I wanted to share something with you following an interest I have in the broader use of dialogue. I have been reading a book by Lars Muhl entitled “The Law of Light - the secret teachings of Jesus”. In it he explores the Christian message that has been distorted by religious interests, homing in on the earliest writings discovered in the Middle East. These very ancient documents are written in Aramaic, the lingua franca at the time in the civilised world. What captured my interest was the paragraph
"Aramaic can only be spoken and understood through the heart. An intellectual person without heart contact won’t, therefore, understand the languages innermost law, which is the Law of Light. The intellectual person’s need for control always feeds fear, the fear of losing, but the Aramaic heart-person knows that one cannot own something unless one is ready, at any given moment, to let it go."
This was preceded by
"In the West the various languages are connected to the psychology that runs through the Latin and Greek language family. One can say that Latin, and the psychology that lies behind it, is masculine,cerebral, rational, pragmatic, scientific and exclusive; a psychology and a language that distinguishes itself by being precise and able to compartmentalise. In that way Latin is unique and indispensable. But there is another, almost forgotten language, based on a completely different psychology and for us an unfamiliar view of mankind and a forever fresh (holistic) approach: The Aramaic language. … The Aramaic language is feminine, intuitive, visionary, empathetic, poetic, spiritually based and inclusive. A concept in Aramaic, as a rule, has several layers of meaning: up to five, six, seven or more".
This has made a significant impact on me, not least because it also seems to sum up the attitude and “psychology” that anyone undertaking work with dialogue must possess and demonstrate. I would be interested to know how this “feels” when you read it and what, if any, impact it has for you? I am cautious in sharing it wider because of the obvious reactions to both the context and beliefs that underpin Lars Muhl’s work.