Mysticism And Mormon Spirituality

[Ahab]

It is a self-evident truth that it has been verified.

Ooooooohhh. I like that! Opens up this train of thought to me:

Reality itself is evidence of all that exists everywhere. Don't believe it? Just go look at it. Everything out there is for you to find.

Just don't say or not believe it's out there simply because you haven't seen it, yet.

Just open your eyes and look around with both ears open.

[Ahab]

I'll have to remember that one when I get a CFR. "it's self evident".

Uh huh. Now THAT is a teacher. "If you don't get it - too bad, you dummy"

If he had actually reached "Enlightenment" do you think he would be on an internet board saying things are "self evident"?

He's simply trying to share what he has seen and experienced with others.

And yes, it is a wonderful comeback to anyone who doubts or doesn't believe what is true.

God exists! Don't believe me? Go look for yourself (you dummy). He is out there! Just look around you!

[mfbukowski]

It is, of course, a belief that "both belief and disbelief are fallacies," and therefore, if your claim is true, then your belief that "both belief and disbelief are fallacies" must itself be fallacious.

That one's outta here- definite home run!

[Ahab]

Credibility is a fake measure of truth, and I generally try to avoid it, along with the fallacy of belief / disbelief.

I know there can be some fallacy involved in some beliefs or disbeliefs, but belief in what's true isn't all bad.

Maybe instead of trying to avoid a belief or disbelief you should just make sure something is true before you believe it.

[Ahab]

The reason that belief and disbelief are errors of reasoning is that the mind is generally closed once its made up regarding a belief or disbelief.

Why would you want to keep your mind open to something that isn't true, though?.

Also both beliefs and disbeliefs tend to have strong emotional attachment, thus forming the antithesis of scientific objectivity.

Yeah, sometimes, but I don't really care about all that as long as what I believe is true... and I make it a point to find out what is true before I believe it.

[pogi]

How, exactly, could you possibly know this? While it is a standard claim of Neomystics, it is merely an assertion. Since mystical experiences are said by the mystics to be ineffable, you cannot possibly know what another mystic actually experiences, nor could you possibly know if it is the same as your experience.

And, of course, most medieval Christians would deny that a vision of Mary is "exactly the same experience" as Zen satori. Why should your asserted explanation that it is the same be privileged over a medieval Christian mystic's assertion that it is different?

You may disbelieve his statement, but to say it is impossible may be limiting to what is indeed possible to God. And yes, it is indeed possible to God. Did Christ not experience what we experience, precisely as we experienced it, in order to have pure compassion and true understanding? Does the Father not know the same thing? I presume the Holy Spirit knows us as well. I also presume that we will someday have this ability to know as they know in order to be one.

You yourself are merely making an assertion by stating "you cannot possibly know what another mystic actually experiences", as you obviously don't know what he knows, it is ineffable (as you put it). How do you know what is possible or not? It doesn't seem like it would be too hard a task for God to reveal this truth to man. Because something is ineffable doesn't mean it cannot be known. God is an example of that.

I personally don't claim to "know" that we all experience the same things, but I do believe so for many reasons. I may be wrong, and I am willing to change beliefs as led by God.

Edited November 28, 2012 by pogi

[Ahab]

If both belief and disbelief are fallacies (errors of reasoning) and credibility is based on belief / disbelief, therefore credibility is based on an error of reasoning.

Translation: If a belief or a disbelief is false (a fallacy, based on an error of reasoning) and people give credit to that false belief or disbelief, the people who credit those false beliefs or disbeliefs are doing so based on a fallacy, based on an error of reasoning.

Example: Many people give credit to other people who are wrong about some things and all of them are wrong based on an error of reasoning. But many people believe those false things, though! So what? Doesn't matter. All of them are wrong about those false beliefs or disbeliefs, anyway, and all of the credibility in the world won't make them right.

[MiserereNobis]

Glad you're back- hope all is well!

Thanks! I've been around; I'm just in "lurker" status. It's been more interesting to me reading these past times rather than responding. I'm sure I'll get back to my old verbose neo-Platonic self

[MiserereNobis]

Welcome back,

I hope that we have been able to answer some of these questions for you.

As I said before, I have a deep regard and respect for Lawrence Freeman, a Benedictine Monk and director of the World Community for Christian Meditation. His teachings have been a catalyst for me in communion with God, he has taught me much in how to hear prayer, and not just speak prayer. While I do not practice the mantra as prescribed, I find the principles behind it invaluable.

I've read some of Lawrence Freeman's writings and found him useful for me as an entry point into Christian meditation. After a bit, however, I became enamored of Thomas Merton, who then pointed me towards St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila. For me, these two are quintessential examples of Catholic mystics (which is why St. John of the Cross was formally given the title "The Mystical Doctor of the Church").

ETA: Thomas Merton has an interesting book called "New Seeds of Contemplation." His opening two chapters are "What is Contemplation?" and "What Contemplation Is Not." Keep in mind that in the Catholic tradition, contemplation means the mystical experience. Since so much of this thread has been about defining mysticism, those chapters are invaluable for understanding what Catholics have traditionally believed about mysticism, albeit reformulated in a way that is more accessible to modern humans.

You can read the first few pages of the first chapter on amazon.com in the link I provided above (it's in the "look inside" feature).

Merton is clearly a traditional mystic, as are (obviously!) St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila. I am, too, though I must admit that it was neo-mysticism that was hugely instrumental in the initial stages of my conversion to Catholicism.

Edited November 28, 2012 by MiserereNobis

[peteolcott]

Of course, the same could be said, at least in theory, about you.

I always remain open to that possibility.

[peteolcott]

How, exactly, could you possibly know this? While it is a standard claim of Neomystics, it is merely an assertion. Since mystical experiences are said by the mystics to be ineffable, you cannot possibly know what another mystic actually experiences, nor could you possibly know if it is the same as your experience.

And, of course, most medieval Christians would deny that a vision of Mary is "exactly the same experience" as Zen satori. Why should your asserted explanation that it is the same be privileged over a medieval Christian mystic's assertion that it is different?

It can not possibly be adequately explained by anything besides the first-hand direct experience itself.

To make an attempt at finding the best words to describe the ineffable, I will say that there are not a whole lot of different ways that the statement: {all is one} can be correctly understood. Once this is directly experienced the one correct way becomes self-evident.

[peteolcott]

Again, how could you possible know this? If mystical experience is ineffable (which is itself an assertion), then how can one particular culturally-based term possibly be better at describing the indescribable than another?

Ineffable only means that it can not be completely described using words such that these words will permit someone to perfectly reproduce the experience. It does not mean that the experience itself must somehow be incomplete leaving things less than fully grasped. The taste of strawberries also can not be fully described using words, yet the experience of tasting them is complete.

[MiserereNobis]

It can not possibly be adequately explained by anything besides the first-hand direct experience itself.

To make an attempt at finding the best words to describe the ineffable, I will say that there are not a whole lot of different ways that the statement: {all is one} can be correctly understood. Once this is directly experienced the one correct way becomes self-evident.

The idea that there is "one correct way" to describe the mystical experience itself crumbles under mystical experience. Here is a good tidbit from Thomas Merton (from the book I mentioned previously):

It [contemplation/mystical experience] can be suggested by words, by symbols, but in the very moment of trying to indicate what it knows the contemplative mind takes back what it has said and denies what it has affirmed. For in contemplation we know by "unknowing." Or better, we know beyond all knowing or "unknowing."

As a Catholic, I'd like you to answer Bill's question last question. Why are you asserting that Zen satori is privileged over Catholic contemplation? Is it because Zen does not have a dogmatic foundation as Catholicism does? In other words, because the Catholic speaks of his/her experience in terms of God and Jesus and Mary and the Holy Ghost and heaven and hell, etc?

[pogi]

I've read some of Lawrence Freeman's writings and found him useful for me as an entry point into Christian meditation. After a bit, however, I became enamored of Thomas Merton, who then pointed me towards St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila. For me, these two are quintessential examples of Catholic mystics (which is why St. John of the Cross was formally given the title "The Mystical Doctor of the Church").

ETA: Thomas Merton has an interesting book called "New Seeds of Contemplation." His opening two chapters are "What is Contemplation?" and "What Contemplation Is Not." Keep in mind that in the Catholic tradition, contemplation means the mystical experience. Since so much of this thread has been about defining mysticism, those chapters are invaluable for understanding what Catholics have traditionally believed about mysticism, albeit reformulated in a way that is more accessible to modern humans.

You can read the first few pages of the first chapter on amazon.com in the link I provided above (it's in the "look inside" feature).

Merton is clearly a traditional mystic, as are (obviously!) St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila. I am, too, though I must admit that it was neo-mysticism that was hugely instrumental in the initial stages of my conversion to Catholicism.

I have read St. Teresa's "The Interior Castles", I will have to look into Thomas Merton. I found many parallels in each of the 7 mansions to teachings in Mormonism and the process of a mighty change of heart and baptism of fire.

What were you before you were Catholic?

[peteolcott]

It is, of course, a belief that "both belief and disbelief are fallacies," and therefore, if your claim is true, then your belief that "both belief and disbelief are fallacies" must itself be fallacious.

I see you did not catch my message distinguishing knowledge acquired by complete comprehension from belief based on something much less reliable than complete comprehension. The interlocking tautologies of purely conceptual knowledge such as the knowledge of mathematics completely proves itself entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words.

Closing the mind before all of the facts are in is self-evidently always an error.

[Ahab]

It can not possibly be adequately explained by anything besides the first-hand direct experience itself.

To make an attempt at finding the best words to describe the ineffable, I will say that there are not a whole lot of different ways that the statement: {all is one} can be correctly understood. Once this is directly experienced the one correct way becomes self-evident.

I like to say it (all is one) like this:

All who experience the same thing the same way experience the one (and the same) experience. That experience doesn't vary or change from person to person, or from religion to religion, or from culture to culture, or from one time to another time period. It's the same experience, regardless of who experiences it or where they were when they experienced it or what they looked like when they experienced it.

Example: All who experience God experience that experience in one and the same way, with God.

So much for the false idea that we can't know what other people experience, or what they are thinking, or what they are feeling.

We can, and we often do, experience the same experiences, even though not all of us have experienced every experience that can be experienced in all of reality.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Ahab

[MiserereNobis]

I have read St. Teresa's "The Interior Castles", I will have to look into Thomas Merton. I found many parallels in each of the 7 mansions to teachings in Mormonism and the process of a mighty change of heart and baptism of fire.

Great!

What were you before you were Catholic?

Here's a rough sketch of my conversion journey:

1) agnostic hedonist (a bit of an exaggeration, but not too much)

2) psychedelic warrior (a philosophical extension of #1)

3) psychedelic mystic (think Timothy Leary, Ram Das, Terrence McKenna)

4) neo-mystic (heavily influenced by Ken Wilber's writings)

5) neo-mystic looking for culturally apt symbols to describe the mystical experience (I attended Mass regularly for a few years before even speaking to a priest)

6) Catholic (thanks be to God!)

Edited November 28, 2012 by MiserereNobis

[peteolcott]

I know there can be some fallacy involved in some beliefs or disbeliefs, but belief in what's true isn't all bad.

Maybe instead of trying to avoid a belief or disbelief you should just make sure something is true before you believe it.

I only have facts and theories and nothing in-between. Beliefs and disbeliefs are most often mind closing things.

The only fact that I count on with 100% certainty is that existence itself exists right now. The next most relaible set of facts that I count on is the body of mathematics that completely proves itself entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words. Most everything else is held as a theory.

[peteolcott]

Why would you want to keep your mind open to something that isn't true, though?.

Yeah, sometimes, but I don't really care about all that as long as what I believe is true... and I make it a point to find out what is true before I believe it.

The only way to be sure that you have the truth is to be unsure of almost everything. Zen Buddhists call this [don't know mind].

Since it can not be proven beyond all possible doubt that the entire universe along with you and you whole (contiguous) set of memories were not created in a single instant exactly five minutes ago, you can not be completely sure that you ever actually met your own mother.

[MiserereNobis]

I only have facts and theories and nothing in-between. Beliefs and disbeliefs are most often mind closing things.

The only fact that I count on with 100% certainty is that existence itself exists right now. The next most relaible set of facts that I count on is the body of mathematics that completely proves itself entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words. Most everything else is held as a theory.

Mathematics does not completely prove itself. Set theory's naive attempt to do so was famously toppled by Bertrand Russell's "barber paradox." While set theorists have tried to overcome this problem (even Russell himself tried), the majority of philosophers of mathematics assert either that they have not been able to do so or that by avoiding the paradoxes, foundational mathematics (such as the Peano axioms) leaves itself incomplete. It appears in metamathematics that we can either have completeness or consistency but not both.

[peteolcott]

Mathematics does not completely prove itself. Set theory's naive attempt to do so was famously toppled by Bertrand Russell's "barber paradox." While set theorists have tried to overcome this problem (even Russell himself tried), the majority of philosophers of mathematics assert either that they have not been able to do so or that by avoiding the paradoxes, foundational mathematics (such as the Peano axioms) leaves itself incomplete. It appears in metamathematics that we can either have completeness or consistency but not both.

Arithmetic is one aspect of the body of mathematics that completely proves itself entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words. It is not merely my belief that the pure conception of 2 + 3 = 5 is true, it remains true even if no minds contained it.

As soon as God created/discovered the concept of a round circle, PI came right along with it even if God did not know this yet. PI is logically entailed by the conception of a round circle. At the point in time that God created/discovered a round circle, he was utterly powerless to change the value of PI.

Edited November 28, 2012 by peteolcott

[Ahab]

I only have facts and theories and nothing in-between. Beliefs and disbeliefs are most often mind closing things.

There's nothing wrong with being closed minded, in the right way. Being open-minded all of the time is not a worthwhile goal.

Suppose you know something is true... and I'm sure you do know that at least one thing is true. Why be open to the idea that what you know is true may be false? What good would that do you? If you "know" that's true, from first hand experience with that thing, whatever it is, why not just close your mind on that one issue and focus on learning some other things in relation to that? Why constantly have your mind open on that one issue, as if you would change your mind about that?

For example: I know our Father chose Jesus Christ to be our Savior, for all of us born on this Earth. Why leave my mind open on that issue, as if I might change my ideas? Is that what you mean by being open-minded? Open to the possibility that I could be wrong about that? Why would I want to do that, now that I know that? Why not just file that one away as a fact that will never change regardless of anything on another issue?

The only fact that I count on with 100% certainty is that existence itself exists right now.

Then I know more than you do right now, because I have known that for quite a while now, and I will continue to know that in the future. Existence isn't limited to only what is present, but also includes the past as well as the future and everything that are in them. Why not be 100% certain about those things, as well? How close are you? 98% 80% Kinda sure, but not really sure yet?

The next most relaible set of facts that I count on is the body of mathematics that completely proves itself entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words. Most everything else is held as a theory.

Interesting. I don't rely on the meaning of words to know what exists. I know by what I actually experience, first hand. Mathematics involves things like imaginary numbers and theoretical physics, often only what is in someone's imagination rather than in reality, itself, and while language is a good tool for communication it doesn't convey everything there is to know about all of existence. Not everything we hear is something someone says, for example. I think you said it better the first time. Reality is self-evident and the best evidence that exists for everything in existence.

[Ahab]

The only way to be sure that you have the truth is to be unsure of almost everything. Zen Buddhists call this [don't know mind].

That's weird. When you're sure about something you're not supposed to be unsure about it anymore. Why think you don't know when you know what is true?

Since it can not be proven beyond all possible doubt that the entire universe along with you and you whole (contiguous) set of memories were not created in a single instant exactly five minutes ago, you can not be completely sure that you ever actually met your own mother.

But it can be proven beyond all possible doubt, at least for myself. I was there 5 minutes ago and I know who my Mother is.

You're speaking gibberish now and I'll know when you're being more coherent.

[pogi]

Here's a rough sketch of my conversion journey:

1) agnostic hedonist (a bit of an exaggeration, but not too much)

2) psychedelic warrior (a philosophical extension of #1)

3) psychedelic mystic (think Timothy Leary, Ram Das, Terrence McKenna)

4) neo-mystic (heavily influenced by Ken Wilber's writings)

5) neo-mystic looking for culturally apt symbols to describe the mystical experience (I attended Mass regularly for a few years before even speaking to a priest)

6) Catholic (thanks be to God!)

You found those symbols in Catholicism that helped describe your non-Catholic, and non-Christian mystic experiences. Is that why you converted? Does it seem interesting to you that you found symbols in Christianity from your agnostic and non-Christian mystic experiences, almost as if it was from the same source? Does it seem interesting to you that it was your non-Christian mystic experience that brought you to Christianity? Surely that was inspired by God!

Do you now doubt that your mystic experience pre-Catholic conversion was from the same source that it is now from, post-conversion? If so, what was it exactly that brought you to Catholicism, if not God inspired mystic experience outside of Christianity?

Edited November 29, 2012 by pogi

[wenglund]

I only have facts and theories and nothing in-between. Beliefs and disbeliefs are most often mind closing things.

The only fact that I count on with 100% certainty is that existence itself exists right now. The next most relaible set of facts that I count on is the body of mathematics that completely proves itself entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words. Most everything else is held as a theory.

You are right about one thing, what you just said is unbelievable! LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-