From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: Mysticism (was Re: MINDWALK etc)
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 10:35:17 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.115546.1@kean.ucs.mun.ca> bill@kean.ucs.mun.ca (Bill Garland) writes:
>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.  

>>    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)

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

Neo-Tech?  And you are calling HIM ignorant?

>Mysticism in its most general form, is the practice of creating
>problems where none exist. 

That's silly.  Mysticism is a belief in supernatural entities and forces.
There are all sorts of reasons for creating problems where none exist,
mysticism is but one.

This would seem to define the term in such a way as to make it identical to
"problem-causing".

>Mystics are those who do this, knowingly,
>and who profit by it at the expense of those who create values. 

So, you think that it is profitable to be a "mystic" then?  What would you
call someone who doesn't do this knowlingly?  Do they not "create problems"?

>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:

It is also worthless.  You might as well define it as "Anything I don't like.".

>     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,

True enough, but there are all kinds of fools.  Mystics are but one variety.

>since he seeks realization of truth beyond his own capacity to 
>understand...   

Not necessarily!  Some mystics claim to know exactly what's going on.
If you love God, he'll give you a million dollars.  If you mix this root
into a potion it'll make someone fall in love with you. If you die, you'll
live in Heaven.  This isn't a claim to knowledge beyond understanding.
These people claim to know exactly what to do and what to expect.  Of course,
they are wrong, but they aren't claiming ignorance.

>However, most mystics now are simply professional
>neocheaters 

Neocheaters?  Is that different from other cheaters? (Yes, I have read that
silly Neotech book, and the only definition I can derive from it as to what
a "neo-cheater" is, is "Someone I don't like."...not a very useful definition.

>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,

Charlatans and con men are "mystics"?  Give it a rest.

>but most people do not realize the extent to which mysticsm and its
>symbiotic neocheaters (another Neo-Tech word) 

Yes, putting "neo" in front of another perfectly good word seems to be
a justification for some for robbing it of all it's meaning.

>have penetrated society
>and have drained its values for their own good, producing nothing of
>value in return.

Unlike the glorious purveyors of Neotech...who are draining nothing from 
your wallet and producing such vast wisdom. ;-)

>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. 

What does that have to do with mysticism?  Aren't there orphanages which
are run by religious groups but which don't sexually abuse their charges?
Aren't there secular orphanages with personnel who do abuse the children?

>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.

But the cause ISN'T mysticism in that case.  It's either a psychological
problem, a moral problem, or what have you.  That doesn't mean it isn't
bad.  It just isn't mysticism.  Since you seem to insist (due to reading
too much Neotech drivel) that everything bad is mysticism, why not just
call it "bad" rather than "mysticism"? 

>Regarding Neo-Tech, neocheaters, and other definitions, well, 
>perhaps there will be a discussion of these things in the future.

Oh, I hope not.  I am amazed that amyone does anything but laugh at that
stuff.  It's hard to distinguish it's disorganized ravings from the
intentionally humorous materials from the "Church of the Sub-Genius".

>Perhaps this .meta group is the place for a discussion of Neo-Tech,
>which as a noun means "fully integrated honesty", 

I think it means something more like "half-baked goofballness".  I still
have my doubts about whether the folks who wrote that stuff were really
being serious.  You can't be THAT strange on purpose, can you?

>and as a philosophy
>is an extension of objectivism 

Neotech has NOTHING in common with Objectivism.  Can you name even ONE issue
on which the two agree completely?  The supposed philosophy of Neo-Tech
is actually so disorganized and haphazard, I'd be hard pressed to say
that it actually means much of anything.

>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.

Gee,anI thought he was the father of philosophy (well, one of several).
Have you ever read any Plato?  Any Aristotle?  What is it about Plato
that makes you think he's "the father of the criminal mind"?

>It also considers mysticism to be the one and only disease of the
>conscious mind, 

By definition?  This is just too bizarre.  Is a brain tumor mysticism?
Are phobias mysticism?  Is rudeness mysticism?

>and that when mysticism is defeated and neocheaters
>are left to starve to death, then we will have real progress.

Well, if your definition of "mystic" means "everything I don't like" then
that's a bit empty isn't it?

--Brian

Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta