This is an exploration of "inward" experience compared to idea, especially with regards to language. Now "idea" involves abstraction, while experience is immediate. It can be supposed that there are two ways of language: immediate and secondary. It is clear that experience is always the primary event. Even ideas are experienced. Ideas follow experience as secondary phenomena.

Take, for instance, the nature of that which is referred to as "God". Taken as an idea (the "common" definition - which is somewhat hazy), this can be dismissed as "unbelievable", hence the term "atheism." I must say that if I believed that "God" was actually represented by such a "definition", I'd probably be an atheist, too.

However, there is the other way of language which is internal and linked to direct experience. The term "God" can be used quite validly as a word associated with an immediate experience as opposed to an abstraction. Thus, the understanding of the word "God" is provided by context (a poem or prose piece) rather than via some vicarious definition.

It is clear that the way of the idea and the way of the experience may sometimes coexist but are not oppositional. They are not necessarily contraries to be resolved with each other, rather they are complementary ways of consciousness and language, both of which are necessary to express human experience. However, they also appear to be irreconcilable, except when idea arises from experience or we acknowledge the experience of the idea.