"[...] isn't atheism one of the main reasons that lead people to Objectivism and Rand?"

"Seriously, though, I encourage those who feel this need for "Intelligent Design" and other quasi-mystical notions to re-check their premises."

"Adam has already shown how such a being cannot be within our universe given the basic axioms of Objectivism."

Over 90% of humanity adheres to some form of mysticism, and for the most part (especially in the western world) this not the result of trauma or irrationality. For the most part it is merely the outgrowth of cultural and traditional norms that developed over time from the more primitive and simplistic types of philosophies we now call religions. In dealing with a person of this background one must take this context in mind, and judge accordingly.


Sounds reasonable enough on first blush, George.  The first sentence is loaded; the more times I read it, the more leaks start coming out. On the macro-level, you also just dispensed with most thought that has ever come out of the human race since its inception, and I'm thinking that dog isn't going to hunt.  The last sentence, along with this, later on

A novice Objectivist from a religious background may go through an Objecti-Theist stage. This is common, and should be expected.
 
are more along the lines of something you'd be equally likely to find in a de-programming manual or a conversion manifesto. In either case, enough of that coming out of a group, and the next thing you know, you're over on www.rickross.com right next to the hotlink for Scientology. I don't think I lifted these quotes out of context, George, and they still look like lines from a manual for dealing with crazy people. And, in the end, that's pretty much the party line for Objectivists. It has to be.

There are ethnocentric elements to Objectivism, just like there are with any other system/community. That is the cost of system building.

Objectivism is a narrow system, and that is not an entirely bad thing. In most legitimate, developed narrow systems used in any application (arts, philosophy, living, etc) what you mainly find is excellent technical facility. In the case of Objectivists, that is their highly-honed reasoning ability, their command of logic. The bottom line is that they tend to produce results, because they require a great deal of discipline on the part of the participant, and work is usually what things are all about. If you went over to the dark side of the force, and looked at systems inside of what most here would call mysticism, you would find the mysticism equivalent of Objectivism in the work of George Gurdjieff, in his system callled The Fourth Way. I know very few Objectivists, or for that matter very few humans, that are strong enough to withstand the work he sets out (and it is purposeful work). For the record, I am not a hardcore student of Gurdjieff, but I am highly conversant with his work and keep in the loop. But one key difference in these two schools, and it does not involve mysticism, lies in how each views what a human being is, and how it functions. Another is that Gurdjieff's work has an approach for dealing with cosmology; how man lives within the universe--where he stands, how it affects him internally, and how he affects it. How they are connected. Fundamental Objectivism does not account for or even acknowledge the existence of this condition, for the most part.

Why all of this is considered important by some people has to do with the issue of mortality, and if there are any options available upon death.  

While I am thinking about it, I think it would be an interesting question to ask this group how many of you plan to be embalmed, placed in coffins, and have an open-casket  funeral home viewing. I guess I'm thinking about that because I went to one of those last night (sorry, I didn't bring home any leftover drumsticks). But that's another thing. According to standard Objectivism, that answer should be no, absolutely not, and I'm ready to state my premises. I promise to leave out environmental concerns, mainly because that's another remedial area for most committed Objectivists- they can't seem to understand how it can make scientific sense, business advantage, and generally serve their self-interest.

Objectivists, by my experience, are rarely equipped to argue intelligently about religion. In over twenty years of this, I have never seen it done with much precision, I have never seen acknowledgment of the problems that language brings to such discussions.  Perhaps there are those that are very well-studied, but when it comes to putting the rubber on the road, I haven't seen all that much- there is always a missing component, and it usually is misfiring in the anthropology or psychology areas.  The ones that do are stunning, and I'm not sure they are Objectivists, but more along the lines of myself, having been with the movement for many years, but branched out. Maybe I just listen to them better, right?   Objectivists, for the most part, do not even understand that most scripture like Christ's Passion (I use a familiar example, there are hundreds) are not there for the purpose of spinning a fairy tale, but are in fact talking about the process of transformation; elevation of the consciousness, if you will. This is the primary topic and concern of most religious scripture, and it is about something that is possible to do while living. They are talking about transcendence, elevation of human consciousness. It is puzzling that Objectivists can readily see meaning via a novel, but seem to lock up when confronted when literary vehicles are used elsewhere. Such is the ethnicity of Objectivism. I believe it primarily is a domain for those of us three-brained beasts that are most comfortable with our intellectual center. The understanding of how the three work together is a different matter. Even what the real world actually looks like can be a different matter.

There might be something to be said about certain reactions that came out of this discussion in terms of violating comfort levels. Again, not a bad thing. It is the preferable excuse to just outright meanness. Working with any system of thought, a key factor is to be comfortable with not knowing everything. How that is addressed depends on the person.

Overall, the length of the dialogue was much longer than others, and to me that means probably more ideas were exchanged, and more common ground was had. Or not.... :)

rde

(Edited by Rich Engle on 7/14, 2:19pm)

(Edited by Rich Engle on 7/14, 2:49pm)

(Edited by Rich Engle on 7/14, 2:51pm)