Terry..........may I see where you got this particular definition of mysticism from?
SELF-SACRIFICE: the tool of the MYSTICS
by Terry 105 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Robdar
So you belong to the cult of Ayn Rand?
Don't get me wrong. I like some of her ideas. However, she is dead wrong about the mystic.
-
peacefulpete
deleted by me -
SixofNine
deleted by virtue of deleted context
-
Terry
Terry..........may I see where you got this particular definition of mysticism from?
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_pobs3&printer_friendly=1
THE AYN RAND LEXICON objectivism from A to Z (ISBN 0-452-01051-9)
-
Terry
Terry's definition would include second generation followers who depend upon the words of those that claim direct contact through revelation. Given that most Christians would be upset with suggesting that they are merely followers of mystics but rather feel they themselves have contact with the supernatural through prayers and answers and active involvement of the Holy Spirit in their lives this definitional difference seems mute.
Kinda losing sight of the point here.
Let's start over.
What do we know and HOW DO WE KNOW it?
The non-mystic uses the five senses (yes, only 5) to interact with reality. The non-mystic extracts information from contact with the real world.
Where does the mystic get information? First they merely ASSERT the existence of a "better" reality than the actual one. This is the "spiritual".
Where does the mystic find the "spiritual"; why, in the SUPER natural. In other words, beyond NATURE.
The entire realm of reference of the mystic is an assertion and not an actually existing reality.
Now you folks are missing the point.
Reality can be demonstrated by actual contact with your senses.
Super-reality (transcendance) cannot. You can only assert its existence for yourself and never point it out (ostensibly) to others.
God is an assertion.
Heaven is an assertion.
The spirit realm is an assertion.
They are CONCEPTUAL creations and not OSTENSIBLE (you can't lay hands on them, use an electron microscope to detect them).
That is the distinction I'm making.
PEOPLE WHO CALL THEMSELVES "SPIRITUAL" play by a different set of rules.
They make it all up!
-
Robdar
That is the distinction I'm making.
PEOPLE WHO CALL THEMSELVES "SPIRITUAL" play by a different set of rules.
So, are we talking mystics or people who call themselves spiritual?
-
Terry
By the definition that you have continually propounded; Rand is a Mystic and has effectively started her own religion (with at least one follower that we know of ). In that context I find the following quote amusing:
What is a demanding pleasure that demands the use of ones mind! Not in the sense of problem solving, but in the sense of exercising discrimination, judgment, awareness.
Does she, perchance, make money out of supplying her nuggets of wisdom?
Nice try; no cigar!
Rand refused to accept assertions in place of what can be demonstrated to exist by measurement.
Rand was a philosopher who gave careful definitions of her particulars. In no instance was the basis for her definitions anything beyond mere reality.
Rand was the author of some fictional works built around her anti-Socialist views (Fountainhead, Atals Shrugged, We, the Living).
The Ojectivist movement was more the result of the efforts of Nathaniel Branden who set up lectures, tapes and interviews to promote Ojectivism (and himself).
The entire movement took a huge blow when Branden was kicked out.
The sordid story of Branden's sexual relationship with Rand and her view of his betrayal heaped scorn on the Ojectivist philosophy.
Rand's "intellectual heir" was Leonard Peikoff. His efforts along with Harry Binswanger have kept Rand's literary output chugging along in the years since her death.
I've visited the website of Objectivism and tried interacting on some of the Objectivist discussion groups. I find the people there humorless and unimaginative.
I've attended debates between Objectivist representatives and Theologians. I found the Theologian's to be more personable and persuasive.
The problem humans seem to have with information of any kind is that they want to turn it in to something LARGER than what it is.
I don't think for a minute Rand was a Mystic by any definition. She was brilliant at scraping the imaginary away from the real and championing the ability of humans to think for THEMSELVES.
Her Achille's Heel was in emotional suppression and intellectual domination by sheer force of her intellect. People found it impossible to out-think her. So, the succumbed to being either enemies or drones. More's the pity.
-
Terry
That is the distinction I'm making.
PEOPLE WHO CALL THEMSELVES "SPIRITUAL" play by a different set of rules.
So, are we talking mystics or people who call themselves spiritual?
Reality vs pretend "reality".
Call them what you want; people who assert another (higher, invisible, powerful, better) dimension of being and truth are not to be taken seriously (by me.) -
Robdar
Reality vs pretend "reality".
Call them what you want; people who assert a another dimension of being and truth are not to be taken seriously (by me.)Dude, you're playing fast and loose with definitions. They seem to be changing as needed to make your point.
As far as asserting another dimension of reality, every single human alive has different dimensions of reality. Heck, even philosophers can't agree. The mystic will tell you that their reality is their own and encourage you to find the one(s) that suits you. The "spiritual" person can't shut up about their's.
So, are we talking mystics or "spiritual" people?