[MD] Food for Thought

[Heather Perella]

     [Case]
> Language may indeed be the way that we
> fundamentally divide the
> undivided but we also make these divisions based on
> experience. It is hard
> to see why we would Value the undivided over the
> divided since they are both
> kinds of experience.

     Isn't experience quality, thus, not sure where
any valuing undivided over divided would even be a
notion.  Quality is dq/sq.


     [Case]
> The difficulty in communicating mystical
> experiences is
> legendary and it would seem prudent to be skeptical
> of information
> communicated about that which is beyond
> communication. I would suggest they
> teach us more about the fundamental nature of
> psychology than of reality.


     Isn't psychology tied to reality, Case?  
 
     [Case]
> To claim to have arrived at Truth through such
> experience is much like
> Bohr's complementarity of Truth and clarity. Such an
> ultimate truth would be
> nearly devoid of clarity in much the same way that
> seeking clarity through
> science may indeed point one away from Truth. I
> recommend bifocals.

     Case, your tied up with an ultimate Truth
seemingly.  You can be, yet, isn't the basic MoQ that
dq and sq are quality.  One is not better than the
other, each are necessary for each other on this path
of quality.


     [Case] 
> The chief bone of contention in this debate is
> whether mystical experience
> is superior to a theistic experience. 

    oh, your going down this road.

     [Case]
> I have tried
> to tell you many times I
> see no more basis for denying your belief in the
> experience of oneness than
> I see for denying a Christian's belief that he has
> experienced the presence
> of God. They are equally valid ways of describing
> indescribable experiences.

     Wouldn't that be a Christian mystic.  A mystic
can experience the mystical personally, as the shamans
of old.  They would come back from their mystical
experience with differing versions of what they saw,
yet, their culture allowed for the translation of
their experience to be spread to the rest of the
population.  A mystic doesn't rely on doctrine. 
Doctrine is a guide, but sooner or later, a mystic
will need to experience 'it' themselves.  If their way
of translating their own experience is through
Christianity, then so be it.  They would still need to
rely upon their own intuition as to how they will use
the Christian doctrine.  They still have to follow
this personal true experience as their true guide as
to how the Christian doctrine will be understood.  The
mystic fills in the blank, and provides flowing real
time blood one might just say to any static patterns. 
The mystic brings 'it' to fuller life, for the
doctrine would not be dead, but lived by the mystic,
thus, something about the true self can't be found in
writing Case.  For I write this, and get up and walk
away.  The words I write can't do that.



blue sky back after all clouds a moment ago,
SA

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com