Mysticism And Mormon Spirituality

[Calm]

Well, I might email him.

Please do.

[peteolcott]

Well, I might email him.

I last spoke to him in the early 1990's. He has since retired.

If you do email him, please do not bias the results.

Simply ask him is the last sentence of the verse from Isaiah 45:6 is most literally saying that {only God exists, and nothing besides God exists}.

This will maximize the chances of reproducable results.

[peteolcott]

So, probably not an expert, right?

That was back in the 1990's, I am pretty sure that he claimed to be an expert.

[peteolcott]

The only problem with "everything" being God is that the term loses its meaning. If God is not distinguished in some way from everything else, it is about the same as saying "nothing is God".

For the old timers, to me it is a mass of confusion.

Let's just say that that view is quite at odds with Mormonism since it has been specifically repudiated.

It does not lose its meaning because God still has the power of God.

Where was it repudiated?

[mfbukowski]

If we begin with the premise that the bible is the inspired word of God, then it would seem to be the case that God would say exactly what he means and mean exactly what he says. If God does not say exactly what he means and mean exactly what he says, then God would (at least slightly) either err or lie. If we assume that God neither errs nor lies, then that would logically entail that God says exactly what he means and means exactly what he says. This is the kind of literal meaning that I am referring to.

Holy cow. Wittgenstein would love this.

What does "Brick" mean? What does it mean "literally"? A rectangular piece of fired clay?

But if you are working together with someone else building a wall out of bricks, and you have your hand out, and the other person knows that he is to hand you a brick when he is ready for the next brick to go into the wall, it means LITERALLY "Please hand me another brick- I am ready to put it into the wall".

Or suppose you are buying ice cream and have a choice between a tub or a brick?

The point of this is that the "literal" meaning of a word or phrase or an entire sentence changes significantly according to context, and that is especially the case in a religious context where everything is symbolic to begin with. All is simile and metaphor and parables. Did the sower literally sow wheat and have some land among the "tares"? What if it landed among the dandelions instead? What difference does the "literal" meaning have there? How do we know if there even WAS a literal sower and who cares? Obviously it is irrelevant

The entire point of the story has nothing to do with a literal meaning. Think of the difference between "God is everywhere" and "God's influence is everywhere". That is a vast difference in literal meaning but very very little change in the practical consequences. Both mean that one can access God wherever one is.

Supposing that God is subject to some silly syllogism is just ridiculous. God speaks in parables and symbols and reducing them to this kind of nonsense is an abomination.

[peteolcott]

So everything in the Bible is literal and inerrant?

By literal I mean that one is to take the exact meaning of the correctly translated words, and that it is an error to use the very sloppy degree of precision of typical human communication where {never} means infrequently and {always} means quite often.

I am not sure about inerrancy. When I attended the Petecostal church for ten years, I took it as a premise. Now I am thinking that the apostle Paul may have simply gotten some things wrong.

[mfbukowski]

It does not lose its meaning because God still has the power of God.

What does everything being God have to do with the power of God giving it meaning- or whatever you are saying?

Could you possibly just construct one logical sentence which has meaning? I mean maybe you can't. That's fine- go meditate or something but then please stop trying to communicate logically. Stick to your cryptic messages from on high whatever it is that you are saying, but if you are trying to be logical then BE LOGICAL It's coming out like mush!

[peteolcott]

Supposing that God is subject to some silly syllogism is just ridiculous. God speaks in parables and symbols and reducing them to this kind of nonsense is an abomination.

I am familiar with the mathematics of the meaning of words, AKA Montague Grammar. I have read three books on this subject.

That God is bound by logic would seem to be self-evident otherwise God would be free to choose 2.0 as the value of PI.

Edited December 1, 2012 by peteolcott

[mfbukowski]

By literal I mean that one is to take the exact meaning of the correctly translated words, and that it is an error to use the very sloppy degree of precision of typical human communication where {never} means infrequently and {always} means quite often.

I am not sure about inerrancy. When I attended the Petecostal church for ten years, I took it as a premise. Now I am thinking that the apostle Paul may have simply gotten some things wrong.

Words do not have the same meaning in two cultures separated by thousands of years. There can be no such thing as a "literal" translation. Ancient Hebrews thought very differently than we do now.

[peteolcott]

Words do not have the same meaning in two cultures separated by thousands of years. There can be no such thing as a "literal" translation. Ancient Hebrews thought very differently than we do now.

More importantly. I first had the experience described by Isaiah 45:6, and then later saw that the bible confirmed this experience in several places.

[mfbukowski]

I am familiar with the mathematics of the meaning of words, AKA Montague Grammar. I have read three books on this subject.

That God is bound by logic would seem to be self-evident otherwise God would be free to choose 2.0 as the value of PI.

Small world. I knew Richard Montague and had classes with him at UCLA in the late' 60s. I have a copy of Kalish & Montague on my shelf right now- and they were my symbolic logic teachers. I remember his tragic and suspicious death clearly- it was soon after I graduated. Alonzo Church and Lewis were there in the department also as well as other "luminaries" like Angela Davis. It was an exciting time.

Unfortunately Montague Semantics is not going to help you much with poetry, which is what we are deal with here. Do you deny that scripture is spoken in parables and is not designed to be logically symbolized?

You toss out a lot of stuff as if you know what you are talking about but it is pretty transparent. And you read three books about it hey? Wow that is impressive.

What did they say about scripture?

[mfbukowski]

More importantly. I first had the experience described by Isaiah 45:6, and then later saw that the bible confirmed this experience in several places.

Fine I agree.

But guess what? You are trying to put into Montague Semantics what cannot be spoken at all. Good luck with that.

[peteolcott]

Small world. I knew Richard Montague and had classes with him at UCLA in the late' 60s. I have a copy of Kalish & Montague on my shelf right now- and they were my symbolic logic teachers. I remember his tragic and suspicious death clearly- it was soon after I graduated. Alonzo Church and Lewis were there in the department also as well as other "luminaries" like Angela Davis. It was an exciting time.

Unfortunately Montague Semantics is not going to help you much with poetry, which is what we are deal with here. Do you deny that scripture is spoken in parables and is not designed to be logically symbolized?

You toss out a lot of stuff as if you know what you are talking about but it is pretty transparent. And you read three books about it hey? Wow that is impressive.

What did they say about scripture?

That is interesting history about you and those distinguished scholars.

The mathematics of the meaning of words provides the degree of precision required to say exactly what one means and mean exactly what one says.

I take parables as analogies, in this sense they are mathematical.

[mfbukowski]

The mathematics of the meaning of words provides the degree of precision required to say exactly what one means and mean exactly what one says.

Which is great if you are a computer programmer- that is about all it is useful for. Of course if you are trying to get a computer to write poetry that might be interesting. Good luck with that one

But I don't think the ancient Hebrews did a whole lot of computer programming when they were talking about religious symbols. Of course I could be wrong.

After all in the movie the Raiders of the Lost Ark the Germans supposedly thought the ark was a radio to talk to God. Maybe the Hebrews were computer programmers after all, talking to extra terrestrials or something.

Parables are mathematical????????

How pray tell?????

Man this is getting OUT THERE

Edited December 1, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Computer written poetry:

http://www.kurzweilcyberart.com/poetry/rkcp_akindofturingtest.php

Pretty bad stuff.

I'm just waiting for a computer to have a mystical experience and be inspired to write scripture. Then I am sure we will have something to talk about. But until then, not much

[Calm]

That was back in the 1990's, I am pretty sure that he claimed to be an expert.

So if I claim to be a hebrew expert, will you accept my interpretation as fact?

[Calm]

It does not lose its meaning because God still has the power of God.

Where was it repudiated?

But if there is nothing besides God than all have the power of God, do they not?

[Calm]

By literal I mean that one is to take the exact meaning of the correctly translated words

And you know the exact meaning how?

[Calm]

MFB, for some reason I can't get the previous page to download or whatever so can't reference the post I am interested in, but you said you took classes from the scholars that peteolcott claims to have gotten his idea of the "mathematics of the meaning of words" from.

I am curious as to if you ever heard the scholars use this phrase to describe what they were doing or if this is something unique to peteolcott (according to google, it appears to be).

And if so, how does "the abstract science of number, quantity, and space" get applied to the "meaning of words"?

Edited December 1, 2012 by calmoriah

[Nathair/|\]

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....-udd/54/924/39a

Still doesn't meet the requirements of the CFR.

[Nathair/|\]

Since you did not quote this, I can not be sure that you saw this so it may be a repeat.

He specifically agreed that the word-for-word paraphrase {God exists, and nothing besides God exists} accurately stated the meaning of the verse.

If we begin with the premise that the bible is the inspired word of God, then it would seem to be the case that God would say exactly what he means and mean exactly what he says. If God does not say exactly what he means and mean exactly what he says, then God would (at least slightly) either err or lie. If we assume that God neither errs nor lies, then that would logically entail that God says exactly what he means and means exactly what he says. This is the kind of literal meaning that I am referring to.

Are you claiming that God never uses metaphor or poetry or parable?

[peteolcott]

Are you claiming that God never uses metaphor or poetry or parable?

I am claiming that God would not say "I am the Lord, and there is none else."

to mean only that no other Gods exist.

I am claiming that God would mean exactly and precisely what he says and say exactly and precisely what he means. God would not use the word {never} to mean infrequently and the word {always} to mean quite often.

[peteolcott]

Still doesn't meet the requirements of the CFR.

This is the only written basis that I have for claiming that Jewish Mysticism is identical with Buddhist enlightenment.

Isaiah 45:6 King James Version (KJV)

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.

This is from the Diamond Sutra XXXI (Direct quote from Buddha)

http://www.gblt.site...&main=main04.03

the World-honored One declares that notions of selfhood, personality, entity and separate individuality, as really existing, are erroneous - these terms are merely figures of speech.

The basis that carries the most weight is not any written basis, it is the first hand direct enlightenment experience itself.

Edited December 1, 2012 by peteolcott

[harfad]

This is the only written basis that I have for claiming that Jewish Mysticism is identical with Buddhist enlightenment.

Isaiah 45:6 King James Version (KJV)

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.

This is from the Diamond Sutra XXXI (Direct quote from Buddha)

http://www.gblt.site...&main=main04.03

the World-honored One declares that notions of selfhood, personality, entity and separate individuality, as really existing, are erroneous - these terms are merely figures of speech.

The basis that carries the most weight is not any written basis, it is the first hand direct enlightenment experience itself.

Thank you for your interesting comments. While reading these I was reminded of some verses I read in the Mathnawi (or Masnavi) of Rumi, the greatest mystic poem that has ever been written. The following quote is from the translation of Jawid Mojaddedi, Book One, pp. 44-45, published by the Oxford University Press:

When union with the Lord has left our sight

We need to be reminded of His might,

Like when the fragrant rose’s life is spent

Rose water lets us still breathe in its scent;

God won’t reveal himself although He lives

So prophets serve as representatives,

They’re not apart from what they represent—

That’s incorrect, it’s not what I first meant:

They seem distinct if to their form you’re tied,

Discerning eyes can tell they’re unified.

You’re seeing double if their form’s your aim,

Observe their light, you’ll see that it’s the same!

Who can discern his own eyes’ share of light

When it’s this light which gives each man his sight:

If you light up ten lamps when there’s a storm

Each differs from the other in its form,

But no one still can separate their light

Which makes the space around you clear and bright

You now see countless apples in the cart

But once they’re crushed you can’t tell them apart

The spirit’s realm has no plurality,

Division, individuality;

This union of the lovers waits for you,

Hold on, don't let its form obstruct your view,

Melt stubborn form through hardship and be bold

And you’ll find unity beneath like gold!

If you don’t melt it, then his kindness will,

The master of our hearts supports us still:

He shows his face inside your happy heart

And sews the Sufi cloak that’s torn apart:

Like one expansive whole was our past state,

Beyond one could not differentiate,

The same throughout in form just like the sun,

Like water, clear and still as if it’s one;

When it took form that pure light multiplied

Like shadows of the battlements outside—

Demolish all of them my faithful troop

Erase the differences among this group!

I would have clarified this all, my friend,

Had I not feared you wouldn’t comprehend,

These points are finer than a sabre’s tip,

Escape, if you’ve no shield yet in your grip!

Without a shield don’t try to hold your own,

In murder this cruel blade no shame has shown,

I’ve put my own sword in its sheath again

So my intentions aren’t misread by men;

The translation of parts of it is a bit faulty. I don't have the time to ammend it right now, but when I get the chance I will try later on.

Edited December 2, 2012 by harfad

[Bill Hamblin]

This is the only written basis that I have for claiming that Jewish Mysticism is identical with Buddhist enlightenment.

Isaiah 45:6 King James Version (KJV)

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.

This is from the Diamond Sutra XXXI (Direct quote from Buddha)

http://www.gblt.site...&main=main04.03

the World-honored One declares that notions of selfhood, personality, entity and separate individuality, as really existing, are erroneous - these terms are merely figures of speech.

The basis that carries the most weight is not any written basis, it is the first hand direct enlightenment experience itself.

I suspect that the Buddha would not see what Yahweh says here as reflecting a denial that selfhood or personality "really exist." Rather, since the Buddha believed that even gods needed to achieve Nirvana, he would say that Yahweh needed to achieve Nirvana.