The new religion

[CopticChristian]

nicholasjohnson.org/wjohnson/wjaudio/

There may be more. I googled, Binged, or whatever “general semantics, course”

M

I knew you had it in there. You may want to know that none of these links open. They are lost in cyberland or as we may say “the territory”.

 

[CopticChristian]

Your question, Toosan, is a very good one. Thanks for asking it.

Though I am a licensed first level NLP practitioner, that is not by any means my source or main avenue for “understanding the (N)ature of God.” In fact, that is something I would never claim, as the word “understanding,” as we commonly use it, refers to an intellectual understanding. I think that we can agree that the Greater cannot be contained by the lesser. What we do do, up to a point, is to build, by some means or another, either by absorption or acquisition, deliberate or not, some way to think about our experience. Thinking comes to us naturally, as part of the human package. That thinking tends to mature through several stages and several levels of maturity. Some say that there are roughly nine such stages, each including but transcending the previous.

One of the things we think about is who and what we are. Those two can be, at least after a point, be readily distinguished from each other. And one of the things that we learn to do, some of us, anyway, is to think critically about our own thinking. Various disciplines address this, eg, philosophy in general, religion of course, and more lately in history, as we seem to become over-all more reflexive in our thinking, such things as epistemology, teleology, phenomenology, and other -ologies. Latest, but not all and in no order, of these are such things as General Semantics, NLP, & NS, at least as publicly recognizable and usable bodies of applicable ideas that do not result in witch hunts or burnings at the stake.

CopticChristian has brilliantly recognized that these were all used in some form by Our Master and other Biblical figures. For my part, I’d generalize that over the class of folks we might call “adepts” or “healers,” the latter being actually a title attributed to Jesus before some things changed in accepted Biblical language.

But the point here is, and I continue to agree with CC about this, is that the Parables of Jesus and His whole story give us material at different levels of engagement to do a “cut and paste” using portrayals of ideals as models to substitute for our often less-than-mature and undisciplined ways, particularly in regards to the Golden Rule and the Great Commandments, which in imho constitute all of the practicality of religion and philosophy. there is even a very discernible reason for this, but that is another book.

The beauty of NLP, etc, is that it seems to or can provide a step that appears to be inadequately addressed by religions, even ours. That is that while we are given what to cut and paste, we are lacking in techniques as to how. Prayer and contemplation may be helpful, but those work in another direction most usefully, if you ask me. And faith and morals are wonderful, but they are most usually imposed from without, with the added threat of damnation if they are not followed. These threats in the case of a mature Christian or one who is sufficiently accomplished in any functioning ethic, are completely unnecessary. Again, there is a reason for that, but you can figure it out on your own, if you think about it.

So what NLP and GS do for me, among others, relative to a spiritual life, is to inform me of certain conditions and dynamics of mentality that are useful for going beyond it, and reporting back within the framework of discursive thought more accurately what exactly transpired. If you read some of the mystics, and especially contemplatives, who are but advanced mystics, you will find that they are exquisitely adept at parsing their experience and teasing our meaning.

That is how these disciplines are useful to me, as tools, rather than ends, in a project of much larger scope than simply changing my mind. One can actually discover what mortal mind is, and have thereby a grounding in something that is ineffable, yet foundationally indispensable in the un-mattering of soul.

Yes. Agreed. These are tools that are useful in understanding and parsing. They are also useful in accessing information from others and for engaging in meaningful dialogue that directs that dialogue towards what is known about the maps of others by engaging in meaningful directed dialogue that allows change in your map knowing that your map is incomplete. It also allows to understand the incompeteness of the others maps and aid in understanding by providing insightful informmation that is discerned as to the others map. Knowing your map is incomplete is the beginning. Many do not know that and that causes resistance at the filter level.

 

[toosan1967]

Let me ask you a question. What have you found fascinating and deep about the discussions?

CC: Sorry. I’ve been away from the discussions today and wasn’t ready for a pop quiz upon my return : but I’ll try. I suppose I was most fascinated by the references to Neuro-Linguistic Programming and Ken Wilber’s work. I first became familiar with NLP in the late ‘70’s as a result of having attended several seminars run by an organization called Psi World out in California. I at one time thought that I would have loved to have been presenter with that group but life took me in other directions. As it happens, NLP was one of the primary tools used by the instructors to change the paradigms governing attendees’ lives and understandings. With regard to Ken Wilber; I first encountered him when I was deeply involved in reading the writings of Alan Watts. Wilber was I think about twenty-two when he was a student at the American Academy of Asian Studies were Watts served as an instructor and administrator; and I believe Wilber was a regular attendee at many of the Houseboat Seminars. In any case, Watts held him in high regard. So without going into great detail, let me simply say that reading your discussion with Micorhizea, brought up a wealth of memories of my own experiences in trying to make a spiritual life amidst the demands of work and family. Which is why Watts is still my favorite author as it seemed to me then as now that Watts had a knack for taking spiritual ideas that seemed very complex and making them much less so. Oh! You also challenged me to explain what I found ‘deep’ about the discussion. I think that mostly had to do with your consideration of the detail with which the various psycholinguistic theories you discuss attempt to define thought processes. Perhaps it was just a ‘general impression’ I concocted in my mind to hide my own ‘fog of unknowing’! Thanks, both of you for your summations and explanations!

 

[Micorhizea]

I knew you had it in there. You may want to know that none of these links open. They are lost in cyberland or as we may say “the territory”.

nicholasjohnson.org/wjohnson/wjaudio/

Sorry; try this one. If it doesn’t link, try cut/paste or typing it in.

 

[CopticChristian]

CC: Sorry. I’ve been away from the discussions today and wasn’t ready for a pop quiz upon my return : but I’ll try. I suppose I was most fascinated by the references to Neuro-Linguistic Programming and Ken Wilber’s work. I first became familiar with NLP in the late ‘70’s as a result of having attended several seminars run by an organization called Psi World out in California. I at one time thought that I would have loved to have been presenter with that group but life took me in other directions. As it happens, NLP was one of the primary tools used by the instructors to change the paradigms governing attendees’ lives and understandings. With regard to Ken Wilber; I first encountered him when I was deeply involved in reading the writings of Alan Watts. Wilber was I think about twenty-two when he was a student at the American Academy of Asian Studies were Watts served as an instructor and administrator; and I believe Wilber was a regular attendee at many of the Houseboat Seminars. In any case, Watts held him in high regard. So without going into great detail, let me simply say that reading your discussion with Micorhizea, brought up a wealth of memories of my own experiences in trying to make a spiritual life amidst the demands of work and family. Which is why Watts is still my favorite author as it seemed to me then as now that Watts had a knack for taking spiritual ideas that seemed very complex and making them much less so. Oh! You also challenged me to explain what I found ‘deep’ about the discussion. I think that mostly had to do with your consideration of the detail with which the various psycholinguistic theories you discuss attempt to define thought processes. Perhaps it was just a ‘general impression’ I concocted in my mind to hide my own ‘fog of unknowing’! Thanks, both of you for your summations and explanations!

I am less inclined to read Watts than you are, an Anglican that became a buddhist. I would be more inclined to read John Henry Neuman, an Anglican that became a Catholic,

Ken Wilber makes for entertaining reading if you enjoy this sort of entertainment. He should not be taken seriously. He has some notion of Creation and Evolution which in my mine translates to this. Darwinian Evolution is a theory. Anything that bases its understanding and propagation of beliefs on a theory is a theory based on a theory that as a Scientific minded guy like me tends to avoid. Yeah, Yeah, Yeah…what next and so what I say to the all knowing, all understanding that in my opinion bring confusion to the mind to understand much of anything.

I do believe in the evolution of thought. Now that is different. I have also discovered that what we see today as to how the mind works worked in the day of Paul yet in different ways based on what they knew. The mechanisms were the same.

Concerning the evolution of thought all you have to do is follow the varied permutations of Protestant thought forward and backward. I still continue to learn. Most modern day Protestant thought derives from the Anglican Church that begat the Methodist that begat the Holiness movement that begat the AOG, Pentacostal and modern day non-denominationals…The Lutherans begat the Lutheran churches of Scandanavia and Denmark that begat the Evangelical free churches of Scandanavia that begat the Evangelical free churches in America. I have not yet found and I am sure that they exist permutations of Presbyterian/Reformed thought and I am sure that they exist. It may be with the rigidness that there was no permuation of thought, rather infiltration as we see in the Baptist communities that preach the Doctrine of Grace that is essentially Calvinism.

There are other things to consider in this thought. I discovered that the Amish do not allow education beyond 8th grade. The Mennonites as I understand it have not restrictions. I know that many Protestant groups do not appeal to education but rather a life of service and an education steeped in the Bible. This tends to keep people ignorant or unlearned. You do recall what Peter said about those that are ignorant and unlearned as to how they use Scripture. This may be a self fulfilling prophecy of continued Scripture twisting as a result of the unlearned state with the anticipated and expected results.

In consideration of thought, General Semantics and the lot of stuff that has been generated from GS. You will find and can make use of the fact. This is fact. Most if not all Protestants do not “time bind”. This is what Korzybski says we as humans do. This is seen when you find Protestants skipping from the Bible to 1600 absent any history or reasonable history denying Oral Tradition.

You recall I pointed out that the letter to the Romans says that you can look in the world and see what it is God wants you to know and therefore there is no excuse.

So as I look in the world I see that non-religious groups ascribe to time binding and Oral Tradition.

journal.oraltradition.org/

And if you look here…

journal.oraltradition.org/issues/25i

So the world recognizes that there is an Oral Tradition in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Protestants do not time bind and they deny that there is an oral tradition. This is the achilles heel of Protestant thought that I make use of routinely. When you understand this you can dialogue knowing that those that you are speaking with do not time bind as evidenced by their lack of historicity and those that deny Oral Tradition have weak incomplete maps. This information is useful in dialogue.

I don’t find Wilber helping me or anyone else understanding anything except Wilber. I don’t find Watts anything other than entertaining. That is just me.

 

[CopticChristian]

nicholasjohnson.org/wjohnson/wjaudio/

Sorry; try this one. If it doesn’t link, try cut/paste or typing it in.

I do not understand how you can cut and paste a date or type in a date. I suggest you try to open these dates and see what I see DNS.

 

[toosan1967]

I am less inclined to read Watts than you are, an Anglican that became a buddhist. I would be more inclined to read John Henry Neuman, an Anglican that became a Catholic,.

I don’t think Watts ever actually became a buddhist; though he spent a number of years exploring their philosophy and practices. Well, that may be only partially true. It may be more correct to say that; raised an anglican, he became fascinated with buddhism, which he studied and wrote on extensively, then was ordained an anglican priest which he then abandoned (or was fired) in favor of an academic career; which he abandoned to become a freelance mentor in a new age philosophy in which he synthesized Christianity, Zen Buddhism, and finally Taoism. Entertaining indeed! Yeah! That’s what I was doing - reading Newman when I became really attracted to ‘The Forums’ by way of linking to the Catholic Encyclopedia. Funny how God works sometimes. May God Bless Us All.

 

[Micorhizea]

I do not understand how you can cut and paste a date or type in a date. I suggest you try to open these dates and see what I see DNS.

The link works from my post for me. Don’t know what you mean by “date.” What I meant was that if the link doesn’t work, scroll over the URL and copy it. Paste it in your address bar. Click “enter,” That ought to get you there.

Good luck.

 

[CopticChristian]

The link works from my post for me. Don’t know what you mean by “date.” What I meant was that if the link doesn’t work, scroll over the URL and copy it. Paste it in your address bar. Click “enter,” That ought to get you there.

Good luck.

I can open the link. I get the page with all the information. When I try to open any audio files I get DNS.

 

[Micorhizea]

I can open the link. I get the page with all the information. When I try to open any audio files I get DNS.

Oh. Sorry; I guess we have to search on, then. There is a fascinating book by an author regarded by many Catholics on here as a “new age” author, an allegation I find repulsive in her case. It applies GS to considerations surrounding religion. It is well annotated and has a remarkable bibliography. It is, as well, to the best of my knowledge, used in some Catholic comparative religion classes. I know of a person who was studying to be a Jesuit who used it as part of his course material. I found it to be an indispensable source of ideas. My spiritual counselor had two copies, which I now own, with his own marginal notes as a fond memory of days past. I will PM you the title if you wish, so as not to cause scandal on these pages.

 

[CopticChristian]

Oh. Sorry; I guess we have to search on, then. There is a fascinating book by an author regarded by many Catholics on here as a “new age” author, an allegation I find repulsive in her case. It applies GS to considerations surrounding religion. It is well annotated and has a remarkable bibliography. It is, as well, to the best of my knowledge, used in some Catholic comparative religion classes. I know of a person who was studying to be a Jesuit who used it as part of his course material. I found it to be an indispensable source of ideas. My spiritual counselor had two copies, which I now own, with his own marginal notes as a fond memory of days past. I will PM you the title if you wish, so as not to cause scandal on these pages.

In consideration that this posting is on “new religion” and as far as I know athiesm is the only banned topic, having included Ken Wilber as an author I don’t see how any author would cause controversy.

 

[toosan1967]

In consideration that this posting is on “new religion” and as far as I know athiesm is the only banned topic, having included Ken Wilber as an author I don’t see how any author would cause controversy.

I must have missed something. I thought this thread began with someone suggesting that atheism might be considered a new religion given certain characteristics the OP attributed to it. When did the discussion get banned? I thought that the general consensus of the posters was that atheism was not a religion and that that idea had been ‘dispatched’ as I put it. Is discussion of ‘New Age’ philosophy as relative to the Catholic faith also banned? Or has it been found too controversial and divisive to be considered in discussion?

 

[CopticChristian]

I must have missed something. I thought this thread began with someone suggesting that atheism might be considered a new religion given certain characteristics the OP attributed to it. When did the discussion get banned? I thought that the general consensus of the posters was that atheism was not a religion and that that idea had been ‘dispatched’ as I put it. Is discussion of ‘New Age’ philosophy as relative to the Catholic faith also banned? Or has it been found too controversial and divisive to be considered in discussion?

I do not know. What I do know is that Micorhizea suggested to someone that they take a course in General Semantics and that I having been studying this stuff for awhile know that there are no courses. I know about the General Semantics website and have known about it for some time. I was referred by Mic to a book whose authorship remains in question.

What I am left with is that in order to study General Semantics the only way to learn this is through self study, ie Korzybski, S.I. Hiyakawa or others and that there are no courses in General Semantics available. So, the best advice to anyone wanting to learn about General Semantics is to read a book.

 

[Micorhizea]

one more try:

sno.org

scroll down and look under GS

BTW, you are not categorizing KW as an atheist, are you???

 

[CopticChristian]

one more try:

sno.org

scroll down and look under GS

BTW, you are not categorizing KW as an atheist, are you???

Micorhiz,

You are out there dude. I said before and I will say again that there is no course in General Semantics available in school or online. There are books.

I am not sure how this site you provide equates to a course in GS. I have Science and Sanity and Manhood of Humanity as well as all the writings of congress of General Semantics. I don’t want to read a book written in 1968 about something that has its foundations in stuff written in 1938. Nothing I have ever read about NLP, Neurosemantics or GS mentions anyone but Korzybski…Vitvan??? No mention by anyone.

I have most of the early Bandler, Dilts and others writings on NLP as I read through Neurosemantics. Rather than rely on what others say about the writings of Bandler and others I believe it is best to just go back and read the original for myself. If I Want to know about the letter to Romans I am not going to read a Calvin Commentary although I have.

As a person with a degree in science, and a post graduate degree in science I have no interest nor would I recommend anyone read what someone else like this has to say about what was said. I found this about Vitvan…quite a name…

integralworld.net/anderson5.html

Vitvan presented his teachings as appropriate to a **New Age **and hence understandable only to a select few of his contemporaries, and in its synthesis of Shaktism, astrology, Protestant Christianity, and popularized science, it is clearly recognizable as a New Age teaching in contemporary terms. However, Vitvan’s pedagogy is unique among other **New Age doctrines **in its vigorous attempts at very precise conceptual rigor—Vitvan reorganized his teaching in midlife around the General Semantics of Alfred Korzybski

This can be seen in the work of such contemporary writers on “alternative spiritualities” as Ken Wilber or Andrew Cohen: we, the vanguard of human evolution, possess a new worldview that has the power to change the world by changing the minds of a few people now. Consequently, there is a specific relationship between the doctrines these writers present as a form of knowledge (which draws in an appeal to science and rationality), and the relationship of this knowledge to practice.

I have said this before and I will say it again. Whenever I have a question I always find an answer in the writings of the Church. If you have not read Jesus Christ the Bearer of the water of life, I suggest you do.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20030203_new-age_en.html

Here is the introductory sentence. If anyone is considering jumping into the New Age read this first.

The present study is concerned with the complex phenomenon of “New Age” which is influencing many aspects of contemporary culture.

I find no use for Wilber, Vitvan, Vivitar, Vonage, Vorizon or any New Age stuff. Like I said I spent a year at SWIHA and I learned to speak “New Age”…I can talk Spirit, journey, service, entity with the best of them however I have no use for filling my head with the stuff with any of these authors.

I would rather spend my time with Aquinas or Paul. Ken Wilber is Ken Wilber…I don’t know what his theism might be…I know he is not Catholic and as far as I am concerned he brings nothing to the table I am interested in.