So, you find fundamentalism common amongst the clergy?
On Sep 13, 11:27 am, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:
> A fundamentalist nun? Sacrilege! Somebody call 911!
>
> dj
>
> On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 10:51 AM, ornamentalmind
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Lets be honest, both women had a list of detractors...and both for
> > good reason.
>
> > Mommie Dearest
> > The pope beatifies Mother Teresa, a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a
> > fraud.
> > By Christopher Hitchens
> >http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/
>
> > By Erich Vieth on May 21st, 2008
> > The dark side of Mother Teresa
> >http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/05/21/the-dark-side-of-mother-t...
>
> > "India has no reason to be grateful to Mother Teresa"
> > Sanal Edamaruku
> >http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/mother_teresa/sanal_ed.htm
>
> > On Sep 13, 8:19 am, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Taken in a philosophical vein, it could be said that Mother Teresa had
> >> many, many children. For instance, how many people that met her
> >> refereed to her as "Mother?" How many loved her more then their own
> >> actual mother? Whereas Rand may have inspired 'disciples' no one
> >> would make the leap to mother. From what I've read of her personal
> >> life; she didn't seem like much of a nurturer. What Rigsy's comment
> >> suggested to me is that if Rand HAD had children perhaps her
> >> philosophy would have changed or softened in some way. Perhaps. It's
> >> interesting to speculate.
>
> >> dj
>
> >> On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > Neither was Mother Teresa, so what's your point?
>
> >> > On Sep 13, 6:39 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> Rand was never a mother.
>
> >> >> On Sep 13, 2:25 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >> > Thanks for the link Molly;
> >> >> > Lee,
> >> >> > It's really just a ground level platform on which to expand. Rand
> >> >> > simply pulls down the curtain and begins to unravel this tangled
> >> >> > world. Facts 'are' facts regardless of what we perceive them to be,
> >> >> > so we should work from there. It's like watching automobile
> >> >> > commercials on television, the fact 'is' the car is a piece of junk
> >> >> > but we perceive it to be a fascinating machine because we are not
> >> >> > dealing on the level that Rand suggests. You can altruistically give
> >> >> > a bag lady a million dollars but most likely down the road you will
> >> >> > still have a bag lady. This is not to say that we should try in some
> >> >> > way to help but we need to recognize it is our 'self' that takes
> >> >> > precedence over the other. Rand states:
> >> >> > "every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others.
> >> >> > He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others
> >> >> > nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational
> >> >> > self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of
> >> >> > his life."
> >> >> > It is from that 'core' belief that we can then extend our hand, that
> >> >> > is why you are a benefit to your family. Your family is part of your
> >> >> > own rational self interest. It wouldn't do your family much good if
> >> >> > you put all your resources into some altruistic cause. Even if you
> >> >> > were wealthy it would only prove that you were able to provide in
> >> >> > excess of your self interest and happiness.
>
> >> >> > On Sep 9, 6:29 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> >> >> > wrote:
>
> >> >> > > We should all know by know my own feelings on the philosphy of Rand.
> >> >> > > There is much that I disagree with yet some that I agree with.
>
> >> >> > > Rands achieving our own happiness as the highest moral purpose, can
> >> >> > > readily fit alongside my own, 'right to be'. But this idea that we
> >> >> > > all should rely on our own (absolute) reason, negects some inherent
> >> >> > > parts of our 'nature'.
>
> >> >> > > We are not purely reasonable creatures, and some of us seem to live
> >> >> > > a
> >> >> > > life without any form or reason at all. It is admiral that we seek
> >> >> > > to
> >> >> > > better ourselves, yet not all of us do, it is admiral that we seek a
> >> >> > > morality with which to better ourselvs, yet some are bound to
> >> >> > > disagree
> >> >> > > on what that morality should be.
>
> >> >> > > All in all I think that any philosophy NOT grounded in the reality
> >> >> > > of
> >> >> > > the situation is bound to fail. Rand discounts that most of us work
> >> >> > > on multilevels, some of our decistions and actions stem from
> >> >> > > emotion,
> >> >> > > some of our belifes are unreasonable. To suggest that doing so is
> >> >> > > unethical ignores the way we work, indeed as I have said to Chris,
> >> >> > > I
> >> >> > > have met enough followers of Rand's philosophy to make up my mind on
> >> >> > > how such philosophy actualy works in the real world and what it does
> >> >> > > to people. They are on the whole, cold, selfish, unemotional
> >> >> > > people,
> >> >> > > yes of course this is merely my opinion but one I certianly hold to
> >> >> > > be
> >> >> > > true due to my experiances.
>
> >> >> > > Rands objectivism simply does not work, if followed it changes
> >> >> > > people,
> >> >> > > and not for the better.
>
> >> >> > > On 8 Sep, 01:16, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >> > > > There is substance there if one considers the indiscriminate
> >> >> > > > drive to
> >> >> > > > love one another, the warped sense of loving thy enemies. We know
> >> >> > > > that one cannot begin to love another without loving self first.
> >> >> > > > I've
> >> >> > > > counseled many who stated "my whole world revolved around
> >> >> > > > her/him",
> >> >> > > > which obviously reveals itself to be the problematic issue, we
> >> >> > > > must
> >> >> > > > support our individuality. Once we lose our individuality we fade
> >> >> > > > away, exist without substance. Rand's sacrificial analogy is not
> >> >> > > > without relevance in that we should not become martyrs for the
> >> >> > > > sake
> >> >> > > > of someone's survival, and of course the issue of whether someone
> >> >> > > > even
> >> >> > > > deserves the love or attention. I agree that we all should rely
> >> >> > > > on
> >> >> > > > our own (absolute) reason and reiterate Kant's "duty of
> >> >> > > > happiness".
> >> >> > > > Rand lays it out as achieving our own happiness as the highest
> >> >> > > > moral
> >> >> > > > purpose. I've recently jousted with Lee on that very ideal in
> >> >> > > > which I
> >> >> > > > felt his concern for families of murderers was misguided and
> >> >> > > > without
> >> >> > > > foundation which reveals his personal slant toward the opposing
> >> >> > > > side
> >> >> > > > of Rand's proposal which ultimately resulted in assessing my view
> >> >> > > > as
> >> >> > > > selfish. I think Rand sees through all the bullshit and all the
> >> >> > > > corruptness that comes with modified government regulated
> >> >> > > > capitalism
> >> >> > > > (now that's a laugh). Altruism is somewhat honorable when you
> >> >> > > > have
> >> >> > > > billions of dollars but for most it is simply a way to dig a
> >> >> > > > grave.
> >> >> > > > It's funny that Wallace spews out how we are taught to have
> >> >> > > > concern
> >> >> > > > for our fellow man, a "religious" indoctrination by which people
> >> >> > > > become subservient with the notion that they are somehow
> >> >> > > > fulfilling
> >> >> > > > some kind of altruistic duty towards a God. I agree with Rand
> >> >> > > > that I
> >> >> > > > am entitled to my own happiness and also that I must achieve it
> >> >> > > > on my
> >> >> > > > own, for if not that then others will leach and suck the life
> >> >> > > > blood
> >> >> > > > out of me, however, if my happiness should become so abundant
> >> >> > > > that I
> >> >> > > > have the capacity to share it the by all means I would then give
> >> >> > > > in to
> >> >> > > > altruism. In aquatic life saving techniques there is a maneuver
> >> >> > > > that
> >> >> > > > pushes away the drowning person so that they don't kill you
> >> >> > > > trying to
> >> >> > > > save themselves. I don't love everyone and I've made that clear
> >> >> > > > on
> >> >> > > > several occasions and I agree with Rand that it would be
> >> >> > > > impossible to
> >> >> > > > love everyone. Value and Virtue do play a role in loving and so
> >> >> > > > why
> >> >> > > > should I be asked to love lowlife dregs of society? As much as I
> >> >> > > > have
> >> >> > > > helped many I have let many slither back under the rock from which
> >> >> > > > they came. I've said it before, I'm not Ghandi, step over the
> >> >> > > > line and
> >> >> > > > I won't have any problem with shooting your head clean off.
>
> >> >> > > > On Sep 7, 1:54 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]>
> >> >> > > > wrote:
>
> >> >> > > > > ““The lower, and purely intellectual, is nearest to the
> >> >> > > > > principle of
> >> >> > > > > Desire, and is thus distinguished from its other side which has
> >> >> > > > > affinity for the spiritual principles above. If the Thinker
> >> >> > > > > becomes
> >> >> > > > > wholly intellectual, the entire nature begins to tend
> >> >> > > > > downward—for
> >> >> > > > > intellect alone is cold, heartless, selfish.” – W. Q. Judge:
> >> >> > > > > “The
> >> >> > > > > Ocean of Theosophy”
>
> >> >> > > > > We were discussing things like love and compassion along with
> >> >> > > > > consciousness in another thread. Here is a view from one
> >> >> > > > > extreme point
> >> >> > > > > on the spectrum…that of Ayn Rand. Since she has been mentioned
> >> >> > > > > now and
> >> >> > > > > then here, for those of you who have little exposure to her,
> >> >> > > > > her books
> >> >> > > > > and/or philosophy, here is a short video interview that may
> >> >> > > > > provide a
> >> >> > > > > fairly rapid and direct access to what is called objectivism.
>
> >> >> > > > > While the video is on a Theosophy site, read the other stuff
> >> >> > > > > only if
> >> >> > > > > you are attracted, if not, that is fine too…scroll down to the
> >> >> > > > > 4th
> >> >> > > > > picture and click on it for the video to start.
>
> >> >> > > > > “Objectivism vs Altruism”
>
> >> >> > > > >http://theosophywatch.com/2009/09/07/the-caring-spirit/-Hidequotedtext-
>
> >> >> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> >> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
