Abraham Maslow
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y4ubyz3fbY
Film of Maslow dicussing peak experience,
Critics of my religious experience (RE) arguments have turned to Abraham Maslow as a counter to Ralph Hood, inventor of the M scale. Maslow is a good choice superficially but I have studied him a lot.He is one of my favorite thinkers in social sciences. He was one of the first thinkers I read on mystical experience.
The reason they think Malosw fends off Hood is because Maslow was an atheist. He found mystical experiences among all types of people. He took it beyond the ranks of the religious mystic and made it everyday secular and non religious. Although he has nothing on Martin Luther who turned milking cows into the worship of God.
First Maslow did say he had to strip away the relogocity from the experience. Part of doing that was to call it "peak experience." He was not saying that Peak is a separate experience from mystical. He did not say peak is a secular version. it's just a different name, one that gets away from rekuguiyw connotations in the term mystical experience. Maslow said th e atheist and the religious believer can walk togeather qhit a lomgway dowwn the road. They can the atheists who usehimagaimt Hood would never go two feet with a believer. Maslow had the hatred or anti God feeling that Loftus or Dawkins have.
The major question I want to answer is does the secular nature of mystical experience, at least some experiences, call into question the presence of God in mystical experience? These atheists think they ust addimg God nevasue see God everything. Which is it?
The blog danger in this kind of discussion is that people invariably bring ideology then start saying your ideology is wrong. I don't have one. We need to stay alert to that tendency. I spoke with Dr, Hood On Thursday he said what I just said here.I ask him do you believe in God? If so, is God personal or impersonal? He said he doesn't use such language because it seeks to pin down what God is and that means to ideologize God. God is beyond our understanding. Hood studies snake handlers.He is equally comfortable with snake handlers or atheists.
Let's apply this principle to the issue of :secular" mystical experience. Let's assume God gives each human equiemtm an instinct or capacity to sense his presence. But that capacity is always operative and can sense other presences. I've seen studies that say when we feel like we're being watched we are right 60% of the time.[1]
If God is the ground of being and transcends the notion of a big man in the sky then God is involved in everything, that means we can sense God's presence in nature and in life even when we choose not to recognize what that presence is. Maslow says he stripped away the Divine aspect from the experience. We should take that literally, he just chose to focus on one aspect of the presence and pretend there's nothing more to t. He talks about the runner havimg a bliss attack after his second wind but how can he know if the man's heart is lofting to Go or not. They didn't recognize it but is it really vid of God?
That shows us theoretically God could be there but how can we know? What reason do we have for actually thinking so? The experiences are the same for either group, all pervasive sense of love and undifferentiated unity. Those experiences people find god in are real and the others are experiencing the same but just refusing to count it as God.
As Paul said: 21 "For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened."(Rom 1:21).
[1] Edward F. Kelley and Emily Williams Kelley, et al, Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century. Boulder, New York, Toronto: Rowman and Littlefield Publishing Inc, 2007/2010.
23 comments:
The reason they think Malosw fends off Hood is because Maslow was an atheist.
- Maslow's findings were ahead of Hood's. Maslow does not fend off Hood. He simply describes a natural human phenomenon without injecting religion into it.
He found mystical experiences among all types of people.
- No, he didn't. He found "peak experiences" among all types of people.
First Maslow did say he had to strip away the relogocity from the experience.
- That's not true. He actually found it incredible that so many people were injecting God into a natural occurrence that is not intrinsically religious. He didn't isolate a subset of peak experiences, and try to make it all about God, the way Hood did.
Those experiences people find god in are real and the others are experiencing the same but just refusing to count it as God.
- Sure. Religionists look at natural reality through a God-colored lens. And guess what - everything they see looks like God.
m-skeptical said...
The reason they think Malosw ends off Hood is because Maslow was an atheist.
- Maslow's findings were ahead of Hood's. Maslow does not fend off Hood. He simply describes a natural human phenomenon without injecting religion into it.
Skepie you have not read Maslow. If you had you would know far from denying religious experiences he merely says there are non religious experiences too. He says "atheists and believers can go quite a ways down the road together."
He found mystical experiences among all types of people.
- No, he didn't. He found "peak experiences" among all types of people.
Peak is just a synonym for mystical. It's not a different kind of experience.
First Maslow did say he had to strip away the relogocity from the experience.
- That's not true.
The great scholar so well versed in the material. That is what he said verbatim. I linked to him saying it on that film.
He actually found it incredible that so many people were injecting God into a natural occurrence that is not intrinsically religious. He didn't isolate a subset of peak experiences, and try to make it all about God, the way Hood did.
He never said any such thing. He never expresses any kind of disdain for religious content, he only stresses the possible unity of Christian and atheist. Skepie knows nothing about this guy. Maslow never expresses incredulity over religious experience. Maslow did not do a study where he found a bunch of non religious mystics..
Joe:Those experiences people find god in are real and the others are experiencing the same but just refusing to count it as God.
- Sure. Religionists look at natural reality through a God-colored lens. And guess what - everything they see looks like God.
Atheist provocateur at it again. Anything that supports religious thought is "propaganda by religionists of course Skepoes ideas are just ideas hey are not anti religious propaganda. The God hater club on the job.. they are scared to death of my book. He has to get in there and crush every suggestion of God he can't allow people to their own experiences.
Maslow is one of my favorite authors. But he was not the researcher Hood is. He doesn't come close.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Abraham+Maslow+was+not+anti+religious&sxsrf=ALiCzsZ1kHaVaXJZk6W-Q1qyZeaNjHi7Nw%3A1652300917139&source=hp&ei=dRx8Ys3FBZuyqtsPnKyQ8AI&iflsig=AJiK0e8AAAAAYnwqhTQxLsUiwAwLhQP3GmZP0RBIrYaG&ved=0ahUKEwiN1ObJpNj3AhUbmWoFHRwWBC4Q4dUDCAk&uact=5&oq=Abraham+Maslow+was+not+anti+religious&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EANQAFgAYABoAHAAeACAAQCIAQCSAQCYAQA&sclient=gws-wiz
"What has Maslow been criticized for?
Perhaps the most significant criticism of Maslow's hierarchy concerns his unscientific approach, use of unreliable samples, and the specific research methods he used to draw conclusions: namely, personal observation and biographical analysis."Jan 27, 2016
far from denying religious experiences he merely says there are non religious experiences too.
- I didn't say he denies it. I said (quite clearly) that his view of it is broader than Hood's (and yours).
Peak is just a synonym for mystical. It's not a different kind of experience.
- If you define "mystical experience" according to the M Scale, then they are not synonyms. The M Scale excludes much that Maslow considers to be peak experience.
The great scholar so well versed in the material. That is what he said verbatim. I linked to him saying it on that film.
- As usual, you don't understand. This is what happens when you go searching for sound bites to support your argument. He's not stripping anything from the experience. He's stripping away the claims made by religionists that this must be a God-based phenomenon.
He never expresses any kind of disdain for religious content
- I never said he did.
he only stresses the possible unity of Christian and atheist
- That's what I've been trying to tell you, right from the very beginning. It's common to all of us. I doesn't have to be seen as religious. It's religious people who insist on making it about God.
The God hater club on the job.. they are scared to death of my book.
- I object to the unscientific approach.
Perhaps the most significant criticism of Maslow's hierarchy concerns his unscientific approach, use of unreliable samples, and the specific research methods he used to draw conclusions
- This was an objection to his hierarchy of needs - not about peak experiences. I wonder why you chose to bring this into the discussion.
Now let me tell you a little about Maslow's characterization of peak experiences. It focuses the person, not on a supreme being. It's about unity of the self, achievement, assurance, joy, creativity, individuality, freedom, etc. Religious people have these same feelings. They just see them in a different way.
im-skeptical said...
far from denying religious experiences he merely says there are non religious experiences too.
- I didn't say he denies it. I said (quite clearly) that his view of it is broader than Hood's (and yours).
J's not. Hood's view includes Maslow's.Hood does not deny non religious mystical experience he has an m scale or it.
ME: Peak is just a synonym for mystical. It's not a different kind of experience.
- If you define "mystical experience" according to the M Scale, then they are not synonyms. The M Scale excludes much that Maslow considers to be peak experience.
where do you get that idea? This is what get's me about you, you know nothing about Hood but want to come on like an expert. Hood is recognized as the expert in the field.
Joe:The great scholar so well versed in the material. That is what he said verbatim. I linked to him saying it on that film.
- As usual, you don't understand. This is what happens when you go searching for sound bites to support your argument. He's not stripping anything from the experience. He's stripping away the claims made by religionists that this must be a God-based phenomenon.
There are no "religionists" who claim that mystical is only religion; name one. There are none. That is a white rabat you invented to take the reader's mind off the facts. you anti religionists are a hate group.
He never expresses any kind of disdain for religious content
- I never said he did.
he only stresses the possible unity of Christian and atheist
- That's what I've been trying to tell you, right from the very beginning. It's common to all of us. I doesn't have to be seen as religious. It's religious people who insist on making it about God.
The God hater club on the job.. they are scared to death of my book.
- I object to the unscientific approach.
Me quoting a source: "Perhaps the most significant criticism of Maslow's hierarchy concerns his unscientific approach, use of unreliable samples, and the specific research methods he used to draw conclusions"
- This was an objection to his hierarchy of needs - not about peak experiences. I wonder why you chose to bring this into the discussion.
It;s about his research methods. Hierarchy was just an example the criticism goes for all his work.
Now let me tell you a little about Maslow's characterization of peak experiences. It focuses the person, not on a supreme being.
I have read Maslow quite a bit. I first studied him in the 1970s AS UNDER GRAD. then again in the ought's.
It's about unity of the self, achievement, assurance, joy, creativity, individuality, freedom, etc. Religious people have these same feelings. They just see them in a different way.
why don't you tell me what religious people think. You are such a pretender. the big expert.
There are no "religionists" who claim that mystical is only religion; name one.
- YOU. You are a religionist. Your argument says mystical experiences are about the divine. Mystical experiences are caused by the divine. The divine is God. That's why mystical experience gives you justification to believe in God.
There are no "religionists" who claim that mystical is only religion; name one.
- YOU. You are a religionist. Your argument says mystical experiences are about the divine. Mystical experiences are caused by the divine. The divine is God. That's why mystical experience gives you justification to believe in God.
I have not done my own study. No published study sys that, I'm just interpreting other people's data.
I do think the capacity for that experience is given us by God to that extent it's all about God. But I know there are experiences that don't seem to reflect the divine thus not all mystics see it as religious. But the experiences are the same.
So what are you saying, then? Is it that peak experiences ARE about the divine, but not everyone sees it that way? In other words, the M Scale is wrong?
I wish you would learn what the M scale does? It's measures it's not a theory of metaphors.
Mystical experience is about our experience of God. But the way it works the triggers can set it off apart from God.
Mystical experience is a label given to a subset of peak experiences that people believe to be our experience of God. I already showed you a paper that plainly says the M Scale measures subjective feelings about the experience they have.
Mystical experience is a label given to a subset of peak experiences that people believe to be our experience of God. I already showed you a paper that plainly says the M Scale measures subjective feelings about the experience they have.
Not the valid definition, it's tailored to support your view. The little film I liked to with Maslow discussing his views on ME, made it clear that mystical and peak are interchangeable terms. It even said "mystical or peak"W.T. Stace' definition of ME: In Mysticism and Philosophy Stace defined mysticism as an 'experience of unity which the mystic believes to be in some sense ultimate. and basic to the world'.4 Within this definition he distinguished.
Stace is the standard for any serious study of mysticism
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23041300#:~:text=In%20Mysticism%20and%20Philosophy%20Stace,Within%20this%20definition%20he%20distinguished
It is also stupid to think the religious version is the subset when for centuries that was the only recognized from of the experience.
I should point out there are thinkers who accept the dichotomy between mystical and peak. None I have found see mystical as less important nor a subset of peak. Robert May thought mystical and peak were different and that mystical was the major experience involving God for some sense of the ultimate. So Skepie's view has some support.
May had ME and disagreed with Maslow he criticized Maslow for thinking peak and mystical were the same. He criticized Maslows data.
Not the valid definition, it's tailored to support your view. The little film I liked to with Maslow discussing his views on ME, made it clear that mystical and peak are interchangeable terms
- Joe, Joe, Joe. How does one penetrate the thick curtain of religious bias? OK. Some psychologists have been known to use "peak" and "mystical" interchangeably. But when they do, they are NOT talking about "mystical" in the same sense that you are. Your view of "mystical" is that it is "about the divine". But theirs isn't. It's not what YOU are talking about when YOU say "mystical". So as long as you insist that mystical experiences are about the divine, then for YOU to say that the terms are interchangeable is not true at all.
It is also stupid to think the religious version is the subset when for centuries that was the only recognized from of the experience.
- It is stupid to think that nobody ever had non-religious peak experiences before Maslow came along. Come on, Joe. Use your head.
May had ME and disagreed with Maslow he criticized Maslow for thinking peak and mystical were the same. He criticized Maslows data.
- Now I'm confused. Do you agree with May or disagree? Are they the same or not? To Maslow, the religious (mystical) experience was a form of peak experience, but certainly not all peak experiences are religious. If May wants to call them two distinctly different things, he is ignoring the common factors that Maslow identified. It is also worth noting that May is a religionist. The reason I mention that is because religious bias can and does enter into the reasoning of scientific or historical researchers. You have to take what they say with a measure of caution, because there's always the possibility that unbiased research would come to different conclusion.
im-skeptical said...
Joe: Not the valid definition, it's tailored to support your view. The little film I liked to with Maslow discussing his views on ME, made it clear that mystical and peak are interchangeable terms
- Joe, Joe, Joe. How does one penetrate the thick curtain of religious bias?
You need to find out because your hatred of religion prevents you from understanding everything.
OK. Some psychologists have been known to use "peak" and "mystical" interchangeably.
Maslow was one, but I'm not. As I intimated above in the last two days I read Robert May and decided he has a point, They are not the same.
But when they do, they are NOT talking about "mystical" in the same sense that you are. Your view of "mystical" is that it is "about the divine". But theirs isn't. It's not what YOU are talking about when YOU say "mystical". So as long as you insist that mystical experiences are about the divine, then for YOU to say that the terms are interchangeable is not true at all.
You are full of hit. You have no idea what I think. Everting I say you run through the anti-religious hate God brain segment in your head and change it to support your bias.
Joe: It is also stupid to think the religious version is the subset when for centuries that was the only recognized from of the experience.
- It is stupid to think that nobody ever had non-religious peak experiences before Maslow came along. Come on, Joe. Use your head.
It's in my book, The Trace if God. Published I'm on record as saying there are non religious mystical experiences. Good example of how your God hate colors everything you read.
Joe: May had ME and disagreed with Maslow he criticized Maslow for thinking peak and mystical were the same. He criticized Maslows data.
- Now I'm confused. Do you agree with May or disagree?
I agree with May but that is new. I read him two days ago.
Are they the same or not?
apparently Malsow's notion of peak did not fit the classic (Stace) understanding of mystical. That is according to May.
To Maslow, the religious (mystical) experience was a form of peak experience, but certainly not all peak experiences are religious.
On that film Maslow seems to use those terms interchangeably
If May wants to call them two distinctly different things, he is ignoring the common factors that Maslow identified.
He shows that Malsow's examples don't fit mystical experience
It is also worth noting that May is a religionist.
coming from you that means one thing. he doesn't hate religion enoigh to suite your paranoids. IOW he's not in the God hater club
The reason I mention that is because religious bias can and does enter into the reasoning of scientific or historical researchers.
party line no 6 in the God hater club
You have to take what they say with a measure of caution, because there's always the possibility that unbiased research would come to different conclusion.
Of course only those brain washed very deeply to truly hate God are trust worthy. right?
8:01 AM
If you want to use "peak experience" (per Maslow) and "mystical experience" interchangeably, that's wonderful. But to then say "mystical experience is about the divine" is intellectual dishonesty. I think you haven't thought this through. Or you choose to ignore the inconsistency in your argument.
As for hating God, that would be like saying I hate Batman. No. He's a cartoon character.
im-skeptical said:
If you want to use "peak experience" (per Maslow) and "mystical experience" interchangeably, that's wonderful. But to then say "mystical experience is about the divine" is intellectual dishonesty.
ME: It clearly is. There is no honest way around that. You are dishonest to hide from God as you do. Look Maslow wanted to brig out the secular experiences of mystical nature but look, May shows his examples are not even faintly mystical experience. Maslow failed in his quest to liberate secular mystical experience.
It is true that there are non-God related mystical experiences but it is not at all clear that they have no connection to Go at all. True because Maslow's examples are not mystical. The premise of mystical experience is that God is beyond understanding. even the secular versions are understood to be about ultimate reality. That is the modern understanding of God.
Modern theologians do not think of God a big man with a white beard. They think of God as being itself. The secular mystic says I did not experience God [ie] big man in sky] I experienced being itself. But that is God.
Skepie: I think you haven't thought this through. Or you choose to ignore the inconsistency in your argument.
You have not bothered to listen to anything I've said. Quoting Maslow "atheists and believers can walk a long way down the road toegether...but there is a point where we go our own ways.
As for hating God, that would be like saying I hate Batman. No. He's a cartoon character.
You are just being dishonest bit it's clear One knows when one is hatted. you hate religious people because you God.
6:56 PM
It is true that there are non-God related mystical experiences but it is not at all clear that they have no connection to Go at all. True because Maslow's examples are not mystical. The premise of mystical experience is that God is beyond understanding. even the secular versions are understood to be about ultimate reality. That is the modern understanding of God.
- No. That's just you seeing the world through a God-colored lens. Everything looks like God to the religionist. You are turning the natural into God. This is religious bias in the extreme.
You are just being dishonest bit it's clear One knows when one is hatted. you hate religious people because you God.
- I never said anything hateful to you. Disagreement with religious belief is not hateful. It's an attempt to get you to open your eyes and see outside the box of religious belief.
Joe: It is true that there are non-God related mystical experiences but it is not at all clear that they have no connection to Go at all. True because Maslow's examples are not mystical. The premise of mystical experience is that God is beyond understanding. even the secular versions are understood to be about ultimate reality. That is the modern understanding of God.
- No. That's just you seeing the world through a God-colored lens. Everything looks like God to the religionist. You are turning the natural into God. This is religious bias in the extreme.
You have no knowledge of theology. Your little God hatter BS wont allow you to think. I have a Masters in theology from a major seminary you know nothing about it whatsoever.
Joe: You are just being dishonest but it's clear One knows when one is hatted. you hate religious people because you God.
- I never said anything hateful to you.
Don't be dense Skepo. the idea that I don't see it right because I'm a "religionist" and we are brainwashed, That is hate speech. An epithet designed to communicate disapproval and judgement based upon holding opinions you seem false, that is hateful.
Disagreement with religious belief is not hateful. It's an attempt to get you to open your eyes and see outside the box of religious belief.
11:44 AM
when you merely disagree you don't impugn people's fairness or sense with epithets like "religionists" which is not a real word.. Just what I expect from those atheismists.
4:15 AM
Post a Comment