Jump to content






Photo
- - - - -

Secret Objectivist cult


  • Please log in to reply
76 replies to this topic

#61 Xray

Xray

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 4,179 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 23 September 2011 - 03:07 PM

I know Ayn Rand ain't around to show us the one true path anymore, so ain't chu glad I can do it for her?

:smile:

Michael

Suppose Rand were still alive, saw this new self-proclaimed Jesus make a huge fortune in the capitalist market by clever investments, and telling her that capitalism is a "moral ideal".
What could she have replied ?

Edited by Xray, 23 September 2011 - 03:08 PM.


#62 Michael Stuart Kelly

Michael Stuart Kelly

    $$$$$$

  • Root Admin
  • 20,485 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 September 2011 - 03:42 PM

Xray,

You have to ask her.

:smile:

Otherwise, you could ask me what I think...

:)

Michael

Know thyself...


#63 Xray

Xray

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 4,179 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 24 September 2011 - 05:45 AM

Xray,

You have to ask her.

:smile:

Otherwise, you could ask me what I think...

:smile:

Michael

I'll rephrase it then to: "What what do you think she would have replied?"

:)

Edited by Xray, 24 September 2011 - 05:49 AM.


#64 Xray

Xray

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 4,179 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 24 September 2011 - 06:18 AM


Ross said: “Basically Miller sets himself up as God, he is Jesus Christ, he is a God man and if you disagree with him you disagree with God so if you have a spouse or a family member and they are critical of Miller they have come against God and therefore they are not spiritually right for you.”

The fact that this guy sucessfully sells his nonsense to so many people leads me to question the tenet of man as a "rational' being .... :wacko:

“Mr Miller seems to use his position as Jesus to get sexual favours from women that he is attracted to...

Clever cookie, one has to give him that. :D


From the article:
<....>

“Neuroscientist Dr Louise Faber left the Queensland Brain Institute to buy a property next to Miller in O’Dea Road, outside Kingaroy. I asked her if she believed Miller was Jesus. She said: “Oh yes, David, I know he is Jesus”.”

Looks like the lady, when leaving the Brain Institute, left back her own brain there as well ...
Such extreme reactions by followers could indicate that brainwashing techniques factor in as well.

I wish the interviewer had pushed him on the water to wine and the walking on water, but he did not.

The interesting aspect is that he is very convincing and appears to believe what he says. He is a left handed person. I want to watch his eyes when he is questioned by that interviewer.

Miller looks the (Jesus) part, and also seems to have (like all gurus) charismatic qualities.
Pushing him on the 'wonders' thing would have been quite smart indeed.

As for watching his eyes: I'm interested in your assessment.
He mostly looks the interviewer straight in the eye, also does not blink his eyes more often than normal.
He confirmed that his mother wanted to commit him to a psychiatric ward, so maybe he really does believe he is Jesus.

Edited by Xray, 24 September 2011 - 08:31 AM.


#65 Michael Stuart Kelly

Michael Stuart Kelly

    $$$$$$

  • Root Admin
  • 20,485 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 September 2011 - 07:13 AM

I'll rephrase it then to: "What what do you think she would have replied?"

Xray,

Obviously she would have said to ask Michael what he thinks about it.

:smile:

On a more serious note, there's a difference between a standard and a goal. It is entirely possible for a person to use an effective standard to pursue a very bad goal. A standard merely gives you something to measure against within specific confines. A goal is the actual concrete (or concrete experience) in your own life you pursue. (NB has a recent article on this somewhere.)

So Michael says: the Miller/Jesus uses the donation and communication aspects of the free market well enough to achieve his goals. He's within the free market ideal since he is not using force, but instead, merely offering his services in the marketplace of ideas. However, his goals are really wacko. God bless him.

If the standard (the ideal) had been "favor in the court of the (enlightened) dictator" or something like that, and he had gained such favor, he would have been able to achieve his goals that way. This is how Wahhabi did it over in Saudi Arabia in years gone by.

Note that Michael says such, and so be it. Michael does not say what Rand would say.

And please stop. You're blowing my cult leader gig with this constant wondering about what Rand would say.

I'm the dude, Xray, not Rand.

She's dead now.

Dayaamm!

:smile:

(btw - What are your thoughts on tithing? I gotta work this into my plans somehow... :smile: )

Michael

Know thyself...


#66 Merlin Jetton

Merlin Jetton

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,720 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 September 2011 - 07:25 AM

The fact that this guy sucessfully sells his nonsense to so many people leads me to question the tenet of man as a "rational' being .... :wacko:

The tenet does not mean every human is rational all the time. For example, Aristotle divided the soul into three parts -- rational, appetitive, vegetative (e.g. see here). Plants have only the third. Animals other than humans have the latter two. Only humans have all three. That still means humans are partly "irrational." Of course, irrational for Aristotle does not meaning acting counter to reason, but simply lacking reason. It is no more "irrational" than an irrational number is "irrational." Another perspective is that rationality is a potential not always actualized.

#67 BaalChatzaf

BaalChatzaf

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 11,487 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Currently residing in New Jersey, the Bad-a-Bing State.
  • Interests:mathematics, physics, alternative energy sources.

    I am also involved in preparing recorded books for blind and dyslexic folks.

Posted 24 September 2011 - 07:49 AM


I know Ayn Rand ain't around to show us the one true path anymore, so ain't chu glad I can do it for her?

:smile:

Michael

Suppose Rand were still alive, saw this new self-proclaimed Jesus make a huge fortune in the capitalist market by clever investments, and telling her that capitalism is a "moral ideal".
What could she have replied ?


As Dr. Leonard McCoy often said to Capt. Kirk: She's dead, Jim.

Ba'al Chatzaf
אויב מיין באָבע האט בייצים זי וואָלט זיין מיין זיידע

#68 Xray

Xray

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 4,179 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 24 September 2011 - 08:15 AM

As Dr. Leonard McCoy often said to Capt. Kirk: She's dead, Jim.

I personally like to speculate about all kinds of "What if" scenarios. This can be very inspiring.

Edited by Xray, 24 September 2011 - 08:16 AM.


#69 Rich Engle

Rich Engle

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 2,863 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Myers, Florida, USA
  • Interests:Philosophy, Religion, Psychology, Chess, Music, Spirituality.

Posted 24 September 2011 - 03:12 PM

Somebody needs to sink some hot lead into that bastard.

Visit My Blog!

beyondevenbatcountry.blogspot.com


"There is no way that writers can be tamed and rendered civilized or even cured. the only solution known to science is to provide the patient with an isolation room, where he can endure the acute stages in private and where food can be poked in to him with a stick." -- Robert A. Heinlein


#70 BaalChatzaf

BaalChatzaf

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 11,487 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Currently residing in New Jersey, the Bad-a-Bing State.
  • Interests:mathematics, physics, alternative energy sources.

    I am also involved in preparing recorded books for blind and dyslexic folks.

Posted 24 September 2011 - 05:30 PM


Here's some technique to chew on.

Peer Pressure 101



Posted Image

Michael


It was a cruel experiment to use social pressure on the victim to get him to "electrocute" the third line on the right.

Ba'al Chatzaf
אויב מיין באָבע האט בייצים זי וואָלט זיין מיין זיידע

#71 Xray

Xray

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 4,179 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 25 September 2011 - 04:17 AM


The fact that this guy sucessfully sells his nonsense to so many people leads me to question the tenet of man as a "rational' being .... :wacko:

The tenet does not mean every human is rational all the time. For example, Aristotle divided the soul into three parts -- rational, appetitive, vegetative (e.g. see here). Plants have only the third. Animals other than humans have the latter two. Only humans have all three. That still means humans are partly "irrational." Of course, irrational for Aristotle does not meaning acting counter to reason, but simply lacking reason. It is no more "irrational" than an irrational number is "irrational." Another perspective is that rationality is a potential not always actualized.

Merlin,
My post was meant to be understood as a sarcastic comment.
Of course humans have rationality as potential, but it makes me angry how easy it is for 'soul seducers' like Miller to deactivate rational thinking in their followers.
The soul seducers focus on the needs of the individual, and needs (like e. g. the need to be accepted, appreciated and loved) are no conscious choices. And cult leaders know how to use these human needs to their advantage.

Edited by Xray, 25 September 2011 - 02:34 PM.


#72 Xray

Xray

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 4,179 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 25 September 2011 - 05:10 AM


On a more serious note, there's a difference between a standard and a goal. It is entirely possible for a person to use an effective standard to pursue a very bad goal. A standard merely gives you something to measure against within specific confines. A goal is the actual concrete (or concrete experience) in your own life you pursue. (NB has a recent article on this somewhere.)

So Michael says: the Miller/Jesus uses the donation and communication aspects of the free market well enough to achieve his goals. He's within the free market ideal since he is not using force, but instead, merely offering his services in the marketplace of ideas. However, his goals are really wacko. God bless him.

Michael,

In case N. Branden's article can be accessed online, if you could give a link, TIA.

A standard and goal are differenent things, no question.
So a person having a 'wacko' goal can still 'rationally' make use of standards to promote the goal.

And please stop. You're blowing my cult leader gig with this constant wondering about what Rand would say.

You are right. :D
For the cult thing is not going to work with all that hypothesizing, questioning, and "what if" scenarios. :wink:

So let's concentrate our mental efforts on the cult thing again. Somewhere upthread, you have already provided a list of necessary ingredients for a successful cult.
The main obstacle I see in creating an Objectivist cult is the 'pleasure' part. Some cults practise 'bacchantic' celebrating in all its forms, but since people tend to becme pretty 'irrational' during such bashes :smile:, this can be no option because it would go against the standard of rationality required.
The same goes for other kinds of extasy often practised in cults like shaking, trembling, banging one's head against the floor, etc. Again, a no-go area for an Objectivist cult.
Instead Objectivsts are required to always remain in a state of fully conscious awareness, they constantly have to assess their thinking and actions in terms of rationality, etc.
All that sounds a bit, well, pleasureless, and I think one would have to work at least some kind of pleasure factor into the Secret Objectivist cult thing, but have no idea what it could be. Any suggestions?

:smile:

(btw - What are your thoughts on tithing? I gotta work this into my plans somehow... :smile: )

Working tithing into the Secret Objectivist cult plan should pose no problem because one can use rational arguments here.
I have been an advocate of tithing ever since I came across the financial advice to save one tenth of my income ("Pay yourself first", it said in a book I bought on handling money). The book assured me that, with a little adjustment, I could live well on the remaining 90 per cent. Although I was bit skeptical because I'm not very thrifty, I thought I might give it a try. To my surprise, it worked.
It was actually the best financial advice I ever acted upon. Highly recommendable!

So all you have to do is to rationally convince potential donors that they will be able to live well on their remaining 90 per cent while giving a tenth of their income to a great cause of supreme value, and you will see the bucks accumulate on the SOC account. :wink:
As they are donations, they may even be tax deductible for the followers, so there's another incentive. :smile:

Edited by Xray, 25 September 2011 - 10:47 PM.


#73 Michael Stuart Kelly

Michael Stuart Kelly

    $$$$$$

  • Root Admin
  • 20,485 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 January 2012 - 03:32 PM



On a more serious note, there's a difference between a standard and a goal. It is entirely possible for a person to use an effective standard to pursue a very bad goal. A standard merely gives you something to measure against within specific confines. A goal is the actual concrete (or concrete experience) in your own life you pursue. (NB has a recent article on this somewhere.)...

Michael,

In case N. Branden's article can be accessed online, if you could give a link, TIA.

Xray,

Sorry I took so long. I mis-remembered. NB discussed the difference between standard and purpose (which is almost the same thing as a goal, but slightly different). This made it hell to find in the search engines. But I finally found it.

Egoism & Benevolence by Nathaniel Branden (dated August 18, 2011).

Here's the pertinent quote.

... the Objectivist ethics is a set of abstract principles, of which the purpose is the life and well being of the individual – here is where egoism comes in – but of which the standard is that which serves man's life as a rational being. To quote Ayn Rand: "The difference between a 'standard' and a 'purpose'... is as follows: a 'standard' is an abstract principle that serves as a measurement or gauge to guide a man's choices in the achievement of a concrete, specific purpose. 'That which is required for the survival of man qua man' is an abstract principle that applies to every individual man. The task of applying this principle to a concrete, specific purpose – the purpose of living a life proper to a rational being – belongs to every individual man, and the life he has to live is his own." (The Objectivist Ethics) What I want you to note here is that Objectivism says, in effect, that which is rational, in a given context, will serve your self-interest. It does not say that which you decide serves your self-interest is the rational. Self-interest, or happiness, is the purpose, not the standard. People destroy themselves every day by pursuing paths that they feel are to their self-interest. Self-interest, per se, is not and cannot be the standard; it can only be the purpose. Otherwise, the question is left open: By what standard do you determine what is to your self-interest?

In the Objectivist Ethics, reason has the last word, not "self-interest" – where "self-interest," in effect, hangs in a void.

Now... how to use this for my cult?

Thank God "self-interest" isn't the standard. That makes things a lot easier from my end. It allows me to prey on people's vulnerabilities like a vulture without impediment as I induce them to exchange "self-interest" for "best interest of the group."

Oops... that sounds too collectivist for an Objectivist cult.

What to do? What to do?

How about a vague adjective?

Woah...

I got it.

"Higher self-interest."

Bingo!

:)

Michael

Know thyself...


#74 Xray

Xray

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 4,179 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 11 January 2012 - 01:05 PM

... the Objectivist ethics is a set of abstract principles, of which the purpose is the life and well being of the individual – here is where egoism comes in – but of which the standard is that which serves man's life as a rational being. To quote Ayn Rand: "The difference between a 'standard' and a 'purpose'... is as follows: a 'standard' is an abstract principle that serves as a measurement or gauge to guide a man's choices in the achievement of a concrete, specific purpose. 'That which is required for the survival of man qua man' is an abstract principle that applies to every individual man. The task of applying this principle to a concrete, specific purpose – the purpose of living a life proper to a rational being – belongs to every individual man, and the life he has to live is his own." (The Objectivist Ethics) What I want you to note here is that Objectivism says, in effect, that which is rational, in a given context, will serve your self-interest. It does not say that which you decide serves your self-interest is the rational. Self-interest, or happiness, is the purpose, not the standard. People destroy themselves every day by pursuing paths that they feel are to their self-interest. Self-interest, per se, is not and cannot be the standard; it can only be the purpose. Otherwise, the question is left open: By what standard do you determine what is to your self-interest?

In the Objectivist Ethics, reason has the last word, not "self-interest" – where "self-interest," in effect, hangs in a void.

Now... how to use this for my cult?

Thank God "self-interest" isn't the standard. That makes things a lot easier from my end. It allows me to prey on people's vulnerabilities like a vulture without impediment as I induce them to exchange "self-interest" for "best interest of the group."

Oops... that sounds too collectivist for an Objectivist cult.

What to do? What to do?

How about a vague adjective?

Woah...

I got it.

"Higher self-interest."

Bingo!

:smile:

Michael

"Higher self-interest" Hey, this is an excellent bait for prospective followers! The loftier the chosen terms, the better. To make the whole thing watertight, all you need to do after that is to tell them that the "higher" self interest can of course only be the "rational" self-interest, which means that not joining the Secret Objectivist Cult cult would be irrational.
Should they still be hesitant to join, you could play the ultimate trump card by asking them: "Or are you going to tell me that A is non-A?"

Bingo!

:)

#75 Michael Stuart Kelly

Michael Stuart Kelly

    $$$$$$

  • Root Admin
  • 20,485 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 June 2014 - 10:44 AM

Just when I thought I had all the answers, I came across this.

 

I am in awe.

 

 

I wonder if this guy gives private lessons behind the scenes...

 

Notice that a change occurred in the false prophet, too, based on his story.

 

Not even Stephen Colbert could get him into "let's mock and snark about religion" mode. (See the following link.)

 

Vikram Gandhi (on Colbert)

 

They made jokes, but they just didn't go there.

 

You can see Gandhi (what a name! :) ) has respect for regular people who seek answers and, by his presence and attitude, managed to keep Colbert from mocking believers in religion in the same manner Bill Maher does, even though a couple of times it seemed like Colbert really wanted to go there.

 

This is definitely something serious to think about for a cult leader aspirant like myself.

 

:smile:

 

Michael


Know thyself...


#76 Southern Capitalist

Southern Capitalist

    $$

  • Members
  • 62 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mobile, Alabama
  • Interests:Objectivism, Atheism, Engineering, Petroleum Process, Philosophy,

Posted 04 August 2014 - 06:54 PM

Can't wait for the initiation rituals!!

And here, over the portals of my fort, I shall cut in the stone the word which is to be my beacon and my banner. The word which will not die, should we all perish in battle. The word which can never die on this earth, for it is the heart of it and the meaning and the glory.

The sacred word:

EGO

 


#77 Jules Troy

Jules Troy

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,067 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Photography, 3d modelling, photoshop, digital mixed medium matte painting. Attempting to not piss everyone off.(mostly failing at that!)

Posted 06 August 2014 - 05:15 AM

There is no fight club!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users