W.C. Anspaugh

Well, this is an interesting and rather different perspective of "Mysticism" as I've been exposed to. Over time and experiences, I've come to see Mystics as the precise opposite of Scientists. Science feeds on mystery. Science thrives in the ignorance and the unknown. Mystery – that which we don’t yet know; that which we don’t yet understand – is the mother lode that scientists seek out. Mystics exult in mystery and want it to stay mysterious. Scientists exult in mystery for a very different reason: it gives them something to do. Maybe we don’t understand yet, but we’re working on it! Each mystery solved opens up vistas of unsolved problems, and the scientist eagerly moves in. Don't get me wrong here and think that I have anything against mere curiousity and excitement of the unknown, of course - there is a difference between respectful awe and curiousity of "what's out there", and mining mystery for ores of intellectual onanism to alleviate personal dissatisfaction with reality. With that said, I'm forced to reconsider alternative definitions of the M-word, upon the discovery of Rich's Objectivism-friendly mysticism, if I do understand correctly.. which, perhaps, remains to be seen.