Why does a spiritual epiphany have to mean...

[_truth dancer]

Charity...

And this little blind spot kept him from considering external experiences. Of which visions and visitations are.

We were not discussing YOUR interpretation of what you think Maslow should have believed, if he had only been a member of your church.

I think YOU know that Maslow did not believe any visitation, visions, revelations were external. He included ALL mystical experiences in this theory.

in my opinion, you have "misunderstood" his theory because you want it to be something other than what it is. Agree with it or not, it is what it is.

Since you have asked previously why I have a difficult time conversing with you... let me give you this example.

You could have stated that you do not believe Maslow's theory because he did not believe in any external mystical experiences. Or you could have admitted that you were not aware of (or did not understand), that Maslow did actually refer to all mystical experiences and actually meant, all mystical experiences. Or you could have apologized to Amantha for criticizing him when he clearly was correct.

The way you claim to know truth, condemn others for not knowing, and fail to admit when you are wrong makes it a challenge to engage in normal conversation.

I'm trying to point out the problem not to be rude but to help.

~dancer~

[_amantha]

Charity...

And this little blind spot kept him from considering external experiences. Of which visions and visitations are.

We were not discussing YOUR interpretation of what you think Maslow should have believed, if he had only been a member of your church.

I think YOU know that Maslow did not believe any visitation, visions, revelations were external. He included ALL mystical experiences in this theory.

in my opinion, you have "misunderstood" his theory because you want it to be something other than what it is. Agree with it or not, it is what it is.

Since you have asked previously why I have a difficult time conversing with you... let me give you this example.

You could have stated that you do not believe Maslow's theory because he did not believe in any external mystical experiences. Or you could have admitted that you were not aware of (or did not understand), that Maslow did actually refer to all mystical experiences and actually meant, all mystical experiences. Or you could have apologized to Amantha for criticizing him when he clearly was correct.

The way you claim to know truth, condemn others for not knowing, and fail to admit when you are wrong makes it a challenge to engage in normal conversation.

I'm trying to point out the problem not to be rude but to help.

~dancer~

You nailed it.

I don't particularly enjoy ridiculing people's positions, I just cannot tolerate people who in the face of overwhelming evidence, choose to play omnipotent. This is why I have no patience for Charity and I have no compunction about ridiculing her ridiculous deception.

[_charity]

Charity...

And this little blind spot kept him from considering external experiences. Of which visions and visitations are.

We were not discussing YOUR interpretation of what you think Maslow should have believed, if he had only been a member of your church.

We are discussing interpretations of what Maslow thought and theorized. I wasn't saying what he should have believed. I was saying that his defintion of "mystical" experiences was limited, as those looking at his theory from the outside could easily see. A scientist simply cannot ignore data based on what he believes.

I think YOU know that Maslow did not believe any visitation, visions, revelations were external. He included ALL mystical experiences in this theory.

That is exaclty what I was saying.

in my opinion, you have "misunderstood" his theory because you want it to be something other than what it is. Agree with it or not, it is what it is.

I thought I was disagreeing with it.

Since you have asked previously why I have a difficult time conversing with you... let me give you this example.

You could have stated that you do not believe Maslow's theory because he did not believe in any external mystical experiences. Or you could have admitted that you were not aware of (or did not understand), that Maslow did actually refer to all mystical experiences and actually meant, all mystical experiences. Or you could have apologized to Amantha for criticizing him when he clearly was correct.

I knew that he discounted accounts of external experiences. I was criticizing amantha for misrepresenting his theory as covering ALL religious experiences. He clearly thought he had. That is why I referred to that as a "blind spot."

The way you claim to know truth, condemn others for not knowing, and fail to admit when you are wrong makes it a challenge to engage in normal conversation.

I don't claim to know all truth, I don't condemn others for not kowing. I think I have a right to express my opinion about the truths that others say they know. And on this board, it can safely be assumed that there will be quite a bit that I will disagree with.

Have you ever seen anything in my posts to rival the sneering ridicule that amantha directs at me and then defends her atitude by saying I deserve every bit of ridicule she can throw at me? You don't have to answer that. I know its an us vs them situation here. And you wouldn't want to criticize a member of "your team."

[_amantha]

Charity said:

I knew that he discounted accounts of external experiences. I was criticizing amantha for misrepresenting his theory as covering ALL religious experiences. He clearly thought he had. That is why I referred to that as a "blind spot."

CFR again. I invite Charity to show us where Maslow excluded certain aspects of religious experience from his peak experience theory. He didn't. The only "blind spot" is hers.

[_truth dancer]

A scientist simply cannot ignore data based on what he believes.

And what data would that be? Please stop telling us what you think and show us why you think this. (Again, this is one of the difficulties one faces when conversing with you... you make all sorts of assertions without any documentation).

I wrote:

I think YOU know that Maslow did not believe any visitation, visions, revelations were external. He included ALL mystical experiences in this theory.

Charity replies:

That is exaclty what I was saying.

I'm not sure if you do not understand Maslow or if you are deliberately trying to be misleading.

Maslow was clear that ALL MYSTICAL (revelations, illuminations, visions, etc. etc. etc.), experiences were internal. Do you understand this?

You seem to be suggesting that IF there are other forms of otherworldly life that interact with humans these would not be internal? Well... OK. (sigh) This is silliness but OK. If there really are Martians, fairies, zombies, Nephilim, leprechauns, dragons from Saturn, or any other creatures that come to Earth we can all agree that meeting them would not be a "peak experience" as Maslow describes. Fine.

Back to reality... to suggest that Maslow excluded some otherworldly visitations or revelations in his theory because he doesn't believe in them is to not accurately portray his theory. He specifically states ALL MYSTICAL experiences and illuminations.

I don't claim to know all truth, I don't condemn others for not kowing. I think I have a right to express my opinion about the truths that others say they know. And on this board, it can safely be assumed that there will be quite a bit that I will disagree with.

I didn't say "all" truth... I said truth, which you certainly do claim. And, yes time and time again you criticize others for their lack of knowledge. Go reread what you wrote to amantha. Yes, of course you have a right to express your opinion. What is frustrating to many of us who try to converse with you is you state your opinion as FACT, then when asked to support your facts you do not.

I think both amantha and I, and all others who are interested would admit we were wrong if you could show us something Maslow wrote that supports your claims or opinion. I'm pretty familiar with Maslow and do not recall ever reading anything that suggests he excluded some mystical experiences in his theory. If he did I would be most interested to know.

When I first read your assertion, I went and pulled out, Religions, Values, and Peak Experiences, which I have read a few times over the years, to check if I had missed something. I couldn't find anything that gave me the impression that you correctly interpreted Maslow.

Why not just show us why you are making your claims?

Have you ever seen anything in my posts to rival the sneering ridicule that amantha directs at me and then defends her atitude by saying I deserve every bit of ridicule she can throw at me? You don't have to answer that.

What? Of course I have an answer. Why would you state that I do not? You have never asked. Yes, amantha ridicules you. You also ridicule others... perhaps not to the same extent but you certainly do mock and belittle others. The difference is, you justify it differently. In addition to this, I think your arrogance makes it difficult for others to politely interact with you. (I'm not justifying nastiness here, just trying to explain it for you. Also, to be clear, I'm not trying to be mean Charity... I'm trying to provide honest feedback, for which you asked, to help you realize why others find conversing with you challenging).

I know its an us vs them situation here. And you wouldn't want to criticize a member of "your team."

Oh please Charity. Talk about growing up. It is not us vs them. And you wonder why folks get nasty with you. (sigh). Can you see this comment does not add to discussion?

See... again this is the problem. Rather than supporting your claims, you end up just grumbling about the way your are treated. Amantha has repeatedly asked for some sort of documentation. You do not give anything but continually assert your unsubstantiated claims. Why not just show us the support for your assertions and we can have a normal discussion?

Some folks get frustrated when the discussion with you goes into the dark hole of nonsense. I'm not saying I support the nastiness because I do not. But do you really not understand why this scenario keeps playing out for you?

I'm pretty sure that if you just supported your claim (which I do not think you can do), or admitted your mistake, the conversation would have a pleasant and informative tone.

~dancer~

[_harmony]

I'm pretty sure that if you just supported your claim (which I do not think you can do), or admitted your mistake, the conversation would have a pleasant and informative tone.

For me, if charity would just show her reasoning. She doesn't have to have documentation from a source to add to the discussion, if she'd just show how her own reasoning worked to reach her conclusion. Just stating the conclusion as if it's a given is bogus.

[_charity]

I'm pretty sure that if you just supported your claim (which I do not think you can do), or admitted your mistake, the conversation would have a pleasant and informative tone.

For me, if charity would just show her reasoning. She doesn't have to have documentation from a source to add to the discussion, if she'd just show how her own reasoning worked to reach her conclusion. Just stating the conclusion as if it's a given is bogus.

I surrender. My library was given away a couple of years after I retired. I don't have access to my Maslow texts and a search of what is available on the internet doesn't turn up what I wanted. I can't quote anything Maslow actually said. When I was studying Maslow I was fascinated with his basic approach. Don't study the sick. Study the healthy. Which I think is one of the plusses of his work. And I remember that he did write off the extreme religious experiences which reported external events.

But I can't find it. You win.

[_wenglund]

I've seen this several times.

If an LDS says they have had a 'spiritual experience', and you try and claim that it might not be 'quite what they think it is', the quick reply can be: 'You don't know what I experienced, so you don't have a clue'. (Which I personally believe is fair enough to a great degree...)

But if someone else has a spiritual experience that contradicts what that LDS person believes or - heaven forbid - leads them to question any element of the LDS faith, then suddenly the response can be: "Oh no no - your spiritual experience doesn't mean that! Here, let me explain to you what it actually means..."

I don't happen to fit that LDS stereotype. While I see no problem discussing with other people the possible meanings of spiritual experiences, and even comparing and contrasting respective experience to the extent that is possible, I do think it appropriate that each individual determine for themselves the meaning of their own spiritual experiences.

And, while I have, at times, been informed by the spirit what others may be spiritually experiencing (along with myself), even then I think it appropriate to leave each to ultimately decide the meaning for themselves.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

...what somebody else told you it should mean?

Multitudes of people have peak experiences which can been described as spiritual witnesses, epiphanies, visitations, revelations, etc. These experiences are anticipated aspects of human experience. Abraham Maslow described them as part of the human potential for self-actualization. William James viewed them as a common feature of a variety of religious experiences. These experiences are often mysterious and can defy mortal interpretation. Given the mystery and potency of these experiences, would it be possible to control human beings merely by offering to interpret them? Yes, of course.

If I were to start a religion today, I would begin by capturing the persuasive powers of these normal experiences by applying a limited and particular meaning to them. I might ask my followers to read a book, received by inspiration, which is replete with mysterious and worthy anecdotes, as well as moral principles. The text itself instructs the reader to discern its veracity by settling herself into a quieted state which is at the core of my own prescriptive process.

Of course many, but not all readers will experience something profound. Those who have these profound experiences do so within the context of an embedded suggestion, the suggestion that their peak experience is directly related to the verity of the text. If I can then create or usurp a causative agent, e.g. a holy ghost, who is responsible for infusing the seeker with this peak experience, I gain control over the interpretation of it. I thereby become the author of the term “holy ghost,” which my burgeoning congregation will thereafter profess and I also acquire authority over those who believe that my term is the "correct" term. For those who now believe in the verity of my new religious system, their normal and human spiritual epiphanies will forever be a branded commodity, wholly owned by me and my organization. These people will thereafter believe that their experiences arise from the context which I provided for them. I will have successfully coopted a natural process and converted it into intellectual property.

Unfortunately, this scenario has happened and will continue to happen until people refuse to allow others to define and delimit their personal ecstacies. So much can be gained from a peak experience if one is not hamstringed in their choices of what the experience means, or worse where the experience originates. Your freedom to interpret your own experience outside of a matrix of memes, designed to capture your allegiance, is something every person should avail themselves of. By keeping your own counsel with regard to your experiences, you become free to interpret them and to reinterpret them as guided by your own muse.

Moroni can only corner the market on your experiences if you let him. Don't let him or anyone place limits on the myriad meanings available to a purely personal interpretation of the mystery.

By the way, Maslow has the following to say about peak experiences and religious experiences:

The very beginning, the intrinsic core, the essence, the universal nucleus of every known high religion (unless Confucianism is also called a religion) has been the private, lonely, personal illumination, revelation, or ecstasy of some acutely sensitive prophet or seer. The high religions call themselves revealed religions and each of them tends to rest its validity, its function, and its right to exist on the codification and the communication of this original mystic experience or revelation from the lonely prophet to the mass of human beings in general.
But it has recently begun to appear that these "revelations" or mystical illuminations can be subsumed under the head of the "peak-experiences"[1] or "ecstasies" or "transcendent" experiences which are now being eagerly investigated by many psychologists. That is to say, it is very likely, indeed almost certain, that these older reports, phrased in terms of supernatural revelation, were, in fact, perfectly natural, human peak-experiences of the kind that can easily be examined today, which, however, were phrased in terms of whatever conceptual, cultural, and linguistic framework the particular seer had available in his time (Laski).
In a word, we can study today what happened in the past and was then explainable in supernatural terms only. By so doing, we are enabled to examine religion in all its facets and in all its meanings in a way that makes it a part of science rather than something outside and exclusive of it.
Also this kind of study leads us to another very plausible hypothesis: to the extent that all mystical or peak-experiences are the same in their essence and have always been the same, all religions are the same in their essence and always have been the same. They should, therefore, come to agree in principle on teaching that which is common to all of them, I.e., whatever it is that peak-experiences teach in common (whatever is different about these illuminations can fairly be taken to be localisms both in time and space, and are, therefore, peripheral, expendable, not essential). This something common, this something which is left over after we peel away all the localisms, all the accidents of particular languages or particular philosophies, all the ethnocentric phrasings, all those elements which are not common, we may call the "core-religious experience" or the "transcendent experience." [from ISBN:0140194878, Religions, Values, and Peak Experiences by Abraham H. Maslow ©1964 by Kappa Delta Pi and ©1970 (preface) The Viking Press. Published by Penguin Books Limited ISBN 0 14 00.4262 8]

I find it interesting, if not ironic, that after you decring letting anyone tell us the meaning of our spiritual experiences, you quote Maslow, who is essentially tells us the meaning of our spiritual experiences--i.e. that they are "religiously" the same, perfectly "natural", and may be defined at "peak experiences", or "ecstasies" or "transcendent" experiences, that may be examioned by psychologists. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Dr. Sunstoned]

If you discount Kali, you must discount Elohim and Jehovah

Not of logical necessity. Your problem, like all secular materialists before you (with all the a priori assumptions this entails), is that you are attempting to approach the concept of revelation as a purely intellectual problem of rationally determining the nature and complexities of various phenomena of this kind.

This assumes that the particular methodologies utilized-logic and critical intellectual analysis-are methodologically suitable to that task. If they are not-if other techniques are needed as well, then what you are in essence doing is engaging in a sophisticated cursing of the darkness while refusing to light a candle.

It does not necessarily follow from the fact that there are a variety of revelatory experiences that:

1. The concept of revelatory experience itself is suspect

2. There could not be a class of revelatory experience that is authoritative or true and stands outside the others in this context.

3.Revelation and witness are not lawful; bound by rules and conditions that determine its scope and effects, depending upon the source of that revelation.


If you discount the concept of revelation a priori, however, we need not argue at all about its possible features.

If I discount Kali, I need not (in a strictly logical sense) discount Jesus Christ or Elohim because:

1. There is no particular reason, a priori, to assume, without other evidence, that someone has not received revelation from some being claiming to be Kali. The Gospel takes ample account of such phenomena.

2. LDS theology proposes precisely the kind of situation we are discussing; a ongoing battle of ideas, principles and alternate visions between Christ and Satan that began in the preexistent world and continues here, and involves various methods and tactics on both sides. What is going on in the world of spirit is of a piece and intimately connected to what is going on here, as we confront each other in this arena of ideas and opposition in all things. Hence, LDS theology both expects and comprehends the existence of multiple lines and forms of spiritual experience.

3. There are keys-Priesthood keys- and gifts (such as the gift of discernment) that allow the faithful Saints to negotiate the plethora of alternatives without letting go of the iron rod and wandering off onto "
strange roads".

4. The infallibility of the witness of the Spirit, as I said before, is in the Spirit itself. That witness, its truth and legitimacy, is imprinted upon us indelibly and unmistakably. It is not ourselves who are infallible but the source of the witness. The process by which that witness comes, and its effects, are such that the human being can then say with complete certainty that "I know of myself" that x is true. This knowledge is direct and, I dare say, in its strongest manifestations, "pure"; unmediated by filters such as logic, personal expectation, or preassumed bias.