by Terry 105 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Didn't Ayn Rand support doing what you want and apologizing to none? Then why are you on the mystic's ass? They are just doing their thang. So is the "spiritual" person.
I also thought that Ayn was about making money. She certainly made money on her philosophy. This was after she changed her name and hid her jewish lineage. So what if the "spiritual" person makes money on their personal philosophy? Isn't that what the Ayn Rand philosophy is all about? Greed?
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?
The problem you seem to be having is that you aren't clear on what you mean when you say something.
For example: "dimensions of reality". What does that mean?
There is only ONE reality; the one you can touch, smell, hear, taste and see. You must be able to quantify something for it to be real.
The mystic will respond by saying: Isn't LOVE REAL? You can't measure LOVE can you?"
You have to be patient with them. "Love is an emotion. Emotions are involuntary bodily responses to our values. The highest value you place on someone or something results in the strongest physical and emotional response. Yes, you can measure love by means of what you are willing to exchange for experiencing it. i.e. time, money, etc. LOVE is a concept and not a THING.
All the above is done by having actual definitions for the words we use instead of just floating mere words like balloons.
When I say that mystics are people who assert ANOTHER dimension or "reality" I'm saying they are just making things up and pretending they are real. Why? Because their "other" dimensions cannot be measured, quantified or made ostensible. They can only be asserted to be true.
As far as asserting another dimension of reality, every single human alive has different dimensions of reality
Baloney. Nonsense. We share the same reality. A foot is twelve inches for you and me. A pound is 16 ounces for you and me. A dollar is 100 pennies for you and me. These are agreed upon conventions which share an absolute standard. You are confusing the fact that people have different opinions with having different actuals. An opinion is not evidence of anything.
Heck, even philosophers can't agree.
Why would they?
Philosophy has always split into realists vs mystics from the time of Aristotle and Plato down to today.
What you want to look for is something which matches the real world. Epistemology is only useful when it matches the only reality we have.
The mystic will tell you that their reality is their own and encourage you to find the one(s) that suits you.Mystics imagine something which seems "real" to them but which cannot be demonstrated by a standard demanded by real world science. Science is useful because it matches reality. Get it? Mystics assert something which does not match reality. It is make-believe.
The mystic will respond by saying: Isn't LOVE REAL? You can't measure LOVE can you?"
You have to be patient with them. "Love is an emotion. Emotions are involuntary bodily responses to our values. The highest value you place on someone or something results in the strongest physical and emotional response. Yes, you can measure love by means of what you are willing to exchange for experiencing it. i.e. time, money, etc. LOVE is a concept and not a THING.
All the above is done by having actual definitions for the words we use instead of just floating mere words like balloons.
When I say that mystics are people who assert ANOTHER dimension or "reality" I'm saying they are just making things up and pretending they are real. Why? Because their "other" dimensions cannot be measured, quantified or made ostensible. They can only be asserted to be true
Whoa hoss, no need in talking down to me.
I am a mystic and I do NOT say "isn't love real?"
I say that love is nothing more than a response to various chemicals on the brain. Chemicals like oxytocin.
Again, you have no idea what a mystic is. You know what Ayn Rand says they are but you are dismissing what true mystics are telling you about themselves and clinging dogmatically to your guru's definition.
Didn't Ayn Rand support doing what you want and apologizing to none? Then why are you on the mystic's ass? They are just doing their thang. So is the "spiritual" person.I also thought that Ayn was about making money. She certainly made money on her philosophy. This was after she changed her name and hid her jewish lineage. So what if the "spiritual" person makes money on their personal philosophy? Isn't that what the Ayn Rand philosophy is all about? Greed?
Rand was adamant about the moral cowardice. She defined MORAL COWARDICE this way: "Moral cowardice is fear of upholding good because it is good, and fear of opposing the evil because it is evil." Rand considered non-rational thinking as the source of evil. If you don't speak out against false reality you encourage the result of irrational thinking.
We became Jehovah's Witnesses because we could not exercise rational thinking well enough to prevent being persuaded by a false reality.
Rand was about people earning money. Rand wrote her books by dint of her intellect and hard work. She earned her money.
I'm not sure where you are going with the wild statement that she changed her name and "hid her Jewish heritage". Writer's change their names and so do actor's.
Rand made money by clear defintions of problems and solutions exposing the means by which we think or fail to think.
Mystics make money by quackery: asserting that un-reality is more real than actual reality.
I am curious what this "shared reality" is you are referring to? I can assure you, the reality inhabited by a blind or deaf person is vastly different from that inhabited by a sighted or hearing person. Reality is a psychological space constructed from physical attributes of the extended world. Rands fatal flaw was her rejection of Kantian philosophy which rightly concluded that all biological organisms are limited to constructed perceptions of reality and have no way of accessing this "mythical" objective reality that Rand rambled on about. She clearly had not the slightest understanding of basic neurophysiology or would have realized that Kants perceptual philosophy has been proven again and again by perceptual neuroscientists. Even Kants assumptions about categorical imperatives have been proven to operate by cognitive neuroscience.
"Reality" is the construction of biochemical impulses transmitted between neuronal synapses which "read" physical signals from the outside world. By the time these physical signals have been filtered through layer after layer of cortical connections and pathways, nothing whatsoever is left of the original "objective signal" save for the "perception" of these signals that our unique, individual neural networks have created. Objectivism is an illusion unless you somehow manage to perceive the outside world in the absence of a physical body. An unlikely possibility indeed.
Again, you have no idea what a mystic is. You know what Ayn Rand says they are but you are dismissing what true mystics are telling you about themselves and clinging dogmatically to your guru's definition.
WIKIPEDIA:
Mystics generally hold that there is a deeper, more fundamental state of existence hidden beneath the appearances of day–to–day living (which may become, to the mystic, superficial or epiphenomenal). For the mystic, the hidden state is the focus, and may be perceived in any of various ways — as God, ultimate reality, a universal presence, a force or principle, psychological emancipation — and be experienced or realized directly. Such experiences are spoken of, variously, as ecstatic revelation, theosis, direct experience of the divine or of universal principles, nirvana, enlightenment, satori, samadhi, etc. They are sometimes characterized by a fading or loss of self, or a perceived interconnection with all existence, and are often accompanied by feelings of peace, joy or bliss.
Mysticism is usually understood in a religious context, but as William James (1902) points out, mystical experiences may happen to anyone, regardless of religious training or inclinations. Such experiences can occur unbidden and without preparation at any time, and might not be understood as religious experiences at all. They may be interpreted, perhaps, as artistic, scientific, or other forms of inspiration, or even dismissed as psychological disturbances. With that in mind, the word mysticism, is best used to point to conscious and systematic attempts to gain mystical experiences through studies and practice. Possible techniques include meditation, prayer, asceticism, devotions, the chanting of mantras or holy names, and intellectual investigation. While mystics are generally members of some religious denomination, they typically go beyond specific religious perspectives or dogmas in their teachings, espousing an inclusive and universal perspective that rises above sectarian differences. (see interdenominationalism, interfaith, and perennial philosophy).
James points out that a mystical experience displays the world through a different lens than is present in ordinary experience. The experience, in his words, is "ineffable" and "noetic"; placed beyond the descriptive abilities of language. While there is debate over what this implies—whether, in fact, the experience actually transcends the phenomenal or material world of ordinary perception, or rather transcends the capacities of ordinary perception to bring the phenomenal and material world into full view—such debates are not a mainstay of mystical teaching. Mystics focus on the experience itself, and rarely concern themselves with ontological discussions.
I'm not an Ayn Rand apologist. If you have questions about her or her philosophy do a web search. Been there. Done that. Read her books too. Rand was adamant about the moral cowardice. She defined MORAL COWARDICE this way: "Moral cowardice is fear of upholding good because it is good, and fear of opposing the evil because it is evil." Rand considered non-rational thinking as the source of evil. If you don't speak out against false reality you encourage the result of irrational thinking.
Rand is certainly free to consider whatever she wants as evil. I tend to agree that non rational thinking is bad too but not necessarily evil. I think that "evil" is a rather hysterical phrase for non rational thinking. That is why I walk a fine mystical line between my perceptions and what science has to say. But let's not confuse morality with random thought.
We became Jehovah's Witnesses because we could not exercise rational thinking well enough to prevent being persuaded by a false reality. Speak for yourself. I became a JW because my parents were JWs. Rand was about people earning money. Rand wrote her books by dint of her intellect and hard work. She earned her money. People who help to the "sheep" also earn their money. Hell, a lot of times, the sheep throw it at them. I'm not sure where you are going with the wild statement that she changed her name and "hid her Jewish heritage". Writer's change their names and so do actor's. Point taken. I've been using my stage name for years.
Rand made money by clear defintions of problems and solutions exposing the means by which we think or fail to think.
Yeah, the truth according to Ayn Rand. But she was wrong about the mystics. And you are too.
Mystics make money by quackery: asserting that un-reality is more real than actual reality.
Again, NO THEY DO NOT. I am a mystic and I do not make money that way. I make it in selling my art
Rands fatal flaw was her rejection of Kantian philosophy which rightly concluded that all biological organisms are limited to constructed perceptions of reality and have no way of accessing this "mythical" objective reality that Rand rambled on about. She clearly had not the slightest understanding of basic neurophysiology or would have realized that Kants perceptual philosophy has been proven again and again by perceptual neuroscientists. Even Kants assumptions about categorical imperatives have been proven to operate by cognitive neuroscience."Reality" is the construction of biochemical impulses transmitted between neuronal synapses which "read" physical signals from the outside world. By the time these physical signals have been filtered through layer after layer of cortical connections and pathways, nothing whatsoever is left of the original "objective signal" save for the "perception" of these signals that our unique, individual neural networks have created. Objectivism is an illusion unless you somehow manage to perceive the outside world in the absence of a physical body. An unlikely possibility indeed.
What you are espousing is agnosticism.
The philosophical agnostic says, in effect: "I can't prove my claims are true, but; neither can you prove they are false, so the only proper conclusion is: I don't know; no one knows; no one can know one way or the other."
It is easy to see this is a flight AWAY from knowledge and science.
Kant was irrational. By abandoning the very process of knowing he left man easy prey for merely OBEYING and DOING HIS DUTY.
Hitler filled that gap nicely.
RAND'S PHILOSOPHY was a moral philosophy because it dealt with man's right to exist and who should benefit from man's efforts.
Rand demonstrated that life itself is the only real value from which all other values flow.
A man has a right to exist and maintain his life through his own actions: some call this SELFISHNESS.
The Kantian tells us we better do our duty and serve SOCIETY with self-sacrifice.
Which philosophy leads to Hitler?
Where does Kant say values come from?
Where does Rand say values come from.
There, my friend, is the answer to your question.
So, Terry. What about the artist? What about their perceptions? What about them making money non-rationally with their art? Are they immoral too?
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.
There's a difference between intellectual domination and closing your mind and calling it intellectual domination.
