The Dire Search for Meaning and Purpose in a Finite Life.

[Victor Pross]

Fave RUSH songs!

**

*Finding My Way

*Working Man

*Tom Sawyer [his mind is not for rent--to any god or government]

*Free will

*Closer to the Heart

*Anthem

*OverTure: The temple of Syrinx

*A farewell to Kings

**

I saw RUSH twice. They rock.

Edited August 31, 2006 by Victor Pross

[gary williams]

I can't stand the "Tom Sawyer" song.

For the music, not the lyrics.

It drives me up the wall!!!

Shit! I just lost 10,000 brownie points for saying that outloud, didn't I?

Damn it!

gw

Edited August 31, 2006 by gary williams

[Victor Pross]

Bad gary, very bad!

Garry's mind is not for rent.

[CNA]

So shame on you, Gary. 10,000 brownie points just isn't enough. You've been seriously reprimanded for that. You are evil. 75,000 brownie points deducted. Bad, Gary, Bad

[Victor Pross]

Now, now, Gary, you don't want to piss Angie off. A book or a frying pan will fly out at you from your screen. B)

Edited August 31, 2006 by Victor Pross

[CNA]

Victor, you suck. ;) That's it. That's all you can muster up. Oh, I'm so ashamed of you. I'm a huge fan and many many songs I thoroughly enjoy but here are "some" of mine.

A Passage to Bangkok

Tears (very personal favorite)

Lessons

Force Ten

Limelight (Rich would like this one)

The Spirit of Radio

Vital Signs

Natural Science

The Big Money

Marathon

The Pass

Scars (very personal favorite)

Available Light

Bravado

Ghost of a Chance

The Weapon

New World Man

One Little Victory

Losing It

Ghost Rider

Earthshine

High Water

Roll The Bones

How It Is

[Guest Damage Inc.]

... But I do now just want to say that obviously you were definitely upset and defending a friend. I can understand that. He is also my friend. But I think equating him to the terrorists of the 9/11 crap was a bit much. He is religious and that is his choice. ...

I'm an Objectivist by choice. I'll let Victor explain to you why Rich's irrationality cannot be defended. I trust he'll do that.

Let me explain Rich's connection to Islamo-fascists. It works like this.

1) Descriptive views about reality (metaphysics/epistemology) have prescriptive (ethical) implications.

2) Religious moderates and fanatics share certain descriptive and prescriptive premises.

3) A religious fanatic is dangerous because his irrational premises clash with reality and therefore human life.

4) A religious fanatic attempts to be consistent. He wants to follow through on the logical implications of the premises; that's what makes him a fanatic.

5) The moderate - by advocating the selfsame premises - sanctions and gives needed fuel to fellow extreme irrationalists. The fanatic looks at the moderate as a failed fanatic.

Of course, Rich isn't a Muslim. It doesn't matter. He advocates his own brand of irrationalism-light (just like other religious moderates) and thus gives tacit sanction to other manifestations of the same rotten - more potent - poison.

Wayne Simmons

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Wayne,

This is one more time you accuse Rich of irrationality and do not offer a shred of anything concrete - only generalities and opinions.

I submit you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about with him.

I have asked you a couple of times already if you are interested in examining the issue (civilly, of course). You prefer to keep repeating an attempted smear based on generalities and opinions.

Just who is being irrational here?

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Wayne,

You are very well versed in Objectivism, and, in principle, of course I agree with you: irrationalism is philosophically indefensible---indefensible in terms of making a claim to ‘truth.’

But why should we waste energy on anyone’s irrationality if only they are affected by it?

Sure, if that irrationality became overt, then a course of action should be taken. I agree that wrong ideas can [and often do] lead to bad or evil actions—some of those actions having only consequences to the individual. So be it. I don’t care. If others remain unharmed, that’s all we should concern ourselves with.

Rich has done nobody any harm. His life is his own—to do what he wants with it. Not me, not you, and not Angie can dictate his life [well, maybe MSK] B)

Victor

Edited August 31, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

I take issue with the insinuation that Rich is irrational.

Calling what you don't know "irrational" is very close to bigotry.

Would you call induction irrational? How do you prove the color red? The only way you can. You point at it and say "I perceive that - which is red." How do you know others do the same? Well, they tell you. They point at the same thing. Then you start measuring light waves and so forth.

The same principle applies here. Rich is not positing a metaphysical fact. He is positing that he perceives something. That perception involves a mental event that leads him to speculate as best he can as to what it is. Others say they perceive what he does too. The parts that can be measured have been (they are on public record and easily produced). This mental event has been verified by brain wave measurements and the state has even been prompted in subjects by scientific experiments. (Ever hear of brain entrainment?)

Is that irrational? If so, where?

There's a whole lot more, but I don't want to discuss this with people who are prejudiced against learning new facts that threaten their own irrational biases. It is irrational to judge what you don't know and even more irrational to insist on that judgment in the light of facts.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

M,

I don't call Rich irrational. I'm not going to insult the man. I agree with you that I want Wayne to put forth more arguments. Mean while, I'm arguing from the stand-point ---that Wayne thinks Rich is irrational. I don't know yet.

But I hear what you are saying above. Even still, I stand by this: irrationalism in philosophically indefensible---indefensible in terms of making a claim to ‘truth.’

How and if we can know this in other people...well, that can be more trickey. Is Rich irrational? Hell, I don't know. Like you, I want Wayne to lay his argument on.

Whatever the merits of what you say above, It does not alter the basic truism I pointed out.

V

Edited September 2, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

Thank you.

After you learn what it is, if you then want to call that irrational, that's a whole other kettle of fish.

If you are really interested in this issue, I am sure you will not regret learning about it. Learning about something is always a good thing. Those who fear knowledge are to be feared themselves. They do really foolish things all the time.

btw - The only ones talking about irrational so far are you and Wayne. You hold that irrational thinking is not a valid form of acquiring knowledge. I agree.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

M,

I am open to new knowledge--no problem. I wish Rich would speak out more. I want to hear about it. However, If Rich postulates,say, the supernatural or some variant thereof--IF that is his claim at the end of the day...then my mind is "closed-off." One does not "reason" with un-reason.

How does that sound?

V

Edited August 31, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

Fine. But that should be understood among rational people. Why the emphasis?

Maybe Rich ain't speaking out more because he gets tired of all the emphasis on what does not exist and so little attention given to what does.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Victor,

Fine. But that should be understood among rational people. Why the emphasis?

Maybe Rich ain't speaking out more because he gets tired of all the emphasis on what does not exist and so little attention given to what does.

Michael

Wayne is convinced of Rich's irrationally--not me. I have not had any intellectual one-on-ones with Rich. Others have--and it is THEIR conclusions. Rich might think I'm going to shoot him down, like Wayne. Maybe I will, maybe I won't. ;)

But what I have read from Rich hints of "groovy mystical thoughts", man...

...but I'm not committed to this postion. I am open...and very curious. Wayne should give Rich more of a hearing. And he has not taken you up on your challenge and that does not bode well.

V

Edited August 31, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

I want to add the following thought. (This was an edit, but since you posted in the meantime, I made it a new post.)

There is the question of terminology. This kind of discussion requires an extremely open and clear mind because you must look at the concepts the words stand for if you are ever going to get anywhere. Many of the words are loaded with emotional overtones, so I usually try to accommodate understanding by finding new words and defining precisely what we are talking about.

For instance, one such word is "God." In one concept, God is the creator of the universe and inhabitant of another reality. In another concept, this is a word to denote something "different" perceived but as yet unknown conceptually. In both cases, the word "God" comes with a lot of emotional baggage, so I prefer to chuck the word "God," go slow and define precisely what is being discussed. (There are several terms that need this treatment.)

Incidentally - I did not "challenge" Wayne. I questioned his conclusions and invited discussion. I HATE philosophical discussion that are done competitively. Their purpose is for one side to win. I seek truth and I am not afraid to find it.

This brings to mind the Socratic statement of "I only know that I do not know." This could bear two interpretations (at least). If you are arguing competitively, you will take it to mean that you can never know anything except your own ignorance, that you are doomed to an existence of uncertainty, that... well you know the party line. You make sure that you trounce Socrates and that everybody knows it.

If you seek truth as your motivation, you will think maybe there is another angle as to why this phrase has endured so many centuries. If instead of using is as an epistemological fact condemning you to perpetual ignorance, you use it as an attitude toward examining some aspect of reality, you find that these are very wise words indeed. When you encounter something new - or even something vaguely familiar but you want to learn about it - the absolutely best attitude is to start from zero and learn it as it exists, not as you imagine it to be.

"I only know that I do not know" will clean your mind of preconceptions and allow you to assimilate new facts without baggage getting in the way. You can judge the facts after you learn them, when you get to the point of "I know." This phrase ends up being a wonderful cognitive/emotional tool you use when you need it.

This starting attitude is precisely what I find lacking in most discussions about Rich. Most people come on to him with "I know already" and start mouthing off. The problem is that what they "know already" is the wrong stuff, so they make a very foolish mistake at the outset.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Michael

Well, I don't know why the word "God" was used in the first place--if it was. [?]

You are asking for trouble, and you couldn't expect anything else with an Objectivist audience when and if one does use that word--especially if they wish to communicate something OTHER than what THAT word stands for in people's minds. Why the use of the word at all?

If I want to talk about 'dogs', and I use the word 'cat' I'm off to a bad start. Given your post above, you realize that now.

In any event, as you say, define precisely what will be discussed. Or should I say: "Define your terms."

V

EDIT: "In another concept, this is a word to denote something "different" perceived but as yet unknown conceptually."

If it is UNKNOWN...how can we define it or speak of it?

Edited August 31, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

Please see the addition to my post above.

If it is UNKNOWN...how can we define it or speak of it?

Wonderful question.

That is precisely the start of the discussion. We start by talking about what we actually can define in light of what has been experienced. Once we get into this, the knowledge will start growing. We may find that we are not able to define the complete thing at this point (or the contrary), but at least we can discuss what is available to our understanding.

You are asking for trouble, and you couldn't expect anything else with an Objectivist audience when and if one does use that word--especially if they wish to communicate something OTHER than what THAT word stands for in people's minds. Why the use of the word at all?

You will find that many Objectivists use a few select words to mean "something OTHER than what THAT word stands for in people's minds." Even worse, some shift the meaning when they need to. The concept changes, but the word stays the same. Often they try to sneak in unwarranted value judgments that way.

Good examples of this are abundant, but it's late.

More another day.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

"Incidentally - I did not "challenge" Wayne. I questioned his conclusions and invited discussion. I HATE philosophical discussion that are done competitively. Their purpose is for one side to win. I seek truth and I am not afraid to find it."

M,

I agree.

[Judith]

I also would like to hear more about Rich's experiences. I find Wilber's work fascinating. I agree that the semantics issue alienates a lot of people.

Judith (on vacation in Santa Fe and posting and reading VERY sporadically)

[Rich Engle]

I don't "speak out" much with people like Wayne, mostly because of the various conditions stated (including semantical issues) by MSK. Wayne has chosen, off the rip, to say some marginally hostile things to/about me. So, mostly what I feel (yes, feel) from that is a sad kind of anger being pointed at me. What can I do, other than try to remain cordial, something that isn't always easy for anybody? I'm much better at that than I was, but I try to not put myself in positions where my discipline is unnecessarily tested.

It's further complicated by the very real fact that in most cases, people such as Wayne are usually not reading things that stray too far out of the Objectivist framework. I find that awkward because I, on the other hand, have for some years now been extremely well-versed in Objectivist writing, and for that matter, Nathaniel Branden's writing. I did my due dilligence, but I would be suprised if (and please, make me smile and tell me I am in error) the Waynes of this world would be reading someone like Wilber, for one. I have found very few Objectivist folk who can have a decent conversation about something like "The Marriage of Sense and Spirit," for instance. Wayne might poo poo Wilber (and that book) without having read it, because somehow he (Wilber) is categorized as a mystic, irrational, religionist, whatever (It is true that Wilber is a Buddhist. And heck, half the time O'ists on my attack don't even know that Buddhists are atheists ).

I'd like to say I'm sure Wayne is a nice guy, but honestly, why would I stretch, given how he started the party (uninvited) with me? I kind of think he's not a nice guy, because he gave me a shitty tone. That's my evidence. If he finds me so abhorrent, shouldn't he just ignore me? Surely, he is not an altruist, feeling some need to call me out for the sake of immunizing the forum for those he finds acceptable.

I can't dialogue with someone whose main motive is so small as his appears to be, regarding some kind of business between us he thinks needs to be brought to the table.

There's just not a lot of traction to be had like that.

[Victor Pross]

MSK: "That is precisely the start of the discussion. We start by talking about what we actually can define in light of what has been experienced."

This brings a few questions to mind:

*Indeed, what has been experienced?

Regarding this 'unknown' quality:

*Are we talking about the presently unknown--or the unknowable in principle?

*Are we speaking of that which is, at least, communicable to others?

*We are agreed that “irrationalism” –in the philosophical meaning—does not yield genuine knowledge?

Victor

[Rich Engle]

Victor wants to know where the party is:

"*Indeed, what has been experienced?*"

It really helps to discuss this if you have at least a passing familiarity with William James' "The Varieties of Religious Experience." It's all over online, like here: www.des.emory.edu/mfp/james.html#varieties

My experience was a profound inner one. It completely changed the way I experience life, and in real terms it radically altered the way I deal with people. It also gave me more calm when contemplating morality. It was a (and there continue to be these) strong, but fleeting consciousness shift, one that left something behind. That latter is one of the key attributes when you're talking about conversion, and, yes, the mystical experience. But it's not about mumbo jumbo and weirdness. This changed my entire way of existing, for good.

There's not much else I can offer. I guess proof of anything would be how someone like me changed so strongly and suddenly. It doesn't concern me to prove its existence. I can talk to people that have had similar experiences and there's always somewhat of an understanding.

It just happened to me, I'm not going to act like it didn't.

Edited August 31, 2006 by Rich Engle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

Dayaamm! When you finally "get it" you really do get it. If you don't know, ask. That's it.

Now on to your questions in order:

Indeed, what has been experienced?

If you go from the perspective of someone who has experienced it, you will receive all kinds of answers since it has not been standardized rationally yet. If you go from the perspective of looking at someone who has experienced it, you will see that it is an intense mental event that lasts a specific amount of time.

I am hesitant to use the word "intense," though, as this denotes only the emotional level. "All inclusive" would be a better term. Cognitively, it is a moment where cognitive and normative awareness - and projected awareness of anything that is possibly knowable or experiencable by the person - are brought into focus in the mind as a single mental event - as one humongous integration. Emotionally, it comes with a feeling of absolute certainty, efficacy and a sense of "rightness" about belonging in the universe. Emotionally, it also provides an overpowering sense of generalized benevolence.

It is described a bit more fully in Rich's article here on OL, The Challenge of Understanding Mysticism.

I think the term "mysticism" is one of those loaded terms where we would be better off using another one. However, it has been used historically in the sense that is given in the article (despite Rand pushing the meaning in a different direction and a lot of weird people pushing it that way, too). Rich gives four points in common for reported mystical states (and like I said, I prefer to come up with another term as we go along, but for now I will start by using my own words, not his, for the four points in his article):

1. It is a mental event difficult to communicate to someone who has not experienced it. Like I said earlier, it is like describing red to the color-blind. (Incidentally, there have been a lot of monkey-shines in describing this state with the most bizarre speculations flying all over the place as if they were facts. That's the part Objectivists like to mock and, frankly, some of it deserves some serious mocking.)
   
2. It is experienced as a normal state of induction. Just as you are sure red is red when you look at it, you are sure that what you experience is real. (Rich and William James call this "having authority for the person experiencing it.") This same feeling of "realness" that accompanies sensory induction, like what happens in seeing red, is an essential part of the mental event.
   
3. It lasts about a half-an-hour. This varies somewhat with different people, but half-an-hour is a pretty good average.
   
4. It is experienced as a passive state, although it can be induced by outside elements. This can be described as the passivity of seeing red. One does not think "I am willing myself to see red" or "I fully intend to see red." One just sees it. The mental event can be induced, however, by a number of ways - some relatively simple like meditation or hypnosis (or entrainment), and others more physically drastic like alcohol or drugs. It also can come on of its own accord. Using our "red" analogy, these outside inducements are like making a person open his eyes while putting something red in front of him.
   

That is a start. The most important aspect I see of accepting the reality of such a mental event is that it observably lasts for a specific period of time.

Now does this mental event access a part of reality not accessed by our five senses, or is it merely a part of the brain's operations, like sleep is, which has no principal awareness function?

This is the million dollar question and this is what needs to be discussed, studied, subjected to experiments, measured, etc.

Probably the main point in answering your question is that many of the very people who experience this mental event are not the best sources of describing what it is. On the contrary, many of them come off as kooks or hopelessly religious in the "faith" sense of denying reason (which, of course, I am squarely against as I am sure Rich is).

Are we talking about the presently unknown--or the unknowable in principle?

We are talking about the unknown, not the unknowable in principle. Certain limitations have made wider rational knowledge more difficult, but I have no doubt that science will lead us to where we have to go.

I just read something very pertinent to this in Merrill's The Ideas of Ayn Rand. He stated that the actual progression of upheavals in scientific learning go through three stages. The first is pure superstition; the second is pseudoscience; and the third is actual science. He gave the planets as an example. As superstition, the ancients thought they were movements of the gods. As pseudoscience, the earth was considered as the center of the rotations and as actual science, orbits have been mapped and the correct gravitational centers identified.

I see the study of this mental event right at the bridge between superstition and pseudoscience right now. That is why it is easy to scorn. Yet the event is too widely reported to ignore, so science will march on, irrespective of the prejudices of "Objectivist heroes" saving the world from more 9/11 attacks by calling those who report experiencing this event "evil."

Are we speaking of that which is, at least, communicable to others?

This was answered above. The important thing about communicating this is that the emotional baggage has to be unloaded - prejudices must be abandoned while looking at it on all ends of the communication. Those who talk about what they experience need to give up their beloved words like "mysticism" and "God" and so forth and find words that do not come with so much "history." Those who observe it need to keep what they observe in mind without judging it at first. They need to stop saying stupid things at the outset like such people have had a temporary attack of insanity, or they are forcing themselves into believing an illusion, etc. Observers need to do just that: observe. There's plenty of time to come to conclusions later. And others who are merely discussing it need to ask good questions in good faith like you are now doing.

What exists, exists. What doesn't, doesn't. It's really that simple and all parties have to be open to that on a rational level of understanding.

We are agreed that “irrationalism” –in the philosophical meaning—does not yield genuine knowledge?

As you can see, we are not discussing “irrationalism.” We are discussing a mental event and trying to integrate that experience with our other knowledge.

Judith - Glad to see you joining in.

Michael

[gary williams]

Now, now, Gary, you don't want to piss Angie off. A book or a frying pan will fly out at you from your screen. B)

Yes, and don't pull her finger either! It's a trick!!

gw