I, where does shalomplace calibrate?

LOL!

Come on, Brad -- a little more to the right . . .

Seriously, though, how would one go about calibrating this or any site using Hawkins' approach? Woud you have to print out all the pages and lay a hand on them, muscle-testing with the other arm?

From "I" . . . Ramtha the person and founder of the school, calibrates in the low 30's,(calibration mine). If it is possible that calibration of consciousness is accurate, would this be a helpful tool?

And that's a fair question, only to say it's accurate, you'd have to ignore all the double-blind research that shows this approach is not. However, it still might help someone get a sense of their own unconscious reactions to something; I'm not discounting that. It's this idea that it gives us "objective truth" that's objectionable.

Also, in the case of a situation like Ramtha or any other teaching, one ought to rely on a range of other criteria to evaluate it. E.g.,
- How does the teaching sit with you? This might seem imprecise, but it's a measure of how congruent it is with your existing formation.
- (For Christians), how does it relate to Biblical and Church teachings?
- What assumptions are informing the teaching?
- If science is used to affirm it, how reliable is this branch of science, and/or how well-established the research backing the claims.
- Having considered the above, what do YOU think and believe about the teaching/teacher?

IOW, even if Applied Kinesiology was highly reliable, it would not necessarily supercede the above considerations, but should be only be one of many perspectives taken. A great danger when the above are discounted in favor of AK, the teaching of a guru, channeled information, etc. is that you gives your inner evaluative authority and wisdom away, into the hands of another person or system who now controls your life. When, in addition, the life of the intellect is belittled and discounted by such an external authority, then all is lost as you've betrayed one of your most important God-given means for discerning and understanding truth.

This was the lost thought. A repost from mid-August. Something we need to remind ourselves about repeatedly, especially when dealing with issues of formative spirituality. Everything IS formative spirituality. Right Speech re: same is of GREAT WEIGHT.

quote:

"It is a serious thing, to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. All day long we are, in some degree, helping each other to one or other of these destinations. It is in the light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with the awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all our dealings with one another, all friendships, all loves, all play, all politics. There are no 'ordinary' people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilisations -- these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whome we joke with, work with, marry, snub and exploit -- immortal horrors or everlasting splendours. This does not mean that we are to be perpetually solemn. We must play. But our merriment must be of that kind (and it is, in fact, the merriest kind) which exists between people who have, from the outset, taken each other seriously -- no flippancy, no superiority, no presumption. And our charity must be a real and costly love, with deep feeling for the sins in spite of which we love the sinner -- no mere tolerance or indulgence which parodies love as flippancy parodies merriment." From __The Weight of Glory__

Thank you jb, that is one of my favorite passages from Lewis. It's a little heavy sometimes to know that everything done in secret will be shouted from the housetops, and all those people whom I have snubbed or gossiped about and those I have lusted after or coveted or been jealous
of or angry with or did not assist when it was in my power to do so will one day stand up on judgement day to condemn me for every idle word spoken. Yes,
very heavy and it has made me tremble at times.

Hawkins says that every thought and action carries a frequency which remains for all time. Someone told me that Edgar Cayce tought the same thing about the akashic records (do I need an akashic record player to play them?) This agrees with Christian doctrine as far as I know,
yet a Christian is forgiven and although nobody gets away with nuthin' and all are accountable, the sufferings of this present world are not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed and this is a source of unspeakable joy
and peace which passes understanding.

caritas,

mm <*)))))><

Hi, Phil, I agree with all you have to say here. Marvellous and very clarifying:


"It seems that you and TBiscuit are using the word impersonal in a highly ideosyncratic manner, mostly to signify that God's love is unconditional, persistent, consistent and that God is a being far beyond the human (i.e. super-natural). You probably already know that Christianity teaches all this, so when we say that God is personal, that's not what we mean. We mean:
1. That God is a Being, not simply a kind of inanimate spiritual force field.
2. That the Being we call God has been revealed by Christ to be Abba, who is loving, relational, conversational, purposeful -- personal!
3. That these qualities of God are not projections of humans onto God, for, having been revealed by Christ, they answer the question "what kind of a God is God?" and imply a summons to relationship.
4. That the reason we humans are personal (in the sense of being intelligent, free and relational) is because God is Personal; iow, we are personal because we are "images of God."

I guess the only response I might make is that these words, impersonal and personal, are mental categories while the fundamental unity and wholeness of God is self-evident and total. I do not however mean to imply these concepts are limited, simply that the experience is beyond the words themselves. Thanks for a marvellous insight into god's nature in your words.

Hi all.

The internet tests weak, below 200. This is kind of a foregone conclusion.

Phil and Mike, I calibrated this site at 520. I note this is one of the highest calibrating sites I have encountered. This calibration reflects a loving aspiration in Christ's name to teach and help on the part of this site. Just looking around, IMHO, this is self-evident.

Phil, may I ask you a question regarding this:

"JB, you make a helpful distinction between formation and community that I can relate to. After this attenuation of formation, however, the communal context remains, even in eremetic vocations. As you note, formation and community are not mutually exclusive; in fact, it's pretty much taken for granted in religious traditions that one remains in the formative community after shedding the need for external disciplines."

This is quite an advanced notion of community expressed here and not one I grasp very well. How is the Christian community different in practice from the Buddhist 'sangha' community?

Phil, you said:

"While not wishing to minimize the good that can come from these practices, I find them:
- naive about the nature of evil;"

Dr Hawkins' calibrates that 1.7 percent of the population test weak for strong stimuli and vice verse. He writes cogently about satanism and psychopathology. There is simply too much significant information on these two topics to discuss here.

- negative concerning the role of the intellect in discerning truth

The essence of Hawkins teachings concerning the role of the intellect in discerning truth can be simply put. The intellect calibrates in the 400s and the spiritual heart calibrates in the 500s; the experience of the mind in the 500s is that thoughts do not originate from the self, but from a divine source or from one's devotion to Christ. In the 400s on the other hand the experience of intellect is as I... I think, therefore I am. I am my thoughts.

There is no negative emphasis on intellection in Hawkins work other than this. Hawkins inveighs strongly against intellectual arrogance, spritual egotism and pride, however, and it is easy to conflate the two.

- misusing science to justify their spirituality

How so? Science and intellect benefit humanity because the plane they build actually flies. Faith is intellectually a good thing, since it safeguards human happiness and self-worth IMO. One can scientifically promote faith in the divine as a scientifically and measurably reliable source of happiness. Does this belief use or misuse science.

- disinclined to become part of a spiritual community as they can have enlightenment without all that "man-made" stuff;
- lacking any holistic spirituality and theology to more deeply integrate their experiences;
- therefore: vulnerable to cultic dynamics from a teacher.

May I paraphrase? Hawkins' unconcern with creating a community and holism renders his teachings vulnerable to distortions into cultic patterns of moral seduction into untruth.

I think my paraphrase needs a paraphrase

Could you clarify please?

Warm regards,

Paul Bard

Quote from Hawkins regarding Satanism

"Cults proliferate because the general public has no objective criterion with which to distinguish truth from falsehood. Using thetools of this study, we may identify as a cult any purportedly spiritual movement that calibrates below the key level of 200. As we have seen above, cults are not just isolated, renegade phenomena; they also thrive as tolerated subgroups with the world's greatest religions, distorting teachings and subverting their intent.

"Cults need not be formally religious at all. The ultimate cult, of course, in the anti-religion, based on anti-divinity which we know as Satanism; it has no explicit religious agenda of its own, as it defines itself through antithesis and reversal of benign principles...

"...Examples are unfortunately ready to hand.

"The trappings of Satanism spread as fashions of a pop youth subculture, its primary vehicle being an overt musical genre. But principles are inherent in trappings, and principles generate attractor fields. The effects are all too familiar to any clinical psychiatrist practicing near an urban area. The destruction of energy fields is pathogenic. Victims become desensitized to distinctions between good and evil, a value inversion which can be clinically examined... the net result of which is, in effect, a hypnotic trance during which the listener is highly susceptible to the violent and blasphemous suggestion of the lyrics. IN a sense, these children become literally enslaved, prone to later bouts of irrational destruction in which they, in truth "don't know why" they act out post-hypnotic suggestions. And the influence persists.

"...youth subjected to such physical, emotional and sexual abuse can suffer permanent damage to the brain's neurotransmitter balance, becoming adult depressives who habitually seek out abusive partners and must endlessly struggle against an inclination to suicide that is, in fact, a lingering form of posthypnotic suggestion.

"We may wish to deny that such a spiritual plague, reminiscent of the Dark Ages, could remain virulent in our enlightened society. But such perverse influences do not operate in a moral vacuum... the paradox of our puritanical society is that it encourages constant seduction but denies satisfaction, so a purpetual frustration of normal outlets eventually finds release in perverse ones...."

End quote. This short quote is taken out of context so apologies for any distortions invoked by it. It is a striking piece not simply for its unconditional acceptance of the social challenges of deviance, abuse, and immorality as "life on life's terms", but for the insight they offer into the nature of the beast.

Satanism is not simply a Christian concern. The presence of cultic dynamics in everyday popular culture is something that we push under the carpet until the day comes when, by entrainment, we are seduced into addiction or deviance and must face our complicity in the cultic elements of western culture.

Thankfully the recovery movement offers a refuge from these elements. It is interesting that the recovery movement emerged around the same time as the mass-media that is responsible for spreading what Hawkins' calls "the trappings of Satanism". Evidence of God's mercy maybe

Warm regards,

Paul Bard.

PS - Michael, sadly the site you mentioned on Christian Mysticism tests weak.

The ashtar command folk send shivers down my spine.

Phil, your criticisms of applied kinesiology are accurate. I use it in the spirit of faith, and not as some kind of scientific weapon of (catholic) mass destruction.

Johnboy, scientific proof and scientific validity are different things, I would suggest. Whereas the former leads to entrancement with reason, entrenchment in points of view, ideology, and infinite wordplay, the pursuit of validity is more about what is good for living.

Hope this is appropriate, but today I found a moving quote from Bill W. cofounder of AA, regarding the pursuit of a valid form of truth:

"In the societies that left their mark of goodness on time, the sense of history was not a matter for pride or for glory; it was the substance of the learning of the experience of the past. In the purpose of such a society there was always truth and constancy, but never a supposition that the society had apprehended all of the truth - or the superior truth. And in the sense of destiny there was no conceit, no supposition that a society or nation or culture would last forever and go on to greater glories. But there was always a sense of duty to be fulfilled, whatever destiny the society might be assigned by providence for the betterment of the world."

(Wow.)

This is valid truth for me, because it can be investigated in experienced and validated for oneself as working and fostering life in yourself and the community. All sources of truth are reliable because they foster happiness, peace, and living together in harmony.

So I argue the validity of kinesiology on this basis, which I hope is a little humbler than the big claims made for it.

I find this thread useful for becoming aware of the context of Hawkins' claims. I think Hawkins is conscious that his level of consciousness will tend to attract devotees. His motives are pure: at no time does he appear to disrespect Christianity or any other religion. His stated motive is to relieve suffering. Also the usual distortions and difficulties when an enlightened person appears seem to come into play.

I do not suppose we have apprehended the fullness of truth in regards to enlightenment because the historical journey we have been on since Jesus walked the earth has been so dramatic in opening new worlds up to us. Given the progression of truth in the past as expressed in human society, we have no reason to suppose that the future will not open new worlds also and different dimensions of truth.

Warm regards,

Paul Bard

Paul, thank you for your respectul and thoughtful engagement in dialogue. Very much appreciated.

I will try to reply to some of what I perceive to be the most significant questions or points you make, noting in advance that we seem to agree on a great deal more than we disagree.

First, I should tell you that all these calibrated figures you and others have been sharing make no difference to me whatsoever and I place no stock in them. I can see where they make a difference to you all, however, and I think they probably reflect something of your own inner, unconscious attitudes moreso than "objective truth." It is with regard to the latter that AK has been discredited in many studies.

Regarding God as personal vs. impersonal, you state: I guess the only response I might make is that these words, impersonal and personal, are mental categories while the fundamental unity and wholeness of God is self-evident and total. I do not however mean to imply these concepts are limited, simply that the experience is beyond the words themselves. Thanks for a marvellous insight into god's nature in your words.

You're welcome. But the notion that personal and impersonal are merely "mental categories" with no corrolaries in reality is mistaken, I believe-- as though conceptualization is somehow arbitrary and irrelevant to experience. Language and conceptualization is a great deal more complicated than the kind of logical systemmatics implied in such a statement. In fact, language is our most important way to *convey* our experiences, and we use words to do so--words that are concepts, sometimes complex ones. So when one says they experience God as personal, they are saying something about their *experience* of God, and, by implication, something about the God whom they experience. You see what I mean? It's important to let the statements be what they are and convey what they intend without invalidating them as some have done on this thread by calling these experiences of the personal God projections or just conceptual constructs.

. . .One can scientifically promote faith in the divine as a scientifically and measurably reliable source of happiness. Does this belief use or misuse science.

Yes, I know there are studies that show people who have religious faith are generally happier and have fewer neuroses. What I was referring to was Hawkins' use of quantum physics (criticized by a physicist in an Amazon.com book review) and his heavy reliance on AK to substantiate his religious and spiritual assumptions.

How is the Christian community different in practice from the Buddhist 'sangha' community?

It is not merely a means of education, support and fellowship, but one of the modes of Christ's presence to us--the mode, in fact, to which the Spirit is primarily oriented in Her gracing individuals with spiritual gifts. This is why it's important (actually essential, imo), for a Christian to belong to a community. I go over this in much more depth in the Growing in Christ forum (see listing under Specialized Studies category on this board).

Again, thanks for your contributions, Paul. I hope my replies have been helpful in some manner.

Hawkins is an advocate of the Lamsa Bible in the Aramaic. If sufficient interest develops, we might start a thread on this topic.

http://www.v-a.com/bible/prayer.html

http://www.aramaic.org/

http://www.aramaicbiblecenter.com/

Phil and Mike, I calibrated this site at 520. I note this is one of the highest calibrating sites I have encountered. . .

Were you using a Mac or a PC? I'd be curious to know if there is a difference.

Hi Phil!

You said:

" ...noting in advance that we seem to agree on a great deal more than we disagree.

I disagree! : ) LOL

"First, I should tell you that all these calibrated figures you and others have been sharing make no difference to me whatsoever and I place no stock in them."

I do not imagine how you could afford to given your concepts about them.

"I can see where they make a difference to you all, however, and I think they probably reflect something of your own inner, unconscious attitudes moreso than "objective truth." It is with regard to the latter that AK has been discredited in many studies."

AK has been discredit in many studies. This may be a sign of a limited paradigm in science today, or it may be the idea is bunkum. Time will tell. To an extent I rely on Dr Hawkins good character in the matter, to be honest.

"But the notion that personal and impersonal are merely "mental categories" with no corrolaries in reality is mistaken, I believe-- as though conceptualization is somehow arbitrary and irrelevant to experience.

Hm. I feel conceptualization is useful for the traditional enterprise of dominating nature and civilising unruly humans. But these seem to be relatively recent modes in human history. Much of the time, it would seem, the significant mode of thinking for humankind would have been the story structure, which indeed has its roots in unconscious attitudes. With story structures one can convey ambiguities as if they were truths, and submerge truths in ambiguity. Stories are statements, in fact, on context, and most people handle stories much better than concepts because they come with context attached and clearly stated, such as with Jesus' teaching stories, where immediately you sense the personal voice and style of the man by the tone in which they are told.

Conceptualisation can be seen as a way of telling a story without the need to contextualise it in reality physical or phenomenal. The story is submerged in dreamtime, subject to unconscious attitudes, while the concept takes primacy and can be manipulated.

The problem occurs when the concept is assumed to be the exact equivalent of the experience. For instance, the story you tell of your experience of God has a sequence and pattern and narrative structure because you are human and your life is a story, and although I will use similar or the same words, the context of my experience will be different, and sometimes incommensurate, from yours.

I go into these arcane details to illustrate some of the limits of conceptualization; its relative historical recentness; it's basis in the context of ancient and unconscious narrative structures; and its mysterious power to give meaning a life of its own.

All these positive benefits of conceptualizaton have the downside of making concepts seductive and reason a false king.

Phil, you said:

"So when one says they experience God as personal, they are saying something about their *experience* of God, and, by implication, something about the God whom they experience. You see what I mean? It's important to let the statements be what they are and convey what they intend without invalidating them as some have done on this thread by calling these experiences of the personal God projections or just conceptual constructs.

I understand what you mean, and I agree. It is meanspirited to call experience 'just' a concept. Which is why I assert the relative and loose nature of concepts. The concepts illustrate, and hopefully illuminate, the truth, but the truth remains somewhat apart. Simply put, I would select what inspires me and warms my heart over what makes my mind busy. It is for that reason that scientists talk about beautiful theories - because the concepts that they love are the most spirited and true.

Perhaps Johnboy's fascinating posts can resolve it:

Johnboy talks about ontological undecideability as a relationship between reality and knowledge parallel to that of quantum physics regarding particles/waves. So (Johnboy?) am I distorting this notion to assert that the impersonal and personal labels, while really true and evident, are simultaneously aspects of the One god? The two notions - if I've understood what Johnboy's been explaining - co-exist.

"Yes, I know there are studies that show people who have religious faith are generally happier and have fewer neuroses. What I was referring to was Hawkins' use of quantum physics (criticized by a physicist in an Amazon.com book review) and his heavy reliance on AK to substantiate his religious and spiritual assumptions."

That quatum physics works is beyond doubt because it is demonstrable. How it works is describable, but I would seriously doubt that we have much of an accurate idea why it works. Heisenberg said as much when he said that if you think you understand quantum theory you haven't. I think this particular point comes down to you own opinion of why it works, and whether you trust the amazon reviewer of Dr Hawkin's more on the matter.

Then is there some kind of body of psychology that is Christian these days, much like the Buddhist psychology? Just curious.

"Uh oh . . . . ." (hears sound of large carnivore approaching)

(Baring canines . . . )

. . . To an extent I rely on Dr Hawkins good character in the matter, to be honest.

I understand, but good character counts for nothing in the world of science; double-blind studies and replicating results following a methodology are much more convincing. AK fails miserably when it comes to those scientific criteria.

Re. conceptualization, I pretty much stated my position in my previous post. I don't see how it's a control dynamic the way you do; one can disagree with a model and propose a better one if need be. I would add that I don't really think human intelligence and understanding develops very much without language and, given the fact that language makes use of concepts, the significance of communicating conceptually is obvious, imo.

Re. quantum physics. I think I'll trust the word of a quantum physicist over that of a psychiatrist when it comes to the proper application re. AK. There an awful lot of balarky out there referencing quantum physics as though it somehow proves this or that spirituality or psychic phenomena. See some of the essays on quantum physics and religion on this page.

I'm wondering what you thought of my response to "I," at the top of this page, where I outlined criteria for evaluating a teaching.

Then is there some kind of body of psychology that is Christian these days, much like the Buddhist psychology?

Not sure what you mean. Psychology is an empirical science, not part of Christianity. Christian teachings have implications for our view of human nature and some psychologies seems to be more in alignment with this than others. But, no, there is no official Christian psychology, philosophy, or metaphysics, and I think it's best that way.

Phil said: balarky

Is that a misspelling or is it a contraction (one, until now, that I was unaware of) of BS + malarky?

I thought everyone knew that Mac calibrates higher

Friends, I am glad your discussion continues. When it comes to issues regarding our approach to truth, how it is we know what we know, or what we think we know, or not, and by what means, whether scientifically, mystically or what have you --- we are talking about epistemology.

This is not a consideration that I can enter into casually and it doesn't really lend itself to most non-specialized internet forums. I do not have the gift of being able to popularize areas of knowledge that are both highly specialized and highly jargonistic. HOWEVER, if one really wants to dig deeper into what I have to say about epistemology, one can read my recent essays which I have posted here.

deep peace,
jb

quote:

Johnboy talks about ontological undecideability as a relationship between reality and knowledge parallel to that of quantum physics regarding particles/waves. So (Johnboy?) am I distorting this notion to assert that the impersonal and personal labels, while really true and evident, are simultaneously aspects of the One god? The two notions - if I've understood what Johnboy's been explaining - co-exist.

Perhaps no distortion, depending on one's further nuancing.

God is | x | is true analogically, kataphatically.

God is | not x | is true anagogically, apophatically.

God is neither | x | nor | not x | is true mystagogically, unitively, eminently.

Substitute for these variables, the value | x | as impersonal or personal, or any other divine attributes, such as truth, beauty, goodness, immanent, transcendent.

When we are speaking kataphatically about God, we can only speak analogically and our predications of God can only be equivocal. If we say God is a |person|, that is true, only in the sense that God is LIKE a person. If we say God is |not a person|, that is true in that all analogies, while invoking similarities, invoke FAR more dissimilarities.

Through alternating apophasis (improving our descriptive accuracy through negation, saying what something is not or is not like) and kataphasis (increasing our descriptive accuracy through affirmation, saying what something is or is like), we penetrate mystery without comprehending it, certainly without exhausting it. Our knowledge of God is thus inadequate, which is not the same as saying God is absolutely unknowable.

What I like to say is that God is intelligible but, at the same time, incomprehensible. I spoke to this distinction in this SPlace thread, earlier this year [click here]. One can also click here for a post that goes into even more depth regarding the preservation of relationality in mystical experience .

Also, one may wish to consult this SPlace thread , wherein I had written:

quote:

That is to say that faith isn't a matter of mere philosophical speculation or academic moral theologizing, but involves people in their concrete circumstances, in the events and people in their lives. This is perhaps more clear when wrestling with practical philosophical issues rather than speculative but it is also very true in matters of dogmatic theology, not just moral theology. It's a matter not just of logos but of mythos, not just what is true but what meaning does it have for my life in this world as we know it.

Now, when it comes to things like wave-particle duality, nonlocality, superluminality, quantum indeterminacy --- like any other part of nature, they evoke possible analogies to God, but, like all such metaphors, they are more dissimilar than similar to God, of course. There are manifold quantum interpretations, even about complementarity. There are also different decriptions of reality depending on whether or not one uses Euclidean or non-Euclidean geometry. What we are doing in our attempts to model reality is changing our axioms and system rules and then seeing what reality looks like through the new set of lenses. Where God is concerned, this has been compared to the blind men describing an elephant, a tale with which we are all familiar.

This isn't exactly what is going on in our different attempts to make God intelligible. In wave-particle duality, what we have are mutually occlusive ways of viewing the same reality. If one chooses one route, then the other is foreclosed upon. With respect to God, though, between the immanent and the transcendent, we have a bridging principle - relationality. Some do choose both routes simultaneously and it is called panentheism .

pax, PBard et al
jb

Below, I am posting a post from earlier this year about the need to taste and see, which is relevant to the discussion vis a vis concepts and story-telling. There is a distinction between knowing and tasting that seems especially relevant.

pax,
jb

3) And so our truth-seekers will continue their discourse and
analyses; our justice-seekers will continue their advocacies; our
love-complements will build vibrant communities and continue to
serve. What I wish to advocate, here, though, is the notion that we
need to better nurture both the individual and collective
application of our intuitive faculties, especially in our western
spiritualities. None of this is to denigrate the other modes of
contribution. It is offered as an affirmation of what has been too
often neglected, of what we might more often be about in spiritual
direction.

To wit:

a) Tony deMello spent his life teaching the importance of
awareness versus analysis, of insight versus information, perhaps
patterned after the founder of his order, St. Ignatius, who
emphasized the need to "taste" the truth versus merely "knowing" the
truth.

b) Oliver Sacks' book and movie, Awakenings, describes how
brain-damaged individuals can be roused out of stupor by music and
art when nothing else can reach them.

c) Amos Wilder: "Imagination is a necessary component of all
profound knowing and celebration ... It is at the level of
imagination that any full engagement with life takes place."

d) Morton Kelsey: "God knew that human beings learn more by
story and music, by art, symbols, and images than by logical
reasoning, theorems, and equations, so God's deepest revelations
have always been expressed in images and stories."

And so, perhaps a different experience of the mystery of God is in
store for the asking. Our growth in freedom, in love ...in awareness
via all faculties ...may ensue.

And I was making the point, that I am sure many may have heard for
the first time there, that St John of the Cross is NOT some
radically apophatic, radically ascetic mystic.

So, who was juandelacruz?

The "Collected Works of St. John of the Cross" translated by
Kavanaugh & Rodriguez (ICS) have a Scriptural Index which reveals
that Juan cited almost every book of the Old & New Testaments in his
writings and the citations number somewhere between 800-1,000 bible
references (I haven't counted but that is a fair estimate)!

It is easy to understand how new students of contemplative
spirituality focus on, what is to them, the novelty of Juan's via
negativa. One would err, however, by failing to take into account
Juan's fidelity to Scripture, Sacraments, Liturgy and almost-
Ignatian emphasis on "God in All Things" and almost-Franciscan
emphasis on creation. (how's that for a litany of kataphatic
modalities?)

Denis Read OCD, an ICS member, calls Juan the "liturgical mystic"
and sanjuanist spirituality "liturgical spirituality". In addition
to Juan's love and fidelity to Scripture, to the Eucharist (one of
greatest personal trials in prison in Toledo was not being able to
celebrate Eucharist) and to the other sacraments (strong emphasis on
reconciliation), Juan quoted the Church's liturgical books
liberally, including hymns, antiphons of the Liturgy of the Hours -
Divine Office, Roman Ritual, etc.

Richard Hardy, PhD in "Embodied Love in John of the Cross"
states: "The question we must answer is whether John is espousing
the goal of an ethereal, "purely spiritual" love, or rather an
embodied love replete with sensuality and delight." Juan's emphasis
on nature, the imagery of his poetry, his relational imagery reveal
a man overflowing with sensuality and delight! He is selling us on
nothing less than Divine Eros and as Hardy says: "in the light of
this erotic love challenges today's Christian to embrace a lifestyle
that risks all for the sake of all."

The apophatic-kataphatic remains in a highly creative tension with
Juan and gets resolved, not by emphasis on one mode versus the
other, but rather by a rhythmicity, by Juan's recognition of God's
every "spiration" and by Juan's "re"-spiring in accordance with
same. Juan does NOT move us away from sensory delight but to
purified sensory delight. Juan does not negate the kataphatic
devotion but moves us to transformed devotion. It is reminiscent of
Tony de Mello who would have us not cling to a note, not because the
note is not beautiful, but so we would not miss the symphony. Tony
bids us "Wake Up!" and take it all in!

Perhaps my studies of neurological and biological circadian rhythms
biased or sensitized me to paschal rhythmicities, liturgical
seasonalities, liturgical rhythms of the day and night, and finally
to resolve apophatic-kataphatic tensions rhythmically, cyclically.

Sanjuanist liturgical mysticism is "mysticism par excellence" and I
haven't been bashful in pointing out that negativa et positiva is
the summit of Mt Carmel even if negativa sans positiva is a pretty
high oriental base camp and positiva sans negativa is equally high
on the occidental side of the mountain. However, this is not to say
that I have not some legitimate cause to truly wonder if some of us
have not been erroneously and arrogantly calling other summits base
camps? At any rate, thus it is that, in my view, I can recommend
both Tony deMello and Thomas Merton as authentic guides up the seven-
storied mountain, following precisely in the tradition of the great
mystical doctor, Juan de la cruz.

What are they about? Well, they understand that, if you want to make
a person laugh, you don't order them to laugh, but, rather, you tell
them a joke. If you want to give a person new insights, sometimes
you must give them a koan, or tell them a story, or initiate them
into a myth, or invite them to contemplation.

From Thomas Merton's __The Climate of Monastic Prayer__ :

"What is this (contemplative prayer) in relation to action? Simply
this. He (and she) who attempts to act and do things for others or
for the world without this deepening of his own self-understanding,
freedom, integrity, and capacity to love, will not have anything to
give others. He will communicate to them nothing but the contagion
of his own obsessions, his agressiveness, his egocentered ambitions,
his delusions about ends and means, his doctrinaire prejudices and
ideas."

And so I pray a daily aphorism of sorts:

To be engaged but not obsessed
Inspired but not driven
Spontaneous but not compulsive
At PLAY in the fields of the Lord
Rather than at work on my own agenda

namaste,
jb

Footnote: From Thomas Keating's __Open Heart, Open Mind__ on
apophatic/kataphatic contemplation: "a misleading distinction
suggesting opposition between the two, in fact, a proper preparation
of the faculties (kataphatic practice) leads to apophatic
contemplation, which in turn is sustained through appropriate
kataphatic practices."

The following paragraphs are really the opening paragraphs from my
yesteryear post above. I place them here to provide extra context
for those interested. I didn't place them above so as not to lose
the audience before I got to the punchline. These reflections grew
out of my experience with a psychological profiling administered by
the same scientists who had chosen NASA teams with an aim toward
assembling a diverse and holistic "whole-brained" group.

1) In considering the interpersonal/relational Ego-God relationship
versus the coming to God through intuition of being, I thought of
some of the other ways we have talked about approaching God: through
the paths of Truth/Meaning, Beauty/Aesthetics, Justice/Mercy and
Love/Relationship. Within the context of formative spirituality,
I've considered the rather simplistic notion of how truth and
meaning are somewhat apprehended moreso cerebrally and left-
brainedly, at that; beauty and aesthetics, cerebrally and right-
brainedly; justice engaging us more limbically and left-brainedly
and love, limbically and right-brainedly. The anatomical loci aren't
really important. We should recognize, however, that we use
distinctly different psychological faculties to approach God and one
another according to our unique giftedness.

2) Most people seem to operate predominantly in one mode or another,
some in two or more modes, all of these modes reflecting our
manifold paths to God. One might consider how in one mode we are
apprehended by God through pursuit of meaning and truth and
knowledge; how in another we are apprehended by God as we pursue
justice with firm conviction of how things ought to be and a secure
grasp of the laws written in our hearts; how in another mode we are
apprehended by God as we pursue love, as we seek to actively
nurture, sustain, affirm, stimulate and enrich our brothers and
sisters in solidarity and compassion; how in another we are
apprehended by God through intuition, insight, awareness and
imagination, a path invariably leading to the experience of beauty.
Some folks are bimodal, some trimodal, some primarily unimodal, but
all are assuredly on an efficacious route as I interpret formative
spirituality and all of us are needed as we contribute our unique
giftedness to the common good.

The discussion on the limits of conceptualization is really good. Also its strengths and efficacies.

Some excerpts from my recent foray into epistemology:

quote:

Because the root of knowledge always descends into silence , we know more than we can tell. Whatever articulate knowledge we possess is the focal point of tacit, subsidiary awareness. Polanyi

truths of which:

quote:

come within the range of every man's normal experience� although they �escape the untrained eye precisely because they permeate our whole lives.� Peirce

a form of nonconceptual knowledge:

quote:

�which is produced in the intellect but not in virtue of conceptual connections and by way of demonstration. ... ... ... In this knowledge through union or inclination, connaturality or congeniality, the intellect is at play not alone, but together with affective inclinations and the dispositions of the will, and is guided and directed by them. It is not rational knowledge, knowledge through the conceptual, logical and discursive exercise of Reason. But it is really and genuinely knowledge, though obscure and perhaps incapable of giving account of itself, or of being translated into words ." Maritain

There are many ways of knowing that can be affirmed, all fallible but all efficacious.

pax,
jb

quote:

Originally posted by Brad Nelson:
[qb] I, where does shalomplace calibrate?


[/qb]

Rather than what is obviously a relatively recent calibration attempt above, try taking another snapshot from another interval when the volume of my contributions was much greater. That ought to get you up there, especially if you include my poetry and novellas

There is a type of faith that is preambular/prerequisite to all reason or attempts to reason. This faith is not at all unreasonable but neither is it, in and of itself, rational. It is super-reasonable or meta-rational. It can proceed with assurance and conviction but it cannot be proven. This is true for theists and nontheists alike. All are on equal ground. These different perspectives compete for modeling power of reality. Let the games continue.

Hey. I just thought I'd address the one that was directed at me.

What??? Someone needs to tell those hostages being held by terrorists that they really aren't in any danger, I guess, unless you do happen to believe the prospect of getting your head sawed off is a threatening situation. And what about those children being verbally abused? Are you saying that's no problem and they should just transcend it into the present moment?

What I'm saying is that from a certain level of consciousness none of this matters. If you're one with the thing from which all Universes come and go, death is pretty insignificant. We all die from this earthly form. Is dying slowly, piecemeal by a surgeon better than getting your head cut off? Is verbal abuse even in this same category? This is the danger in judging good and evil... What's good? What's evil? I'm not so arrogant to say that I've got a clue.

There was a wise old poor farmer who had a son and one horse. One day the horse ran away. His neighbors come over saying "This is so bad! Your one horse has run away!"

The farmer looked at them confused, "Bad, good, what do I know?"

Next day the one horse comes back with 100 beautiful horses. The neighbors come over saying, "This is so good! You have 100 new horses!"

The farmer looked at them confused, "Good, bad, what do I know?"

Next day the farmer�s son is working with one of the new horses and breaks his leg. The neighbors come over, "This is so bad! You son has just broken his leg!"

The farmer looked at them confused, "Bad, good, what do I know?"

The next day the army comes by the farmers house recruiting for a battle, which it turns out, everyone dies in. The son can't go because of his broken leg. The neighbors come over, "Wow! This is so good for you! Your son is the only young man that didn't die in the battle."

The farmer looked at them confused, "Good, bad, what do I know?"

Ahh, if only I had a dollar for every time that old horse story was told me as a parable of good and evil . . . Welcome to post-modern gobbledeegook!

Problem is, the story isn't about morality at all, but about consequences and circumstances. Pronouncing moral judgment on such is obviously inappropriate.

So let's extend the story . . . "The next day a band of brigands comes along and kills the farmer's wife, rapes his daughter, tortures the farmer, and burns his crops. Go ahead, TBisuit . . . "Bad, good . . .?"

Or, as the old saying has it: "If right and wrong do not exist, then why was Hitler wrong?"

If you're one with the thing from which all Universes come and go, death is pretty insignificant.

You make it sound like the Most High has no opinion about how people come to their death, yet it was He who said, "Thou shalt not kill."

We all die from this earthly form. Is dying slowly, piecemeal by a surgeon better than getting your head cut off?

Why yes, it is, especially if the head-cutters are left to continue their carnage on the next generation. Of course, who cares about their welfare. "Good, bad, what do I know?" Maybe it's not such a bad thing for the head-cutters to have their way. Who are we to say?

What's good? What's evil? I'm not so arrogant to say that I've got a clue.

You are so arrogant as to say that making necessary moral distinction is vanity, however. Par for the course . . . or should I say "The Course."

Why is making moral distinction necessary for you to do? Keep it to a simple couple lines please as I am a little slow.

--------------------
"There is no darkness past ignorance . . ."
- Its still obvious. -