""The only fundamental basis for understanding is
that one understands only in proportion to becoming
himself that which he understands." (Papers, V B 40) Then
I would say that the unitive stage would be the
nullification of the one who understands in the
understanding."<br><br> One comment: The mystic, in the unitive state,
does not "understand". The mystic communes with the
spirit, not the intellect. For this reason much of
mystical experience cannot be described in common
terms.<br><br>~Ron~

I would be interested in finding out more about
SK's personal prayer life. As I said, since the
criticism of mysticism is placed in the mouth of the
ethical psudonym, we can't be sure that SK himself did
not have some sort of mystical life, in the truest
sense. On the other hand, much of SK's description of
Christian life reminds me of the Dark Night of the Senses
described by St. John of the Cross. The problem is that I
am still very new to Kierkegaard and haven't read
enough. I believe the most fruitful study would be, for a
Christian, to read the non-pseudonymous works, since, as he
indicated, the purpose of the pseudonymous works is to
"deceive" one into Christianity.<br><br>"For me to accept
the Unitive stage as transcending all, I would need
to cast the Purgative sphere as the condition for
the understanding that the Illuminative stage
confers"<br><br> Exactly! The purgative stage is preparation for
the unitive stage. Rarely does one, according to the
doctors, reach the unitive withiut this purification. One
thing must be borne in mind, from the Christian
perspective: God has volition and can circumvent the system at
any time. I must point out that this is where
Christian mysticism (and perhaps some Hindu mysticism) as
well as Sikh and Muslim mysticism, differs from
Buddhist mysticism. In Buddhism the mystic _achieves_ the
"unitive" state of enlightenment and nirvana entirely
through his own efforts, while in the Theocentric
religions the mystic puts himself in a receptive state, but
the initiative is entirely God's. In other words, the
Theocentric mystic relates to an Other who is active and
interested in him, not some impersonal Absolute or Ground of
Being.<br><br> "I would say that the unitive stage would be the
nullification of the one who understands in the
understanding."<br><br> That, of course, is where the Christian mystic
differs. In the unitive state, though united intimately
with God, one still retains an actual distinction of
persons. Though the borders are not quite so
definite:<br><br>Luke 17<br>20 <br>And when he was demanded of the
Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered
them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with
observation:<br>21 <br>Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo
there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
<br><br>~Ron~

Do I think the Religious sphere is synonymous
with the transpersonal or unitive stage of the mystic,
or just a platform for it? I don't know. I can see
it as either or both. My difficulty with using the
term pre-mystical is that I do not see the mystical as
mystical but as how it seems to be from the pre-mystical
side. I see the Ethico-Religious stage as a practical
stance, comparing the Aesthetic stage as the impractical.
I can see the Ethical as the Purgative. That makes
sense. <br><br>For me to accept the Unitive stage as
transcending all, I would need to cast the Purgative sphere as
the condition for the understanding that the
Illuminative stage confers. There is a quote by K that I use
continually to reinforce my take on this: "The only
fundamental basis for understanding is that one understands
only in proportion to becoming himself that which he
understands." (Papers, V B 40) Then I would say that the
unitive stage would be the nullification of the one who
understands in the understanding. I don't have any thoughts
at this time on whether K saw the Religious stage as
the peak. We need to bat this whole thing around some
more as my thoughts here are still forming. I feel
several areas in which my thoughts on this want to
expand, but first things first.

Wilbro,<br> Do you think the Religious sphere is
synonymous with the transpersonal or unitive stage of the
mystic, or just a platform for it? If we look at it that
way the Aesthetic stage is pre-mystical. The Ethical
would be the Purgative, and the Religious would be the
Illuminative stage. The Unitive would, of course, transcend
all these. Or do you suppose that Kierkegaard
considered the Religious stage to be the highest
possible?<br><br>Pax,<br>Ron

Well, naturally I would think little of the
theory for I see K as always speaking to the same thing
in all his books and discourses. But all that says
is that we interpret K completely differently. The
theory holds for the way you interpret K, but not for
the way I interpret K. <br><br>My reading off K's
take on the mystic derives from my experience with the
transition. There are two wrong ways to interpret the
transition experience and one right way. One wrong way is to
get caught up in the sublimity of the experience and
seek the experience for the trip of it. The other
wrong way is to get caught up in the finding and
assumption of a transcendental self. This requires holding
on to the pre-transition identity to support the
transcended identity, creating an identity connection that
nullifies the transition. This creates gurus and mystics.
The right was comes to see the two wrong ways as the
wrong way and throws both away, i.e., the repent that
abolishes. This returns the one, minus the transcendental
ego, and the ego transcended, to the immediate,
carrying with it the absolute thus gained. This is the
concrete choice.<br><br>Where do we go from here?

Wilbro,<br> How do you interpret SK's meaning in
that quote? What, in essense, is the mystic's error? I
find the quote rather confusing. Can you put it into
plain english for me?<br><br> In The Accounting, in On
My Work work as an Author, SK makes the following
comment:<br><br>"(referring to the works published under his name) "Direct
communication" is: to communicate truth directly; (referring to
his pseudonymous works) "communication in reflection"
is: to deceive into the truth. But since the movement
is to arrive at the simple the communication sooner
or later must end in direct communication. It began
maiutically with esthetic works, and the pseudonymous
production is maiutic in nature....The directly religious
was present from the very beginning; Two Upbuilding
Discourses are in fact concurrent with Either/Or, and in
order to safeguard the concurrence of the directly
religious, every pseudonymous work was accompanied
concurrently by a little collection of "upbuilding discourses"
until concluding Postscript appeared, which poses the
issue, which is "the issue" [in the eminent sense] of
the whole authorship: "becoming a
Christian"."<br><br> So as I understand it, SK's pseudonymous works
were intended to "deceive" people into becoming
Christians. For this reason we cannot take the pseudonymous
works as representing SK's own thoughts. For this we
must refer to his "religious" works. For example:
Either/Or 1 represents the aesthetical stage or sphere;
Either/Or 2 represents the Ethical stage. There is no
Either/Or 3 because the first two Upbuilding Discourses
(The Expectancy of faith and Every Good and Perfect
Gift is from Above) present the "concurrence" of the
"directly religious" view or stage. <br><br> For this
reason we cannot take SK's comments on mysticism at face
value. Perhaps they are deceptive and meant to represent
the Ethical misunderstanding of them? Just as the
pseudonymous narrator of Either/Or 2 rejects celibacy (which
SK chose!), he rejects a charicature of mysticism
and asceticism (which SK also chose!). For a true
representation of the Religious perspective on mysticism we
would need a reference from an Upbuilding Discourse or
another non-pseudonymous work. Since SK clearly states
that the pseudonymous works were intended to deceive I
think it is impossible to take any part of them at face
value as representing SK's own thought. What do you
think of this theory?<br><br>~Ron~

Welcome to the world of K wearing one of his
pseudonymous hats. You will find K is fond of having one
pseudonym comment upon another, and in fact, he, as
himself, comments upon all of his hats. Here is a quote
from the Postscript about E/O (courtesy quote bin):
<br>"If it were to be pointed out clearly in E/O where
the discrepancy lies, the book would have needed to
have a religious instead of an ethical orientation…it
is in this moment of decision that the individual
needs divine assistance, although it is quite correct
that one must first have understood the
existence-relation between the esthetic and the ethical to be at
this point-that is, by being there in passion and
inwardness, one indeed becomes aware off of the religious-and
of the leap. Furthermore, the definition of truth as
inwardness, that it is upbuilding, must be explicitly
understood before it is even religious, to say nothing of
being Christianly religious." (CUP, Hong, pp.
257-58)<br><br>So, you are right in that K was delineating the
difference between the esthetic and the ethical stages. It
is about form, not content. The key to the form is
in this quote, or so I see it: "There, now you have
chosen-not indeed the better part, that you will agree; but
really you have made no choice at all, or you have chose
only figuratively. Your choice is an aesthetic choice,
but an aesthetic choice is no choice. In general, the
act of choosing is a literal and strict expression of
the ethical…The aesthetic choice is either wholly
immediate thus no choice, or it loses itself in
multiplicity." (E/O, Hannay, p.485)<br><br>There are two
either/or choices. The esthetic choice is not the choice K
is speaking to. That choice is to be found in the
following quote: "So the mystics fault is not that he
chooses himself, for in my opinion he does well to do
that, his mistake is that he does not choose himself
properly; he chooses in respect to his freedom, and yet he
does not choose ethically. One can only choose oneself
in respect to one's freedom when one chooses oneself
ethically; but one can only choose oneself ethically by
repenting oneself, and it is only by repenting oneself that
one becomes concrete, and it is only as a concrete
individual that one is a free individual. The mystic's
mistake does not lie in something later but in the very
first movement. If one takes that to be correct, then
every withdrawal from life, every aesthetic
self-torment is simply a further and proper consequence. The
mystic's mistake is that in the choice he does not become
concrete for himself, and not for God either; he chooses
himself abstractly and therefore lacks transparency."
(Ibid., p. 540)<br><br>This implies that the transition
must already be in hand to make the choice, hence, the
importance of negating the mystic choice. What I see K as
pushing is the necessity to get past the transcendental
self as the goal. Anyway, all of this is my take on
the book. I'll get to the rest of your post next.

Wilbro,<br> Well I providentially stumbled upon a
copy of the Hong translation (my favorites!) of
"Either/Or II" for a mere $10! So I purchased it, brought it
home, and hit the index for the term "mysticism". <br>
First of all, I am not entirely convinced that
Kierkegaard meant to represent himself in this pseudonymous
work. Is there reason to believe so? Or is he meaning
to represent the aesthetic view in I and the ethical
view in II? What causes me to question is the way he
makes his narrator extoll marriage as necessary and the
highest form of life. Yet Kierkegaard himself never
married!<br> SK's argument (in Either/Or II) against
"mysticism" seems to be that the mystic, in seeking the
unitive experience with God, is not accepting of the
worldly environment, with its attendent difficulties and
sufferings, God has placed him in. Somehow SK's mystic is
self-seeking and inner-oriented, seeking his own good by
leaving the world. I think SK's "mystic" is rather an
anchorite or eremitical monk, a hermit, an ascetic who
secludes himself away from society and the world in
general. This retreat from the world seems to be the main
criticism of "mysticism". Also the fact that the mystic
does not marry is criticized! Curious considering that
SK was himself unmarried!!! This is why I am led to
believe that, perhaps, SK was representing the ethical
worldview instead of the religious one, or his own. The
narrator is apparently unfamiliar with the Franciscan
contemplative/active synthesis. Was Denmark that isolated? Was
Catholic monasticism that misrepresented and distorted in
Lutheran Denmark?<br> At any rate, the "mysticism" the
narrator of "Either/Or II" criticizes is either a
misunderstanding or charicature of the true mystic and mysticism.
<br><br>~Ron~

In answer to your question about my response to
reading K, let me repeat what I have said elsewhere, in
response to the following question: "You do realize,
aasor, that the way you have set this up the only way to
understand your view is to hold your view. It sounds like a
transcendental stance available only as esoteric. How you know
you are not reading this into K and seeing ghosts
where none exist?"<br><br>My response was: "The only
thing I am sure of is my experience with a process that
chewed me up and spit me out with a radically different
grasp of myself as myself. I came upon Kierkegaard
later and found that his words mesh with that process
in such an uncanny way that I am led to believe this
is what he was speaking to. So, it's my belief he is
talking to it. I don't know he was, but I believe he was.
If it turns out that my belief is wrong, so be it,
no big deal; I don't need the belief, I just hold
it. If I am deluded in this, so be it, no big deal."
<br><br>I would add that had I been a Christian when I
stumbled into the process, I most likely would have
interpreted the process in a Christian way, instead of what
you call pluralism. I find his 18 Upbuilding
Discourses simply crammed with statements that speak to what
I know, as is true of all of his writings. I am
sure we can muddle our way through to a common ground,
then differ on what we see that ground as.

Let's start here with the spheres. The whole of
my interpretation of K rests on my interpretation of
the existence spheres, and the whole of that rests on
a the following quote: "In the ethical way of
regarding life it is therefore the task of the individual
to divest himself of the inward determinants and
express them in an outward way, Whenever he shrinks from
this, whenever he is inclined to persist in or to slip
back into the inward determinants of feeling, mood,
etc., he sins, he is in temptation. The paradox of
faith is this, that there is an inwardness which is
incommensurable for the outward, in inwardness, be it observed,
which is not identical with the first, but is a new
inwardness. This must not be overlooked." (F&T, Lowrie,
p.79)<br><br>There is a new inwardness which is incommensurable with
the first. This theme is the singular theme I see
echoing throughout Kierkegaard. If you will peruse my
quote bin, you will see that all the quotes I have
chosen point in that singular direction. My reading of
the spheres is that there is that absolute
disjunction between the esthetic sphere and the
ethico-religious sphere. The summary you presented fits my
definition of an esthetic sphere definition. <br><br>In my
experience, that new inwardness comes into being when the
temporal sense of self is both negated, and in the
negation, seen to be grounded in being remembered. It
supplies the act of reflection with a discontinuity and
creates a paradox for the reflection that is self.

Wilbro,<br> Thanks for the input on the site. I
realize I have a habit of gathering the flotsam and
jetsam of ideas, jumbling them around in my mind, and
blurting out my ideas before they've been properly
developed. But that's part of my process! I am really
smitten by SK's thought! I don't know if it is a passing
phase, but I've found his ideas to be very helpful and
assuring in my present circumstances. I feel almost as if
he has taken my jumbled up ideas and potential
theories and given them order and direction. Did you ever
have that feeling? His "Upbuilding Discourses" are
truly upbuilding me spiritually. Though, as has been
mentioned, SK never formally took the position of theologian
or minister, he has in reality, and very consciously
I believe, created a ministry that has transcended
his physical death. <br><br>I guess what I'm saying
is don't be put off by my polemics and statements.
Its all a part of my verbal thought process. I don't
expect or require you to agree with me on everything.
But maybe, through discussion, we can contribute to
each other's synthesis? I do not have so much pride
that I cannot tolerate outright disagreement with my
ideas. In fact I rather enjoy the chance to test their
legs in the real world! Hopefully we can agree to be
friendly enough to actually enjoy our disagreements! We
both have in common, I am sure, the sincere desire to
find the Truth! <br><br>Pax,<br>Ron

I found the following, I think pretty good,
summary on the internet:<br><br>Kierkegaard offered a
theory of three levels or stages in which each
individual confronts personally and must choose to accept or
reject. Kierkegaard reversed Comte's sequence and
personalized what for Comte remained a collective phenomenon.
Kierkegaard's differentiation of the three levels helped him to
demonstrate why existential choice is unavoidable.<br> <br>
The first of Kierkegaard's levels is the aesthetic,
the level of sense-experience, sensual pleasure, and
artistic dalliance. It requires no commitment to
principles but permits vacillation and dandyism. This
level's criterion of truth is Comte's empirical (i.e.
sense-based) experience. Prolonged exposure to this level
induces boredom and melancholy. It cries out for
something more rigorous.<br> <br> The second of
Kierkegaard's levels is the ethical. It requires a commitment
to heed universal principles and involves
sacrificing sensual indulgence. It also excludes the
possibility of interchanging alternative ethical systems on
whim. Ethics exacts commitment and sinks back into the
aesthetic if one toys with one's commitment. Kierkegaard's
model of the ethical was Immanuel Kant's Categorical
Imperative, which admitted no exceptions. In contrast to that
degree of certainty loomed the depths of the third
level, the religious.<br> <br> Kierkegaard's religious
level presupposed the Christian God, who asks a
commitment without disclosing either the nature of himself
or the limits of commitment to him. Commitment at
the religious level involved what Kierkegaard called
a leap of faith into the abyss of the unknown. In
contrast to Comte's initial stage of the theological,
Kierkegaard placed the religious level at the culmination of
experience.<br> <br> Kierkegaard's leap into faith was justified
by the experience of dread. Dread or anxiety
involves uncertainty about the outcome of a future event.
Kierkegaard argued that unending suspense about the outcome
of a loved one's tests for cancer becomes
unbearable. Any definite diagnosis is more endurable than
endless uncertainty. A leap of faith supplies such
certainty in the face of life's unknowable future. Religion
requires a commitment whose boundaries cannot be known.
Any commitment is better than endless vacillation.

Ron, I commend you on the design of this site.
The colors are peaceful and the picture is
neat.<br><br>On your last post. The questions you ask have no
easy answer. I would think that many words will need
to pass between us even before we develop a common
language in these matters. I do think we can come to an
agreement within our disagreement. Give me some time, a day
or so, to collect my thoughts on the questions you
have asked, here and in the forum.

I wonder if Kierkegaard's 3 spheres were
influenced by Bonaventure of merely represent eternal
truths? The following is from Bonaventure's
"Itinerarum":<br><br>3. Now this is the three days' journey into the
wilderness [Ex., 3, 18]; <br>this is the triple illumination
of one day, first as the evening, second as <br>the
morning, third as noon; this signifies the threefold
existence of <br>things, as in matter, in [creative]
intelligence, and in eternal art, <br>wherefore it is said, "Be
it made, He made it," and "it was so done" [Gen.,
<br>1]; and this also means the triple substance in
Christ, Who is our ladder, <br>namely, the corporeal, the
spiritual, and the divine.<br><br>4. Following this
threefold progress, our mind has three principal aspects.
<br>One refers to the external body, wherefore it is
called animality or <br>sensuality; the second looks
inward and into itself, wherefore it is called
<br>spirit; the third looks above itself, wherefore it is
called mind. From all <br>of which considerations it
ought to be so disposed for ascending as a whole
<br>into God that it may love Him with all its mind, with
all its heart, and <br>with all its soul [Mark, 12,
30]. And in this consists both the perfect
<br>observance of the Law and Christian wisdom.<br><br>5. Since,
however, all of the aforesaid modes are twofold--as when
we <br>consider God as the alpha and omega, or in so
far as we happen to see God <br>in one of the
aforesaid modes as "through" a mirror and "in" a mirror, or
<br>as one of those considerations can be mixed with the
other conjoined to it <br>or may be considered alone in
its purity--hence it is necessary that these
<br>three principal stages become sixfold, so that as God
made the world in six <br>days and rested on the
seventh, so the microcosm by six successive stages <br>of
illumination is led in the most orderly fashion to the repose
of <br>contemplation. As a symbol of this we have
the six steps to the throne of <br>Solomon [III
Kings, 10, 19]; the Seraphim whom Isaiah saw have six
wings; <br>after six days the Lord called Moses out of
the midst of the cloud [Ex., <br>21, 16]; and Christ
after six days, as is said in Matthew [17, 1], brought
<br>His disciples up into a mountain and was transfigured
before them.<br><br>6. Therefore, according to the six
stages of ascension into God, there are <br>six stages
of the soul's powers by which we mount from the
depths to the <br>heights, from the external to the
internal, from the temporal to the <br>eternal--to wit,
sense, imagination, reason, intellect, intelligence, and
<br>the apex of the mind, the illumination of conscience
("Synteresis"). These <br>stages are implanted in us by nature,
deformed by sin, reformed by grace, <br>to be purged by
justice, exercised by knowledge, perfected by wisdom.

Wilbro,<br> Since you are the only other member
here so far, let me ask you; what do you think of the
design of this club? Colors, photo, etc? (I'm rather
partial to that picture of SK at his desk!)<br><br>~Ron~

Wilbro,<br><br>"My stance toward that Other is to
say that the personal touch is my limited touch and
that personalizing that Other is limiting that Other.
I see Kierkegaard as drawing such a line
also."<br><br> How so? Are you suggesting that Kierkegaard
shares your perspective? If the "Ultimate" (God, Christ,
etc) is impersonal how can It/He be moral? Or do you
think It is amoral? Do you think the Ultimate takes on
human or personal form for the purpose of communication
with humans? Take for example the experience of Moses
on Mt Sainai. What about incarnation as in the case
of Jesus Christ? Or do you believe He was simply an
enlightened human who attained
God/Christ-Consciousness?<br><br>~Ron~

I see you have found your way into the
Kierkegaard Forum. That being the case, I must inform you
that aasor and I are one and the same person. Strange
as it may seem, I see your Marionist stance as
grasping the same essence of Kierkegaard that I do.
<br><br>There is an esoteric quality to that Religious Sphere,
and the God-relation found there can not be known
until it is known. When the temporal sense of self
comes to an end, the eternal comes into consciousness
as a direct contact. This is the state of
transparency. This is one's eternal consciousness. This, being
the most personal, finds the Other in a personal way,
which is why, I think, the Christian personalizes
God.<br><br>My stance toward that Other is to say that the
personal touch is my limited touch and that personalizing
that Other is limiting that Other. I see Kierkegaard
as drawing such a line also.

Wilbro,<br> Thanks for the refs! I wish you could
quote a few words from K concerning mysticism. If that
is his comment then perhaps he misunderstands true
mysticism. I have seen some protestants (such as Francis
Schaeffer) and atheists (such as Ayn Rand) who misunderstand
mysticism as some sort of other-worldy spiritual state. But
in reality everyone who has an experiential
relationship with God or aspires toward union with God/Christ
could be termed a mystic. In fact I would regard
Kierkegaard himself as a mystic. Perhaps it is a problem of
definition only? How could one not carry the experience
"back to the ground"? Perhaps the problem of defintion
lies in the misunderstanding of mysticism in a
dualistic manner? The mystic does not leave the earth
completely when he ascends spritually. Paul even commends
certain mystical practices:<br><br>2 Corinthians 12<br>1
<br>It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I
will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.<br>2
<br>I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago,
(whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the
body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught
up to the third heaven.<br>3 <br>And I knew such a
man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I
cannot tell: God knoweth;)<br>4 <br>How that he was
caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words,
which it is not lawful for a man to utter.<br>5 <br>Of
such an one will I glory...<br><br> Most commentators
consider this man to be Saint Paul himself, modestly
speaking as if it refers to the experience of another.
This sounds very much like the practice of the Jewish
Merkabah (or merkavah) or Chariot mysticism.<br><br> Here
is one definition of
mysticism:<br><br>Mysticism<br><br>Mysticism is an attempt to experience union
with God: the
intentional cultivation of experiential, rather than merely
intellectual, knowledge of God. <br>Mysticism is not inherently
associated with magic, superstition, or the occult. It tends
to be very sophisticated way of being religious, and
tends to attract a spiritual elite. <br><br>General
chacteristics of Mysticism<br><br>Mystics seek intimate
knowledge of God, beyond mere intellectual knowledge. They
seek an experience that is intuitive, direct, and
intense. <br>Mystics tend to cultivate self-awareness as a
means to this end. They typically turn inward in order
to turn Godward. <br>Mystics follow a discipline.
Ritual and ethical practices facilitate awareness of the
divine. This discipline typically involves various
techniques for mediation or prayer.<br><br> This certainly
sounds like a description of Kierkegaard's way as
described in the Eighteen Upbuilding
Discourses!<br><br>Pax,<br>Ron

On the Pali Canon thing, it was just that they
both seem to categorize everything in terms of layers
of consciousness of things. On the usual Christian
View of the Spheres, here is a representative view:
<br><a href=http://www.voyager.co.nz/~ccreegan/papers/eithers.html
target=new>http://www.voyager.co.nz/~ccreegan/papers/eithers.html</a><br><br>Her\
e is a short bio you might find interesting:
<a href=http://www.denmark.org:80/kierkegaard.html
target=new>http://www.denmark.org:80/kierkegaard.html</a><br><br>On the E/O
thing, it is several pages long and I am
a poor typist. It is in Book 2. As to K's point, I
think he says the mystic loses out by not carrying the
experience back to the ground.

Wilbro,<br> How does Bonaventure remind you of
the Pali canon? What do you mean, "This is not the
usual Christian view of them"? Unfortunately I would
venture that most Christians haven't given any thought to
the subject of stages of spiritual development. This
would be especially true of Protestant and Baptist
Christians who tend to see Christianty as either possessing,
or lacking salvation. Catholics and Eastern
Orthodox, as exemplified by the likes of John of the Cross,
Bonaventure, Dietrich von Hildebrand, Fulton Sheen, Symeon the
New Theologian, and Archimandrite Sophrony, have
given this subject much thought, though perhaps not in
exactly the same terms as Kierkegaard. <br> I don't
happen to have a copy of Either/Or. Perhaps you could
cite the passage you refer to? Is that Either/Or 1 or
2? What is K's point?<br> When I say biography I
mean a thorough and detailed book.<br><br>Pax,<br>Ron

Hi Ron, thanks for the reference. The form St. B
uses reminds me of the Pali Canon. Anyway, I see the
spheres as separate and a transition necessary to get
from the esthetic sphere to the ethico-religious
sphere. This is not the usual Christian view of them, but
I do see the mystical connection.<br><br>Read the
chapter "Equilibrium Between the Aesthetic and the
Ethical," of Either/or, about half way through the chapter,
where K speaks about the mystical experience and its
upshot.<br><br>Kierkegaard on the Internet has a good biography.

Wilbro,<br>I think I referred you to a text of
Bonaventure's "Itinerarum" in Latin. An english version is
at:<br><br><a href=http://www.franciscan-archive.org/bonaventura/
target=new>http://www.franciscan-archive.org/bonaventura/</a><br><br>Scroll down
till you find the Itinerarum. The
interesting thing about Bonaventure is that he represents a
different paradigm of spirituality from that of the
Aristotelian which became dominant later. Bonaventure was more
of an Augustinian and was highly influenced by
Dionysius. Bonaventure created a systematic mystical
theology based on the charism of Saint Francis of
Assisi.<br><br>~Ron~

Wilbro,<br><br> I just did a quick search and the
best site I could refer you to is the Catholic
Encylopedia's
entry:<br><br><a href=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14254a.htm
target=new>http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14254a.htm</a><br><br> The most
popular book on the topic is Evelyn
Underhill's "Mysticism". If you really want to do some study
you might try reading some of Saint John of the
Cross's stuff.<br> Upon reflection I don't think
Kierkegaard's 3 spheres coincide exactly with the three stages
of mysticism. Though there may be some similarities.
Perhaps the "ethical" bears some relationship to the
"purgative" or "beginner" stage. The "religious" may be a
part of the "illuminative" or "unitive" stages. <br>
Another author I'd recommend on this subject is Saint
Bonaventure. You can find his work "Itinerarum in Mentus Diem"
at:<br><br><a href=http://www.ccel.org/b/bonaventure/journey/journey.html
target=new>http://www.ccel.org/b/bonaventure/journey/journey.html</a><br><br>
Also check out the Franciscan Archive
at:<br><br><a href=http://www.franciscan-archive.org/
target=new>http://www.franciscan-archive.org/</a><br><br> The coincidence is
intriguing. It would be
interesting to find out how much Kierkegaard knew about
Christian mysticism. By the way, can you recommend a good
biography?<br><br>~Ron~

before I lay my opinion on you, tell me more about those three stages of
mysticism. It may influence my answer. Are there sites that discuss it?

Wilbro,<br> First of all, welcome to the club.
I'm sure that you know much more about Kierkegaard
than I do. I don't know much about it, but K's notion
that all men inhabit one of three ascending speheres,
the aesthetic, the ethical, and the religious, seems
valid to me. I would suggest that most Christians never
move beyond the ethical stage. The religious seems to
me to be the point where one finally (perhaps not
the best word?) submits the will to God's will. The
orientation is toward God instead of the self. It rather
reminds me of the classical stages of mysticism;
purgative, illuminative, and unitive. So what is your
opinion of the spheres?<br><br>~Ron~

What do you make of K's Spheres of Existence?

"The religious writer must, therefore, first get
in touch with men. That is, he must begin with
aesthetic achievement. This is earnest money. The more
brilliant the achievement, the better for him....
Therefore, he must have everything in readiness, though
without impatience, with a view to bringing forward the
religious promptly, as soon as he perceives that he has his
readers with him, so that with the momementum gained by
devotion to the aesthetic they rush headlong into contact
with the religious."<br><br>~Source: The Point of View
for My Work as an Author (1848)<br>Author: Søren
Kierkegaard

Hi,<br> I'm reading K's "Eighteen Upbuilding
Discourses" now, in the Hong translation edition, which is a
beautiful publication. Excellent notes and translation true
to the original language. What struck me the most
and impressed me the most was Kierkegaard's point of
addressing himself to "the reader". You need to read the
Preface to get the full import, but he compares his book
almost to a child, saying that he watched it as it
wended its way down the path till it met "that single
individual, whom I with joy and gratitude call _my_ reader,
that single individual it is seeking, to whom, so to
speak, it stretches out its arms,...". At any rate I
found this metaphor to be very creative and it
definitely served its purpose of making me take his words
personally. It gave me the impression that it was entirely
providential that this work found its way into my hands, and
that it contains a message which is directed to me
personally. I guess I am surprised to appreciated and
discover Kierkegaard as a talented and creative writer,
rather than just "a philosopher".<br><br>~Ron~

Welcome to the Soren Kierkegaard discussion club.
Please feel relaxed and free to discuss anything on your
mind. I know virtually nothing about Kierkegaard myself
so even neophytes shouldn't be intimidated into
silence! The discussions don't necessarily even have to be
directly concerning Kierkegaard himself as long as they
deal with the subjects for which he was concerned:
life and Christianity.<br><br>~Ron~

Welcome to the Yahoo! Message Board for Kierkegaardian