Secular Intolerance

[Belinda]

Nick recommended this essay:-

https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:176152

Very good essay, Nick. I agree with all that Yoda says.

He could have included that most teachers do strive for the sort of education that Yoda wants to happen, and do what they can do ameliorate the egoistic and competitive spirit that is caused by constriction of curriculums, frequent testing, inadequate funding of state education together with favouring of pupils at fee paying schools and separate schools for the academically- gifted.

Yoda could perhaps also mentioned the problem of the name 'God' which has been brought into disrepute by nobody quite knowing what it can mean. There are a lot of atheists and irreligious good people who suspect that talk of God is authoritarian, sentimental, esoteric, or daft. There are also many religious people who have learned restricted ideas about God ideas which have to be unlearned before the ideas and attitudes that Yoda recommends can be learned.

[Nick_A]

Nick recommended this essay:-

https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:176152

Very good essay, Nick. I agree with all that Yoda says.

He could have included that most teachers do strive for the sort of education that Yoda wants to happen, and do what they can do ameliorate the egoistic and competitive spirit that is caused by constriction of curriculums, frequent testing, inadequate funding of state education together with favouring of pupils at fee paying schools and separate schools for the academically- gifted.

Yoda could perhaps also mentioned the problem of the name 'God' which has been brought into disrepute by nobody quite knowing what it can mean. There are a lot of atheists and irreligious good people who suspect that talk of God is authoritarian, sentimental, esoteric, or daft. There are also many religious people who have learned restricted ideas about God ideas which have to be unlearned before the ideas and attitudes that Yoda recommends can be learned.

Secularism is an unnatural denial of the third direction of thought. Normally we live by duality. The third direction of thought reconciles this duality. It is the result of conscious attention. The analogy of the two birds in Hinduism describes their relationship. Normally school attention is goal directed and is an attribute of the animal Man. It is a pragmatic animal talent. However conscious attention if the potential for ourselves to become aware that we are aware. It enables Man to "know thyself" or have the experience of oneself rather than continuing as a blind creature of reaction. It enables our awakening to conscious human potential as opposed to an indoctrinated animal in Plato's cave.

Yoda was introducing the value of attention as a human attribute rather than an unconscious attraction to a goal. Mechanical attention that we know of is the beginning of conscious attention which allows our inner life to become normal through detachment from indoctrination and turning inwardly to experience a human perspective.

Secularism is intolerant of conscious attention because it introduces a conscious quality beyond dualistic animal attention which threatens its supremacy. Personal god concepts ignore it in favor of blind faith.

Educators will always have goals but often have no idea what is necessary for a person to become human rather than an indoctrinated slave of the Great beast. Yoda understands which is why he knows conscious attention must replace blind faith. The trouble is who knows what it is much less how to introduce it since their educational experience opposed it. So once again it is the kids who suffer the friction between blind believers and blind denial.

Simone Weil and Thomas Merton were born in France 6 years apart - 1909 and 1915 respectively. Weil died shortly after Merton entered the Abbey of Gethsemani. It is unclear whether Weil knew of Merton, but Merton records being asked to review a biography of Weil (Simone Weil: A Fellowship in Love, Jacques Chabaud, 1964) and was challenged and inspired by her writing. “Her non-conformism and mysticism are essential elements in our time and without her contribution we remain not human.”

Simone understood the value of conscious attention and wasn't afraid to practice it regardless of any secular growls. I would rather support her efforts and those like her to introduce the potential for human awakening rather than remaining not human.

[Belinda]

Nick_A wrote:

Yoda was introducing the value of attention as a human attribute rather than an unconscious attraction to a goal.

As I remarked, this is good. Do you know why you distrust teachers? Which newspaper do you read?

[Nick_A]

Nick_A wrote:

Yoda was introducing the value of attention as a human attribute rather than an unconscious attraction to a goal.

As I remarked, this is good. Do you know why you distrust teachers? Which newspaper do you read?

If you thought it was good, you couldn't be a secularist. Experiencing the difference between conscious attention and mechanical attention opens a person to the potential for a human rather than an indoctrinated perspective furthered by the secularism of cave life. A person cannot teach it without first having experienced it. Since secularism is intolerant of it and defends indoctrination made possible through controlling mechanical attention it would be too much to ask a young student teacher to understand that opening to conscious attention should be a major aim of education - putting facts within a conscious human perspective.

[Belinda]

Nick wrote:

Experiencing the difference between conscious attention and mechanical attention opens a person to the potential for a human rather than an indoctrinated perspective furthered by the secularism of cave life.

But all the people in the Cave were enthralled by the shadow play. Secularism, whatever you or I mean by 'secularism' , is part of the shadow play. The scientific enlightenment movement is part of the shadow play. The old hierarchy with God at the top is part of the shadow play. There are no ideas that are not shadow play.

Against the background of transient belief, science can predict with huge accuracy so that science has a sort of claim to truth

You and I, Nick, see the same shadows when we deplore indoctrination, and value truth. Unfortunately neither of us is God and we can't see absolute truth.

[Nick_A]

Nick wrote:

Experiencing the difference between conscious attention and mechanical attention opens a person to the potential for a human rather than an indoctrinated perspective furthered by the secularism of cave life.

But all the people in the Cave were enthralled by the shadow play. Secularism, whatever you or I mean by 'secularism' , is part of the shadow play. The scientific enlightenment movement is part of the shadow play. The old hierarchy with God at the top is part of the shadow play. There are no ideas that are not shadow play.

Against the background of transient belief, science can predict with huge accuracy so that science has a sort of claim to truth

You and I, Nick, see the same shadows when we deplore indoctrination, and value truth. Unfortunately neither of us is God and we can't see absolute truth.

Science can function well in cave life since it deals with facts. The essence of religion is concerned with objective values which cave life is closed to. Science must then limited as far as a human perspective is concerned. Mechanical attention is a tool of science while conscious attention or what makes impartial self observation, as opposed to analysis, a potential for conscious human evolution.

I prefer the older sources but even modern psychology is at least partially opening to the importance of this distinction. If you’re not used to these things these ideas are hard to understand. But if you just open to the distinction between mechanical and conscious attention it does open the mind. Consider this article from Psychology today. If true, there are different qualities of attention. This means some people are less of a slave to cave life. Some can admit the shadows for what they are and strive towards a higher conscious perspective. This is the beginning of conscious evolution.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/th ... -attention

.............These arguments, which we will discuss in more detail in subsequent posts, help to provide a systematic account of the relationship between consciousness and attention that can lead to a better understanding of the purpose of conscious awareness. By describing a spectrum of dissociation between consciousness and attention, we can achieve some conceptual clarity to the interdisciplinary debates concerning these topics. We refer to this proposal as the Consciousness and Attention Dissociation (CAD), and it includes theories that range from claiming that they are identical processes to theories that argue for a complete dissociation (see illustration below). Therefore, it is important to outline the requirements for the different levels of dissociation and define the overlap between the two—
conscious attention. Below is an illustration of the possible levels of overlap between consciousness and attention...........

These are new ideas for modern psychology based on ancient ideas from those capable of conscious attention.

Mechanical attention is a valuable tool. The trouble is that it becomes abused leading to goal directed blind indoctrination and seculrism is all too eager to join in this abuse. Consider how Simone Weil describes it in relation to political parties:

https://newrepublic.com/article/119305/ ... rb-edition

……………….More important, however, is Weil’s second argument, that parties necessarily corrupt the souls of their members. “Political parties,” she writes, “are organizations that are publicly and officially designed for the purpose of killing in all souls the sense of truth and of justice.” The member of a party delegates his conscience to the party, accepting its verdict on all political and moral questions; a person will do “as a Communist” or “as a Nazi” things that he would never do as himself. Once again, Weil brings the discussion back to the question of truth. Independent thought, she writes, necessarily seeks the truth: “If ... one acknowledges that there is one truth, one cannot think anything but the truth.” It is only when one stops searching for truth and starts calculating partisan advantage that one falls into what Weil calls “inner darkness.”…………………….

You can see why Simone is called Plato’s spiritual child. This is pure Plato in the context of modern society. The political party as she describes it requires fixated mechanical attention on its goals. Conscious attention in contrast is the property which allows us to see obsession for what it is and its power over us. Conscious attention is a vertical process that observes the results of indoctrination achieved through mechanical attention and dedication. I’ve observed and experienced secular intolerance as similar to what happens with political indoctrination. They have both replaced impartial reason with passion and justify it as education. So who suffers? The kids who have to live through this abuse unaware that the natural antidote to it is the awakening practice of impartial conscious attention which reveals to seekers of truth that there is more to human life than what can be offered through allegiance to blind belief or blind denial

[Harbal]

Consider how Simone Weil describes it in relation to political parties:

Good God, Nick! Simone bloody Weil, Plato...... Don't you have any thoughts of your own?

[Nick_A]

Consider how Simone Weil describes it in relation to political parties:

Good God, Nick! Simone bloody Weil, Plato...... Don't you have any thoughts of your own?

Sure. I could write that secular intolerance sucks. You would,reply that religious intolerance sucks. Then someone would add that "yo momma sucks." In respect to philosophy and all those who have suffered from the glorification of this sucking process, why not quote those who have had direct experience with intolerance to increase our understanding from a conscious perspective as to its cause?

[Harbal]

You would,reply that religious intolerance sucks.

No I wouldn't, because I don't need to be tolerated. I am free to think how I like, regardless of how disapproving you or anyone else is of it, although, why you should disapprove of the way I think when you don't even have the faintest idea of how I think, is beyond me. Unlike you, I don't believe in heroes, that really is shadow worship. I know you think you have somehow transcended the mundane world you accuse most everyone else of being so attached to but you seem to be stuck in a bit of a rut to me, you certainly don't seem to be very content up there.

[Nick_A]

You would,reply that religious intolerance sucks.

No I wouldn't, because I don't need to be tolerated. I am free to think how I like, regardless of how disapproving you or anyone else is of it, although, why you should disapprove of the way I think when you don't even have the faintest idea of how I think, is beyond me. Unlike you, I don't believe in heroes, that really is shadow worship. I know you think you have somehow transcended the mundane world you accuse most everyone else of being so attached to but you seem to be stuck in a bit of a rut to me, you certainly don't seem to be very content up there.

OK so you don't believe religious intolerance sucks and support religious intolerance of atheism as a benefit of free speech and social activism. But regardless, can we at least agree that plecostomus suck?

[Nick_A]

Here is an interesting way to consider the question of secular intolerance. What should the secular attitude be towards miracles such as the virgin birth? I didn't suggest belief but rather attitude. Should they be condemned with all the righteousness of secular intolerance or should the secularist keep an open mind towards what doesn't fit into the earthy perspective? The Greta types will express secular intolerance in the hopes that people will eventually outgrow the need for such foolish myths science cannot verify and be guided by secular superiority. So the battle continues. Secular Intolerance vs the open mind. Which side wins? My guess is that dominant passionate secular intolerance will win and humanity on earth will have to hit bottom before it awakens as a whole to human in addition to its animal meaning and purpose.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

You would,reply that religious intolerance sucks.

No I wouldn't, because I don't need to be tolerated. I am free to think how I like, regardless of how disapproving you or anyone else is of it, although, why you should disapprove of the way I think when you don't even have the faintest idea of how I think, is beyond me. Unlike you, I don't believe in heroes, that really is shadow worship. I know you think you have somehow transcended the mundane world you accuse most everyone else of being so attached to but you seem to be stuck in a bit of a rut to me, you certainly don't seem to be very content up there.

You should show your real face. Alfred is far more attractive.

[Philosophy Explorer]

You would,reply that religious intolerance sucks.

No I wouldn't, because I don't need to be tolerated. I am free to think how I like, regardless of how disapproving you or anyone else is of it, although, why you should disapprove of the way I think when you don't even have the faintest idea of how I think, is beyond me. Unlike you, I don't believe in heroes, that really is shadow worship. I know you think you have somehow transcended the mundane world you accuse most everyone else of being so attached to but you seem to be stuck in a bit of a rut to me, you certainly don't seem to be very content up there.

You should show your real face. Alfred is far more attractive.

I like his face the way it is (much better than your puss )

PhilX

[vegetariantaxidermy]

At least Alfred looks as if he has some balls and integrity.

[Philosophy Explorer]

At least Alfred looks as if he has some balls and integrity.

You must have been peeking at Alfie.

PhilX