Secular Intolerance

[Nick_A]

Preach it, Nicky!



Plato was full of shit. So was Aristotle. Everything they claimed was wrong.



Ja? (Dollars to doughnuts you support capital punishment.)





Yes, we know, all those sluts sleep around and then have abortions of convenience. There can't possibly be any other reason they have abortions -- at least, not to a misogynist like you.



Animals kill their young all the time -- kill them, and eat them. Perhaps you think that's OK, because it was an emergency? They were hungry? If so, I guess you would have to say that it's OK for a human mom, if she's hungry, to kill and eat her newborn. But, dicky Nicky, the main point here is that human moms do not kill their young. If they do, they are prosecuted for murder.



A classic example of how you dishonestly stack the deck. But, Tricky Nicky, you're fooling no one here.



As has been explained to you many times, "secularism" is the advocacy, supported by vast numbers of theists, that the state and the church should be separate. But then, you are thick and dishonest in apparently equal measure.

The blind vehemence of secular intolerance. And this attitude infests progressive education attacking anyone regardless of age questioning its dogmas. Scary stuff.

The fact that you can't meet any of the points is very telling.

All you posted was a rant including ad hom attacks and a declaration that Plato and Aristotle were full of shit. How can I reply to something so meaningless?

[Nick_A]

Secular intolerance condemns recognition of the human condition Plato described as if in a cave.

This is your imagination. Theism is intolerant, secularism is far, far more tolerant, as evidenced by the above comparison of secular and theist forums to dissidents (where you could say in terms of postings allowed that secularists showed themselves to be thousands of times more tolerant than theists).

In your case, it's not intolerance of your theism that you detect. No, people are just intolerant of incessant whiners prone to insulting everyone around them.

Let's look at your claims. Throughout history, leaders have not wanted their subjects to see how they are being manipulated. This is not a modern or "secular" innovation. The "cave" (in context with your Great Beast) is basically people buying into the propaganda they are fed. It is true that our minds are pressured from all sides in society - by the right, the left, conservatives, progressives, warmongers, peaceniks, destroyers, greens, theists - ideologues of all stripes.

If we discount exploiters who find their way into every avenue of every society, all of the above competing groups are simply people airing their concerns based on their particular perspectives. Somewhere in all the argy bargy, solutions are found for problems, although the upcoming restructuring of the Earth's surface appears to be a game changer.

The secular mind is a horizontal mind. It is flat and judges reality on the basis of duality. It measures progress by comparing the duality of before and after. The dedicated positive secularist is completely oblivious of the vertical direction of conscious perception. Once a person experiences the vertical direction of conscious perception connecting above and below, they can measure progress not by linear time natural for the duality of the Beast but by the objective quality of a moment.

This is a normal part of human perception which the Beast has atrophied in many turning them into secularists . This spirit killing influence is repulsive enough but when it is afflicted on the young producing metaphysical repression on young minds it is even more inhuman. And this child abuse is justified by the name progressive education. Sick stuff.

[Lacewing]

This spirit killing influence is repulsive enough

No more spirit killing than your posts with your ongoing accusations about how awful people are and what they don't know. You project dark motives onto them (rather than seeing them with love and compassion), and you accuse them of being lost (rather than acknowledging their brilliance). It's so messed up. Such is not an example of higher thinking -- the fact that you think it is, demonstrates more about evil than any of your claims do.

You know "the beast" you speak of better that anyone here -- because it is you.

[Greta]

The dedicated positive secularist is completely oblivious of the vertical direction of conscious perception.

Dear sir, poor sir, brave sir: You are an experiment by the Creator of the Universe. You are the only creature in the entire Universe who has free will. You are the only one who has to figure out what to do next — and why. Everybody else is a robot, a machine.

Some persons seem to like you, and others seem to hate you, and you must wonder why. They are simply liking machines and hating machines. You are pooped and demoralised. Why wouldn't you be? Of course it is exhausting, having to reason all the time in a universe which wasn't meant to be reasonable.

[Belinda]

Nick wrote:

This is a normal part of human perception which the Beast has atrophied in many turning them into secularists .

How do you know that the Beast did not atrophy Nick_A?

Does the Beast also cause perceptions to hypertrophy?

[Nick_A]

“To think about God is to the human soul what breathing is to the human body.

I say to think about God, not necessarily to believe in God–that may or may not come later.

I say: to think about God.” ~Jacob Needleman in What Is God? p. 3

More and more, as I see it now, this heartless way of thinking about God and ultimate reality dominates the mind of the contemporary world. For God or against God, “belief” or “atheism,” it makes no difference unless the inner yearning— or whatever we wish to call the cause and source of the “second breathing” — is there. And it can so easily be there, just as it can so easily be covered over and ignored, perhaps for the rest of one’s life. God or not God, “belief” or “science” — it also makes no real difference for my personal life unless the call of the Self and its need to “breathe” is heard and, ultimately, respected. Not only can thought about ultimate reality make no difference to the world or to my personal life unless we hear and respect the call of the Self, but such empty thought can bring down our personal and collective world, even our Earth itself. When thought races ahead of Being, a civilization is racing toward destruction.

Jacob Needleman: What Is God?

Reading these excerpt from Jacob Needleman’s book makes the horrors of spirit killing even more vivid. Metaphysical darkness permeates progressive education and gradually destroys the call of the self while gradually replacing it with the idolatry of the Great Beast. The glorification of partial truths along with the condemnation of contemplation of ultimate reality is a spirit killing influence hard to recover from. Yet these secularists appear proud of such senseless destruction of what is essentially human. It is said that it takes all kinds. Apparently it is so but spirit killing and its psychological weapon of secular intolerance is nothing to be proud of.

[Lacewing]

{his usual}

I hope you'll directly answer the questions in Belinda's post because they're very interesting.

[Nick_A]

Nick wrote:

This is a normal part of human perception which the Beast has atrophied in many turning them into secularists .

How do you know that the Beast did not atrophy Nick_A?

Does the Beast also cause perceptions to hypertrophy?

How do you know that the Beast did not atrophy Nick_A?

It tried but didn't succeed. I'm not fixated on the ground but still feel the value of consciously connecting above and below.

Does the Beast also cause perceptions to hypertrophy?

Yes. The Beast sustains its dominance through the power of imagination natural for Man out of balance. Perceptions are interpreted through imagination preventing a person from developing their conscious potential.

[Lacewing]

How do you know that the Beast did not atrophy Nick_A?

It tried but didn't succeed. I'm not fixated on the ground but still feel the value of consciously connecting above and below.

Isn't that what the beast would want you to believe?

HOW do you KNOW?

And how is what YOU know any more accurate than what anyone else knows?

[Nick_A]

Lacewing

HOW do you KNOW?

And how is what YOU know any more accurate than what anyone else knows?

I am willing and unafraid to experience. You, Greta, and F4 only want to argue which by definition prevents experience.

We are at the beginning of a necessary change in how we appreciate the relationship between science and the essence of religion if we are to survive as a species. It requires opening to a quality of reason the secularists will fight to their last breath to deny. Consider this excerpt:

The transdisciplinary approach of Reality allows us to define three types of meaning:

1. Horizontal meaning - i.e. interconnections at one single level of Reality. This is what most of the academic disciplines do.

2. Vertical meaning - i.e. interconnections involving several levels of Reality. This is what poetry, art or quantum physics do.

3. Meaning of meaning - i.e. interconnections involving all of Reality - the Subject, the Object and the Hidden Third. This is the ultimate aim of transdisciplinary research.

Secularism is only concerned with horizontal meaning. It is the duality cave life lives under. Additional influences are beginning to appear that will invite the experience of and invite dialogue on what vertical meaning is and its importance for the being of Man.

Finally those willing and able with the need to experience the reality of the human condition in relation to universal meaning and purpose will be drawn to experience the quality of consciousness, the hidden third, connecting above and below.

I know society as a whole is years away from passing from reliance on horizontal meaning into opening to the experience of vertical meaning to satisfy the needs of the heart yet there are enough already experiencing this passage to offer hope for our collective future. The massive secular ego will do what it can to discourage and prevent opening to vertical meaning in order to preserve the dominance of the idolatry of the Great Beast. Kids will suffer from increased secular intolerance. Will secularism succeed? The question is open

[Greta]

You, Greta, and F4 only want to argue which by definition prevents experience.

You are amongst the most argumentative human beings I have ever encountered in my entire life!

For years I tried to get through to you - to just talk about all this stuff without arguments and nonsense - and you could not do it. I always liked some of the weird shit you talked about and felt that, if you tweaked out the resentment and bullshit, there'd be some inspiring concepts going on.

Once or twice we even managed decent conversations but as soon as someone else would arrive and disagree with you, you'd leave me high and dry so you could fight. You may be surprised (and delighted) to know how much it pissed me off at the time to see you keep dropping the ball. I was almost as annoyed with the clowns who baited and distracted you.

All I want are good D&Ms about the nature of reality. It should not be a fight. It can just be a matter of each individual sharing their impressions of what reality seems to be like from their individual perspective.

We all have different environments, relationships and experiences and surely have something to teach each other but when we start claiming that our way is the only right way for everyone, well, that's simply not true. We are all different and to some extent will thrive on different foods, experiences and relationships. There is no "one size fits all" panacea for the human condition (death is hardly a panacea).

PS. I assume you missed the Vonnegut reference.

[Belinda]

From Nick_A's post:

The transdisciplinary approach of Reality allows us to define three types of meaning:

1. Horizontal meaning - i.e. interconnections at one single level of Reality. This is what most of the academic disciplines do.

2. Vertical meaning - i.e. interconnections involving several levels of Reality. This is what poetry, art or quantum physics do.

3. Meaning of meaning - i.e. interconnections involving all of Reality - the Subject, the Object and the Hidden Third. This is the ultimate aim of transdisciplinary research.

(The above had a quotation mark but Nick does not say who said it).

I still think that Nick is a real person and not a computer simulation or stereotype.

Nick is enchanted by the above model of reality which he is convinced is the only, and best, model of reality.
The faults with the above are:-

1. "most of the academic disciplines" accumulate knowledge until another paradigm comes along.

2. Poets do indeed use scientific language, besides traditional, folk, everyday , and religious language.

3. Philosophers deal with "meanings of meaning". Sometimes scientists and artists philosophise.
"All of reality" is more than propositions i.e. subjects and predicates and their intentional or unwitting connotations. No respectable artist, scientist or philosopher since Descartes anyway has lacked a measure of humility.

Nick, you have got yourself enmeshed in a fantasy of someone else's making. One aspect of your fantasy is that you believe and trust that you have seen the Light. You lack humility. You could be in the Cave and also free if you knew that you did not and could not know everything.

[Nick_A]

Belinda

http://basarab-nicolescu.fr/Docs_articl ... Russia.pdf

The Hidden Third and the Multiple Splendor of Being

1. Introduction: Spiritual Dimension of Democracy - Utopia or Necessity?

There is a big spiritual poverty present on our Earth. It manifests as fear, violence, hate and dogmatism. In a world with more than 8000 academic disciplines, more than 10000 religions and religious movements and more than 6000 tongues, it is difficult to dream about mutual understanding and peace. There is an obvious need for a new spirituality, conciliating technoscience and wisdom. Of course, there are already several spiritualities, which have been present on our Earth for centuries and even millennia. One might ask: why is there a need for a new spirituality if we have them all, here and now? Before answering this question, we must face a preliminary question: is a Big Picture still possible in our post-modern times?1 Radical relativism answers this question in a negative way. However its arguments are not solid and logical. For radical relativists, after the death of God, the death of the Human Being, the end of ideologies, the end of History (and, perhaps, tomorrow, the end of science and the end of religion) a Big Picture is no longer possible. For cosmodernity, a Big Picture is not only possible but also vitally necessary, even if it will never be formulated as a closed theory………………………………………

This is a long article and only meaningful for those who still value the the spiritual calling to the big picture. You, Greta, F4 and Lacewing appear to be cultural (radical) relativists who oppose recognition of the big picture in favor of being involved with and arguing its fragmentation. Glorified fragmentation is the root of secular intolerance.

My emphasis on the human condition as described by Plato includes me. My advantage is in being aware of it. Those like Dr. Nicolescu are serving humanity by introducing ideas which will oppose the glorification of fragmentation and preserve the value of the big picture essential for conscious evolution.

I know this is poison for the secularists here but still essential for philosophy if it is to have value other than in arguing whose momma sucks. We will always be opposed. You will support cultural relativism and I will support the means for uniting the essence of religion with the facts of science. The Beast will win. But with people like Dr. Nicolescu representing humanity it won’t be an easy victory.

[Nick_A]

You, Greta, and F4 only want to argue which by definition prevents experience.

You are amongst the most argumentative human beings I have ever encountered in my entire life!

For years I tried to get through to you - to just talk about all this stuff without arguments and nonsense - and you could not do it. I always liked some of the weird shit you talked about and felt that, if you tweaked out the resentment and bullshit, there'd be some inspiring concepts going on.

Once or twice we even managed decent conversations but as soon as someone else would arrive and disagree with you, you'd leave me high and dry so you could fight. You may be surprised (and delighted) to know how much it pissed me off at the time to see you keep dropping the ball. I was almost as annoyed with the clowns who baited and distracted you.

All I want are good D&Ms about the nature of reality. It should not be a fight. It can just be a matter of each individual sharing their impressions of what reality seems to be like from their individual perspective.

We all have different environments, relationships and experiences and surely have something to teach each other but when we start claiming that our way is the only right way for everyone, well, that's simply not true. We are all different and to some extent will thrive on different foods, experiences and relationships. There is no "one size fits all" panacea for the human condition (death is hardly a panacea).

PS. I assume you missed the Vonnegut reference.

You are amongst the most argumentative human beings I have ever encountered in my entire life!

Of course you define argumentative as anyone questioning the supremacy of secularism. Of course we all have opinions formed by life experiences. What you refuse to understand is that universalism is concerned with the universal truths from which opinions devolved. You express secular intolerance against anything questioning the idolatry of the Great Beast as the greatest quality of intelligence.

[Belinda]

Nick wrote:

recognition of the big picture

But, Nick, what you call "the big picture" is one of several big pictures. True, this world needs sorting. Do you know that expression "can't see the wood for the trees " ? Well, you can't see the trees for the wood.