7starmantis said:
I wouldn't consider "collective experiences" as proof of much, let alone "collective experiences" that differ so dramatically. Lumping them together doesn't hide their differences.
I'm not denying the individual or cultural differences among the world's various mystics and contemplatives, but this is within the backdrop of a very broad range of general commonality and agreement. Again, please reference the links I posted in the "The Truth About Islam" thread that pertain to the West's various mystical traditions.
Also please note my particular use of "collective experiences" here. I am not referring to mere anecdotal accounts. Rather, these are the recorded experiences of individuals following particular meditative injunctions which are summarily confirmed or rejected by a community of peers (meaning, others that also participate in the previously mentioned injunctions).
This is "science" in the broad sense, as understood by philosophers such as Peirce, Popper, and Kuhn. This "broad science" is to be distinguished from the "narrow science" or "scientism" (which generally only sees the natural or "hard" sciences as being valid forms of knowledge) that we see bandied about so much in popular culture. For elaboration of this theme, please see Ken Wilber's
The Marriage of Sense and Soul: Integrating Science and Religion.
Furthermore, this evidence is also corroborated by recent research in the field of neurotheology, which has documented distinctive brainwave patterns that correspond to particular meditative practices across cultures (comparing, for example, a Catholic monastic and a Tibetan Buddhist monk). It is shocking when contemplatives from different traditions originating from different continents show identical brainwave patterns while engaging in their respective practices.
7starmantis said:
Maybe your just askin the wrong people.
Not likely. This type of projectionism usually follows a very general form.
Fire n' brimstone types believe in a wrathful God of Vengeance. Law n' order types believe in a God of Justice. Non-violent pacifists believe in a merciful, all-compassionate God of Love. Rational deists believe in a detached God of Reason. Modern spiritualists believe in an intimate God (or Goddess) of Nature.
In each case, the individual's view or depiction of their deity becomes a sort of "vessel" or "cup" for the projected contents of their superego, conscience, or highest ideals and mores. The god becomes a cosmologized embodiment of what the individual psyche believes "perfection" to be, based by their own individual standards. As such, the actual content or characteristics of the deity-figure vary in small ways from person to person and in larger ways from community to community and in even larger ways from culture to culture.
This is not a negative structure in and of itself, mind you, as sometimes the god-figure embodies very highly advanced morals and ideals. However, I feel it is little more than a carryover from the mythical belief structure of childhood and should be distinguished from genuine experiences of deity mysticism.
The main difference between the fantasy-god and deity mysticism is simple: the fantasy-god reinforces or confirms the psyche's sense of self, it basically tell you that everything you believe is right; the deity-form of mysticism, in juxtaposition, shatters or transforms the psyche's sense of self, forcing a genuine self-transformation that takes you beyond any sense of 'right'-ness or epistemological confidence you may have had beforehand.
The quotations from the contemplative St. John of the Cross that I cited on the "God Says Invade Iraq?" thread are a perfect example of deity mysticism.
Laterz.
