• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Humanistic Psychology

Qlip

Post Human Post
Joined
Jul 30, 2010
Messages
8,464
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
What seems to happen is that the mystics are revered as long as they're at a distance (people seem to want to have this passionate, supernatural style faith), but when a policy-maker experiences a mystic face to face, they typically have a negative reaction and/or wants to clamp down on the ambiguity. Mystics don't have walls, they're just listening to something beyond audible hearing.

Absolutely. Everything is A-OK if they stay in their cave in the mountain.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
Do you object to me classifying a huge tradition of religions under one group, or on my abbreviation? My biggest objection to Christianity is the idea of original sin.. but that discussion doesn't belong here.

From what I've read, the Islam/Jewish/Christian mystic traditions have always struggled with gaining a place of legitimacy in their respective religion. There always seems to be a schism between the thoughtfully faithful and the policy makers.



From experience, I definitely agree with this, it makes complete sense that a person can't become more than himself without undoing part of what they already are.

I understand religion as meaning to be all encompassing: everything a person needs to know to be a person wrapped in an easy (or not so easy) to digest metaphor.



I don't know a ton about Sufism, so I can't argue on this one. I know more about Kabbalah, and some about Buddhism. To tell you the truth all my knowledge is very specific to the areas that I have had personal questions about, I've never actually made a comprehensive study on either of them.

I wasnt objecting to anything, I just dont know what Xtian is.

There are schisms but they are frequently not well understood and their origin, cause and ongoing significance is will understood by believers before you even consider anyone else.

For instance the Christian reformation and protestantism, everywhere I see protestantism celebrated as the more modern, open minded, discriminating, individualistic and popular-participatory than its precursors, yet upon reading the discourses on free will between Erasmus and Luther is would appear that the converse is the case, almost perfectly so, Erasmus if anything appears to be the archetypical reformer where Luther appears the dogmatist.

Although I would say one thing and Orwell's suggestion that if you examine all revolutions since that time onwards you will discover that all revolutions are failures but not the same sort of failure is perfectly correct.
 
Top