Rebirth of Reason

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread

Post 0

Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 6:21pmSanction this postReply

Replace "God" with "reason" and this would align perfectly with the Objectivist contention that we should all act "in the name of the best within us."

Luke Setzer
(who braces for yet another long post from Jeanine about her growing dislike of Objectivism)

Post 1

Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 11:42pmSanction this postReply
Msr. Setzer,

                     you brace in vain; we have no quarrel here.  I would actually prefer 'reason' to God' here myself, but the quote was too beautiful and eloquent to bar on that account.  Rand herself did the same; 'the frown is the first touch of God upon man's forehead' (the Fountainhead).

      Perhaps given I am a Pagan this surprises you, but the term 'god' (or even 'the God') in Paganism does not mean the same as the 'God' of monotheism, and I would not use the same word or implied concept were it not that 'tis the Christians who misused the elder Pagan usage.  And I don't ask anything more from Objectivists here than courtesy; if I had not had unusual experiences, mine own reason would conclude for atheism, as it did for the first 25 years of my life, and I would never ask others to alter their views from conclusions justified from their standpoint.

     For myself, I don't think spirituality can or should defend or determine ethical or political truths, and favor a completely secular polity and philosophical foundations for ethics.  I do think spiritual experience can help make one more aware of aspects of true value than one might be otherwise, but so can art or scientific inquiry.  Spirituality, for me, is either an artistic deepening of life, a practical means to an end, or a type of conversation.  As for the values one finds in it, I shall argue in reason and passion (and phenomenology) for an aesthetic and organic approach to life; that is all I can or should do here.

     But, anyway, you need no worries from me on the spiritual front; there is no sense in a Pagan's proselytizing save by showing the best of her spirit and the experience of that spirit's excellence.  Only when (for lack of a better term) a Pagan spirituality is already latent does it make send to speak, approach, and act... and even then... even I prefer to be careful.  That said... give me room to move, by which I mean the political freedom and moderate tolerance to practice my beliefs openly (no, I won't elaborate)... and this cultist might make even an Objectivist sit up and take notice.

     Besides, when it comes to religion, this girl is strictly left-handed... if we must make divine references, I strongly prefer my deities as women.

my regards,

Jeanine Ring   )(*)(

P.S.  Incidentally, I was looking at your web page awhile back, and I noticed that you're into Neuro-Linguistic Programming; in fact you rhetorically elevate the practice to a philosophical place in your life co-equal with Objectivism.  You might be curioused to know that I came across Marianne Williamson's quote in the context of a sex seminar at Good Vibrations (on flirting); this quote introduction the third and final class, titled 'power flirting'.

Anyway, when I asked the instructors what approaches had influenced their premises, Neuro-Linguistic Programming was prominent among them.  May I ask what you think of this?  I'm not personally familiar with NLP, tho' its essential approach and method is quite resonant to me... but I find it interesting that some of the members of our pro-sex feminist subculture out here find inspiration in practices developed in the context of business psychology.

Post 2

Monday, December 20, 2004 - 5:56amSanction this postReply

Regarding NLP, I have an essay on NLP and Objectivism at


which includes a link at the end to Andrew Breese's treatment of this subject.

I find the concepts of NLP quite useful in describing how we create mental maps of reality.  However, I find some NLP practitioners and advocates quite mystical and not philosophically rigorous.  By grounding NLP concepts to Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology, and by enhancing the Objectivist concept of reason with the NLP principle of mental syntax, I create a powerful synergy that helps me to set and to achieve life-affirming goals efficaciously.

I have some book summaries that provide additional insight:




A few words regarding this last reference:

Advocates of NLP "speed seduction" techniques such as Ross Jeffries have received mixed reviews regarding the effectiveness of their material.  I have noticed a common thread regarding belief systems -- specifically, self-esteem beliefs -- among various authors of this material.  Ross starts right off the bat with some basic affirmations such as "I make no apologies for my desires as a man."  Although not rigorous philosophically, his approach of tackling seduction's intellectual and personal identity aspects before addressing techniques remains sound.

Some parts of this material border on misogynistic, but only because of the very real need for men to defend themselves from manipulative women with personality disorders.  I would expect any course aimed at women to have similar material to help them to protect themselves from harmful men.  Both genders need this information in our altruism-riddled culture that tells us to "turn the other cheek" and other life-diminishing nonsense.

Here I present a few links for anyone interested in this application:




Perhaps Jeanine has some links that help women to meet, date and seduce men.

No, I do not apply this material outside my marriage!  But I certainly find it interesting.

Luke Setzer

Post to this thread

User ID Password or create a free account.