Mysticism And Mormon Spirituality

[Calm]

This has been a fascinating thread to follow for so many different reasons

Nice to see you again.

[Calm]

For what it's worth, my experiences with the Holy Ghost are not identical to my experiences with Cernunnos, Odin or Brigid.

I would hope not. They have significantly different characters/attributes...at least as reported.

[Calm]

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.

But since you have not had the first hand experience of another person but only your own first hand experience, how can you know they are identical? Are you informed in the experience itself that all other experiences claimed to be mystical are identical? And if others do not use the "one correct way" does that mean they have not actually directly experienced the "all is one" (or whatever is defined as the ultimate mystical experience by them) even if they have claimed to do so?

[Calm]

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.

But if someone does not describe tasting strawberries the same way, how do you know their experience was identical to yours? Perhaps for example, their taste buds have been damaged or they lack a sense of smell thus altering the experience into something different than what you have experienced when you taste strawberries.

[Ahab]

But since you have not had the first hand experience of another person but only your own first hand experience, how can you know they are identical?

By comparing notes and seeing that what they experienced was the same thing I experienced. Like if you were to say God told you Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. God told me the same thing, so we had the same experience, with God.

Are you informed in the experience itself that all other experiences claimed to be mystical are identical?

Pretty much, even if not explicitly. The experience lets me know what God has to say on that issue, so I would expect anyone else to get the same answer from God.

And if others do not use the "one correct way" does that mean they have not actually directly experienced the "all is one" (or whatever is defined as the ultimate mystical experience by them) even if they have claimed to do so?

Yes.

[Calm]

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.

How do you know your knowledge is complete?

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

Only if you accept the axioms...and if you can't prove the axioms, then I don't see how you can claim that mathematics proves itself in such a way.

[Calm]

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.

How much math have you had? What level have you gone to in exploring the meaning of math? Do you have a doctorate yet?

I would like to know why you are so certain about arithmetics, if you have received training in the theory behind its construction or if you are solely depending on the self evidentness of it.

Edited November 29, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

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.

How can a symbol exist outside of a mind?

What does the pure conception of 2 + 3 = 5 look like? Please define it for us without the use of symbols, and instead only deal with the pure conception itself.

Edited November 29, 2012 by calmoriah

[Ahab]

But if someone does not describe tasting strawberries the same way, how do you know their experience was identical to yours? Perhaps for example, their taste buds have been damaged or they lack a sense of smell thus altering the experience into something different than what you have experienced when you taste strawberries.

The experience in this case is the experience of tasting strawberries, so by knowing someone else had tasted strawberries I would know they had the same experience I had... even if they didn't like the taste, as I did, or even if they would describe the taste differently than I would.

As another example, suppose 2 people ask God if Joseph Smith was one of his prophets. The experience in this case is the experience of asking God for his answer on that issue, and by knowing someone else had asked god I would know they had the same experience I had... even if they didn't like God's answer, as I did, or even if they would describe the experience of asking God for his answer differently than I would.

Not everyone who tastes salt likes the taste of it, don't cha know, just as there are people who don't like to hear God say "Yes" when God says Joseph Smith was one of his prophets.

[mfbukowski]

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.

This sort of thing is often found in psychosis but not really anywhere else.

[mfbukowski]

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

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I find thankfully that I have less and less to say about this discussion.

[Calm]

The experience in this case is the experience of tasting strawberries, so by knowing someone else had tasted strawberries I would know they had the same experience I had... even if they didn't like the taste, as I did, or even if they would describe the taste differently than I would.

But simply putting strawberries in one's mouth does not guarantee having the same experience after they are in there. If someone lacks a sense of taste or smell, it is most definitely not the same experience as someone who has, for example.

[mfbukowski]

How can a symbol exist outside of a mind?

What does the pure conception of 2 + 3 = 5 look like? Please define it for us without the use of symbols, and instead only deal with the pure conception itself.

You go girl!

[Calm]

This sort of thing is often found in psychosis but not really anywhere else.

But it sounds so cool and mystical!

[mfbukowski]

This is an interesting essay that has not yet come up, amazingly:

http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/spiritua.htm

I have some problems with the apparent precision in slicing and dicing and imposing definitions where arguably none are possible, but it makes some very interesting points!

[mfbukowski]

But it sounds so cool and mystical!

Oh wow man!

I survived the 60's and this is bringing me flashbacks! AAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

[Calm]

Oh wow man!

I survived the 60's and this is bringing me flashbacks! AAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

Yeah, I'm tripping back to my high school psych class.

[Ahab]

But simply putting strawberries in one's mouth does not guarantee having the same experience after they are in there. If someone lacks a sense of taste or smell, it is most definitely not the same experience as someone who has, for example.

It is the same. The experience is that of tasting the strawberries, which a person does with their tongue after they put it into their mouth, and even if it tastes differently to each of them it is still the experience of tasting strawberries.

I thought I had explained that well enough before. What part of that explanation do you not agree with?

If I like strawberries, and you don't, it doesn't matter. We both tasted strawberries, and that's all that matters in that experience.

If you're talking about the experience of finding someone else who feels the same way about strawberries as you do, that's a whole other ballgame, even though it's related to the first experience of tasting the strawberries. Think if terms of a flow chart, with each experience broken down in its most simple terms and counted as its own individual experience.

First you have to get a strawberry. I kinda doubt that we would both get one from the same bunch, and even if we did we might get our own strawberry instead of sharing one between us. Maybe yours wasn't ripe and mine was just perfect. Or vice versa. There's a whole bunch of variables, but the experience of tasting strawberries is something each of us can experience as the same experience.... that of tasting strawberries.

[Calm]

It is the same. The experience is that of tasting the strawberries, which a person does with their tongue after they put it into their mouth, and even if it tastes differently to each of them it is still the experience of tasting strawberries.

And if the person doesn't have a tongue?

It may be the experience of tasting strawberries, but it is not the same experience.

Your wife tells you she loves you. Is that the same experience that your children experience when she tells them that she loves them?

Edited November 29, 2012 by calmoriah

[Ahab]

And if the person doesn't have a tongue?

Then they can't even "taste"... anything, can they.

I thought we were talking about the experience of tasting strawberries, which of course requires the ability to taste.

It may be the experience of tasting strawberries, but it is not the same experience.

If one person doesn't have a tongue then it's not even the same experience, because one is tasting and one isn't.

Your wife tells you she loves you. Is that the same experience that your children experience when she tells them that she loves them?

No. One is the experience of my wife telling me something, and the other is the experience of my wife telling my children something.

Was that a rhetorical question, or something?

[Calm]

Then they can't even "taste"... anything, can they.

I thought we were talking about the experience of tasting strawberries, which of course requires the ability to taste.

If one person doesn't have a tongue then it's not even the same experience, because one is tasting and one isn't.

No. One is the experience of my wife telling me something, and the other is the experience of my wife telling my children something.

Was that a rhetorical question, or something?

I think you have gone off in another direction than the others here claiming the same experience....

[MiserereNobis]

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?

Yes, it was God inspired experiences that led me on my path to Catholicism. I don't doubt that. However, I wouldn't call the mystical experiences I had before conversion "non-Christian." They were from God and, excuse my triumphalism here but I want to be clear and blunt, that God is the God of Catholicism, so they were experiences gifted me by the grace of the Christian God. Just because they were given to me outside of a Christian context does not make them non-Christian. For example, every human being is given the grace of being from God minute-to-minute. That doesn't make that grace non-Christian for those who are not Christian -- they still exist by the grace and gift of God.

In my personal experience (and apparently corroborated by others), it is near impossible to describe a deep mystical experience. I initially went looking for ways to understand (and repeat) those experiences. This started with the psychedelic phase, because it did not involve any religious "mumbo-jumbo" and I didn't want any of that. However, psychedelic experience doesn't seem (to me, at least) to match up to spontaneous God given mystical experience, no matter how much acid you eat. So then I was introduced to Ken Wilber and neo-mysticism. It, too, was easy to swallow, because it definitely has the idea that all religions are, on some level, the same. I didn't have to become religious to be a neo-mystic, if you know what I mean. So I thought: ok, what's the best way for me, as a westerner, to approach the mystical experience? Well, it must be Christian, because that is the foundation of our culture. And if I'm looking for western Christian symbols, what better place to go than to the Roman Catholic Church, especially since the underpinnings of our consciousness are deeply steeped in her theology and philosophy (Greeks -> Romans -> Catholicism -> Europe -> us).

It was a classic example of doing the right thing for the wrong reason, and it was certainly the grace of God that led me to the conclusion to do it.

So off I go to Mass and soon enough the whole neo-mystical viewpoint begins to drop away. Actually, the seminal question for me was: are religious symbols and practices effective for mystical experience if one does not believe in the symbols but instead is consciously using them while not believing them? This was a good question to ask, because it brought to the forefront the question of belief and truth. What is truth? Neo-mysticism likes to abstract away differences in the name of truth, but truth is also divisive, meaning that it seperates out falsehood. As Christ said, he came to bring a sword as well, and divide things up. C. S. Lewis wrote, at the end of Mere Christianity, that when we choose a Christian denomination, we should choose the one that is true and choose for that reason only.

So now my path went from chasing experiences to chasing truth and as soon as I did that God patted me on the head (I imagine with a smile showing that my long and very unusual path was a trait of mine that He found endearing) and begin to open the doors for me. Now mystical experiences would happen not because I was looking or not because I was forcing but because I was opening myself to Him and to truth. My experiences have been both a confirmation of truth and also experiences that are beyond anything I can really say about them other than "it was God." The saintly mystics and the poets are much better at describing that which cannot be described than I.

I've reread what I wrote and am not satisfied with it, but it is hard to encapsulate a years-long conversion process in a few paragraphs that sees someone go from dreadlocked roadtripping deadhead hippie to traditional Catholic. It would be much better if we could sit down and have a drink together and share, eh? You can have 7-Up and I'll have a good oatmeal stout

By the way, I still love the Grateful Dead and roadtrips

Edited November 29, 2012 by MiserereNobis

[mfbukowski]

It is the same. The experience is that of tasting the strawberries, which a person does with their tongue after they put it into their mouth, and even if it tastes differently to each of them it is still the experience of tasting strawberries.

This is hilarious! Now you are arguing as I might. We don't know what the experience "corresponds to" but we define it as being the "same" because both are the "experience of the taste of strawberries"

What does the taste "correspond" to so we can verify that they are the "SAME"? What is the taste of strawberries in your famous "objective world" and how can we verify it?

Edited November 29, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

It is the same. The experience is that of tasting the strawberries, which a person does with their tongue after they put it into their mouth, and even if it tastes differently to each of them it is still the experience of tasting strawberries.

I thought I had explained that well enough before. What part of that explanation do you not agree with?

If I like strawberries, and you don't, it doesn't matter. We both tasted strawberries, and that's all that matters in that experience.

If you're talking about the experience of finding someone else who feels the same way about strawberries as you do, that's a whole other ballgame, even though it's related to the first experience of tasting the strawberries. Think if terms of a flow chart, with each experience broken down in its most simple terms and counted as its own individual experience.

First you have to get a strawberry. I kinda doubt that we would both get one from the same bunch, and even if we did we might get our own strawberry instead of sharing one between us. Maybe yours wasn't ripe and mine was just perfect. Or vice versa. There's a whole bunch of variables, but the experience of tasting strawberries is something each of us can experience as the same experience.... that of tasting strawberries.

Oh man I love it! Who is doing all this interpretation of counting this and not counting that and deciding which is the "same" ?

Where is your objective measure for all this? What does any of this correspond to?

Edited November 29, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Yes, it was God inspired experiences that led me on my path to Catholicism. I don't doubt that. However, I wouldn't call the mystical experiences I had before conversion "non-Christian." They were from God and, excuse my triumphalism here but I want to be clear and blunt, that God is the God of Catholicism, so they were experiences gifted me by the grace of the Christian God. Just because they were given to me outside of a Christian context does not make them non-Christian. For example, every human being is given the grace of being from God minute-to-minute. That doesn't make that grace non-Christian for those who are not Christian -- they still exist by the grace and gift of God.

In my personal experience (and apparently corroborated by others), it is near impossible to describe a deep mystical experience. I initially went looking for ways to understand (and repeat) those experiences. This started with the psychedelic phase, because it did not involve any religious "mumbo-jumbo" and I didn't want any of that. However, psychedelic experience doesn't seem (to me, at least) to match up to spontaneous God given mystical experience, no matter how much acid you eat. So then I was introduced to Ken Wilber and neo-mysticism. It, too, was easy to swallow, because it definitely has the idea that all religions are, on some level, the same. I didn't have to become religious to be a neo-mystic, if you know what I mean. So I thought: ok, what's the best way for me, as a westerner, to approach the mystical experience? Well, it must be Christian, because that is the foundation of our culture. And if I'm looking for western Christian symbols, what better place to go than to the Roman Catholic Church, especially since the underpinnings of our consciousness are deeply steeped in her theology and philosophy (Greeks -> Romans -> Catholicism -> Europe -> us).

It was a classic example of doing the right thing for the wrong reason, and it was certainly the grace of God that led me to the conclusion to do it.

So off I go to Mass and soon enough the whole neo-mystical viewpoint begins to drop away. Actually, the seminal question for me was: are religious symbols and practices effective for mystical experience if one does not believe in the symbols but instead is consciously using them while not believing them? This was a good question to ask, because it brought to the forefront the question of belief and truth. What is truth? Neo-mysticism likes to abstract away differences in the name of truth, but truth is also divisive, meaning that it seperates out falsehood. As Christ said, he came to bring a sword as well, and divide things up. C. S. Lewis wrote, at the end of Mere Christianity, that when we choose a Christian denomination, we should choose the one that is true and choose for that reason only.

So now my path went from chasing experiences to chasing truth and as soon as I did that God patted me on the head (I imagine with a smile showing that my long and very unusual path was a trait of mine that He found endearing) and begin to open the doors for me. Now mystical experiences would happen not because I was looking or not because I was forcing but because I was opening myself to Him and to truth. My experiences have been both a confirmation of truth and also experiences that are beyond anything I can really say about them other than "it was God." The saintly mystics and the poets are much better at describing that which cannot be described than I.

I've reread what I wrote and am not satisfied with it, but it is hard to encapsulate a years-long conversion process in a few paragraphs that sees someone go from dreadlocked roadtripping deadhead hippie to traditional Catholic. It would be much better if we could sit down and have a drink together and share, eh? You can have 7-Up and I'll have a good oatmeal stout

By the way, I still love the Grateful Dead and roadtrips

Great post and I agree with it, but that was pretty much my experience with Mormonism. And I actually have no problem with both of those being true because I think God leads us to the path that works best for us individually, to bring us closer to Christ. I think I could not follow a religion which did not have an immanent, Human God who allows us some kind of theosis. I brought those beliefs with me.

But of course Mormons think that the search can continue on the other side. When we meet there, I hope we have a chance to compare notes