From: onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR)
Subject: Re: WHAT IS LOVE?
Organization: Oklahoma State University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 05:37:14 GMT

From article <1992Sep5.184527.25835@cis.umassd.edu>, by pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman):
>     RE: Onstott [onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu], Aug.31:
> 
>     "The good, say the mystics...is God, a being whose only definition is that
> he is beyond man's power to conceive-a definition that invalidates man's cons-
> ciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence....The purpose of a man's
> life [for mystics]...is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does
> not know, for reasons he is not to question." [Rand]

A clear misunderstanding of mysticism--Something which I would expect
from Rand.  First of all, few mystics would actually hold that the good
is "God" exclusively (and vice versa--which really makes the mystical claim
surprising).  Second, although it is true that God is beyond
definition for the mystics, it hardly invalidates man's consciousness nor
does it nullify his concepts of existence.  This is an arguementative step that 
doesn't make sense.  Third, he clearly knows what his purpose is,
and, he certainly has plenty of reasons that he may question freely--
questioning is a part of the art itself.
One ought to actually read mysticism before jumping into a Randian
game of it--it might prove a bit more meaningful, and, indeed, rewarding.


>     "A "selfless" love is a contradiction in terms: it means that one is in-
> different to that which one values." [Rand]

     A clear equivocation of the word "self."

>     "One gains a profoundly personal, selfish joy from the mere existence of
> the person one loves. It is one's own personal, selfish happiness that one
> seeks, earns, and derives from love." [Rand]

      And as we should expect from Rand, love must be bound with happiness
which is why I suggested other works from the start.  
>     
>     Religion and faith are evil.

  And on what grounds?  And what are we to make of your "faith" in
Randian philosophy?

> 
>     Objectivity is not Kant's social consciousness but the connection of the
> mind, via choice and logic, to reality.
>         Onstott's claim that considerations of existence and context (or limit)
> beg the question in discussing love is backwards. Only a specific context of
> existence can allow one to consider love. Mystics and Objectivists have their
> respective contexts.

  And please, pray tell, on what grounds are we to privilege the "Objectivist"
context?  


> You can love when your mind is disconnected from reality
> but its not a pretty sight. Mystics counsel irrationality and then claim Origi-
> nal Sin  describes the result. It's an ancient fraud. It's evil.

  Mystics counsel ineffability which is hardly irrational.  Second,
not all mystics maintain the doctrine of Original Sin.

BCnya,
  Charles O. Onstott, III     

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles O. Onstott, III  Account at Oklahoma State University for summer.
Graduate Student in Religious Studies           onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu
University of Chicago
 
"N'y pensez pas, n'y pensez pas, n'y pensez pas trop"
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta