| | Jason,
OK, I'll play...
Rich -- My post was designed to show that your critiques of the way we use words are superflous. Your strange concern over our definition of the word mysticism is the main example. When people use it here on SOLO we mean certain thing.
I said that the way some of you folks use words are too broad. There's nothing superfulous in that statement. That may seem strange to you, I can't do anything about that. The example of your ("our") definition of the word mysticism is in fact ground zero. I offered to direct you to what I have written to date about that, which is far from complete, but it certainly does explore the specific area of the individual mystical experience vs. the broad way that it is commonly used in your community. If you haven't read what I wrote (I saw no email request for that) by all means contact me and I will provide it to you (rdengle@msn.com).
Robert Davison actually gave the definition in post 102 in his attempt to argue that deism doesn't qualify as mysticism. Instead of keeping to the context of the discussion you decided to remind us once again that you dislike the way we use this word and imply that instead you want us to use your definition (or your church's definition) of it. Of course you still refuse to explain to us why we should use your definition.
No, I did not suggest that you use my definition of it. As far as my church's definition of it, there is no dogma regarding mysticism, because we do not employ dogma.We certainly talk about it. And, I am not suggesting you use my or any other definition of mysticism. The only thing I have done so far is to point out that many Objectivists use mysticism as a blanket term, and then I did a bit of work to explore the individual mystical experience, what that's about, it's historical origins, and so forth. My writing on it was influenced by my minister, Rev. Nicole C. Kirk. She is completing her doctorate in ministerial studies at Princeton and has started to roll out a series of sermons regarding mysticism. The homilies are not currently available electronically, although the first one is available on audio (within the service) at http://www.eastshore.org/sermons/sermon_listen.htm?Audio=Audio under the title "Mysticism".
The word god is generally used to denote a definitionless being that is outside of what we know as existence. This being is the supposed creator of the universe whom we are supposed to worship. This is the way in which the word is commonly used in Christian churches and among the Muslim and Jewish faiths. Using the word to denote "existence" is very much like deciding to use toaster in place of microwave and then complaining that we are not using the word in the way that this or that group uses it.
Not quite, although I understand what you are saying. In terms of the way the day-to-day common man uses it, those who are not seekers of deeper understandings of philosophy, religion, thought in general, yes, in many cases. This is covered ground, I don't know why you're stuck on it. Here, maybe try basics, don't get your hate radar out because this is from William James, but it gets to it pretty well:
We escape much controversial matter by this arbitrary definition of our field. But, still, a chance of controversy comes up over the word 'divine,' if we take it in the definition in too narrow a sense. There are systems of thought which the world usually calls religious, and yet which do not positively assume a God. Buddhism is in this case. Popularly, of course, the Buddha himself stands in place of a God; but in strictness the Buddhistic system is atheistic. Modern transcendental idealism, Emersonianism, for instance, also seems to let God evaporate into abstract Ideality. Not a deity in concreto, not a superhuman person, but the immanent divinity in things, the essentially spiritual structure of the universe, is the object of the transcendentalist cult. In that address to the graduating class at Divinity College in 1838 which made Emerson famous, the frank expression of this worship of mere abstract laws was what made the scandal of the performance. - http://www.psywww.com/psyrelig/james/james3.htm#26
There's better ones to be had, but that's the basic conversation. I will not attempt to prove that people have and continue to use "God" interchangeably with "Divine," "Religion," and so on, but it truly does happen. God is used as what James would call a "floating general quality". That is the mysticism that upsets you.
As far as me mocking you -- I think my mocking of you is well deserved after post 104 in this thread in which you mocked "students of Ayn Rand's system" without providing any legitimate reason for doing so. I don't intend to continue with this unless you post something similar again. If you do and I am in the mood for it I will respond in kind.
Allow me to explain. Michael Kelly probably knows what I'm talking about when I choose to use that term, rather than Objectivism. I simply prefer to use it. I believe there was a discussion thread that went over this. "Students of Ayn Rand's System of Philosophy" was the full term being discussed, I believe. So, no, no mockery intended, I do not engage in that practice, and even if I did, you might consider that to behave that way whether being mocked or not speaks only to our own behavior if we engage in it. Please forgive me if I made for misunderstanding.
Best Regards,
rde
|
|
