Post Reply
Page 1 of 4  •  1 2 3 4 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Mysticism -vs- cynicism (small "c")
2 years ago  ::  Jun 25, 2012 - 10:14AM #1
BBarton
Posts: 1,670
For the most part, they seem opposites to me; the something mores and the something lesses, the half-fulls as opposed to the half-empties, the wake up happies to the wake up whiners. 


Often, I find one intolerent of mystical thinking and probing, to be cynical in their own.  


Then, perhaps I'm being cynical!Wink   


     
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 25, 2012 - 11:36AM #2
Seefan
Posts: 3,955

Jun 25, 2012 -- 10:14AM, BBarton wrote:

For the most part, they seem opposites to me; the something mores and the something lesses, the half-fulls as opposed to the half-empties, the wake up happies to the wake up whiners. 


Often, I find one intolerent of mystical thinking and probing, to be cynical in their own.  


Then, perhaps I'm being cynical!Wink        



Yes!  And sometimes all it is, is their own individual search for meaning wrapped up in fear of the unknown ...

Today the one overriding need is unity and harmony among the beloved of the Lord, for they should have among them but one heart and soul and should, so far as in them lieth, unitedly withstand the hostility of all the peoples of the world ... (Baha'i Writings)
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 26, 2012 - 3:13AM #3
Namchuck
Posts: 11,617

You both speak as if, somehow, you are above the fray of we lesser mortals who might consider that skepticism (rather than cynicism) of unjustified claims - such as those indulged in on these threads by a few pseudo-mystics - is immeasurably healthier and closer to the truth, regardless of human fallibility in both camps. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 27, 2012 - 5:42PM #4
BBarton
Posts: 1,670

Jun 26, 2012 -- 3:13AM, Namchuck wrote:


You both speak as if, somehow, you are above the fray of we lesser mortals who might consider that skepticism (rather than cynicism) of unjustified claims - such as those indulged in on these threads by a few pseudo-mystics - is immeasurably healthier and closer to the truth, regardless of human fallibility in both camps. 





But that's another topic, Namchuck.  Though they may be confused, there's a difference between "cynicism" and "skepticism".  I appreciate your skepticism.  I find it helpful.  I find it harder to appreciate cynicism.  Though it's possible you are unaware, it is you who often speaks down to others.  Being intollerent of other's perspectives is not always the same as being right.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 28, 2012 - 2:15AM #5
Namchuck
Posts: 11,617

Jun 27, 2012 -- 5:42PM, BBarton wrote:


 



But that's another topic, Namchuck.  Though they may be confused, there's a difference between "cynicism" and "skepticism".  I appreciate your skepticism.  I find it helpful.  I find it harder to appreciate cynicism.  Thought it's possible you are unaware, it is you who often speaks down to others, even though you may not be aware.  Being intollerent of other's perspectives is not always the same as being right.


I don't think it is another topic, BBarton, if only for the fact that so many people conflate cynicism and skepticism, which. I'm pleased to read, you obviously don't.


But I refute your allegation that I have been "intolerant of other's perspectives". While I may challenge unjustified and insupportable assertions - you may perceive that as talking "down to others - that hardly amounts to intolerance. If it did, then the search for a meritocratic understanding of reality would qualify as being intolerant, especially in the face of the fact that so many perspectives are grounded on little more than wishful thinking. 


I actually have enormous respect for perspectives - or worldviews - that anchor themselves in objective, empirical, and testable evidence.  

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 28, 2012 - 2:32PM #6
Seefan
Posts: 3,955

Jun 26, 2012 -- 3:13AM, Namchuck wrote:

  You both speak as if, somehow, you are above the fray of we lesser mortals who might consider that skepticism (rather than cynicism) of unjustified claims - such as those indulged in on these threads by a few pseudo-mystics - is immeasurably healthier and closer to the truth, regardless of human fallibility in both camps. 



Namchuck, as to the above, if I am truly coming off as making myself seem "above" anyone here or anywhere else I am truly sorry for that impression.  I’ll try harder!  It is certainly not meant nor my style!   As you said in an earlier post, maybe my understanding is lacking ...


 

Today the one overriding need is unity and harmony among the beloved of the Lord, for they should have among them but one heart and soul and should, so far as in them lieth, unitedly withstand the hostility of all the peoples of the world ... (Baha'i Writings)
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 28, 2012 - 2:32PM #7
Seefan
Posts: 3,955

Jun 27, 2012 -- 5:42PM, BBarton wrote:

  But that's another topic, Namchuck. Though they may be confused, there's a difference between "cynicism" and "skepticism". I appreciate your skepticism. I find it helpful. I find it harder to appreciate cynicism.... 



Skepticism, cynicism, disbelief, immorality and hard-heartedness are rife, and as friends are those who stand for the antithesis of all these things they should beware lest the atmosphere of the present world affects them without their being conscious of it." (Lights of Guidance, p. 542)



BB, I appreciate your topic!  If written about in such places as the Baha’i Faith it must be a widespread problem.  I’m sure most do not see themselves that way or they’d probably change, or at least one would hope.  However it is a way of controlling the conversation!  I try not to be skeptical and especially not cynical, and at times go out of my way to avoid such.  I hope it is out of respect for their feelings.  But sometimes we slip and don’t realize it.   So thanks for bringing it up ...


And in bringing it up I’m reminded that it is very hard to discuss and broaden one’s thinking when always being bombarded with such characteristics as the above!  I think all we can do at that point is to realize that every poster is an example – some good examples and are of help to others, while others bad examples, and lack basic spiritual skills which need to be developed.  I guess it’s up to the individual to chose how to conduct one’s self when conversing with another.  The skeptics and cynics (faultfinder) will always be there to browbeat others and cause chaos.  I guess how I conduct myself says a lot about my character.  So I’ll attempt to show respect to all ...

Today the one overriding need is unity and harmony among the beloved of the Lord, for they should have among them but one heart and soul and should, so far as in them lieth, unitedly withstand the hostility of all the peoples of the world ... (Baha'i Writings)
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 28, 2012 - 5:04PM #8
BBarton
Posts: 1,670

Jun 28, 2012 -- 2:15AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jun 27, 2012 -- 5:42PM, BBarton wrote:


 



But that's another topic, Namchuck.  Though they may be confused, there's a difference between "cynicism" and "skepticism".  I appreciate your skepticism.  I find it helpful.  I find it harder to appreciate cynicism.  Though it's possible you are unaware, it is you who often speaks down to others.  Being intollerent of other's perspectives is not always the same as being right.


I don't think it is another topic, BBarton, if only for the fact that so many people conflate cynicism and skepticism, which. I'm pleased to read, you obviously don't.


But I refute your allegation that I have been "intolerant of other's perspectives". While I may challenge unjustified and insupportable assertions - you may perceive that as talking "down to others -True, though I suspect relentless attacks on those who filter information differently than another, often drives away posters from these boards. 


We don't have to agree with everything that's posted, but just listening for someone else's truth can expand what we think we know. that hardly amounts to intolerance. If it did, then the search for a meritocratic understanding of reality would qualify as being intolerant, especially in the face of the fact that so many perspectives are grounded on little more than wishful thinking. How tolerant are you of Mysticism?  I could be wrong, but you seem to disdain it.  -Yet that is the subject for this board.  I do admit, I appreciate you best when predatory charlitans appear!


I actually have enormous respect for perspectives - or worldviews - that anchor themselves in objective, empirical, and testable evidence.  I don't doubt it and have benefited from your perspective.





It's the "empirical" that I might retain my objectivity and test.  Throughout history we have seen what those with agendas have done to knowledge; whether Rome to religion by turning it into empire, or others in science, medicine, and governance with personal agendas daining to tell others what to think; rather than letting them think or draw their own conclusions.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 28, 2012 - 5:14PM #9
BBarton
Posts: 1,670

Jun 28, 2012 -- 2:32PM, Seefan wrote:


Jun 27, 2012 -- 5:42PM, BBarton wrote:

  But that's another topic, Namchuck. Though they may be confused, there's a difference between "cynicism" and "skepticism". I appreciate your skepticism. I find it helpful. I find it harder to appreciate cynicism.... 



Skepticism, cynicism, disbelief, immorality and hard-heartedness are rife, and as friends are those who stand for the antithesis of all these things they should beware lest the atmosphere of the present world affects them without their being conscious of it." (Lights of Guidance, p. 542)



BB, I appreciate your topic!  If written about in such places as the Baha’i Faith it must be a widespread problem.  I’m sure most do not see themselves that way or they’d probably change, or at least one would hope.  However it is a way of controlling the conversation!  I try not to be skeptical and especially not cynical, and at times go out of my way to avoid such.  I hope it is out of respect for their feelings.  But sometimes we slip and don’t realize it.   So thanks for bringing it up ...


And in bringing it up I’m reminded that it is very hard to discuss and broaden one’s thinking when always being bombarded with such characteristics as the above!  I think all we can do at that point is to realize that every poster is an example – some good examples and are of help to others, while others bad examples, and lack basic spiritual skills which need to be developed.  I guess it’s up to the individual to chose how to conduct one’s self when conversing with another.  The skeptics and cynics (faultfinder) will always be there to browbeat others and cause chaos.  I guess how I conduct myself says a lot about my character.  So I’ll attempt to show respect to all ...


[/quote]

Noble and gracious of you, Seefan.  There is always a good side to things.  It is always good to have a guardian of sorts, who defends access to the prize at the crossroads.  Not all are ready to pass.  And often if the path is made easy, we become lazy and attain nothing.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 29, 2012 - 2:54AM #10
Namchuck
Posts: 11,617

Jun 28, 2012 -- 5:04PM, BBarton wrote:


True, though I suspect relentless attacks on those who filter information differently than another, often drives away posters from these boards. 


We don't have to agree with everything that's posted, but just listening for someone else's truth can expand what we think we know. 


I largely agree with what you say here, BBarton. I'm just interested in the sorts of "filters" people adopt. I also question the epistemology of some who post on these threads.


How tolerant are you of Mysticism?  I could be wrong, but you seem to disdain it.



What I distain is the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from or against evidence and reason. Mysticism is the claim to some non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge, such as "instinct", "intuition", "revelation" or any other form of "just knowing".


  -Yet that is the subject for this board.  I do admit, I appreciate you best when predatory charlitans appear!



Well, thanks... :) There are plenty of - predatory charlatans - around.


I don't doubt it and have benefited from your perspective.



Glad to have been of some help.


 

It's the "empirical" that I might retain my objectivity and test.  Throughout history we have seen what those with agendas have done to knowledge; whether Rome to religion by turning it into empire, or others in science, medicine, and governance with personal agendas daining to tell others what to think; rather than letting them think or draw their own conclusions.



Wouldn't argue with your summation above, which is why I am rather fond of the paradigm of meritocratic rational inquiry which never holds any of its always minimal assumptions as being immune to criticism, revision, or rejection. 


 




Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 4  •  1 2 3 4 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook