7/27/2019 transformation through destabilization - part 2

1/1

btw, when I wrote: this complements the polydoxic account of religious pluralism, wh

rein the soteriological trajectories of the great traditions will differ, precisely because ofdifferences in doctrinal & ritualistic emphases ...I didn't make clear that that was my conclusion,not studstill 's

that somehow a cognitive-evaluative destabilization from a nonegoic moment (transientexperience) serves transformation within an integral, transegoic movement that realizes its valuevia the erosion of egocentric biases thereby expanding one's sense of solidarity from whichcompassion then ensues ... that's cool, consistent with many reports transculturally &interreligiously

but studstill seems to present his account as exhaustive vis a vis mystical experiences &

efficacies, but

1) not all pure consciousness events are nonegoic and

2) not all mystical consciousness is episodic or transient as it can present as rather permanentstates and

3) not all mystical states are nondual as those are generally preceded and/or complementedby dualistic mystical states (cf robert forman)

furthermore, we must still account for such as Otto's mysterium tremendum etfascinans, Lonergan's being in love, devotional Eastern approaches, etc, as well as that broadrange (polydoxic & polypraxic) of mystical experiences, each which can present a rather uniquesoteriological trajectory ...

it is my belief that studstill's systems theory can accomodate this broader range, should he orothers dare to engage it thusly

see H-German by Bradley L. Herling, Boston University, and Peter K. J. Park, UCLA at

http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-german&month=0704&week=b&msg=ed1k%2BJS5Jib089BNryI65w&user=&pw=