Quote:

As someone who was diametrically opposed to the notion of selflessness, Rand's definition is less than useless. It simply elaborates her utter lack of comprehension of mystical experience.

---

Quote:

Egoic mind completely prevents the experience of the mystical in which selflessness prevails. The mystical is deemed irrational by those who cling to that one aspect of mind which serves sensation and cause-effect in the physical world.

---

MarkostheGnostic said:

Thank you for your response and I'll be happy to dialogue with you, so long as we can agree to leave Nietzsche out of the equation.
Altruism as a secularization of more spiritually colored Compassion, has never, and can never lead to anything but ahimsa - non-violence. I believe that you are confounding other motives such as profound masochism which, when projected, becomes sadism. There is a masochist in every sadist, but the obverse is not as clear. Saint Teresa might have had the compulsion to put her lips to a disgusting wad of somebody's spat out  mucous, but 'Saint' Bernard implemented rigorous monastic rules, and he dispatched crusaders to attack and kill Muslims. It was the sadism, not the altruism that does harm.

---

Quote:

"To the Witch Doctor, emotions are tools of cognition, and wishes take precedent over facts. He attempts to escape the risks of a quest for knowledge by obliterating the distinction between conciousness and reality, between perceiver and perceived, hoping that an automatic certainty and infallible knowledge of the universe will be granted to him by the blind, unfocused stare of his eyes turned inward, contemplating the sensations, the feelings, the muggy associational twisting projected by the mechanism of his undirected conciousness. Whatever his mechanism produces is an absolute not to be questioned; and whenever it clashes with reality, it is reality that is ignored.

---

Quote:

Her argument goes to the root of the epistemology stance of mystics. As I have stated earlier, 'mystical experiences' can never be claimed to be a reality.

---

Silversoul said:

My argument was simply that Ayn Rand is no authority on mysticism.  How can one possibly object to that?  If you have any evidence that she's taken up a meditation practice, read the works of Meister Eckhart and St. John of the Cross, or even knew someone who did these things, please correct me.

---

MarkostheGnostic said:

Compassion can enter a fight situation. This is without question. I have met sadistic personalities who talk about 'punishing' an attacker. A true martial artist does not personalize a human obstacle in this way. This is simply a power-monger with a sadistic bent. One can subdue an attacker without maiming him or killing him except under certain circumstances. If such extreme need is present (a PCP numbed attacker, for example), the altruism is focused more on oneself or others who are in danger. Compassion is of the nature of Reality according to Buddhism, and disinterested, altruistic love is of the nature of God in Christianity (1 John 4:8, "God is love"). These are metaphysical statements based either on a subjective (mystical) experience, or upon faith (belief in another's mystical experience).

---

Quote:

Mystical experiences - and I have experienced several in my life - both "occasioned" [Huston Smith] by psychedelics, and from a baseline of mundane consciousness, were not amorphous but had very specific cognitive and affective components. I am outlining some of these experiences in a book that I am working on which is essentially autobiograpical at bottom. The question of mystical experiences being more or less real than any other type of human experience is a ridiculous argument. The reality of religious experiences in general, whether one is quoting William James, C.G. Jung, Huston Smith or others whom a generally recognized as being experts, is in their staying power. My entire life is effected by said experiences in positive ways. I am generally considered to be an altruistic person, but this only becomes a problem if it extends beyond being compassionate to oneself as well. Then, one has left the realm of mental health for the realm of mental illness - specifically, Dependent Personality Disorder. That condition is the one to which you allude in the sacrifice of oneself to the whim of another.

---

Quote:

Many different people have very specialized views into Reality. It is that old saying about 5 blind men all trying to describe an elephant by the part they are touching, and all disagreeing with one another for failing to 'see' the complete reality. I cannot read pulses as one skilled in Tibetan medicine, nor do I know which Chi meridian can be manipulated to still pain or correct a physical disease - but I believe that others have such skills because I have benefitted by such knowledge. Ego is the root of arrogance and arrogance is ignorance incarnate - ignorance of the big picture. By big, I mean cosmic, not merely worldly, no matter how big a mogul in the outer world.

---

Quote:

A Donald Trump can put his name on any number of buildings here in Miami, but he hasn't clue one about cosmic reality or the workings of domains within and behind the physical world - including the realm of emotions (as he is emotionally limited by his limited values and he obviously identifies health with megalomania, if your quote is his). Ego in the sense of a unique point of view is perhaps the most nuetral use of the word. What I hear from you, especially in connection to Rand, is an Adlerian superiority-inferiority psychology. It is a psychology that is based upon "social interest," and which derives self-worth from one's comparison to other people's physical, financial or social status. It is a psychology for Extraverted types primarily, and it doesn't even comprehend the Introverted Intuitve types - those who primarily experience mystical enstasies and ecstasies. Extraverts are typically alienated from their inner worlds as Introverts are often alienated from the doings and comings and goings of the outer world. An extraverted type is therefore in no position to evaluate the intense inner life of anyone who fits the description of being a mystic (assuming that we have an accurate definition of the word and not a mere catch-phrase for all manner of non-ordinary or paranormal experiences).

---

Silversoul said:

RationalEgo said:

Markos, at least you were polite, mature and concise in your delivery. Silversoul's debate 'tactics' have been nothing but rude, evasive, irrational and antagonistic throughout this entire thread, as such I will no longer debate with him. I will not sanction that kind of rude behaviour any longer.

---

I had a long reply typed out about how my attacks were directed at Ayn Rand, not you(just as your attacks were directed at mysticism), and how you began the rudeness towards me, but it doesn't matter.  I should've been more professional and composed about it, and I apologize.  If we can both agree to be more civil, I'd very much like to continue this debate.

---

MarkostheGnostic said:

Religion is the afterthought of mysticism. Religion reeks of opportunism.

---

Then, a further degradation of mystical thought.

You may put me back on ignore now.

RationalEgo said:

Your posts were willingly evasive and distracted from the subject matter to attack the personal life of the originator of the ideas, rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself. I can think of no other tactic that is more intellectually dishonest and evasive than that. You have not only done this in this thread but in others throughout this forum since I arrived.

---

Quote:

However if you are willing to debate in a sensible and rational manner I have no problem with addressing your posts again in this thread.

---

Quote:

I was merely doing a little playful sparring.

---

deimya said:

In a sense it's a bit of a botched logical positivism. Or maybe worst, an illusory rebbutal of idealism based on misreading Kant and the likes, yet comiting itself to very similar reasoning and conclusions.

---