Mysticism And Mormon Spirituality

[peteolcott]

And what is the source of the "meaning of words"?

That is called etymology, and differs depending upon the word.

[Calm]

Truth is (as I have already provided) the mathematical mapping between abstract representations of actuality (ie words) and actuality itself. Exist in the context that I used it means physically manifest. The term God is the set of every possible conception of God, taken individually, one at a time.

And if those conceptions of God contradict?

[Calm]

A precise correspondance between every unit of meaning of a statement and some other entity.

Example: The last word in this sentence is five.

Do you mean a one to one correspondence? If so, please explain to me what is mathematical about that? One does not need math to play matching games....but it sure sounds smart to include such terms. Edited November 30, 2012 by calmoriah

[peteolcott]

And how does one acquire first hand experience that proves all Jewish mystics were pantheists? And why are not the words of these Jewish mystics describing their own beliefs not enough? Are they lying when their language is specifically a rejection of pantheism?

The simplest way to have the first-hand direct mystical experience would seem to be to seek Buddhist enlightenment.

There are far fewer distractions away from the direct focus on the mystical experience in Buddhism than in other views.

Because the essential nature of this knowledge is esoteric, by definition few attain it correctly, thus one can not rely upon the majority opinion as a way to discern truth. There is a difference between making a false statement out of ignorance and making a false statement with the intent to deceive.

[Nathair/|\]

The simplest way to have the first-hand direct mystical experience would seem to be to seek Buddhist enlightenment.

There are far fewer distractions away from the direct focus on the mystical experience in Buddhism than in other views.

Because the essential nature of this knowledge is esoteric, by definition few attain it correctly, thus one can not rely upon the majority opinion as a way to discern truth. There is a difference between making a false statement out of ignorance and making a false statement with the intent to deceive.

How sophisticated

[Calm]

Must be sweet to be able to dismiss everyone who disagrees with you as being ignorant of truth. Saves an extraordinary amount of energy never having to wonder if they might be right and you wrong.

[mfbukowski]

Truth is (as I have already provided) the mathematical mapping between abstract representations of actuality (ie words) and actuality itself. Exist in the context that I used it means physically manifest. The term God is the set of every possible conception of God, taken individually, one at a time.

TO ALL:

Holy crud. We are back at step 1 with correspondence. Been there done that time to step out this time.

See what Neoplatonism has done to our minds? We believe in castles in the air no one can see or experience nor ever has. We might as well be talking about substance and essences and other chimera. http://www.wildlife-fantasy.com/artwork/chimera.php

Very sad

[Calm]

How sophisticated

In the way you are using it perhaps, but his certainty of his own knowledge and opinion reminds me of no one more than my grandson when he was four years old.

[mfbukowski]

Ignorance bothers me but militant arrogant ignorance is inexcusable.

[MiserereNobis]

TO ALL:

Holy crud. We are back at step 1 with correspondence. Been there done that time to step out this time.

See what Neoplatonism has done to our minds? We believe in castles in the air no one can see or experience nor ever has. We might as well be talking about substance and essences and other chimera. http://www.wildlife-...ork/chimera.php

Very sad

Now, now, don't be too hard on neo-Platonism... don't forget that there are brilliant minds who still adhere to some forms of idealism *ahem*

[MiserereNobis]

Ignorance bothers me but militant arrogant ignorance is inexcusable.

A friend of mine in college had a bumper sticker: Militant Agnostic. I don't know and you don't know, either!

[Nathair/|\]

In the way you are using it perhaps, but his certainty of his own knowledge and opinion reminds me of no one more than my grandson when he was four years old.

Did you click through the link? I was being partially sarcastic about the common usage of the word, while referencing a paper on the ancient sophics/rhetoricians who could speak for hours on any topic, sound highly intelligent and never actually say anything of substance. Much like a couple responses I've received recently from politicians I've e-mailed.

[mfbukowski]

Now, now, don't be too hard on neo-Platonism... don't forget that there are brilliant minds who still adhere to some forms of idealism *ahem*

Well of course! Arguably that would include me on my more militant metaphysical constructivist days! I mean if it's all in your mind, what is that but idealism?

But at least one can see and touch the stuff in your mind if that's all there is. But substance? Essence? Not so much! It's amazing how a turn of a phrase changes everything isn't it?

[mfbukowski]

A friend of mine in college had a bumper sticker: Militant Agnostic. I don't know and you don't know, either!

Great stuff!

[Calm]

Did you click through the link? I was being partially sarcastic about the common usage of the word, while referencing a paper on the ancient sophics/rhetoricians who could speak for hours on any topic, sound highly intelligent and never actually say anything of substance. Much like a couple responses I've received recently from politicians I've e-mailed.

I clicked through but neglected to read it, thus the perhaps as I wasn't sure what you meant.

I agree with your usage completely.

[harfad]

Where are the names of these pantheistic Jewish mystics?

THis is officially a CFR now. Names, please.

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.

Your CFR is out of order. There is nothing in his statement about a “pantheon”. All he is saying is that they agree with each other. Presumably by that he means they agree on fundamentals, according to his understanding of what the fundamentals might be. You first need to find out from him what that point of “agreement” is that he is referring to, before jumping to the conclusion that it must include a “pantheon”.

[peteolcott]

Your CFR is out of order. There is nothing in his statement about a “pantheon”. All he is saying is that they agree with each other. Presumably by that he means they agree on fundamentals, according to his understanding of what the fundamentals might be. You first need to find out from him what that point of “agreement” is that he is referring to, before jumping to the conclusion that it must include a “pantheon”.

The various and sundry mystical traditions are all united in that the first-hand direct mystical experience of {all is one} is based on the same fundamental truth pertaining to the nature of reality. Or to put it in other words, the {all is one} aspect of the first-hand direct mystical experience is identical across the divergent mystical traditions.

[harfad]

The various and sundry mystical traditions are all united in that the first-hand direct mystical experience of {all is one} is based on the same fundamental truth pertaining to the nature of reality. Or to put it in other words, the {all is one} aspect of the first-hand direct mystical experience is identical across the divergent mystical traditions.

Thank you. Makes sense.

[Nathair/|\]

The various and sundry mystical traditions are all united in that the first-hand direct mystical experience of {all is one} is based on the same fundamental truth pertaining to the nature of reality. Or to put it in other words, the {all is one} aspect of the first-hand direct mystical experience is identical across the divergent mystical traditions.

CFR

The only way I can think of is to find authoritative quotes from within each major mystic tradition stating the same thing you claim here unequivocally.

To help you out, here are some titles of authoritative works within their traditions.

The Barddas of Iolo Morganwg.

The Corpus Hermeticum

Sufi texts

[peteolcott]

CFR

The only way I can think of is to find authoritative quotes from within each major mystic tradition stating the same thing you claim here unequivocally.

To help you out, here are some titles of authoritative works within their traditions.

The Barddas of Iolo Morganwg.

The Corpus Hermeticum

Sufi texts

The one that I am having the hardest time with is Jewish mysticism. The ideas that I am saying are there somewhere, probably in the Zohar. Like I keep saying though the ultimate CFR is only the first-hand direct experience, and the experience of this is the source of what I am saying.

[Nathair/|\]

The one that I am having the hardest time with is Jewish mysticism. The ideas that I am saying are there somewhere, probably in the Zohar. Like I keep saying though the ultimate CFR is only the first-hand direct experience, and the experience of this is the source of what I am saying.

Not sufficient. Provide or retract.

[mfbukowski]

The one that I am having the hardest time with is Jewish mysticism. The ideas that I am saying are there somewhere, probably in the Zohar. Like I keep saying though the ultimate CFR is only the first-hand direct experience, and the experience of this is the source of what I am saying.

So you are saying that you have had the "Zohar experience" even though you don't know what it is. That is what you said.

Interesting.

And you know the experiences of every other mystic who has ever lived are identical to your own regardless of their tradition. Clearly you are omniscient. That's quite impressive!

[volgadon]

Your CFR is out of order. There is nothing in his statement about a “pantheon”. All he is saying is that they agree with each other. Presumably by that he means they agree on fundamentals, according to his understanding of what the fundamentals might be. You first need to find out from him what that point of “agreement” is that he is referring to, before jumping to the conclusion that it must include a “pantheon”.

Perhaps before attacking me you might check to see where I have used the word "pantheon."

[volgadon]

The one that I am having the hardest time with is Jewish mysticism. The ideas that I am saying are there somewhere, probably in the Zohar. Like I keep saying though the ultimate CFR is only the first-hand direct experience, and the experience of this is the source of what I am saying.

This is sufficient for me. It is obvious that your assertion has nothing backing it. You won't find pantheism per se in the Zohar. Pantheism is more typical of some medieval German Hasidim, but this is far from the norm.

[peteolcott]

Not sufficient. Provide or retract.

This (most literally) says that God is a solipsist:

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)

That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.

I have checked this with at least two Hebrew bible sholars. They both agree that this is (most literally) saying that only God exists, and nothing besides God exists. Below is one of the Hebrew bible scholars.

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/stanley-udd/54/924/39a