теория.
Об авторе: Протоиерей Вацлав Ежек
Доктор богословия, PhD, доцент кафедры церковной истории и византийских исследований Прешовского университета, Словакия. E-mail: [email protected] https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9521-7963
Для цитирования: Ежек В., прот. Специфика религиозных форм взаимодействия и их актуальность для современных проблем общения // Христианское чтение. 2024. № 1. С. 49-66.
Статья поступила в редакцию 25.06.2023; одобрена после рецензирования 24.11.2023; принята к публикации 20.12.2023.
KHRISTIANSKOYE CHTENIYE [Christian Reading]
Scientific Journal Saint Petersburg Theological Academy Russian Orthodox Church
No. 1 2024
Archpriest Vâclav Jezek
Specifics of religious forms of communication and their relevance towards contemporary issues in communication
UDK 316.28+316.77:26/27 DOI 10.47132/1814-5574_2024_1_49 EDN XGVASJ
Abstract: The following article concerns itself with some elements of religious communication and theory, focusing on the Judeo-Christian environment. We believe, that many aspects and issues related to contemporary communicational theory and challenges are already present in this religious tradition and offer avenues for reflection and solutions. Problems such as alienation, solitude, illusion, deception and the basic dialectic and fracture of the content/form relationship are present and addressed in these religious traditions. Further we draw on the fundamental observation that the promulgation and sheer volume of communication can bring confusion and distortion hindering the very possibility of meaningful communication. Communication can paradoxically deny itself through its own means.
Keywords: Communication, Religion, Judeo-Christianity, contemporary communicational theory. About the author: Archpriest Vaclav Jezek
Doctor of Theology, Doctor of Philosophy, Doctor Hab., associate professor of Department of Church History and Byzantine Studies at University of Presov, Slovakia. E-mail: [email protected] https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9521-7963
For citation: Jezek V., archpriest. Specifics of religious forms of communication and their relevance towards contemporary issues in communication. Khristianskoye Chteniye, 2024, no. 1, pp. 49-66.
The article was submitted 25.06.2023; approved after reviewing 24.11.2023; accepted for publication 20.12.2023.
The following account is a reflection on forms of communication and communicational theory present in the Judish and Christian religious setting. We draw on parallels between contemporary issues and problems in communication and this religious tradition and attempt to draw some conclusions. We observe that many issues which relate to freedom, to communion, to personalism and to the substance/form dialectic are all to present in the religious discourse and have something to offer in terms of the contemporary debates.
We do not argue from a theistic point of view but from the point of view of the mechanics of the religious discourse itself. Surprisingly perhaps the same concerns appear here between various traditions which basically aim to facilitate a free flow of communication. The basic issue in this religious tradition was its concern about "content" of communication. Not in its moral or ethical context but in terms of its ability to convey and express the content of any communication. Religious concerns here realised that the form of communication is not necessarily linked with its content. We ask ourselves whether religious forms of communication or religious content in communication run a less risk of being autopoetic than other forms of communication. The upside of this is to establish whether religious forms of communication are more society friendly in terms of their inherent ability to strengthen and build communities.
A more interdisciplinary approach to understanding the phenomenon of communication in the context of religion can also open up new horizons in our view of the positive or negative role of the internet and other media.
Unlimited and limited communication
It is obvious that in any discussions on communication we must ask ourselves whether communication can be perfect and flawless. Perfect and flawless in the sense of fulfilling its communicational objective. Not all communication is true to its objective from one reason or another. For example, the underdeveloped communication of an infant who cannot speak, only imperfectly conveys his or her desires to be heard on some matter even though he or she knows exactly what she or he wants. I can have a perfect idea or desire to ask for water when I am thirsty, but due to some language barrier or inability to convey this desire my communication can be imperfect and does not achieve its goal, such as for example receiving a glass of water1.
We can state that not everything can be communicated either because of the imperfection of the communication and its form itself or because the content to be communicated is too complex to be communicated. There are things which cannot be communicated or by extension explained.
Religious traditions generally postulate some divine being, who somehow communicates with the world. Religious communication therefore brings in another factor to be considered, that is a transcendental entity, existing aside from our human-to-human interaction. Further, usually in religious theory, there is a belief, that there is a barrier between humanity and a divine being because of sin or other reasons. This essentially means that there is some inherent flaw in communication.
On the other hand, from a positivistic point of view there can be a belief as is the case in the Judish and Christian tradition, that God is essentially good, and his communication is all-inclusive. The problem in any misunderstandings lies in the human being. Whether one is a theist or not the important point to emphasise here is the predetermined goodness of communication and the communicator.
For example, Psalm 19 states: "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he sat a tabernacle for the sun'. Further the psalm continues: " Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber,
1 On the issue of misscommunication see [Buarqoub, 2019].
and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof. The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making the wise simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing of the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes."
In this beautiful passage we are told in clear terms that everything which is creation is at the same time a communication. Every object, or creature in this world is in a way a communication that is communication from God. Furthermore this communication is not only a communication between two subjects, but an ontological communication, since here we have a communication between the Creator and his creation, who he "knows" because he has created it. On the other hand creation itself has to find a way how to communicate with God, since the ability to communicate has been disrupted by sin.
Here the religious setting would not agree with a kind of alienated silent universe which produces anguish. Pascals words would find no meaning here. "When I consider the short duration of my life, swallowed up in an eternity before and after, the little space I fill engulfed in the infinite immensity of spaces whereof I know nothing, and which know nothing of me, I am terrified. The eternal silence of these infinite spaces frightens me" [Pascal, 1995, 144].
What is even more fascinating is that the sentences of the psalm relating to the bridegroom can be understood Christologically, since it is through Christ that a new "form of communication" is possible, a very intimate one indeed. The incarnation is not only a new form of communication but a union. In Christian terms a union between God and man in the one person of Christ. Ideally this union would render communication perfect from the Christian point of view. The image of the bridegroom as coming out of the chamber in the Christian context symbolises how God in the form of Christ is reaching out to creation, even if creation itself has moved away.
The biblical perspective resonates with an emphasis from the realities of life, where all born creatures communicate with their "parents/creators". There is a sense of dependency a dependency which in communication is not always accepted or necessary. The Biblical perspective also points to the fundamental fact, that "existing" means to some extent the necessity of communicating. Without communication it is difficult to ascertain existence. On the other hand, given today's realities one may state that communication does not imply "existence". Further we would not subscribe here to an existentialist notion of essence coming after existence. Rather here in religious terms the essence precedes existence.
Given modern forms of communication, for example, fake news points to something not existing even though communicated. The inspirational question which we may ask is, whether artificial forms of communication that is a man-made communicational environment has the same capacity to form a relationship between substance and beingness of reality and its outward expression/existence achieved through communication. Whether there is a distortion on the way between truth and expression of truth? If truth means beingness. The relationship between communication and existence is nothing new in philosophy (see: [Disse, 2018]).
For a believer, a related question is the issue of how we experience God and his communication. A God whose substance so to speak is ineffable or impossible to understand. Here the journey of the theist and atheist coincides to an extent. Both need to discern the "lost content" of communication. The non-theist must look for it in the overall communicative context and the inadequacies of communication.
The main issue here is the relational aspect between two sides of a communication. Many authors have emphasised the relational aspect of communication and drew consequences from this (for example: [Buber, 1937]). As Buber writes, "All real living is meeting" [Buber, 1937, 25]. The distinctive input from religious communicational theory is its inherent positivistic belief in the relationship between two aspects or two sides of communication. In other words there is no communication "into space" but communication by necessity requires partnership.
Here we can observe that Christian theology generally has moved to a more holistic emphasis on the experience of God. Thus the experience of God is not limited to a rational aspect of the human being, or to a bodily one, but encompasses all human aspects. Even modern general reflections such as the Conceptual metaphor theory are attempts to understand in a more organic and complex way the relationship between reality, communication and the formation of the individual and his or her personhood [Lakoff, Johnson, 1980].
Within Roman Catholic theology amongst its different currents, we can also discern a concern for a holistic understanding of the experience of God. The cognitive process implies not only an intellectual process, but also a holistic cognitive process. Communication is not merely an intellectual process. This is a fact understood by many modern Roman Catholic theologians. It is clear that stressing the intellectual process at the expense of the experiential is a mistake. The reason we are mentioning this is that this attitude is essentially a return to an understanding that the "entire being" has to communicate in order for communication to be of truly revelatory nature.
In various religious traditions God also seems to communicate in verbal forms. This directness of religious communication accompanies the kind of indirect communication we commented on. Any communication from God is a form of revelation. Revelation is a way of breaking our relationship with the matrix of reality. The problem however is that even if the deity communicates directly, we are still unable to hear clearly. We are left looking through a glass darkly (1 Cor 13:12). Here the words come from the apostle Paul. Paul in fact draws on the limits of communication if this is not accompanied by love. "If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal" (1 Cor 13:1). Here it is clear that the medium of communication is not so important as its content.
Any form of media serving communication must mediate truth or love according to Saint Paul, otherwise it will be devoid of substance. The implication here is that regardless of the media used something more is required for communication to be meaningful. Here we can speak of an ultimate "self-sufficiency" of communication, which is possibly related to today's communicational theory. This self-sufficiency can however lead to alienation, which religious systems reject.
In Biblical terms mediation was an important aspect of communication. Due to sin, or due to human limitations, the human being in the Biblical context was often unable to listen to God or understand God. It seems, that in communication with God, some form of mediation is or was needed. One such famous biblical mediator was Moses. We can remind ourselves of the story of Moses who at Sinai communicates directly with God, whilst the Israelites are left below waiting to be told what was going on through the mediation of Moses. In Exodus 19:9 we read: "And the Lord said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee and believe thee for ever. And Moses told the words of the people unto the Lord'. One can inquire here, as to why did not God talk with the Israelites directly, why he chose to talk from a mountain. Why all the mystery?
In another passage we read: " These words the Lord spoke to all your assembly at the mountain out of the midst of the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness with a loud voice; and he added no more. And he wrote them upon two tables of stone, and gave them to me. And when you heard the voice out of the midst of the darkness while the mountain was burning with fire, you came near to me, all the heads of your tribes, and your elders; and you said, "Behold, the LORD our God has shown us his glory and greatness, and we have heard his voice out of the midst of the fire; we have this day seen God speak with man and man still live" (Det. 5:22-25, RSV).
In the Judaic tradition, there were limits to the knowledge of the divine, which implies, also a limit in communication, because communication thus cannot fully transmit the Divinity. There are limits to what we can receive or understand in terms of Gods essence. Paradoxically these limits on what one can and cannot know about God, serve as an assurance, that our communication cannot be subject to our own human independence from God, here understood as pure subjectivity.
In the general sense of the word, religious systems believe, that we need God as a reference point to understand the world around us or in another words his creation. Creation makes sense through God. But if we stipulate the essentially, we cannot understand God, this means that there will always be a certain space for a dynamic movement of understanding, which is a constantly unfolding process, involving a constant discussion, and communication, which will never end, but which did in the end have its concrete embodiment in the incarnation of Christ.
According to this Christological perspective the New Testament revelation offered through Christ presents new possibilities. Here again the meaning of Pauls words quoted above have a futuristic resonance to them (1 Cor 13:12). We will see face to face. In a way absolute communication is offered here. As the New Testament describes, Christ was here in bodily form among human beings, and spoke directly to his apostles. His communication was of a direct nature. Presumably more is to come. This implies a dynamic understanding of communication as something evolving or developing.
However, even here there is a theological position, which implies, that even though Christ communicated with his surroundings, this communication did not imply immediate understanding on behalf of the apostles or others. The Pentecost event in this respect is an event of "clarification", of understanding.
Our words imply a certain paradox, it seems that communication needs further communication to be communication. We do not have the space here to analyse further derivative concepts also related to religious discourse, which include message, relation, and so on. To avoid this conundrum religious communication posits a divine being as a kind of reference point.
In terms of communication and mediation one can draw attention to the person of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit in terms of Christian theology is a kind of mediator a kind of "clarifier". It is the Holy Spirit who reveals Christ to us. For all purposes it is interesting to stress that the way the Holy Spirit reveals God or Christ is through freedom. This freedom is not related to the medium of communication, but to the unpredictable nature of the communication. It maintains an unpredictability in communication therefore liberating it from its own imprisonment.
The Gospels themselves imply the necessity of freedom in the context of communication. Here this freedom is not related to the content of the communication or its form but to the freedom necessary for our ability to receive and understand this communication. One must be essentially free to receive communication. In Christian terms this freedom is offered through the Holy Spirit. In philosophical terms what this means is that all communication is liberated from its determinacy that is from its own limitations. Freedom to accept communication presupposes humility.
A close inspection at the Gospels reveals the sense that communication of any sort is always limited. Any well intended communication by virtue of its limited nature fails to convey all. In John 16:12-14, Christ seems to imply, that what he communicated to the apostles is simply not enough, and that knowledge through the Holy Spirit is necessary, the very same Spirit that will come. "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you". To compare this with a modern situation we may refer to an article by Quarry and Ramirez, where it is stated, that regardless of the best intentions in developing communication, here in the context of a strategy of communication regarding land law in Africa, there can always be a problem. Even if all the mechanisms of communication were upheld in this situation something went wrong, and whether it was caused by good or bad intentions is not so important as the fact that all was done to achieve "perfect communication", which was not however successful [Quarry, Ramirez, 2012].
Further interestingly, 1 Corinthians remarks: "And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But as it is written, Eye hat not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man's receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ".
In this fascinating statement we have the implication that first knowledge and its communication are two different things. This is because knowledge especially in relation to God is something inexpressible. Whatever means of communication we choose, — speech, rhetorical embellishments, etc., this does not guarantee the correct transmission of knowledge. As Mallett put it: "Knowledge as such, although very real, is hard to quantify. Its communication however is not" [Mallett, 2009, 1]. Here for Paul the instrument to check the limits of communication is the Holy Spirit. If we strip the Holy Spirit from its divinity for non-theistic purposes, we may state that it is here the principle of calibration of discernment which is needed in such situations of communicational limitation. Further, obviously, the Apostle implies, that something more is necessary than simply good and rhetorical communication for truth/substance to be revealed. The hearer must be addressed in his or her context and situation. This implies freedom.
Since human beings and their personal constitutions are inexpressible, complex and diverse, and the universe/creation is unpredictable and limitless, communication needs to be able to adapt itself to each particular individual person, conditions and situation. Its content cannot change, if it is to remain only communication, but its mode of expression yes. Here Christian theology of the Holy Spirit expresses this fact. As the Creator or the Universe for that matter are limitless and inexpressible, so the freedom of communication in the Holy Spirit remains eternally free. For Christian eschatology the work of the Holy Spirit will be endless as God's substance is endless. The difference between this theological perspective and the non-theological is that in the latter communication is static it is flat, since it expresses a finiteness of reality. The dangers inherent in "flat" communication is its distortive nature.
This leads us to ask ourselves the central question. Can communication as such regardless of its form be liberated from its apriori tendency to distortion? Can we state that religious communicational systems are "better off" than others because of their inherent systemic openness to an acknowledgement that all is not well with communication? Here lies an inherent paradox because it is always assumed that religious communication is apriori absolutistic in its content, but this is not the case. It seems that religious communication can produce a healthy sense of allopoetic acknowledgement. Here we understand allopoetic as producing something else than its own system. If for any other reason than for its openness. This does not mean that religious communication is free of inherent totalitarianism, but it certainly by virtue of its movement contains elements of indeterminate freedom.
In a sense religious communication usually comes from and returns to a "society" not to an "individual". Even the most individualistic religious systems rely one form or another in relation to communion or community. Any loss of community results in detachment and in the greater autonomy of communication which is not always positive. "...while allopoetic technocratic and informational societies push the system toward a detached tendency. High-tech, consumer society needs mobile, detached agents (producers and consumers), with less drive to attach, and more motivation to buy, and to be mobile" [Lâzâr, 2011, 104]. The basic human Judeo-Christian belief is that "revelation" appears and acts through communities. Does the contemporary technocratic scene facilitate such a community building environment?
Generally Christian mission has learned a lot of important lessons in terms of communication. For example, the Bible is one of the most well-known books in the world. The lesson Christianity has learned so far is, that no matter how well known something is and no matter how often it is talked about and discussed this does not automatically result in change or successful communication. Here the simple "availability" of a religious book is no guarantee of its promulgation. Many have read the Bible but where not "touched by it". More recently for example, the inundation of Christian programs on television which occurred in the eighties of the twentieth century did not produce such a quantitative or qualitative result. Knowing therefore is not believing. The success has not come regardless of the breaking of the various stereotypes of religious communication [Kimberly, 1987].
We may state that this development has implications for communicational theory. However perfect communication may be this does not guarantee full and meaningful transmission of content or its acceptance. Earlier on in the early Church the apostles realised that without communication and transmission there would be now acceptance of the Christian faith. This is the reason for intense missionary journeys of people such as apostle Paul, "spreading the word". However, it was soon realized that a simple promulgation of the word is simply not enough. Something more is needed. The exposure of the content of communication even its holistic "presentation" is simply not enough. Modern communication theory follows a similar positivism. Common access, availability, information available to all are seen as ends in themselves for "truth" of one sort to appear. Similarly in the former totalitarian and communist regimes, the availability of information or in other words only one kind of information did not mean that the population accepted it as "truthful".
As we have implied theology stresses a holistic understanding of communication in that it stresses the necessity of communication adequately expressing the relationship of substance and form. In fact, this is the content of theology focusing on providing a perfect balance and unity between expression and beingness and substance. Theology further asks the fundamental question about the aims and goals of communication, whether it purports to convey the truth or not. We may ask whether modern forms of communication truly desire a perfect alignment of content and communication. For example, selling products and communicating through commercials does not necessarily mean that the seller is desiring to tell the truth about his or her product, but the desire primarily here is to "sell". Therefore, communication is apriori not related to the truth or substance of a product offered.
Religious thought in a sense runs counter to the modern notion that any information is positive and offers a taxonomy of its own based not on negating or controlling information but on assessing its inherent relationship between what it is and what it expresses. In the Christian patristic tradition, there is a term called kenosis basically meaning self-emptying. It is used in relation to Christ and his incarnation viewed as an expression of such a degree of humility thereby resulting in a form of "self-emptying". This self-emptying paradoxically means a reaffirmation of content. Self-emptying here can be understood as being open to critical self-reflection as considering oneself and one's communication as limited in one way or another.
Often in modern forms of communication the sheer quantity of information plays the role of supplanting the truthfulness or reality of this information. Basic tools of all propaganda aim to inundate the recipients with information thereby practically preventing its assessment
and an analysis of its truthfulness. This is a reversal of the process of self-emptying and can be termed as "self-filling".
In fact the sheer volume of information available through various forms of communication has been simply understood as another positive feature of "education". But education and the availability of information are different matters. The idea of a perpetually learning society perhaps brought us into an illusion that all is automatically educative and serves education. A concept appeared in this context called the "Big Data" [Osborne, Houston, Lido, 2019].
The downside of this reflection that an inherent "untruthfulness" of communication leads to alienation. Solitude can be according to us a result of indeterminacy and inadequate communication.
Communication and personhood
We must remind ourselves that communication serves to build up personhood. As Arendt put it "For the confirmation of my identity I depend entirely upon other people; and it is the great saving grace of companionship for solitary men that it makes them "whole" again, saves them from the dialogue of thought in which one remains always equivocal, restores the identity which makes them speak with the single voice of one unexchangeable person" [Arendt, 1958, 478].
The Biblical tradition places an emphasis on the human person understood as a complex reality operating and communicating on many layers not just on one layer. As the Bible clearly demonstrates divine-human and human to human interaction, encompasses touch, smell, anger, emotion, and many other aspects. It also believes in a more spiritual dimension of reality and communication. All these aspects must be present to enable true communication.
On the other hand, todays presuppositions may have a more exclusive understanding of communication, media etc., where only one aspect of interaction can be present to make communication fully meaningful. There was a widespread suggestion that online education or other forms can supplant fully the lack of physical contact. As the Covid-19 crisis has demonstrated, it seems that it is not sufficient "solely" to interact through the internet to establish full personal relationships.
The point we are emphasising is that we are not doubting the form or content of modern communication as such, but we are arguing that if it is not inclusive in the sense of utilising all forms of interaction available to the human being something can be missing and therefore in the end such communication can be destructive. In a theistic position it is God who provides the missing forms of interaction which the human being does not always discover. God not only communicates but he explains. This explanation is not some form of indoctrination but a form of overcoming the limits of communication and its media. This is the problem here. We do not know what is or is not sufficient for meaningful communication.
The Biblical tradition for example or the rich Orthodox liturgical tradition imply, that communication between the divine and the human is multidimensional. But this is not only between God and man but between human beings themselves. God gave ears to the human being to be able to "hear" God. This is not only a theological expression but relates to the fact that all need to have the same instruments of communication to be able to communicate. Without this hearing mechanism (in fact the liturgical hymns are full of this imagery), one cannot hear God. Without multiple forms of communication, one cannot understand God or his fellow human being.
In Genesis 3:8, the human being "hears" God, who walks around. Thus, God is heard even when "he is not speaking". In fact, the first people heard God moving around in the garden even after they had sinned (3:10). There is a belief inherent here, that no matter what the human being is able to communicate if there is a desire to reach out to be in communion. Just as people remaining in a coma are able to remain functional and communicative.
The basic tenant of communication in religious terms is the structuring and facilitating of personhood. Here just as God the person wants to communicate as person.
The problem obviously emerges when communication ceases to form persons and personhood and on the contrary "depersonalises" the human being. Here we can mention some negative aspects of contemporary forms of media communication.
On a speculative note, we may state that any communication written down, or expressed through various forms of media so to speak "departs" from the person who made this communication and is left "outside" his or her control. Usually such a person cannot explain or answer questions about this communication any longer since he or she or it has "lost control" of this communication. Sooner or later any form of communication "stands alone". It takes a life of its own whether we like or not. It remains to be interpreted or accepted but the criteria for its understanding and acceptance require "new" forms of communication and interaction.
Further the communication itself can be devoid of that complex personal and emotional aspect, which makes it a communication related to communion, which is the basis of the ecclesial but also general communal experience. The moment a communication is placed in a form of a concrete media, that very moment the content and the form departs from the one stating these things and occupies a certain middle ground between the one communicating and the one who is the recipient of this communication. In this middle ground the communication subsists so to speak, and gains a life of its own, independent of the communicator and the one communicated to. Is then communication true to "itself"?
So even if someone states something or communicates, this does not mean that his or her communication is "identified" with him or her, but whether we like it or not takes a life of its own. Thus for example, a communication placed on Facebook, even if placed by a certain concrete person is "out there" not necessarily having any connection with the person placing it. At best this communication can be a source of limited information about the person placing it there or a form of later interaction but this is it. It is not really Facebook, since it has no relationship with the "face" of the one communicating.
For religious discourse an identification of the communication with the one communicating it, is important, since it is then the precondition of the authentic exchange, relation and expression. This is analogous with God, since according to religious ideology what he communicates is directly linked to what "he is". Generally, the human beings due to their sins or flaws, and other issues, are unable to communicate "themselves" in this sense. As we have suggested it is often the case that what we communicated is different from what we are or mean. But God is not subject to this distortion. Here the important thing is to measure the ability or the coefficient of relation between communication and communicated content.
Once a communication is expressed it is to a certain extent out of control, since it cannot be controlled or modelled or changed for that matter. This is because it has been spoken or expressed. Of course, it can be clarified added to and so on, but the primary communication is left in space for ever and ever. It has a one-time ability or disability to form interpersonal relationships.
Once expressed the statement, text or any other form is outside objective formation or importantly, explanation. It is flat in a sense, since the personal recedes to the background and is not there anymore to guide the reader or listener on the path of understanding what was said. The communicator states something and there it is. You pick it up and do whatever you want with it. It is left to the recipient to take this communication. However, the risk here is that it is finite, in the sense, that it cannot be explained, and further, it is non personal in the sense, that it departs from us adopting a life of its own.
The question needs to be asked as to whether communication and its language offers freedom, that is whether it is not limited and facilitates personal development. Communication on the internet for example, can be limited by virtue of the media and form adopted. The limits on information and its character can limit communication and its possibilities of communion building and facilitating networks. Depersonalisation of communication means the loss of liberation or also the loss of the freedom of the person.
In terms of a practical example, we may draw attention to an example of a local Eastern Orthodox Christian parish. In one such parish, the new forms of communication stimulated
renewed pastoral and missionary activity. As part of its reaching out agenda, the parish utilised Facebook, YouTube and other similar means. However, it was observed that once people got more and more used to this form of communication, there seems to have occurred a simultaneous decline in interest among the believers to physically attend worship. Further people who were previously used to gathering physically at meetings, and councils and son on, began to increasingly rely on the internet to carry on ecclesial business. The result was that people had inadvertently lost personal contact with each other which provided for a distortion of church life. A distortion since, physical gathering forms the essence of church worship and not internet contact.
Information and communication sent through the internet in the case of this parish was normal and in terms of content the same as was usually promulgated in other forms. There was nothing wrong with it, but the lack of personal contact and gatherings had produced an environment of illusion. An illusion of personal contact which was simply not there. People consciously and unconsciously began to believe that other forms of contact apart from the personal are acceptable and sufficient. Therefore, we see that the same information communicated in different ways produces different attitudes and results. This religious example is useful for our own contemporary context because the same development can be seen in education and other areas.
These issues can lead us to an appraisal of the meaning of language generally in relation to communication. Is the freedom of language endangered through modern forms of communication? Wilhelm Humboldt speaks about the freedom of language, which is important today. There is the notion of language as epyov (Werk) and evepyeia (Tätigkeit) [Humboldt, 1836, LVII]. It is not only a linear set of signs or verbal formations, but language has an internal dynamism of movement. Here we can add that this movement can be endangered in modern forms of communication.
Thinkers such as Humboldt and others have provided general theories on language, which in a way offer insight even for our theme, since they stress the intimate link between language, society and the individual and his consciousness. But the important aspect is the stress on sensuality, emotion, psychology and on interaction in these thinkers which is similar to the religious context. Humboldts emphasis on interaction and communal understanding of language draws language into a similar platform as the religious experience of language which is relational and communal. Other writes, such as Vyacheslav Ivanov, also attempted to delineate the religious potential of language. Thus he implies that language liberates into a spiritual objectivity. Thus, he understands Church Slavonic as a unique language, because it spiritually liberates (see: [Иванов, 1995]).
Various issues with media have led some to further doubt other even more common technologies. Some authors such as Marshall Mcluhan see the dangers of using microphones during the liturgy and state that this is disruptive to the liturgy [Mcluhan, 1999].
Of course, this leads us to a broader question on whether the internet and its possibilities addresses this communal, interactive and therefore holistic aspect of language and consequently communication. In the religious context we may similarly enquire on whether religious communication through the internet and other modern means can convey that kind of broader spiritual meaning and import which religion expects. Here "spirituality" can denote a sense of limitlessness coupled with indeterminacy and freedom, which we mentioned above. Here freedom is intimately linked with the human person and his or her relations within a communal environment.
We do not have the space here to enquire on the specifics of what is religious thought, spirituality and religion or what are their mechanisms if any, especially in relation to the human person. Suffice it to state, that for example, the cognitive sciences offer new avenues for such a reflection. There are studies attempting to link religious experiences with functions of the brain and cognition [Ramachandran, 1997]. Religious experiences can be approached through neurophysiological studies on mental mechanisms or psycho cognitive approaches to religious experiences. The first one concentrates on intensive religious experiences (ecstasy) and so on [Ovied, 2006, 49].
The Psychological approaches deal with cognitive and evolutionary psychology. Unsurprisingly this method deals with mental processes in relation to religion and often start from the premise of the so called "modular mind" associated with the evolution in the Primitive context of Palaeolithic hunters and gatherers, specialising in different vital tasks [Ovied, 2006, 50]. The Modularity of the Mind associates brain function with various modules in the brain independently working on their specific tasks. This notion among other things is defended by the philosopher Jerry Fodor [Fodor, 1983].
The modularity of the Mind stipulates that if one of the parts of the brain is damaged, than it cannot function. An opposite stress is that the brain works in systems and not independent modules or regions.
The concept of Cognitive penetrability is a notion that our thinking can influence our perception. For example, thinking about money can influence is perception of a coin, which looks bigger than it could possibly be (see for ex.: [Zeimbekis, 2014]). We can similarly ask ourselves what do religious forms and issues on the internet evoke? Do they have the same potential to express ideas and notions as in personal conventional interaction? What is the interpretative possibility of the subject interacting with the internet?
Generally, more information and more possibilities have the potential to stimulate, but this can lead to a decrease in quality, a fact observed in many areas of research. More information and communicative possibilities do not necessarily involve an improvement in quality. Thus, for example, in one comment on the movie La La Land discussing its musical merits, the composer Larry Goldings, stated: "I can't argue with people who were moved by the music [in La La land]. But we're living in a culture of severely lowered standards. If people only knew how much deeper the experience could have been for them..." [Fukushima, 2017].
Even if religious notions and religiosity are only a product of social constructs, this is related to our overall concerns expressed above. These deal with communal aspects and personhood. Works such as that of Pascal Boyer, attempt to analyse religious concepts, often associating them with social needs (see: [Boyer, 2001]). A social need relates to communication and communication addresses these social needs. Consciousness is part of this dynamic. Here we may also state that consciousness is not the same as attention (see: [Montemayor, Haladjian, 2015]). In this context Webster writes: "The objective cognitive principle of Christian theology is God, s infinite knowledge of himself and all things, a share of which God communicates to creatures; the subjective cognitive principle of Christian theology is to regenerate human intelligence" [Webster, 2015, 20]. Here we may also indicate that holiness in religious contexts empowers communication and communication should be based on holiness. Holiness is here understood as an acknowledgement of communication to portray messages in their totality without a loss of substance. In Christian terms sanctity is also linked with the Eucharist. In 1 Corinthians the link between sanctity and the Eucharist is clearly attested. Here the Eucharist is an expression of the ultimate character of communication a perfect union between the communicator and the communicated but also the recipient. In 1 Cor 11:26, there is further the statement that "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come".
In religious notions of communication another important aspect is the possibility of rejection. Just as one can reject God so one can reject a particular communication. Rejection of communication is a feature of life which also an important factor to be considered.
As we have suggested above the availability of the Christian message and the Bible has clearly shown that the promulgation of any kind of communication does not paradoxically imply that this communication is "heard" or "accepted". This is as we have observed an existential cry for contemporary communicative theory. Here we can mention the Byzantine writer Symeon the New Theologian who some thousand years ago asked the similar question as we have, as to why something is not accepted regardless of its universal communication.
He answered this issue as a typical theologian would, in that any Christian who did not have Christ in himself or herself cannot be able to speak about Christ to others in a meaningful way. Translating this into modern language this would mean, that regardless
of communication and its availability if there is not "essential" link between the communicator and the communication the result of such an effort is null. He observes: "In truth those who have the skill properly to direct and heal rational souls are rare, and especially at the present time. Many, perhaps, have made a pretence of fasting and vigil and a form of godliness... As for learning many things by heart and teaching them in words, this is easy for most men, but as for eliminating the passions and acquiring the capital virtues so that they cannot be lost, very few are found [who do this]. In truth those who have the skill' (Quote 3424: Symeon the New Theologian, The Discourses, 236-237).
Further he observes that on the other hand he who is carrying Christ not only is full of grace but himself or herself shines forth this gift, thereby in a way communicating in the true sense of the word. "O grandeur of ineffable glory! O excess of love! He Who embraces all things makes His home within a mortal corruptible man, He by Whose indwelling might all things are governed, and the man becomes as a woman heavy with child. O astonishing miracle and incomprehensible deeds and mysteries of the incomprehensible God! A man carries God consciously within himself as light, carries Him Who has brought all things into being and created them, including the one who carries Him now. He carries Him within as a tressure inexpressible, unspeakable, without quality, quantity, or form, immaterial, shapeless, yet with form in beauty inexplicable, altogether simple, like light, Him Who transcends all light. And, clenching his hands at his sides, this man walks in our midst and is ignored by everyone who surrounds him. Who can then adequately explain the joy of such a man? Will he not be more blessed and more glorious than any emperor? Than whom, or than how many visible worlds, will he not be more wealthy? And in what shall such a man ever be lacking? Truly, in no way shall he lack any of Gods good things" (Quote 3437: Symeon the New Theologian, On the Mystical Life, 135).
In this example, we see various dimensions of the "spiritual man". One will not follow the spiritual man unless he is truly spiritual. On the other hand, his glory through Christ, is not necessarily seen by all automatically. A certain form of communication is needed, one that overcomes our inability to comprehend and see through sin, and one that requires the spiritual man to communicate. This religious conceptualisation is useful for our own period. Further it is emphasised that a true saint is "felt by others" there is no possibility of deception. Similarly, if we hear a commercial on a product of a renowned firm, this will undoubtedly be more respected by us than a similar commercial involving a lesser-known firm. We associate the communication with its bearer.
On another perspective in terms of religious communication, it can itself be subject to abuse. There could be an intentional abuse of the communication limiting it for subjective or other purposes. Similarly, as with religious absolutism we can generally state that the internet as a means of communication can be controlled by an ideological framework. This ideological framework can include just as anything including secular humanism, religious fundamentalism, political correctness, ideological abuse, which then determines the content of that which can or cannot be communicated. Here again the issue is with a realisation of this on the part of the person to whom it is addressed.
The Biblical Psalm (19:4) evokes the notion of a kind of "heartfelt" censorship of communication, in which we understand the truth of things by preparing our "hearing facilities", here the heart, to receive it: "Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words, to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun" (Psalm 19:4). Further: "Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my strength, and my redeemer" (Psalm 19:14). The "pure heart" functions as a kind of sifter, which sifts through communication and chooses the correct information avoiding the negative or false.
There are some suggestions that a kind of cybertheology (phrase of Spadaro) can similarly provide for a safety framework for religious contexts. This of course relates to the general possibility of advancing a notion of a cybercommunity. Can such an exist? Is it real?
Some theological theories have been brought forward, which in a way have a relation with the progress of the media and an overall idea of a broadening and deepening communion
of humanity. For example, we may mention the concept of Teilhard de Chardin and his noospher. Various ideas of universal consciousness and other global theories can provide an atmosphere or context for understanding the process of communication but in themselves are not addressing the challenges or mechanics of communication as such and its role.
Byzantine relations to communication
Much earlier authors such as for example the Byzantine Christian writers, addressed and challenged the issues related to communication and communicational theory. Here it is important to state, that experiments, and criticisms of communication were standard in much earlier periods when the technology of communication was on a basic level. Therefore a reflection on the possibilities or flaws of communication was already present from the outset of literary production.
In terms of literary expression, the Byzantine scholar Michael Psellos attempts to liberate himself from the constraints of literary form. A modern scholar comments: "Finally, no one articulates as poignantly as Psellos an aesthetics of discourse, that does not submit the pleasure of reading and the creativity of stylistic form, to either moral or ontological constraints" [Papaioannou, 2017a].
However, the definition of literature in Psellos includes more than just what literature means in the modern sense of the word. Psellos follows ancient canons of literary theory, style, rhetoric but at the same time can liberate himself from these and offer a creative framework, where literature enables the reader to find a certain freedom, which does enable him or her a more complex appreciation of the word. The word or discourse offers the reader new possibilities of interaction. As is obvious at first glance rhetoric or discourses offer more than their respective traditional definitions (р^торьк^ and ^oyoi) in Psellos. The logoi ^oyoi were expanded to cover the art of literature generally but also their context of affirming ethical dimension or learning [Papaioannou, 2017a].
One such issue relevant for communication is emotion. It has been increasingly popular to discuss emotion in the context of Psellos. We may argue that emotions in Psellos are not part of an indeterminate void of a general pathos, but on the contrary are determined by the general Christ/human dimension, which he understands as a new unity of the transcendental and human. For Psellos emotions are a standard necessity of communication. God was essentially emotional as a "being of love".
Rhetorical theory developed by Hermogenes before Psellos and others are part of Psellos ideas related to communication. Just as authors such as Hermogenes before him, Psellos employs terms of rhetorical theory. Rhetorical art is an important technique in terms of communication.
However further all these language techniques have a kind of internal morality and modality which needs to be considered. On the definition of ethos (TH9og I.378, Synopsis of Rhetoric in Similar [i.e. Political] Verses to the Same Emperor), we read:
moderation, simplicity, sincerity, and sternness,
Character is never viewed as just itself,
But is composed from simplicity and moderation,
While from moderation spring pungency and sweetness
The thought of purity is the common and customary (Psellos, Synopsis).
For authors such as Psellos, categories related to communication, including emotion, rhetorical techniques and so on primarily demonstrate the communal nature of communication. Communication to be true to its definition must involve an exchange between at least two sides. Communication can be a one-sided process, but this is considered as imperfect, as inadequate.
For example, I can look at a particular web page with some dramatic and emotional content portraying for example the suffering of an animal or individual and thereby
provoking my emotional response of one form or another. An image of suffering usually provokes sympathy or emotional congeniality. But this emotional response remains my personal private encounter without necessarily having any effect or relation to the image or its content or to the suffering object or person. Or importantly to the development of compassion and practical community building. My emotionality remains with me at my desk and computer screen without changing or improving the condition of the sufferer.
Authors such as Psellos realised the enclosing nature of various forms of media including direct speech or the written word. The challenge was to model the written word so that it could offer a holistic communicational setting. This was the task of writers of the Byzantine period. These writers stressed that any communication which is not a direct speech has a flat aspect to it. It can only express one emotion, the one chosen by the writer himself or herself. This is the text. In terms of a lively speech, there is a direct form, when the speaker can discern the emotional state of his audience and adapt his message according to these emotional states. In written communication this is not possible. Of course, this means that a speech in a living audience is more communal such as for example in a theatre setting. In Byzantium the direct experience of theatre disappeared at least to the extent prevalent in the Ancient world. Therefore the Byzantine perception of drama and theatre was a little distorted. In Byzantium Christianity replaced classical genres. For example, the hagiographical novel appeared, to cater for Christian needs [Dyck, 1986, 81].
In terms of emotionality Psellos observes: [16] "As for us we do not use the same type of composition, when we are disturbed by different emotions. The careful orator must fit what is appropriate to each state of the soul, and neither create a difference in his words, for the same emotion nor produce the same order and composition for different [emotions]" (Psellos, On Literary Composition).
Here in Psellos there is a stress on the unity, which produces ideally compassion or emotional integration. Psellos as other Byzantine writers drew on the literary theory of ancient Greek authors. These Greek authors realised the necessity of unity in communication generally.
In his poetics Aristotle mentions how unity of plot does not mean unity of the hero. That it is not always good to portray all events of a given hero attempting to show his unity. Homer avoided this pitfall by concentrating on some of the aspects of Odyssey not on all of them.
In his poetics, Aristotle defines Tragedy as describing a one-time even in contrast to epic (Poetics V. 4). He writes: "Tragedy, then, is an imitation of an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude; in language embellished with each kind of artistic ornament, the several kinds being found in separate parts of the play in the form of action, not of narrative; through pity and fear effecting the proper purgation of these emotions. By 'language embellished I mean language into which rhythm, 'harmony', and song enter. By 'the several kinds in separate parts', I mean, that some parts are rendered through the medium of verse alone, others again with the aid of song" (Aristotle, Poetics, 23: VI. 1-3).
As Papaioannou observes, Psellos links tragedy especially with pathos, or passion [Papaioannou, 2017b]. Papaioannou is also right in linking passion with emotion here. Papaioannou offers the following statement from Psellos:
"Tragedy... has as its subjects those things, that it also represents [цьцейш]; pathe and actions, whatever each might be... Tragedy represents pathe more than actions; for in all tragic dramas pathos is the protagonist. Tragedy also presents the so-called character, [fl9og]-especially during stasima, where one also finds declarations that display character, maxims, and expressions of censure. Additionally it represents, many inanimate things. Action is more difficult to establish than pathos. Tragedy does not represent ordinary actions, but only those that belong to characters that are heroic, dedicated to action, and high spirited, and especially those actions that end in pathe" [Papaioannou, 2017b].
Aristotle's ideas of tragedy as catharsis are well known. Aristotle believes that one has to be involved with the subject of the tragedy but at the same time to be distant. Thus catharsis
can be achieved. Of course, if one is part of the tragedy, this is something else, than being a mere observer.
These concepts are directly relevant to our concerns. For example, the tragic is often portrayed in the media. The tragic and destructive is associated with emotions. This can be the intention of the communication. However, for ancient theoretics it is not enough that something provokes a reaction, but it also needs to facilitate action.
Attendance of the theatre in ancient times offered a visualisation of reality. A complex integration into the communication presented at the theatre. The theatre was a kind of multimedia environment. Plato expressed similar concerns towards the theatre as we would have expressed today in relation to some modern forms of media. Plato also however noted the possibilities of deception and imitation in relation to theatre. Plato is particularly not excited about mimesis. Rather than imitation what is better is the truth. Homer is mentioned, as an imitator, which is lesser than being a person who expresses truth (600d-e, Republic). Mimesis is contrasted to diegesis. Mimesis shows, diegesis tells. Imitation and mimesis has relevance to communication theory and to the concerns we expressed above in relation to the content/form issue.
Here we may note as Ernst Curtius Auerbach, that he is right when he states that the Bible, does not fit into classical literary styles (Auerbach, 1953). This must be taken into account also in relation to a discussion of classical themes.
Conclusions
As we have seen, religious notions related to communication, here in terms of the Judish and Christian tradition offer insights which can be applied in some forms of contemporary communicational theory.
Modern communication is characterized by many paradoxes. These occur on various levels. For example, on the anthropological/social or psychological level. Modern communication has often directly or indirectly produced alienation, solitude and depersonalisation while at the same time inundating humanity with communications, information and knowledge. One would expect a natural occurrence in that, if one is inundated with various forms of communication this would naturally result in a more intimate sense of being integrally part of a community, a global community or any other community. It has not always been the case.
The unparalleled access to information and communication has not resulted in the development of feelings, compassion, emotion or communion generally. Of course, it is obvious that not all communication desires to build communion compassion and so on. But the primary ontological content of communication must relate to this if communication is to be true to its definition. Otherwise, it will be a mere technological form and not a form related to humanity.
On a philosophical or theological note, another serious paradox lies in the disruption and seizure of the relationship between content and form or substance and expression. Communication departs from its content and lies in a middle ground and if "picked" up attains a different life of its own. Communication therefore occupies a middle ground which does not necessarily connect people because this connection is precluded and disrupted by the way communication attains or loses its identity by virtue of being disconnected. This is especially the case in modern media, where the independent nature of communication is even more accented.
As we have seen the religious traditions in relation to communication have bearing on several relevant themes. There is a discernment on the internal relationship between the communicator an the communicated. The notions of God, Christ or other concepts serve if nothing else than to preserve this internal relationship. There is an internal belief that what is communicated must be truthful to its content. Here communication is not simply an etheric means but an integral part of this process. Here theology in this sense is an ultimate expression of communication, expressing its content — knowledge about God.
As we have seen even for the non-Christian Greek authors, communication had to be linked with communion building and facilitate the development of humanity and communion through such means as emotion, compassion and so on. If communication did not evoke or provoke a mutual relationship between the communication and the communicator this resulted in a deception an illusion. The sheer volume and amount of communication (the Bible here being the prime example) does not guarantee anything or any acceptance of the Bible or its message. Mere quantity, availability and so on, can betray in the end result meaning and content. The prime condition of acceptance is the internal relationship between truth and its expression.
Further, religious notions offer a solution to these issues by showing that there needs to be a taxonomic or classificatory element or instrument in assessing or rejecting communication and its flaws. These would entail a realisation of the content of communication both by the recipient and by the sender. Paradoxically communication has to self empty (kenosis) to attain content.
Sources and References
Sources
1. Aristotle, Poetics — Aristotle. Poetics / Transl. by S. H. Butcher. London: Macmillan, 1902.
2. Psellos, On Literary Composition — On Literary Composition, based on Dionysios of Halikarnassos / Transl. by A. Littlewood On Composition // Michael Psellos in Literature and Art, A Byzantine Perspective on Aesthetics and Art / Ed. by Ch. Barber and S. Papaioannou. Paris: University of Notre Dame Press, 2017. P. 66-69.
3. Symeon the New Theologian, On the Mystical Life — Symeon the New Theologian. On the Mystical Life: The Ethical Discourses / Transl. by A. Golitzin. Crestwood N.Y.: St. Vladimirs Seminary press, 1996. Vol. 2.
4. Symeon the New Theologian, The Discourses — Symeon the New Theologian. The Discourses / Transl. by C. J. de Catanzaro. Ramsey N.J.: Paulist Press, 1980.
5. Psellos, Synopsis — Synopsis of Rhetoric in Verses, based on the Hermogenian Corpus / transl. Walker J. // Michael Psellos in Literature and Art, A Byzantine Perspective on Aesthetics and Art / Ed. by Ch. Barber and S. Papaioannou. Paris: University of Notre Dame Press, 2017. P. 20-23.
References
6. Arendt (1958) — Arendt H. The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Meridian books, 1958.
7. Auerbach (1953) — Auerbach E. Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature / Transl. by W. R. Trask. Princeton, 1953.
8. Boyer (2001) — Boyer P. Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought. New York: Basic Books, 2001.
9. Buarqoub (2019) — Buarqoub I.A.S. Language barriers to effective communication // Utopía y Praxis Latinoamericana, Universidad del Zulia. 2019. Vol. 24, núm. Esp. P. 64-77.
10. Buber (1937) — Buber M. I and Thou, translated Ronald Gregor Smith. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1937.
11. Disse (2018) — Disse J. Communication of Exstence: S0ren Kierkegaard and Gabriel Marcel // Kierkegaard Studies Yearbook. 2018. Vol.23. No. 1. P.311-328. https://doi.org/10.1515/ kierk-2018-0014
12. Dyck (1986) — Dyck A. The Essays on Euripides and George of Pisidia and on Heliodorus and Achilles Tatius. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenshaften, 1986.
13. Fodor (1983) — Fodor J.A The Modularity of Mind: An Essay on Faculty Psychology. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1983.
14. Fukushima (2017) — Fukushima G. What do actual L.A. Jazz, Musicians Think of La La lands portrayal of L.A. Jazz? // LAWeekly, 21 February 2017. http://www.laweekly.com/music/ what-do-actual-la-jazz-musicians-think-of-la-la-lands-portrayal-of-la-jazz-7952454 (accessed: 30.01.2024).
15. Humboldt (1836) — Humboldt W. Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaus und ihren Einfluss auf die geistige Entwicklung des Menschengeschlechts. Berlin, 1836.
16. Kimberly (1987) — Kimberly A, Neuendorf and others. The History and Social Impact or Religious Broadcasting. San Antonio, Texas, 1987. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED284229.pdf (accessed: 30.01.2024).
17. Lakoff, Johnson (1980) — Lakoff G., Johnson M. Conceptual Metaphor in Everyday Language // The Journal of Philosophy. 1980. Vol. 77. No. 8. P. 453-486.
18. Lázár (2011) — Lázár I. Spirituality and Human ecosystems // Zsolnai L. Spirituality and Ethics in management. 2nd ed. Springer, 2011. P. 95-107.
19. Mallett (2009) — Mallett J. Limits on the Communication of Knowledge in Human Organisations // Studies in emergent order. 2009. Vol. 2. P. 1-18.
20. Mcluhan (1999) — Mcluhan M. The Medium and the Light, Reflections on Religion. Toronto; New York: Stoddart, 1999.
21. Montemayor, Haladjian (2015) — Montemayor C, Haladjian H. Consciousness, Attention, and Conscious Attention, Cambrdige: MIT Press, 2015.
22. Osborne, Houston, Lido (2019) — Osborne M, Houston M, Lido C. The role of big data, in elucidating learning cities ancient, present and future // Learning Cities in Late Antiquity: the Local Dimension of Education / Ed. by J.R. Stenger. London; New York: Routledge, 2019.
23. Ovied (2006) — Ovied L. Assessing Cognitive Approaches to Religion: A Theological Account // European Journal of Science and Theology. 2006. Vol. 2. No. 1. P. 47-54.
24. Papaioannou (2017a) — Papaioannou S. Introduction to Part One. On literature and the Лоуоь // Michael Psellos in Literature and Art, A Byzantine Perspective on Aesthetics and Art / Ed. by Ch. Barber and S. Papaioannou. Paris: University of Notre Dame Press, 2017. P. 11-19.
25. Papaioannou (2017b) — Papaioannou S. On Tragedy // Michael Psellos in Literature and Art, A Byzantine Perspective on Aesthetics and Art / Ed. by Ch. Barber and S. Papaioannou. Paris: University of Notre Dame Press, 2017. P. 82-90.
26. Pascal (1995) — Pascal B. Pensées / transl. A.J. Krailsheimer. Penguin classics, 1995.
27. Quarry, Ramírez (2012) — Quarry W., Ramírez R. The Limits of Communication, the Gnat on the Elephant // Nordicon Review. 2012. No. 33, Special Issue. P. 121-134.
28. Ramachandran (1997) — Ramachandran V.S, Hirsten, V, S, Amel K, C, Tecoma E, and Iragui V. The Neural Basis of Religious Experience // Conference of the Society for Neuroscience. Book of Abstracts. Vol. 23. New Orlean, 1997.
29. Zeimbekis (2014) — The Cognitive Penetrability of Perception: New Philosophical Perspectives / Ed. by J. Zeimbekis, A. Raftopoulos. Oxford University Press, 2014.
30. Webster (2015) — Webster J. What Makes Theology Theological? // Journal of Analytic Theology. 2015. Vol. 3. P. 17-28. https://doi.org/10.12978/jat.2015-3.091413220417.
31. Иванов (1995) — Иванов Вяч. Наш язык // Лик и Личины России, эстетика и литературная теория. М.: Искусство, 1995. C. 25-32.
