Mysticism as Scar Tissue Part 1

The genesis of social madness

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• freedom
• objectivist
• objectivism
• rand
• libertarian
• libertariansim
• politics
• philosophy
• anarchy
• iraq
• war

[pipslingerz]

To say that all religious people are full of rage, is insane.

[stefbot]

That's not an argument...

[pipslingerz]

It's not meant to be.

[stefbot]

See? You're taking a religious approach to argument, and you're angry...

[stevenwagner]

You are equating mysticism with paranoia. Thats like saying instinct is the same as intuition. In other words, you are saying all non-rational states are pre-rational states. Some non-rational states are trans-rational states.

[summergiles]

"Almost inevitably ending up condemning our families, and pursuing a life of semi-solitary integrity..."

Man you hit the nail right on the head with that one. It is nice to know that is normal. I was thinking I was the only one. The pressure to conform is so enormous. Thanks for letting me know. It will keep me a little more resolved to know others are struggling and it is a normal process.

[summergiles]

I thought there was dark matter. Is that not true?

[nightpotato]

wait, what?

[parispeter2]

I'm not sure how your comment on free will relates to the rest, but by "revelation" I meant sacred texts, not experiential knowledge. I don't deny the reality of the latter, but I am sceptical whether it gives us certain knowledge of something beyond it i.e. God. Just as there are sensory illusions and hallucinations, I think there can be extrasensory ones which are more illusions of the emotional life.

[parispeter2]

On rationality and philosophy, we're getting into deep water! I would say, using Wittgenstein' distinction between what can be shown and what can be said, that indeed the religious experience can't be SAID in your sense (=explained) but that it can be SHOWN, pointed to (=described)as it is e.g. by W.James (VRE)or later by phenomenology i.e. it's possible to describe the essence of this experience, it's structure.

[pipslingerz]

The problem with philosophy is that it is rational, and can thus never explain the irrational. Free Will is, by definition, "irrational". Experiential knowledge, "revelation", may be the only way to know what they are seeking.

[parispeter2]

I can't speak for Stefan M, and I don't think it's helpful just to say believers are nuts. But I don't think that they have the monopoly on "higher truth" i.e. questions of ultimate value, either. Atheists address such questions through philosophy, which has the advantage of using the same standards of proof (evidence of senses+rational argt) as in other domains, and not accepting "revelation". Good ones don't avoid any difficult questions.

[pipslingerz]

My view of religion is that it is peoples attempt to get closer to a higher truth. I believe that higher truth is there, which is why I defend people seeking it. Athiests here think religous people are nutcases because they believe in something "without any proof". So I tend to challenge these athiests to provide proof for the things they take for granted, such as other peoples self-awareness. stefbot doesnt like these type of questions, and I know why.

[parispeter2]

Yes, it's true that Stefbot doesn't really present knockdown arguments for knowing your grandma's (or any other believer's) soul. But there is a discipline - psychoanalysis - which has at least started to explain religion in this way; see my refs in Part 2.