Fw: mystical experience

From: Fairhaven (legacypr@lucernevalley.net)
Date: Sat Aug 18 2001 - 13:52:59 EDT

  • Next message: Vandergraaf, Chuck: "RE: Sunday observance (was Homosexuality (a condition) and homose xual activities)"

    Hello Bob
      I am at a loss as to your narrow reaction to my posting.
    Your implication that chemical aids are a prerequisite for having deep
    thoughts is quite a stretch.
    As far as being a "put-on" (as you call it), I would be glad to respond to
    any specific "issues" you may have.
    I further document each of these issues on my web-site
    I had made this posting to enlighten Mr Hammond that his is not the first
    S.P.O.G. that is floating around out there.
    Mr Hammond does appear to get it right in one respect, in that most list
    members appear content to quibble about minutia, instead of trying to get a
    handle on the bigger picture.

    With Best Regards,

    John E. LaMuth
    www.charactervalues.com ***(newly updated)

    -----Original Message-----
    From: robert rogland <robert.rogland@worldnet.att.net>
    To: Fairhaven <legacypr@lucernevalley.net>; asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>
    Date: Friday, August 17, 2001 10:09 PM
    Subject: Re: mystical experience

    >This has got to be a put-on. Either that, or someone has been ingesting
    >controlled substances.
    >Bob Rogland
    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: Fairhaven <legacypr@lucernevalley.net>
    >To: asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>
    >Date: Friday, August 17, 2001 2:32 PM
    >Subject: mystical experience
    >>A new model of motivational behavior, described as a ten-level,
    >>meta-hierarchy of the major groupings of virtues, values, and ideals,
    >>as the foundation for a new holistic theory of ethics and morality, with
    >>applications to the mystical experience. This innovation arises as a
    >>outcome of the Systems Theory concept of the metaperspective (a
    >>perspective upon the viewpoint held by another). These traditional
    >>of ethical terms are collectively arrayed as subsets within such a
    >>of metaperspectives, each more abstract listing building in a direct
    >>upon that which it supersedes. Take, for example, the cardinal virtues
    >>(prudence-justice-temperance-fortitude), the theological virtues
    >>(faith-hope-charity-decency), and the classical Greek values
    >>(beauty-truth-goodness-wisdom). Each of these groupings is split into a
    >>complex of four subordinate terms, allowing for precise, point-for-point
    >>stacking within the ethical hierarchy. When additional groupings of
    >>terms are further added into the mix: namely, the personal ideals
    >>(glory-honor-dignity-integrity), the civil liberties
    >>(providence-liberty-civility-austerity), the humanistic values
    >>(peace-love-tranquility-equality), and the mystical values
    >>(ecstasy-bliss-joy-harmony), amongst others; the complete ten level
    >>hierarchy of metaperspectives emerges in full detail, partially reproduced
    >>in the table immediately below:
    >> GLORY--------PRUDENCE
    >> GRACE----------BEAUTY
    >> HONOR---------JUSTICE
    >> LIBERTY----------HOPE
    >> FREE WILL-------TRUTH
    >> EQUALITY--------BLISS
    >> LOVE--------------JOY
    >> PEACE---------HARMONY
    >> This cohesive hierarchy of virtues, values, and ideals proves
    >>exceedingly comprehensive in scope, accounting for many major ethical
    >>celebrated within the Western ethical tradition. Indeed, it is easy to
    >>a sense of the trend towards increasing abstraction when scanning each of
    >>the individually depicted columns from top to bottom. Furthermore, this
    >>cohesive ethical hierarchy mirrors the specialization of personal, group,
    >>spiritual, humanitarian, and transcendental realms within human society in
    >>general: which when further specialized into both authority and follower
    >>roles, accounts for the complete ten-level hierarchy of ethical terms.
    >> The highest level of the mystical values (ecstasy-bliss-joy-harmony)
    >>represents the most abstract (nameable) realm of the power hierarchy: any
    >>further extension of this hierarchial format necessarily specifying the
    >>existence of an even more abstract level of authority; namely, that
    >>transcending transcendental authority. Although such an unprecedented
    >>conceptual undertaking would certainly stretch the limits of abstract
    >>sensibility, any such upper limit to the power hierarchy must strictly be
    >>practical one; e.g., when the level of abstraction finally exceeds the
    >>capacity of the intellect to distinguish the individual affective
    >>(precluding their incorporation into the collective language culture).
    >> The observed blending of meanings at the very highest levels of the
    >>hierarchy of values would seem to suggest precisely such an upper
    >>limit to the power hierarchy. Indeed, beginning with the transcendental
    >>level of authority, the respective listing of humanistic values
    >>(peace-love-tranquility-equality) all exhibit a fair degree of
    >>even though some degree conceptual affinity was hinted at in their
    >>dictionary definitions. At the next higher, transcendental follower level,
    >>however, the mystical values (ecstasy-bliss-joy-harmony) all exhibit a
    >>more dramatic degree of conceptual affinity, as evident in definitions
    >>are similar (if not synonymous) in form and function.
    >> Taking this trend to the limit, however, specifies the complete and
    >>irrevocable blending of meaning at the anticipated meta-meta-order level
    >>transcendence. At this almost inconceivable level of abstraction, the four
    >>predicted affective dimensions should ultimately merge into a unified
    >>conceptual continuum, entirely unnamable except in the broadest of
    >>supernatural terms; i.e., God, the Absolute, etc. One experiencing this
    >>extreme level of transcendence would certainly be impressed by the
    >>paradoxical blending of emotional states, in direct contrast to the more
    >>concrete range of experience at the lower levels. In ordinary
    >>the mind is typically restricted to entertaining only one power maneuver
    >>emotion) at any given time. In this supernatural dimension, however, the
    >>distinctions between the emotions would become so blurred as to merge into
    >>unified state; i.e., the one becomes the many, as so many mystics have
    >>reported down through the ages.
    >>This paradoxical experience of all-knowing consciousness has universally
    >>been documented using a wide range of designations; i.e., the Universal
    >>Mind, the Oversoul, The Great Spirit, Cosmic Consciousness, etc. All
    >>to serve as a primordial prototype for the continuum of lower (more
    >>differentiated) states. Indeed, the unified nature of this supreme
    >>perspective (by definition) encompasses all of the lower levels as
    >>hence, accounting for the corresponding flooding of the emotions. Herein
    >>lie the basis for the traditional Judeo-Christian belief that man is
    >>in the image and likeness of God. Ordinary consciousness (with its
    >>sequential limitations) is theorized to differentiate out of such an
    >>all-encompassing, primordial state. Indeed, at this highest "supernatural"
    >>level we are all "gods" in a sense, tuning into the Universal Mind as the
    >>sum-potentiality of all that is emotional in nature.
    >> Perhaps it is really only a matter of convention (devised by the
    >>ordinary mind) to regard God as a wholly separate entity. William James
    >>appears to make a similar point in the following quotation from The
    >>Varieties of Religious Experience: "This overcoming of all the usual
    >>barriers between the individual and the Absolute is the great mystical
    >>achievement. In mystic states we both become one with the Absolute and we
    >>become aware of our oneness. This is the everlasting and triumphant
    >>tradition, hardly altered by differences of clime or creed."
    >> Along similar lines, the spiritually minded can rightfully view the
    >>hierarchy of virtues and values as rooted directly in this supernatural
    >>realm; all power emanating from the supreme Godhead, the Creator of all
    >>is spiritual and material. According to this speculative scenario, all
    >>authority filters down from the supernatural realm, consistent with God's
    >>supreme role as the benevolent creative force behind all human endeavors.
    >>The individual traditions leading to enlightenment are not the crucial
    >>factor here, for as many a religious sage has noted: "many roads lead to
    >> Such a supernatural perspective underscores the supreme paradox of
    >>power hierarchy; namely, its openness at both its upper and lower margins.
    >>The lower end blends with the mysterious (materialistic) realm of
    >>instinctualism, whereas the upper end enters into the mystical realm of
    >>supernatural. Although the limited human intellect favors such a dualistic
    >>interpretation, such a simplistic perspective (on a grander scale) might
    >>actually amount to a grand illusion! Is it truly possible to distinguish
    >>spiritual from the material, the mental from the physical? No matter how
    >>focuses this inquiry, the two always appear to remain intimately
    >>As long as this mind-body puzzle remains unresolved, such issues must
    >>continue to remain open to speculation.
    >>Excerpt reproduced from A Revolution in Family Values: Spirituality for a
    >>New Millennium (c. 2001)
    >>John E. LaMuth M.S.
    >>Private Practice Counselor

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Aug 18 2001 - 14:10:18 EDT