MidiChlorian wrote: In the third, you state “Crystallization does” or “does not”, do something, but you have not defined your meaning of “crystallization”, and what it is, yet present many ideas which it is not. If one knows what something is not, then should they not also know what it is? There are some things which you present that is readable, but in this specific case, could you please restate the paragraph, listed above so that I might get a better idea of what you mean? Thank you in advance.
Not to speak for Bradley, but he does state his definition of “intellectual crystallization” right there in the same post that you quoted – 2 paragraphs above the paragraph you referred to, where Bradley wrote, “I think it’s been established that intellectual crystallization is not any form of religious living but rather it is a form of stagnation and retreat…the reversal of progression….it is regressionary….no matter what text or belief set is involved.”
I also, read this and as I mentioned, to indicate what something is not, does not define the meaning of a phrase or word used; in this case by an authors intended use. In his use of “it is a form of stagnation and retreat” would indicate a negative action, or “reversal of progression” where in the original UB text used, it it associated with “ideas”:
“But true religion is alive. Intellectual crystallization of religious concepts is the equivalent of spiritual death. You cannot conceive of religion without ideas, but when religion once becomes reduced only to an idea, it is no longer religion; it has become merely a species of human philosophy.”
By attempting to assess the meaning of “crystallization” as used in the OP, it would appear to refer to making more clear, or “to give a definite form or expression to (an idea, argument, etc) or (of an idea, argument, etc) to assume a recognizable or definite form.” Where in the following UB narrations, would indicate to, make crystal clear, and as in the above, “concepts” or “ideas”, which then may be translated from “intellectual crystallization of religious concepts” to ‘make clear the religious idea(s)’, where it becomes a personal philosophy, which may not be definable, only from the viewpoint of the person thinking.
(365.2) 32:5.6 Frankly, eternity is incomprehensible to the finite mind of time. You simply cannot grasp it; you cannot comprehend it. I do not completely visualize it, and even if I did, it would be impossible for me to convey my concept to the human mind. Nevertheless, I have done my best to portray something of our viewpoint, to tell you somewhat of our understanding of things eternal. I am endeavoring to aid you in the crystallization of your thoughts about these values which are of infinite nature and eternal import.
(798.2) 70:12.3 The king was the executor of the mores, the original or unwritten law. Later he enforced the legislative enactments, the crystallization of public opinion. A popular assembly as an expression of public opinion, though slow in appearing, marked a great social advance.
(966.5) 87:7.10 But a cult — a symbolism of rituals, slogans, or goals — will not function if it is too complex. And there must be the demand for devotion, the response of loyalty. Every effective religion unerringly develops a worthy symbolism, and its devotees would do well to prevent the crystallization of such a ritual into cramping, deforming, and stifling stereotyped ceremonials which can only handicap and retard all social, moral, and spiritual progress. No cult can survive if it retards moral growth and fails to foster spiritual progress. The cult is the skeletal structure around which grows the living and dynamic body of personal spiritual experience — true religion.
Where in the last narrative above, the word “crystallization” may be associated to what Bradly indicated as “stagnation and retreat”, but in its use here, would indicate, not to clarify the meaning of ritualistic symbolism, meant only as dogmatic devotion.
Therefore, I did not take Bradly’s definition, as indicated, as such because there was no definition of his definition, because they where all negative, and there was no positive to compare too. Similar to comparing good without using evil as an opposite.
