Why does a spiritual epiphany have to mean...

[_charity]

Amantha, you can shrug your shoulders and walk away. That certainly is easier than engaging in dialogue above the junior high level with "neener neenders/"

Are you afrraid to answer my question? I will ask it again.

Is you perceptive faculty faillible?

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 if you don't like to engage in conversation with me, you can just not reply to any of my posts. That's the easy way. Running away when you come across questions you cannot respond do looks very much like something else.

[_amantha]

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.

This is as good an example of Boomeresque, New Agist self absorption and epistemological solipsism As I've seen in a long time. The implication, that each individual can go within himself to find his or here individual, autonomous spiritual experiences, and that each of these will be valid and true for that individual, is, of course, true, if one accepts the idea that each individual spiritual experience is, in some manner "true" in a radically individualistic manner such that each individual can prescribe that experience for himself; that human beings are not bound together by a shared capacity to engage the eternal in a way that would unite each of them in a shared vision of truth and meaning.

I'm not saying that individual spiitual experiences are not unique and ideosyncratic, but that they fall on a continuum predicated upon the way the universe actually is.

The atomistic, radical subjectivist alternative presented here is, of course, whatever else it may be, an attempt to circumvent the disciplines of the Gospel that become incumbent upon individuals who access the authoritative channels of revelation and communion with deity. Such encounters, if they are allowed to move the individual toward further truth, inevitably move the individual toward the same truths encountered by others who have gained access to those same channels of revelation and inspiration.

Truth, to be a coherent concept, must be one; it must be immune from atomization and differentiation. The Schizophrenic's reality is real to him, but few would take this to mean "real" in any existential sense. If Gospel truths are actually "true", then they are a part of the cosmos; they are an existential reality accessible by all through essentially the same means.

Alternative spiritual realities exist, but the question at that point, from a Gospel standpoint, is only their legitimacy, not their reality.

Huh??? CFR.

Nice Strawman.

[Guest]

Amantha, you can shrug your shoulders and walk away. That certainly is easier than engaging in dialogue above the junior high level with "neener neenders/"

Are you afrraid to answer my question? I will ask it again.

Is you perceptive faculty faillible?

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 if you don't like to engage in conversation with me, you can just not reply to any of my posts. That's the easy way. Running away when you come across questions you cannot respond do looks very much like something else.

Yes.

The source of the quote is at the bottom of the quote. Read it again, look it up, before you try to make it look like I don't have a legit source--you deceiver you.

Here it is again: [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] and a link to Amazon if you don't like it--


http://www.amazon.com/Religions-Values-Experiences-Abraham-Maslow/dp/0140194878/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200692146&sr=8-1

By the way, you replied to my post, so don't lecture me--just walk away.

[_Coggins7]

Are you certain that the conditional reception of your spiritual witness is absolutely and exactly as you say it is? No, it isn't, unless you also want to claim that you have Pope-like infallibility.

I'd ask for some degree of education regarding what it is, precisely, the LDS church teaches upon the subject of revelation and witness. My explicaton will be thus:

It is not I that am infallible, but the Spirit, and the Spirit, as Joseph Smith taught, communicates with our intelligence precisely as if we had no bodies at all. It is a pure communication between God and our intelligence that, to the point, bypasses much of our Telestial physiology and its faulty perceptual filters; its "degrading of the signal" as it were.

We are constructed as beings to receive such communications, and the witness comes with the revelation, kind of a "sub carrier". The witness is unmistakable because it is unambiguous; interpretation of revelation is about details, not the central reality of the core experience itself.

[_Coggins7]

That long web address has got to go, or be chopped down to size. The posts are now unreadable.

[_amantha]

Are you certain that the conditional reception of your spiritual witness is absolutely and exactly as you say it is? No, it isn't, unless you also want to claim that you have Pope-like infallibility.

I'd ask for some degree of education regarding what it is, precisely, the LDS church teaches upon the subject of revelation and witness. My explicaton will be thus:

It is not I that am infallible, but the Spirit, and the Spirit, as Joseph Smith taught, communicates with our intelligence precisely as if we had no bodies at all. It is a pure communication between God and our intelligence that, to the point, bypasses much of our Telestial physiology and its faulty perceptual filters; its "degrading of the signal" as it were.

We are constructed as beings to receive such communications, and the witness comes with the revelation, kind of a "sub carrier". The witness is unmistakable because it is unambiguous; interpretation of revelation is about details, not the central reality of the core experience itself.

And you are absolutely certain and infallible on this point are you? You know the "Spirit" is infallible with infallible precision do you? You know "how" we are constructed without a doubt do you? No you don't.

Come down from your high place and admit that you don't know these things with infallible certainty.

CFR on all this stuff by the way.

[_Coggins7]

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.

This is as good an example of Boomeresque, New Agist self absorption and epistemological solipsism As I've seen in a long time. The implication, that each individual can go within himself to find his or here individual, autonomous spiritual experiences, and that each of these will be valid and true for that individual, is, of course, true, if one accepts the idea that each individual spiritual experience is, in some manner "true" in a radically individualistic manner such that each individual can prescribe that experience for himself; that human beings are not bound together by a shared capacity to engage the eternal in a way that would unite each of them in a shared vision of truth and meaning.

I'm not saying that individual spiritual experiences are not unique and idiosyncratic, but that they fall on a continuum predicated upon the way the universe actually is.

The atomistic, radical subjectivist alternative presented here is, of course, whatever else it may be, an attempt to circumvent the disciplines of the Gospel that become incumbent upon individuals who access the authoritative channels of revelation and communion with deity. Such encounters, if they are allowed to move the individual toward further truth, inevitably move the individual toward the same truths encountered by others who have gained access to those same channels of revelation and inspiration.

Truth, to be a coherent concept, must be one; it must be immune from atomization and differentiation. The Schizophrenic's reality is real to him, but few would take this to mean "real" in any existential sense. If Gospel truths are actually "true", then they are a part of the cosmos; they are an existential reality accessible by all through essentially the same means.

Alternative spiritual realities exist, but the question at that point, from a Gospel standpoint, is only their legitimacy, not their reality.

Huh??? CFR.

Nice Strawman.

Here is what you said:

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.

That is what led my to the initial critique as I wrote it, both as to direct statements and logical implication.

[_amantha]

That is what led my to the initial critique as I wrote it, both as to direct statements and logical implicaton.

Thanks for the "clarification."

[_Coggins7]

And please, get rid of that freakin' elongated web address...

[_Imwashingmypirate]

Cogster! I like your sig line.