Mazlow says... "mystical illuminations," "revelations," "supernatural revelations," "what happened in the past and was then explainable in supernatural terms only," "all mystical" experience, and what prophets consider, "revelations."
Do you have some sort of documentation that Mazlow excluded visitation in his statement, "all mystical" experiences?
Also, as hopefully you noted... Mazlow does indeed specifically include revelations which you stated he did not.
~dancer~
I specifically have been talking about internal vs external events.
Of course, for those who absolutely deny that visions occur, the discussion won't go anywhere.
Mazlow says... "mystical illuminations," "revelations," "supernatural revelations," "what happened in the past and was then explainable in supernatural terms only," "all mystical" experience, and what prophets consider, "revelations."
Do you have some sort of documentation that Mazlow excluded visitation in his statement, "all mystical" experiences?
Also, as hopefully you noted... Mazlow does indeed specifically include revelations which you stated he did not.
~dancer~
I specifically have been talking about internal vs external events.
Of course, for those who absolutely deny that visions occur, the discussion won't go anywhere.
By the way, it is Maslow, not Mazlow.
Prove to me that Maslow meant to exclude "external events" from internal ones. CFR please from Maslow himself. You can't because the whole point is that what people perceive as external are in fact peak experiences which are best described as INTERNAL. Drop the game Charity. You're toast.
Maslow didn't believe in little green men on the moon so he didn't include them in his theory. External spiritual experience are a lot like the notion of the moon being made out of cheese. Try again.
I would like you to identify you source of information on Abraham Maslow, since you made a statement about his theory that is absolutely wrong.
And...
This is what happens when you haven't studied the theory and only get a quote you want to use. Maslow specifically eliminated visions and visitations from his theory.
And…
There was no provision in the peak experience for revelation, visions, or visitations.
Please document where Maslow specifically eliminated revelations, visions, and visitations from his theory.
Please state where Amantha is "absolutely wrong."
Did you not read the quotes Amantha provided concerning visitations? Revelations? ALL mystical experiences?
Do you not understand that Maslow considered ALL mystical experiences internal?
~dancer~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
truth dancer wrote: Please document where Maslow specifically eliminated revelations, visions, and visitations from his theory.
Because they aren't there! Since he doesn't discuss them, they aren't part of his theory! (He uses revelations in the same sense as internal events, with nothing external.)
Please state where Amantha is "absolutely wrong." [/quote]
truth dancer wrote:Because she states that his theory covers what we LDS consider spiritual experiences as being only peak experiences.
truth dancer wrote:Did you not read the quotes Amantha provided concerning visitations? Revelations? ALL mystical experiences?
Simply using the blanket term "mystical" does not mean that he covered everything.
truth dancer wrote:Do you not understand that Maslow considered ALL mystical experiences internal?
And this little blind spot kept him from considering external experiences. Of which visions and visitations are.
I would like you to identify you source of information on Abraham Maslow, since you made a statement about his theory that is absolutely wrong.
And...
This is what happens when you haven't studied the theory and only get a quote you want to use. Maslow specifically eliminated visions and visitations from his theory.
And…
There was no provision in the peak experience for revelation, visions, or visitations.
Please document where Maslow specifically eliminated revelations, visions, and visitations from his theory.
Please state where Amantha is "absolutely wrong."
Did you not read the quotes Amantha provided concerning visitations? Revelations? ALL mystical experiences?
Do you not understand that Maslow considered ALL mystical experiences internal?
~dancer~
TD,
The position that Charity is in, is one where many people would concede the point and move on. I find it incredibly sad that some people will hold on for dear life, swimming in the minutiae for any scrap of plausibility, against all reason, in defense of being right at all costs. It's just sad, that's all.
truth dancer wrote: Please document where Maslow specifically eliminated revelations, visions, and visitations from his theory.
Because they aren't there! Since he doesn't discuss them, they aren't part of his theory! (He uses revelations in the same sense as internal events, with nothing external.)
Please state where Amantha is "absolutely wrong."
truth dancer wrote:Because she states that his theory covers what we LDS consider spiritual experiences as being only peak experiences.
truth dancer wrote:Did you not read the quotes Amantha provided concerning visitations? Revelations? ALL mystical experiences?
Simply using the blanket term "mystical" does not mean that he covered everything.
truth dancer wrote:Do you not understand that Maslow considered ALL mystical experiences internal?
And this little blind spot kept him from considering external experiences. Of which visions and visitations are.
Well why didn't you say so in the first place.
So it all comes down to the original intent of this thread. All you have is your interpretation of a religious experience to confirm to you that Joseph Smith had a vision and/or a visitation (an event which was most certainly an internal experience--if it happened at all). Of course, your interpretation is infallible. You are a deity yourself. Of course. Of course. Being in your presence is a prime example of an "external" religious experience.
Last edited by Guest on Sat Jan 19, 2008 1:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
charity wrote:I don't consider visions and visitations "minituiae." Which is why I am LDS and amantha is not.
I don't consider visions and visitations minutiae either. I just don't consider them external, which is why I am not LDS and Charity is. Keep on swimming.
amantha wrote: So it all comes down to the original intent of this thread. All you have is your interpretation of a religious experience to confirm to you that Joseph Smith had a vision and/or a visitation (an event which was most certainly an internal experience). Of course, your interpretation is infallible. You are a deity yourself. Of course. Of course. Being in your presence is a prime example of an "external" religious experience.
amantha, this is very tiresome. I have put up with a lot of put downs and insults from you. If this board had an ignore button, I would put you on it. I shall just have to pretend there is one. Good bye to you.
amantha wrote: So it all comes down to the original intent of this thread. All you have is your interpretation of a religious experience to confirm to you that Joseph Smith had a vision and/or a visitation (an event which was most certainly an internal experience). Of course, your interpretation is infallible. You are a deity yourself. Of course. Of course. Being in your presence is a prime example of an "external" religious experience.
amantha, this is very tiresome. I have put up with a lot of put downs and insults from you. If this board had an ignore button, I would put you on it. I shall just have to pretend there is one. Good bye to you.
As I said, feel free to shrug your shoulders and walk away. That won't prevent me from pointing out that for all the evidence you require from critics, you have nothing but your own interpretation of a religious experience at the foundation of your misguided and deceptive apologetics. You claim infallibility. That is arrogance. No one is infallible about anything Charity, including you and me.
You should have conceded the Maslow point but you didn't. It has always been transparent to me that you are insincere, so I will add this interaction to the already mountainous evidence.
I am not here to be nice to you. As long as the powers that be, here, allow me to respond to you, I will generally do so with ridicule. Your position deserves nothing more.