From: bill@kean.ucs.mun.ca (Bill Garland)
Subject: Mysticism (was Re: MINDWALK etc)
Organization: Memorial University. St.John's Nfld, Canada
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:25:46 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.224019.5629@midway.uchicago.edu>, 
 coonstot@quads.uchicago.edu (charles orville onstott) writes:
> In article <1992Dec18.100323.1@kean.ucs.mun.ca> 
 bill@kean.ucs.mun.ca (Bill Garland) writes:
>>
>>Mystics have been damaging society for a long time.
> 
> This is among one of the most ignorant statements I have read in 
> a long time.  

I guess you haven't been reading much lately, if that is among the
most ignorant. Even if it was ignorant, which it isn't, there would 
surely be other things just a tad on the more ignorant side,
wouldn't there?  Or perhaps you have been reading too much of the 
wrong stuff?  On the other hand, it could be (I'm just speculating
here) that you are a mystic yourself ?? (something in your .sig 
suggested that possibility?)

    "Haven't you heard
     It's a battle of words
     The poster-bearer cried."   ... Pink Floyd/ DSOTM

>    Would you care to specify what you mean by mysticism
> and further in what way you find that it damages this or any other
> society?  (This question in no way upholds anything written by Capra)

Well, okay, although I _was_ going to do some work this morning. Just
thought I'd check the news very briefly...I had even forgotten the
context about which I had made that statement...

Regarding mysticism, I take the Neo-Tech point of view, or definition.

Mysticism in its most general form, is the practice of creating
problems where none exist. Mystics are those who do this, knowingly,
and who profit by it at the expense of those who create values. Persons
who fall into this category are: all clergy, most lawyers, many 
academics and journalists, criminals, and others. I admit that this 
definition is somewhat broader than that provided by my Oxford Advanced 
Learner's Dictionary of Current English:

     Mysticism : noun - beliefs, experiences, of a mystic; teaching and
     belief that knowledge of God and of real truth may be obtained 
     through medication or spiritual insight, independently of the 
     mind and the senses.

     Mystic : noun - person who seeks union with God and, through that, 
     realization of truth beyond men's understanding.

My Consise Oxford Dictionary is home, and I don't want to bother my
secretary for her humungous medical dictionary...   but even using
those definitions, it is clear to me that a mystic is a fool,
since he seeks realization of truth beyond his own capacity to 
understand...   However, most mystics now are simply professional
neocheaters who know bloody well that what they preach is a crock
of shit and they do it to extract power and money from those who
would listen to them.

Oh my. There could be thousands and thousand of words written, and 
there probably are "billions and billions" of them already written,
about this. The evolution of the usage of the term "mysticism"
has occurred IMO largely because many people already realize that clergy,
shamen, and hocus pocus snake oil selling astrologers are bunko artists,
but most people do not realize the extent to which mysticsm and its
symbiotic neocheaters (another Neo-Tech word) have penetrated society
and have drained its values for their own good, producing nothing of
value in return.

So, by accepting that definition, i.e. that mysticism is that which
causes problems where none existed previously, would be to agree that
mysticism damages society, since its purpose is to cause problems.
Hence I'll assume that you don't accept that definition but rely on 
the more traditional meaning, since you are presumably a religious 
person, judging from your .sig, and thus not likely a reader of
Neo-Tech literature. So to explain how mysticism damages society now 
and in the past :

(1) Consider Mount Cashel. Here we have a orphanage, created and
run by the Christian Brothers, who are a nepharious lot if ever I
met any, ostensibly for the good of society and the good of the
boys who were their charges. Well, it turns out that these Christian
Brothers were nothing but a bunch of masochistic pedophiles, who 
hid under the cloak of the church. Here they are preaching the
so-called gospel of Christ in the day, and molesting their captives
by night. This is all bad enough, and one could easily say that 
you cannot blame all mystics for the actions of the few, and so
on, and that deep down the Christian Brothers are _good_ people,
etc etc ad nauseum, BUT it goes beyond that. When finally we have
some evidence of this activity surfacing some 15 years ago, with
police called in to investigate, lo and behold there are more
foamin catholic mystics up on the hill [in government], who step 
in and illegally stop the investigation, tell the police to take 
a flying leap, and cover it up, all in the name of justice.

Well, I don't know. I tend to get vicious and I get attacks of 
Tourette's syndrome when I think about these cocksuckers. (In
this case, anyway, I am not swearing, but using a word that 
is extremely accurate in describing their behaviour.) If you
can't see the damage to society by this brand of mysticism, or
if you try to rationalize it away as to some other cause, just
don't bother sending me any mystical refutations of my statements
or sentiments in this matter.

That takes care of damage to THIS society. As to the past, well:

(2) Consider the Dark Ages. The Inquisition. Galileo. Oh, there
are so many examples, and I really _do_ have to go make some money...
If you would only respond to my commercial!

> BCnya,
>  Charles O. Onstott, III
> -- 
> Charles O. Onstott, III                         (coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu)
> Graduate Student in Religion and the Human Sciences
> The University of Chicago Divinity School
>            "For [the study of] history, too, has its fashions."  (Anouilh)

So, Charlie 003, there you have it. I really don't want to get into
a flame war about this with you, but do not mistake that as a sign
of weakness or backing down. If you cannot find anything "more ignorant",
well too bad for your shortsightedness and lack of access to otherreadings.

Regarding Neo-Tech, neocheaters, and other definitions, well, 
perhaps there will be a discussion of these things in the future.
In fact, I'm sure there will be. Someone once suggested to me in
email after a discussion in misc.entrepreneurs about Neo-Tech,
that a group called alt.neo-tech be created, but that was never done. 
I didn't know enough about net.stuff to do that and didn't expect
to have the time even if I did know what to do. Now, however, I
may be tempted to change my mind.

Perhaps this .meta group is the place for a discussion of Neo-Tech,
which as a noun means "fully integrated honesty", and as a philosophy
is an extension of objectivism beyond the later-in-life mystical
failings of Ayn Rand, but does follow the Aristotelian school of 
thought and considers Plato to be the father of the criminal mind.
It also considers mysticism to be the one and only disease of the
conscious mind, and that when mysticism is defeated and neocheaters
are left to starve to death, then we will have real progress.

Say, that's quite a mouthful for what I wanted to be a quick sign-off...

|-------------------------------------|--------------------------------|
| If we had an index file, we could   | In fact, except for protecting |
| look it up in the index file under  | individual rights, no valid    |
| "Index File".                       | reason for government exists." |
|           -- Tegan in "Castrovalva" |      ... Dr. Frank Wallace     |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Bill Garland = bill@kean.ucs.mun.ca | Commercial: Send me your money.|
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|