Posted on 05/20/2002 2:51:41 PM PDT by dubyajames
Sort of like me saying I won't continue until you prove there is a supernatural God that exists.
I'll tell you what, when you come up with God's dissertation, I'll come up with Wallace Ward's.
To admin Moderator. Please do not delete this thread. I didn't' inject Zonpower into this thread. One of the Neo-Tech bashers did and then several jumped on the "let's bash Neo-Tech" bandwagon.
I have to go and can't respond to all. I don't mind the attacks. They actually serve Neo-Tech quite well. Honest, Neo-Tech thrives on attacks and while I know, or at least am under the impression that what they're doing is against the form rules it's okay with the targets of those attacks that they have their say. I'm saving the thread just in case.
"You can try as hard as you like to discredit Dr. Ward but you'll fail."
So said Jim Jones, Charles Manson, Heaven's Gate, yada yada yada...
A wee bit of dialogue from the Cult Resources Site (not rocket science, but some people at Free Republic seem to be devoid of common sense:
Question "My question is, would this group welcome some serious questions having to do with Dr. Wallace, Zon, and other aspects of Neo-Tech? For instance, are they skillfully neo-cheating their customers with these materials. Who are they and where are they? And what is their real purpose as opposed to what's said in their literature, tapes, newsletter, etc.? I know one of Wallace's nieces; she said he lives in Las Vegas. They refer to him as "Wally" and she said he believes in 'romantic love'. Also he worked as a chemist at Dupont for many years. The family considers him crazy but generally harmless; and so do I."
Answer: "I have difficulty thinking of the founder and apparent leader of what appears to be yet another profitable and rapidly growing authoritarian cult as "generally harmless." An organization that publishes long lists of approval and disapproval ratings of various popular artists and writers is simply trying to position itself as yet another unquestionable authority. Meanwhile they charge serious money to receive their wisdom in the form of books and tapes, claim persecution by government, condemn various aspects of contemporary culture, certain sexual orientations and political viewpoints, and promise eternal life, special powers and the ability to predict the future. All of these methods are indistinguishable from those used by most successful religious cults. The fact that they are being used to promote an allegedly non-mystical purpose makes them no less dangerous." "Romantic love" is simply a hook to get the curious interested in Wallace's peculiar belief system; it's not surprising that he'd sum up his philosophy with that term. His writings also play on the readers' insecurities about love and sex, which are common among his target audience - yet another cult manipulation tactic."
God is by definition beyond definition. I'll take an instantaneous glimpse of Mysticism over a thousand lifetimes of Neo-Screed any day.
Ah.... mysticism...
Can't have a Jihad without it.
[Source]Mysticism
(From myein, to initiate).
Mysticism, according to its etymology, implies a relation to mystery. In philosophy, Mysticism is either a religious tendency and desire of the human soul towards an intimate union with the Divinity, or a system growing out of such a tendency and desire. As a philosophical system, Mysticism considers as the end of philosophy the direct union of the human soul with the Divinity through contemplation and love, and attempts to determine the processes and the means of realizing this end. This contemplation, according to Mysticism, is not based on a merely analogical knowledge of the Infinite, but as a direct and immediate intuition of the Infinite. According to its tendency, it may be either speculative or practical, as it limits itself to mere knowledge or traces duties for action and life; contemplative or affective, according as it emphasizes the part of intelligence or the part of the will; orthodox or heterodox, according as it agrees with or opposes the Catholic teaching. We shall give a brief historical sketch of Mysticism and its influence on philosophy, and present a criticism of it.
HISTORICAL SKETCH
In his "History of Philosophy", Cousin mentions four systems, between which, he says, philosophical thought has continually wavered, viz., Sensism, Idealism, Scepticism, and Mysticism. Whatever may be thought of this classification, it is true that Mysticism has exercised a large influence on philosophy, becoming at times the basis of whole systems, but more often entering as an element into their constitution. Mysticism dominated in the symbolic philosophy of ancient Egypt. The Taoism of the Chinese philosopher Lao-tze is a system of metaphysics and ethics in which Mysticism is a fundamental element (cf. De Harlez, "Laotze, le premier philosophe chinois", in "Mémoires couronnés et autres de l'Académie", Brussels, January, 1886). The same may be said of Indian philosophy; the end of human reflection and effort in Brahmanism and Vedantism is to deliver the soul from its transmigrations and absorb it into Brahma forever. There is little of Mysticism in the first schools of Greek philosophy, but it already takes a large place in the system of Plato, e.g., in his theory of the world of ideas, of the origin of the world soul and the human soul, in his doctrine of recollection and intuition. The Alexandrian Jew Philo (30 B.C-A.D. 50) combined these Platonic elements with the data of the Old Testament, and taught that every man, by freeing himself from matter and receiving illumination from God, may reach the mystical, ecstatic, or prophetical state, where he is absorbed into the Divinity. The most systematic attempt at a philosophical system of a mystical character was that of the Neoplatonic School of Alexandria, especially of Plotinus (A.D. 205-70) in his "Enneads". His system is a syncretism of the previous philosophies on the basis of Mysticism--an emanative and pantheistic Monism. Above all being, there is the One absolutely indetermined, the absolutely Good. From it come forth through successive emanations intelligence (nous) with its ideas, the world-soul with its plastic forces (logoi spermatikoi), matter inactive, and the principle of imperfection. The human soul had its existence in the world-soul until it was united with matter. The end of human life and of philosophy is to realize the mystical return of the soul to God. Freeing itself from the sensuous world by purification (katharsis), the human soul ascends by successive steps through the various degrees of the metaphysical order, until it unites itself in a confused and unconscious contemplation to the One, and sinks into it: it is the state of ecstasis.
With Christianity, the history of Mysticism enters into a new period. The Fathers recognized indeed the partial truth of the pagan system, but they pointed out also its fundamental errors. They made a distinction between reason and faith, philosophy and theology; they acknowledged the aspirations of the soul, but, at the same time, they emphasized its essential inability to penetrate the mysteries of Divine life. They taught that the vision of God is the work of grace and the reward of eternal life; in the present life only a few souls, by a special grace, can reach it. On these principles, the Christian school of Alexandria opposed the true gnosis based on grace and faith to the Gnostic heresies. St. Augustine teaches indeed that we know the essences of things in rationibus aeternis, but this knowledge has its starting point in the data of sense (cf. Quæstiones, LXXXIII, c. xlvi). Pseudo-Dionysius, in his various works, gave a systematic treatment of Christian Mysticism, carefully distinguishing between rational and mystical knowledge. By the former, he says, we know God, not in His nature, but through the wonderful order of the universe, which is a participation of the Divine ideas ("De Divinis Nomin.", c, vii, §§ 2-3, in P. G., III, 867 sq.). There is, however, he adds, a more perfect knowledge of God possible in this life, beyond the attainments of reason even enlightened by faith, through which the soul contemplates directly the mysteries of Divine light. The contemplation in the present life is possible only to a few privileged souls, through a very special grace of God: it is the theosis, mystike enosis.
The works of Pseudo-Dionysius exercised a great influence on the following ages. John Scotus Eriugena (ninth century), in his "De Divisione Naturæ", took them as his guide, but he neglected the distinction of his master, identifying philosophy and theology, God and creatures, and, instead of developing the doctrine of Dionysius, reproduced the pantheistic theories of Plotinus (see ERIUGENA, JOHN SCOTUS). In the twelfth century, orthodox Mysticism was presented under a systematic form by the Victorines, Hugh, Walter, and Richard (cf. Mignon, "Les Origines de la Scolastique et Hugues de St. Victor", Paris, 1895), and there was also a restatement of Eriugena's principles with Amaury de Bène, Joachim de Floris, and David of Dinant. A legitimate element of Mysticism, more or less emphasized, is found in the works of the Schoolmen of the thirteenth century. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries there was, as a protest against a sterile dialecticism, a revival of mystical systems, some orthodox--J. Ruysbroek, Gerson, Peter d'Ailly, Denys the Carthusian--and others heterodox--John of Ghent, John of Mirecourt, the Beguines and Beghards, and various brotherhoods influenced by Averroism, and especially Meister Eckhart (1260-1327), who in his "Opus Tripartitum" teaches a deification of man and an assimilation of the creature into the Creator through contemplation (cf. Denifle in "Archiv für Literatur und Kirchengeschichte des Mittelalters", 1886), the "Theologia Germanica", and, to a certain extent, Nicholas of Cusa (1401-64) with his theory of the coincidentia oppositorum. Protestantism, by its negation of all ecclesiastical authority and by advocating a direct union of the soul with God, had its logical outcome in a Mysticism mostly pantheistic.
Protestant Mysticism is represented by Sebastian Frank (1499-1542), by Valentine Weiler (1533-88), and especially by J. Böhme (1575-1624), who, in his "Aurora", conceived the nature of God as containing in itself the energies of good and evil, and identified the Divine nature with the human soul whose operation is to kindle, according to its free will, the fire of good or the fire of evil (cf. Deussen, "J. Böhme ueber sein Leben und seine Philosophie", Kiel, 1897). Reuchlin (1455-1522) developed a system of cabalistic Mysticism in his "De arte cabalistica" and his "De verbo mirifico". We may also assign to the influence of Mysticism the ontological systems of Malebranche and of the Ontologists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The romantic Mysticism of Fichte (1762-1814), Novalis (1772-1801), and Schelling (1775-1854) was a reaction against the Rationalism of the eighteenth century. A pseudo-Mysticism is also the logical outcome of the Fideism and evolutionistic Subjectivism of modern Protestants, inaugurated by Lessing (1728-81), developed by Schleiermacher (1768-1834), A. Ritschl (1822-89; cf. Goyau, "L'Allemagne Religieuse, Le Protestantisme", 6th ed., Paris, 1906), Sabatier, etc., and accepted by the Modernists in their theories of vital immanence and religious experience (cf. Encyclical "Pascendi"). (See MODERNISM.)
CRITICISM
A tendency so universal and so persistent as that of Mysticism, which appears among all peoples and influences philosophical thought more or less throughout all centuries, must have some real foundation in human nature. There is indeed in the human soul a natural desire for, an aspiration towards the highest truth, the absolute truth, and the highest, the infinite good. We know by experience and reason that the knowledge and enjoyment of created things cannot give the fulness of truth and the perfection of beatitude which will completely satisfy our desires and aspirations. There is in our soul a capacity for more truth and perfection than we can ever acquire through the knowledge of created things. We realize that God alone is the end of man, that in the possession of God alone we can reach the satisfaction of our aspirations. (Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I:2:1; I:12:1; I:44:4; I-II:3:8; "Contra Gentes", III, cc. i, xxv, l; "De Veritate", Q. xxii, a. 2; "Compend. Theologiæ", 104, etc.) But the rational effort of our intelligence and positive aspirations of our will find here their limits. Is there truly possible a union of our reason and will with God more intimate than that which we possess through created things? Can we expect more than a knowledge of God by analogical concepts and more than the beatitude proportionate to that knowledge? Here human reason cannot answer. But where reason was powerless, philosophers gave way to feeling and imagination. They dreamt of an intuition of the Divinity, of a direct contemplation and immediate possession of God. They imagined a notion of the universe and of human nature that would make possible such a union. They built systems in which the world and the human soul were considered as an emanation or part of the Divinity, or at least as containing something of the Divine essence and Divine ideas. The logical outcome was Pantheism.
This result was a clear evidence of error at the starting-point. The Catholic Church, as guardian of Christian doctrine, through her teaching and theologians, gave the solution of the problem. She asserted the limits of human reason: the human soul has a natural capacity (potentia obedientialis), but no exigency and no positive ability to reach God otherwise than by analogical knowledge. She condemned the immediate vision of the Beghards and Beguines (cf. Denzinger-Bannwart, "Enchiridion", nn. 474-5), the pseudo-Mysticism of Eckhart (ibid., nn. 501-29), and Molinos (ibid., nn. 2121-88), the theories of the Ontologists (ibid., nn. 1659-65, 1891-1930), and Pantheism under all its forms (ibid., nn. 1801-5), as well as the vital Immanence and religious experience of the Modernists (ibid., nn. 2071-109). But she teaches that, what man cannot know by natural reason, he can know through revelation and faith; that what he cannot attain to by his natural power he can reach by the grace of God. God has gratuitously elevated human nature to a supernatural state. He has assigned as its ultimate end the direct vision of Himself, the Beatific Vision. But this end can be reached only in the next life; in the present life we can but prepare ourselves for it with the aid of revelation and grace. To some souls, however, even in the present life, God gives a very special grace by which they are enabled to feel His sensible presence; this is true mystical contemplation. In this act, there is no annihilation or absorption of the creature into God, but God becomes intimately present to the created mind and this, enlightened by special illuminations, contemplates with ineffable joy the Divine essence.
NOTES PREGER, Gesch. der deutschen Mystik im Mittelalter (Leipzig, 1881); SCHMID, Der Mysticismus in seiner Entstehungsperiode (Jena, 1824); GÖRRES, Die christl. Mystik (Ratisbon, 1836-42); COUSIN, Histoire générale de la philosophie (Paris, 1863); IDEM, Du Vrai, du Beau et du Bien (23rd ed., Paris, 1881), v; GENNARI, Del falso Misticismo (Rome, 1907); DELACROIX, Essai sur le mysticisme spéculatif en Allemagne au xive siècle (Paris, 1900); UEBERWEG, Hist. of Philos., tr. MORRIS with additions by PORTER (New York, 1894); DE WULF, Hist. de la Philos. médiévale (Louvain, 1900); TURNER, Hist. of Philos. (Boston, 1903).
GEORGE M. SAUVAGE
Transcribed by Elizabeth T. Knuth
Dedicated to Thomas S. ChartersThe Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume X
Copyright © 1911 by Robert Appleton Company
Online Edition Copyright © 1999 by Kevin Knight
Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor
Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
Is this supposed to be a rebuttal?
As usual you don't understand right.
Hmmm. And I suppose, in your world, republicans have nothing in common with the Republican Party and democarts, have nothing in common with the Democratic Party.
Very little. Are you saying that republicans don't belong to other political parties beside the Republican Party? Or that democrats are not found in other political parties than the Democratic Party? Or that the overriding thing that makes Republicans different than others is that they believe in republicanism? Or the overriding thing about Democrats is that they believe in Democracy?
And I'm amazing? LOL
Yes, your indication of laughter is amusing in light of the fact that you made a comment which is laughable.
Do you worship ignorance?
The reason I assumed it would be uncomfortable is that most Libertarians I have spoken to see their party as a different sort of entity than Republicans and Democrats. They describe their party as the party of principle. Therefore, I would assume a difference of principle between members of such a party would be more troubling than a similar disagreement within a pragmatic "big tent" party, like the Republicans or Democrats, where principle plays a less decisive role.
Leftists will stop at nothing to slime Reagan.
He was laughing at Libertarianism, not worshipping it.
Let's just say, we simply disagree.
There are Democrats who are definitely small-r Republicans and most Republicans would probably consider themselves small-d democrats, so your analogy breaks down there.
I don't believe it breaks down completely, specifically because, I don't agree with your evaluation of republicans and democrats. It's obvious you don't see much difference in the two parties and little differences between the positions of individual members.
However, this isn't about what interpretive values you may place on someones political affliations. That's highly subjective. This is about what the individual believes and professes. That's the whole point of this exercise into political awareness.
Secondly, libertarianism is a political ideology, like liberalism or conservatism (although it is not completely exclusive of those labels - there are left-libertarians and right-libertarians). It is not simply the creed of a political party. The Libertarian Party exists, ostensibly at least, to promote libertarianism, but libertarianism doesn't exist to promote the Libertarian Party. In fact, libertarianism as a body of thought considerably predates the LP. So your analogy is a little bit like saying that a conservative should belong to something called the Conservative Party rather than the Republican Party.
I hear you, but... Look, you can interpret anything in life, any way you want. In regards to politics, I can't help it, if you're adverse to politcal association and labeling. That's life. While eveyone can't be stuffed into a certain political reality, 100% of the time, there are some realities that we all must face. While political philosophies and ideologies, don't always jive with the individual party agenda, on every issue, it's still proper to make such political connections and links.
In the bigger context of communications, historical precedents are one thing, but we are living in the 21st century. It's pretty clear to me, that most republicans, folow the Republican Party agenda/platform and most democrats follow the Democratic Party agenda/platform. I can't and won't exclude the fact, that most libertarians, follow the Libertarian Party agenda/platform. Until you can prove me wrong, I think its fair to rationalize politics in this manner. If people get so upset with political labels, they should call themselves independents and leave it at that. I think some folks, like the convenience of political parties and philosophies, when it suits a certain situation, they might find themselves in the middle of, but easily cast off, such associations, when they feel its not so acceptable.
And if there was a ground swell for a true, a real, national conservative party, I'd seriously consider joining it. But as long as the Republican Party remains the home of the conservative movement in America, I'll remain, a republican, in the Republican Party.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.