tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post2783205621101183234..comments2024-03-29T07:57:16.659-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: A summary of my View of the SupernaturalJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-55842099717562810292016-06-10T06:21:50.694-07:002016-06-10T06:21:50.694-07:00he ask for the criteria so I gave them. of course ...he ask for the criteria so I gave them. of course any idea humans have can be wrong.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-43824731958594897762016-06-10T02:47:14.408-07:002016-06-10T02:47:14.408-07:00So, is it impossible for mystical experience to be...So, is it impossible for mystical experience to be "mistaken" in some way? Our ordinary judgments of the natural and social worlds can be mistaken or incorrect. I think that is what @Eric Sotnak is asking; not whether or not one can validly judge an experience to BE mystical.Rudyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04691715150100698476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-46455212846534023822016-06-09T20:03:38.012-07:002016-06-09T20:03:38.012-07:00really isn't important to settle the question ...really isn't important to settle the question of who has the “correct” definition of “Supernatural”. What matters is whether there is a definition that accurately describes reality in some sense. So I, at least, am perfectly content to grant you whatever definition you propose. You have suggested that “supernatural” (SN) should be understood as mystical experience. But let's clarify this, just to be sure. Are you proposing that SN refers to the experience itself, or to the cause or object of such experience? I think you will have a hard time making a case for the former account. It seems to me that a plausible definition will, at some point, at least, have to point toward an object (a referent) that stands in contrast to the sorts of objects found either by the regular senses or by technological measurement. You seem to concede this by insisting that the relevant find of experience involved with the SN is mystical.<br /><br /><b>well the term described the relation ship of nature to Grace that relationship work itself out in mystical experience. So We cn say the SN is the ground and end of nature (which Grace is) and that it is typified by the power of God to raise us up to a higher level, and that process plays out in mystical experience.</b><br /><br /><br /><br />Now we come to the most important questions: What are the criteria by which valid SN judgments are to be distinguished from invalid ones? How do we know when we get things right by means of mystical experience? How do we know whether any judgments appealing to mystical experience or to the SN are true? <br /><br /><br /><b>we know we got it right my mystical experience because the N scale validated Staces's theory. So empirically mystical experience conforms to Stace. So read Stce.A lot of complicated work went into developing the m scale it took 30 yers. It has proved the most corroborated of any such scale. not to be glib but you need to buy the book. I also much more recommend Hood and Spilka's book their Mystical experience an empirical approach.<br /><br />we know if they are true by the outcome we can judge that because the M scale offers a control on determining if it' really mystical or not. Once we know that we cn use other tests like self actualization tests to see the effects of the experience.</b><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-69042928638043448002016-06-09T13:36:21.187-07:002016-06-09T13:36:21.187-07:00It really isn't important to settle the questi...It really isn't important to settle the question of who has the “correct” definition of “Supernatural”. What matters is whether there is a definition that accurately describes reality in some sense. So I, at least, am perfectly content to grant you whatever definition you propose. You have suggested that “supernatural” (SN) should be understood as mystical experience. But let's clarify this, just to be sure. Are you proposing that SN refers to the experience itself, or to the cause or object of such experience? I think you will have a hard time making a case for the former account. It seems to me that a plausible definition will, at some point, at least, have to point toward an object (a referent) that stands in contrast to the sorts of objects found either by the regular senses or by technological measurement. You seem to concede this by insisting that the relevant find of experience involved with the SN is mystical.<br /><br />Now we come to the most important questions: What are the criteria by which valid SN judgments are to be distinguished from invalid ones? How do we know when we get things right by means of mystical experience? How do we know whether any judgments appealing to mystical experience or to the SN are true?Eric Sotnakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06162425851889399481noreply@blogger.com