I admit that, often, I have a rather pessimistic view of the present. But one must admit that in many ways, and likely for 'us', that we enjoy a 'successful' present. In the sense that our cities are well-stocked, administered quite well; our social relationships (wife, kids, neighbors) is really quite good. This present offers I think one can honestly say incomparable opportunities if one knows how to seize them. So, when you say that 'the world' has not accomplished 'some key goals of religion' (a rather general way to put it), I feel I could very honestly take issue with you. If I were to accept (and I am not sure I do, frankly) that the 'goal' of religion is to be able to enjoy the present freely, then 'religion' has done a spectacular job. Western culture in this strict sense has achieved something undreamed of. But only if that is your 'desired outcome'. It seems to me that one thing we need to do is gain some historical awareness and to understand just how ideal the present is.Felasco wrote:I'm only pointing to the obvious, that thousands of years of theology in every corner of the world has not accomplished some key goals of religion, like uniting humanity and bringing peace etc.
Now, what you did not offer any commentary on is those lists of 'responsible entities' for the highest number of mass ['industrial-scale'] killings, and which is one of your high preoccupations. Don't you find it interesting that most of them represent *deviations* from the 'civilized model'? It seems wise to be able to distinguish.
However, that IS a real and very powerful narrative that floats around out there. Wise to understand it and know something about it.My point is not that women are good and men are evil, but rather that nobody in history has learned how to control violent men, and we might face up to that.
But I do not have exactly the same predicate as you. I rather think that man's aggression (different from violence, but not unrelated) needs to be channelled better. I do not think it can be 'done away with', and I am not at all sure that it should. Rather, I think it needs to be directed toward higher things.
If it is your predicate, and if you accept the results from the list I submitted to you, then you would I think have a more or less specific area to focus in: certain concentrations of power in certain state systems and the ideologies they get invested in.Yes, I confess to this predicate.
And what countervailing ideology would you propose, or might one propose, to counter the destructive one? The arts of civilization, apparently. If that is true, then we have at hand at at our disposal an existing program with proven success. That is one of my (personal) points and why I come out in favor of the Western traditions generally. But all that I have already tried to express.
I don't know what 'retired from the scene' would mean. So I can't understand the following sentences.Not reengineered. Retired from the scene. But I suppose that's another thread. My purpose for now is only to show that if we were to proceed, your simplistic characterizations would be shown to be lazy.
Again, I am not so sure you understand or can define a goal. So I repeat again: in many ways 'we' have achieved extraordinary things, undreamed of things. Also, insofar as I have an ideology, it is not really anything so new. But one thing I do notice: most people, and many people, have almost no defined ideology. I am not making this up. They receive by osmosis certain ideas and values and attitudes but they are not really 'possessed' by their own ideology. So, again, it is not so much a question of 'new and improved' but rather return to certain Cores. I would call that Western Traditionalism or 'the Western Traditions'. It is already there. Nothing new.I don't have faith in this "new and improved" ideology building process for the reasons I've been trying to share, it's been done over and over and over for centuries, and doesn't seem to be leading anywhere. To me, the problem is not with this or that ideology, but arises from the nature of what all ideologies are made of.
For me, this connects to what I just wrote, above. The 'outer world' is going at its own speed and careening toward whatever are the mass goals, however nebulous they may be. This leaves the 'inner world' which can be philosophic, cerebral, literary, spiritual, meditative, and all such things.Ok, I'm interested in the inside, please continue.
But the definition 'politically correct' is not just a vain abusive term. It refers to a real thing. There are certain clusters of ideas that are 'floating around' out there and they have high ideological content. Many of them cluster around gender issues, femininity and feminism, masculinity, violence, 'democracy'. The list goes on. It is not that I wish just to brand you or anyone with a label. I wish to use terms like that fairly. I personally think that all that is politically correct needs to be…deconstructed. But here is an unlikely example: It is in fact, nowadays, 'politically incorrect' to defend and apologize Christianity. As with many on this forum the most 'reasonable' thing is to do what everyone else does: smash it, hate it, tear it to shreds. Vilify it. To participate in that [in my view stupid] project would be an example of flowing with the 'politically correct'. For me this extends to many other things. Gender is one. Cultural valuations another. Once one steps out of PC Formulations, once one has done it just once, one can repeat it in any other camp.Ok, I don't care whether we call it PC or not, so you can have this one. Whether my views are PC or not, how about meeting the arguments instead of merely characterizing them?
What is most important for me personally is to unravel the many knots that have been tied within me, and to be able to see as unconstrainedly as I can. I have said that the present is a 'lying present' and it is very difficult to approach 'truth'. That is the very core and essence of my own struggle and also interest.Which is more important to you, the religious inquiry, or the process of philosophy?
I think that once one has some sort of 'grip' on things generally that one is duty-bound to live one's values and to share those values with the people around one. This is where the rubber hits the road. A man's 'religion' is the way he choses to be in and exist in his world. I have come to understand that were I to speak of a 'conversion process' (say to the tenets of Christianity or merely to living authentically, purely, dedicatedly) that a man's whole life is his 'conversion process'. One has 'conversion experiences' and then you have your whole life to put it into action. To convince yourself. To install it in yourself at a deep level. I do have the feeling that one receives 'metaphysical help' as one moves along the roads of life. Maybe the Earth is just a giant training ground?
If there is continuity between one life lived and another (it would be nice if there were other lives to live especially if one could take *essences* with one, if not the specific personality), then a man's life could be a process of learning how to serve higher purposes within the material realm. And that would bring me back to a conversation about the very high essences that exist in our own culture. It is really already there. It is a question of seeing it and recognizing it.
Finally, I don't know how to respond to what you say about 'uniting humanity'. I am deeply suspicious of this. First, you'd have to have defined what sort of 'ground' you are speaking of. Coke commercials in theory can 'unite' people as can We Are The World-type emotionalism. I am indeed interested in the uniting power of the Church in Europe which is now largely dissolved. It is an area of study that is very rich indeed (except if you utterly 'hate' Christianity, etc., etc., etc.)
