Mysticism And Mormon Spirituality

[peteolcott]

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.

Very good, I read it through twice. It Rhymes well in English, what is its original language?

[peteolcott]

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.

That seems reasonable to me. I am glad to hear from you again. You seem to have a very good understanding of these things.

[mfbukowski]

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"?

Well quite frankly we are getting fairly technical here but one of the reasons I left UCLA was the influence of Kalish (the department head- uh, that reflects a little bit of the direction of the department ) and Montague, who was still alive when I graduated.

Wittgenstein's view of all this is totally opposed to Montague- M.'s approach is more along the lines of pure logical positivism whereas W.'s view is that language ultimately has normative elements which are inescapable. http://paginaspersonales.deusto.es/abaitua/konzeptu/nlp/yorickby.htm

To put it simply, W's view is that language games have specific purposes we give them, so a given word's meaning is dependent on context whereas M's view is that the meaning of a word is as precise as a mathematical term. I of course believed in W's approach so I really had no place at UCLA so I went to a place where I could study William James, and his views on religious experience, which I did with McDermott at CUNY for my grad school.

The entire approach at UCLA was cutting edge at the time and one of the biggies in the department at the time was Alonzo Church and another was an up-and coming newbie David Lewis who became one of the giants. Church was working with Montague and the whole department basically was devoted to computer languages- in the late '60's that was cutting edge stuff. So the goal was to be able to take a natural language - like English or French and turn it into a mathematical system.

The bottom line was that W. would have thought such an enterprise absurd- and as a faithful undergrad of course I did as well.

But it was a pretty amazing time with Angela Davis there in the same department- so I was out there protesting and running around with the commie yippies while Kalish and Montague were literally in their tower (there was a little towery- thingy on the corner office of the third floor of the building where the philos dept was)- not quite ivory but at least it was painted white- where they were helping the "military industrial complex" by helping IBM make computer languages.

Many students wanted "relevance" and so we demanded that they get Angela from - UCSD - she was there with Marcuse - to teach Marxism

Heady times!

But to your question- I would not fault peteo. for that characterization- indeed if you need to put it into a few words that's not a bad characterization.

The problem is that from the point of view of the Wittgensteinians in the world that was a pretty absurd ambition, and in my opinion, they have won that battle. But I suppose it is still up for debate in some circles, but not in mine. I rejected that well before 1970.

Here's a little more about the difference- a bit technical, and clearly just notes- but I think readable for the average informed reader: http://drjon.typepad.com/jon_cogburns_blog/2007/02/thoughts_while_.html

At any rate it is clear from those articles that the views of W and M are hardly compatible.

[mfbukowski]

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).

That characterization would never have been used by those philosophers but it really isn't too bad a phrase to describe the position to lay people. I would not fault it's use in this context- it gets the idea across briefly and fairly accurately.

[mfbukowski]

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.

Well of course with the Council of the Gods in mind that is a direct contradiction with other bible verses as our buddy David Bokovoy et al have shown numerous times.

And some how I fail to believe that Montague was an inspired prophet, and if anything he CERTAINLY was not a mystic. In fact his entire philosophy was totally opposed to that point of view.

I am virtually positive he was an atheist. so that presents an interesting problem.

[mfbukowski]

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.

Wow- nailed it cold!

And then we have the Council of the Gods. You know those scrips a lot better than I do!

[peteolcott]

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"?

I coined the phrase: "the mathematics of the meaning of words" to make the common term: {formal semantics of linguistics}, more accessible. Richard Montague laid the foundation for the latter term.

[peteolcott]

Well quite frankly we are getting fairly technical here but one of the reasons I left UCLA was the influence of Kalish (the department head- uh, that reflects a little bit of the direction of the department ) and Montague, who was still alive when I graduated.

Wittgenstein's view of all this is totally opposed to Montague- M.'s approach is more along the lines of pure logical positivism whereas W.'s view is that language ultimately has normative elements which are inescapable. http://paginasperson...lp/yorickby.htm

To put it simply, W's view is that language games have specific purposes we give them, so a given word's meaning is dependent on context whereas M's view is that the meaning of a word is as precise as a mathematical term. I of course believed in W's approach so I really had no place at UCLA so I went to a place where I could study William James, and his views on religious experience, which I did with McDermott at CUNY for my grad school.

The entire approach at UCLA was cutting edge at the time and one of the biggies in the department at the time was Alonzo Church and another was an up-and coming newbie David Lewis who became one of the giants. Church was working with Montague and the whole department basically was devoted to computer languages- in the late '60's that was cutting edge stuff. So the goal was to be able to take a natural language - like English or French and turn it into a mathematical system.

The bottom line was that W. would have thought such an enterprise absurd- and as a faithful undergrad of course I did as well.

But it was a pretty amazing time with Angela Davis there in the same department- so I was out there protesting and running around with the commie yippies while Kalish and Montague were literally in their tower (there was a little towery- thingy on the corner office of the third floor of the building where the philos dept was)- not quite ivory but at least it was painted white- where they were helping the "military industrial complex" by helping IBM make computer languages.

Many students wanted "relevance" and so we demanded that they get Angela from - UCSD - she was there with Marcuse - to teach Marxism

Heady times!

But to your question- I would not fault peteo. for that characterization- indeed if you need to put it into a few words that's not a bad characterization.

The problem is that from the point of view of the Wittgensteinians in the world that was a pretty absurd ambition, and in my opinion, they have won that battle. But I suppose it is still up for debate in some circles, but not in mine. I rejected that well before 1970.

Here's a little more about the difference- a bit technical, and clearly just notes- but I think readable for the average informed reader: http://drjon.typepad...hts_while_.html

At any rate it is clear from those articles that the views of W and M are hardly compatible.

I think that I see extensions to Montague's foundation that can be used to cover context.

There would be two distinct sets of meaning postulates (within ontologies), the general one that defines every word, and a situation specific one to contain the details of the context.

Edited December 2, 2012 by peteolcott

[mfbukowski]

I think that I see extensions to Montague's foundation that can be used to cover context.

There would be two distinct sets of meaning postulates (within ontologies), the general one that defines every word, and a situation specific one to contain the details of the context.

Interesting but applying this to scripture I think would be a real stretch.

[mfbukowski]

http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/59729/Biblical-evidence-of-council-of-the-gods.html

These reflects the LDS view of the biblical characterization of God as "one"

The entire notion of the Godhead or even the Trinity is opposed of course logically to this unity notion- of course this has been problematic for 2000 years of Christianity. If God is one and has a Son who is also God, then God is not one.

So clearly here we have a break with Islam and Judaisim and Christianity which everyone has known about since the birth of Christianity.

So how could anyone assert that the mystical experience of the "oneness" of God is identical in Christianity and Islam, say?

[peteolcott]

Interesting but applying this to scripture I think would be a real stretch.

All that I am saying is to use as much precision as possible when determining exactly what a bible verse is saying.

If one uses complete precision then the understanding of the last sentence of Isaiah 45:6 [i am the Lord, and there is none else.] (most literally) corresponds to {Only God exists. Nothing besides God exists}. (assuming the English translation is correct).

[mfbukowski]

All that I am saying is to use as much precision as possible when determining exactly what a bible verse is saying.

If one uses complete precision then the understanding of the last sentence of Isaiah 45:6 [i am the Lord, and there is none else.] (most literally) corresponds to {Only God exists. Nothing besides God exists}. (assuming the English translation is correct).

You mean assuming your 21st century mind understands the innuendos of a language and a people promoting the worship of one God polemically several thousand years ago, along with the purpose and motivation of someone writing that.

That is known as "presentism". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_%28literary_and_historical_analysis%29

And incidentally this is precisely why Montague has nothing to do with biblical scholarship.

[harfad]

Very good, I read it through twice. It Rhymes well in English, what is its original language?

The original language is Persian. I agree that he has done a good job of turning it into English rhymed verse; but in doing so he has had to take a lot of liberties, often not giving a literal rendering, but trying to capture the essence of the verse in his own words, at which sometimes he has been less successful than at other times. Generally it is a good translation, but another thing that has marred it is that he has relied on an inferior manuscript and an inferior commentary. As a result his exceptional talent at English versification has been somewhat wasted by giving an inaccurate translation caused by his failure to understand the original correctly. But still, compared to other translations it is probably the best.

Rumi’s poetry is sublime, and in my estimation borders on the scriptural. His poetry shot to fame in the US when somebody published a translation of it in English there some years ago, and has continued to be very popular since.

[peteolcott]

Interesting but applying this to scripture I think would be a real stretch.

Here is another example when taking the words precisely literally derives a completely different meaning:

http://bible.cc/mark/13-19.htm

Mark 13:19 NRSV

For in those days there will be suffering, such as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, no, and never will be.

suffering ... never will be

This indicates the world war three nuclear bombs dropping everywhere Armageddon will not ever happen. If we assume that Christ screwed up and meant to say never will be equaled again, then we get the common meaning that everyone takes as the truth. I assume that Christ did not screw up and said exactly and precisely what he meant, and meant exactly and precisely what he said.

[peteolcott]

http://www.ldschurch...f-the-gods.html

These reflects the LDS view of the biblical characterization of God as "one"

The entire notion of the Godhead or even the Trinity is opposed of course logically to this unity notion- of course this has been problematic for 2000 years of Christianity. If God is one and has a Son who is also God, then God is not one.

So clearly here we have a break with Islam and Judaisim and Christianity which everyone has known about since the birth of Christianity.

So how could anyone assert that the mystical experience of the "oneness" of God is identical in Christianity and Islam, say?

Christ said that he is the way, the truth and the life. God constantly provides the only life of all living things. The life of God is manifest within a multitude of different physical bodies, and inanimate objects.

[Calm]

And incidentally this is precisely why Montague has nothing to do with biblical scholarship.

Considering the absolute difficulty of two people having a conversation both walking away from that conversation with an identical understanding of what just happened, honestly I have a hard problem to believe that Montague has anything to do with 'real life'.

[peteolcott]

Considering the absolute difficulty of two people having a conversation both walking away from that conversation with an identical understanding of what just happened, honestly I have a hard problem to believe that Montague has anything to do with 'real life'.

Basically he provided the essential foundation for specifying any meaning that can be completely expressed within words in such a way that everyone would attain an identical meaning. Meaning postulates are specified that contain and fully specify every subtle nuance of meaning, and any meaning outside of these meaning postulates is considered not to exist.

[Calm]

Basically he provided the essential foundation for specifying any meaning that can be completely expressed within words in such a way that everyone would attain an identical meaning. Meaning postulates are specified that contain and fully specify every subtle nuance of meaning, and any meaning outside of these meaning postulates is considered not to exist.

But that is not how language is actually used....

[volgadon]

Basically he provided the essential foundation for specifying any meaning that can be completely expressed within words in such a way that everyone would attain an identical meaning. Meaning postulates are specified that contain and fully specify every subtle nuance of meaning, and any meaning outside of these meaning postulates is considered not to exist.

Then the theory is doomed to failure.

[volgadon]

But that is not how language is actually used....

Not even Montague could have used it that way.

[volgadon]

All that I am saying is to use as much precision as possible when determining exactly what a bible verse is saying.

If one uses complete precision then the understanding of the last sentence of Isaiah 45:6 [i am the Lord, and there is none else.] (most literally) corresponds to {Only God exists. Nothing besides God exists}. (assuming the English translation is correct).

No, you are not using much precision at all. For one, you have completely ignored the context. For another, you are neglecting other semantic fields of the words that don't match your theory.

[peteolcott]

No, you are not using much precision at all. For one, you have completely ignored the context. For another, you are neglecting other semantic fields of the words that don't match your theory.

The ultimate measure of the direct first-hand experience of enlightenment / union with God confirms the view that I propose. To know the truth nothing besides direct first-hand experience of enlightenment / union with God is sufficient.

Edited December 2, 2012 by peteolcott

[Calm]

The ultimate measure of the direct first-hand experience of enlightenment / union with God concurs with the view that I propose. To know the truth nothing besides direct first-hand experience of enlightenment / union with God is sufficient.

So language itself cannot be precise, only "union with God".

[volgadon]

The ultimate measure of the direct first-hand experience of enlightenment / union with God concurs with the view that I propose. To know the truth nothing besides direct first-hand experience of enlightenment / union with God is sufficient.

You keep switching tacks rather than defend your position. Not very credible.

[volgadon]

Christ said that he is the way, the truth and the life. God constantly provides the only life of all living things. The life of God is manifest within a multitude of different physical bodies, and inanimate objects.

You do realise that pantheism is far from the only possible interpretation, let alone the most likely interpretation?