Mysticism And Mormon Spirituality

[peteolcott]

There is something self-contradictory about it though I cannot put my finger on it at the moment and it's not worth thinking more about in my opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason

(A Priori,) Knowledge derived by pure analysis may lead to certainty because it can be purely tautological (self-defining). The knowledge of arithmetic is an example of this.

(A Posteriori) Knowledge derived from experience can not be relied upon because a thought experiment provides a counter-example to the reliability of memory such that this counter-example can not be proven false beyond all possible doubt.

This last statement is an example of purely analytical reasoning, thus possibly not subject to the limitations of memory.

[volgadon]

http://en.wikipedia...._of_Pure_Reason

(A Priori,) Knowledge derived by pure analysis may lead to certainty because it can be purely tautological (self-defining). The knowledge of arithmetic is an example of this.

(A Posteriori) Knowledge derived from experience can not be relied upon because a thought experiment provides a counter-example to the reliability of memory such that this counter-example can not be proven false beyond all possible doubt.

This last statement is an example of purely analytical reasoning, thus possibly not subject to the limitations of memory.

Your declaration regarding the universality of advaita is false. The vast majority of Jewish kabbalists did not believe in pantheism similar to advaita. If you claim otherwise, please provide me with the names of some of those who did, and we can go from there.

[Calm]

One can not correctly rely upon the opinions of anyone whom has not had the first-hand direct experience.

and how does one know someone has had first hand experience?

[peteolcott]

Your declaration regarding the universality of advaita is false. The vast majority of Jewish kabbalists did not believe in pantheism similar to advaita. If you claim otherwise, please provide me with the names of some of those who did, and we can go from there.

The way that mysticism works, the vast majority do not get it correctly, (only the select few) thus they can not be relied upon for providing the correct understanding. Truth itself is not a democracy.

[peteolcott]

and how does one know someone has had first hand experience?

http://bible.cc/john/17-21.htm

Experiencing that God is a solipsist.

[MiserereNobis]

The way that mysticism works, the vast majority do not get it correctly, (only the select few) thus they can not be relied upon for providing the correct understanding. Truth itself is not a democracy.

I absolutely agree that truth is not a democracy.

By the way, are you one of the select few who have gotten it right?

[volgadon]

I absolutely agree that truth is not a democracy.

By the way, are you one of the select few who have gotten it right?

On this other board he was always delivering what he claimed to be messages to all from the Holy Spirit.

[volgadon]

The way that mysticism works, the vast majority do not get it correctly, (only the select few) thus they can not be relied upon for providing the correct understanding. Truth itself is not a democracy.

Stop evading. Names, please.

[peteolcott]

I absolutely agree that truth is not a democracy.

By the way, are you one of the select few who have gotten it right?

In terms of knowing the meaning, I think so, in terms of perfectly integrating this meaning into my life, not yet.

[peteolcott]

Stop evading. Names, please.

Here is a good one--->YHWH

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton

[volgadon]

Here is a good one--->YHWH

http://en.wikipedia..../Tetragrammaton

Where are the names of these pantheistic Jewish mystics?

THis is officially a CFR now. Names, please.

[peteolcott]

Where are the names of these pantheistic Jewish mystics?

THis is officially a CFR now. Names, please.

I do not know your CFR acronym.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_mysticism#Mystic_elements_of_the_Torah

That few get it correctly is contained in the meaning of the word esoteric:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esoteric

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zohar

The Zohar contains a discussion of the nature of God, the origin and structure of the universe, the nature of souls, redemption, the relationship of Ego to Darkness and "true self" to "The Light of God," and the relationship between the "universal energy" and man.

The above is the way that Western mysticism beats around the bush about the true nature of reality, God and man.

Edited November 30, 2012 by peteolcott

[Calm]

Call for reference.

Board rules say it must be answered, or retracted or the poster risks banning.

Edited November 30, 2012 by calmoriah

[volgadon]

I do not know your CFR acronym.

It means a call for references. You are required to provide those.

[volgadon]

The way that mysticism works, the vast majority do not get it correctly, (only the select few) thus they can not be relied upon for providing the correct understanding. Truth itself is not a democracy.

Might I remind you of your claim?

All of the Christian, Jewish, and Islamic mysticism that I have encountered agrees with the Buddhist, Taoist, and Hindu mysticism.

Unless you wish to say that you have encountered very, very little, your claim is pretty sweeping, and thus it would matter if very few (if any) mystics have had the experience you claim.

[mfbukowski]

http://en.wikipedia...._of_Pure_Reason

(A Priori,) Knowledge derived by pure analysis may lead to certainty because it can be purely tautological (self-defining). The knowledge of arithmetic is an example of this.

(A Posteriori) Knowledge derived from experience can not be relied upon because a thought experiment provides a counter-example to the reliability of memory such that this counter-example can not be proven false beyond all possible doubt.

This last statement is an example of purely analytical reasoning, thus possibly not subject to the limitations of memory.

Yeah I know Kant believed that 200 plus years ago. Get up to date. I studied that stuff 40 years ago and have learned a tad more since. Arguments from authority don't impress me especially when the source is 200 years old

Edited November 30, 2012 by mfbukowski

[peteolcott]

It means a call for references. You are required to provide those.

See the references that I recently provided.

[peteolcott]

Yeah I know Kant believed that 200 plus years ago. Get up to date. I studied that stuff 40 years ago and have learned a tad more since. Arguments from authority don't impress me especially when the source is 200 years old

It is not an argument from authority. It is explaining the conception of truth that is entirely proven by the meaning of its words, along with a key reference for further elaboration of this conception AKA (a priori) knowledge.

Edited November 30, 2012 by peteolcott

[mfbukowski]

In terms of knowing the meaning, I think so, in terms of perfectly integrating this meaning into my life, not yet.

Ah yes

The fallacy of knowing and belief. You need to get over that.

[MiserereNobis]

All of the Christian, Jewish, and Islamic mysticism that I have encountered agrees with the Buddhist, Taoist, and Hindu mysticism.

I personally only have a passing knowledge of Islamic mysticism (Rufi, Hafez) and no knowledge of Jewish mysticism. I did at one point intensely study and practice Theravadan Buddhism. I know Catholic mysticism pretty well. Catholic mysticism and Buddhism do not agree. The former is God-centered (or Christ-centered), the latter is not. That is a pretty HUGE difference. God and anatta are not equivalent. The Beatific Vision and Nibbana are not equivalent. There are, of course, similarities, but because things are similar does not mean they are the same.

I suggest you read St. John of the Cross ("The Ascent of Mt. Carmel") and St. Teresa of Avila ("The Interior Castle") to get a good feel for Catholic mysticism. You could also read Thomas Merton to have a more contemporary view. I recommend "New Seeds of Contemplation" or "The Ascent to Truth" or "Contemplative Prayer." Merton was very interested in Eastern meditation, especially Zen, but he never made the mistake of conflating Zen and Christianity. The Dalai Lama famously said of Merton that he was the westerner who understood Buddhism the best.

[mfbukowski]

I do not know your CFR acronym.

http://en.wikipedia....ts_of_the_Torah

That few get it correctly is contained in the meaning of the word esoteric:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esoteric

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zohar

The Zohar contains a discussion of the nature of God, the origin and structure of the universe, the nature of souls, redemption, the relationship of Ego to Darkness and "true self" to "The Light of God," and the relationship between the "universal energy" and man.

The above is the way that Western mysticism beats around the bush about the true nature of reality, God and man.

He's quoting volgadon wikipedia?

[peteolcott]

Ah yes

The fallacy of knowing and belief. You need to get over that.

The fallacy is limited to belief and disbelief, it does not apply to knowledge gained through comprehension.

[mfbukowski]

It is not an argument from authority. It is explaining the conception of truth that is entirely proven by the meaning of its words, along with a key reference for further elaboration of this conception AKA (a priori) knowledge.

Kant only went so far and if you had read any philosophy written since then you would know how silly a pronouncement that is. Read some Quine about the analytic and synthetic distinction

Edit: here's a reference http://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html

Edited November 30, 2012 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

Yeah I know Kant believed that 200 plus years ago. Get up to date. I studied that stuff 40 years ago and have learned a tad more since. Arguments from authority don't impress me especially when the source is 200 years old

Old doesn't mean false, mfb. Don't fall for the fallacy of progress, meaning that just because something is more recent it is better or more true. The New Testament is 2000 years old and hasn't been supplanted yet

The history of philosophy is just that -- a history of who thought what when. It doesn't mean that newer thoughts are better than older ones.

[peteolcott]

I personally only have a passing knowledge of Islamic mysticism (Rufi, Hafez) and no knowledge of Jewish mysticism. I did at one point intensely study and practice Theravadan Buddhism. I know Catholic mysticism pretty well. Catholic mysticism and Buddhism do not agree. The former is God-centered (or Christ-centered), the latter is not. That is a pretty HUGE difference. God and anatta are not equivalent. The Beatific Vision and Nibbana are not equivalent. There are, of course, similarities, but because things are similar does not mean they are the same.

I suggest you read St. John of the Cross ("The Ascent of Mt. Carmel") and St. Teresa of Avila ("The Interior Castle") to get a good feel for Catholic mysticism. You could also read Thomas Merton to have a more contemporary view. I recommend "New Seeds of Contemplation" or "The Ascent to Truth" or "Contemplative Prayer." Merton was very interested in Eastern meditation, especially Zen, but he never made the mistake of conflating Zen and Christianity. The Dalai Lama famously said of Merton that he was the westerner who understood Buddhism the best.

Maybe if I cut to the chase. There can only be one singular fundamental actual true nature of reality.

There can only be one way that is the way that things really are.

Since truth is essentially nothing more than a mathematical mapping from abstract representations of actuality to actuality itself, there is only one truth regarding the actual true nature of reality.