Secular Intolerance

[Harbal]

I will be less of a man

There's very little potential for that, Nick.

[Greta]

Nick, it seems to me that you are angered by the fact that most people have lost their youthful sensitive and artistic attributes - thanks to being educated and brutalised by working life. In tribal times everyone was a bit of an artist. Now, with specialisation, people must specialise to survive. As a Jill-of-all-trades, specialisation doesn't suit me, and I generally think it sucks, but I do not see an alternative in a competitive world where tragedies of the commons have always ruled.

You suffer from psychological projection. You may be an angry person but there is no reason to be angry about what humanity is losing. Should I be angry about the effects of a plague or hurricane Irma in Florida now. It is sad that there is so much loss but why be angry? The fact that the Great Beast is a beast doesn’t make it “bad” It is just a beast. Is an elephant bad? No it is just an elephant. It is unfortunate that humanity having the potential collectively to be consciously more than a beast defends itself as a beast. But again this is not bad it is an unfortunate condition that humanity can awaken to.

There were points I could address but you do not deserve a reply for the wrongful and childish "projection" leader. I'm not the one making long angry threads decrying the state of things.

Withdraw the wrong statements about "projection" and claims that I am "angry" it and I will engage. For the record, my life is so good that I am constantly amazed and feel hugely undeserving when I see the trouble and torment experienced by much better people than me, not to mention the suffering of other species.

[Belinda]

Nick, you have not understood a word that Greta said to you.

[Nick_A]

Belinda

The above post from Greta addresses your question. Greta writes that artists and sportsmen retain respect for the physical as intrinsic to the whole soul. I understand that I am paraphrasing Greta's words and hope I do so correctly. Your soul is your body /mind as an integrated whole. The soul is not separate from the body.

The trouble is that we are not an integrated whole. We lack inner unity so do not have a soul but rather three main parts of a soul Plato referred to as the tripartite soul. The potential conscious unity of the three parts is the result of conscious evolution. We live as a plurality- as three – so live in opposition to ourselves only made livable through self justifying imagination

http://philosophycourse.info/platosite/3schart.html

Sometimes Plato's division of the psyche into its three main elements can be easily misunderstood. Some who read about it for the first time think it is the same as Freud's division of the psyche into the ego (das Ich), id (das Es), and superego (das Über-Ich), but it isn't the same as Freud's division. Others think it's the same as the old adult-parent-child division, but it's not that either. Nor is it the same as the conscious-subconscious-supraconscious division.
Plato's identification of these three distinct elements of a person's inner life is unique, and can be validated by directly turning inward to one's own experience of the self.
Plato's three elements of the psyche are
1. The appetites, which includes all our myriad desires for various pleasures, comforts, physical satisfactions, and bodily ease. There are so many of these appetites that Plato does not bother to enumerate them, but he does note that they can often be in conflict even with each other. This element of the soul is represented by the ugly black horse on the left.
2. The spirited, or hot-blooded, part, i.e., the part that gets angry when it perceives (for example) an injustice being done. This is the part of us that loves to face and overcome great challenges, the part that can steel itself to adversity, and that loves victory, winning, challenge, and honor. (Note that Plato's use of the term "spirited" here is not the same as "spiritual." He means "spirited" in the same sense that we speak of a high-spirited horse, for example, one with lots of energy and power.) This element of the soul is represented by the noble white horse on the right.
3. The mind (nous), our conscious awareness, is represented by the charioteer who is guiding (or who at least should be guiding) the horses and chariot. This is the part of us that thinks, analyzes, looks ahead, rationally weighs options, and tries to gauge what is best and truest…………….

Religion and the creator God have told us body bad: mind good, and mind must respect the creator God as promulgated by religion. Religion and the creator God are on the side of Mammon and the machine. The society is swept along by the force of religion or more usually religion translated into what Nick calls the " secular". Indeed the old war god, Jaweh, is still alive and working in commercial and political life.

You are referring to secular interpretations of religion which I agree often cause more harm then good. It suffers the same hypocrisy as politics. Rather than argue the multitude of expressions of imagination, I’d rather concern myself with how a person can consciously pursue eros as a seeker of truth

Does " binary reason" stop us responding to truths that bodily intuitions tell us? I suppose that what Nick means by binary reason is simply reason. Reason evaluates passions and raw emotions and differentiates those from intuitions and knowledge. So you see, Nick, I place intuitions firmly on the same side as knowledge. There are aspects of knowledge that are inborn , and Chomsky has argued that even the basic grammar of language is inborn. Other inborn knowledge is how to move our muscles and joints, how to experience colours, sounds, and forms. How to swallow and other reflexes. Also inborn is how to attribute events to causes of events so that we can learn from experience, and that is what reason is.

Can we have apriori knowledge of what objective justice is that is the source of its devolution into subjective societal interpretations of justice? I would say yes and agree with Plato. You would say no and agree with F4. But the point is that the realization of objective justice if it exists doesn’t come through binary reason. It is a result of anamnesis. We are limited to subjective interpretations.

I do not believe that mystic contemplation, or eastern meditation, or any mystical techniques reward us with special knowledge although they clear our heads of rubbish if they are done properly.

You do not believe in the Christian experience of gnosis or the Buddhist experience of Satori. I do. It is an essential difference between us.

[Nick_A]

Nick, it seems to me that you are angered by the fact that most people have lost their youthful sensitive and artistic attributes - thanks to being educated and brutalised by working life. In tribal times everyone was a bit of an artist. Now, with specialisation, people must specialise to survive. As a Jill-of-all-trades, specialisation doesn't suit me, and I generally think it sucks, but I do not see an alternative in a competitive world where tragedies of the commons have always ruled.

You suffer from psychological projection. You may be an angry person but there is no reason to be angry about what humanity is losing. Should I be angry about the effects of a plague or hurricane Irma in Florida now. It is sad that there is so much loss but why be angry? The fact that the Great Beast is a beast doesn’t make it “bad” It is just a beast. Is an elephant bad? No it is just an elephant. It is unfortunate that humanity having the potential collectively to be consciously more than a beast defends itself as a beast. But again this is not bad it is an unfortunate condition that humanity can awaken to.

There were points I could address but you do not deserve a reply for the wrongful and childish "projection" leader. I'm not the one making long angry threads decrying the state of things.

Withdraw the wrong statements about "projection" and claims that I am "angry" it and I will engage. For the record, my life is so good that I am constantly amazed and feel hugely undeserving when I see the trouble and torment experienced by much better people than me, not to mention the suffering of other species.

Greta, you can't BS an old BSer. You do not live with visions of sugar plums dancing in your head. You've been hurt in some ways by expressions of secularized religion and have become hostile to the concept of religion itself without knowing what it is or even how an authentic religion begins as an esoteric school which devolves in society into secularized religion. Cut the BS. You are an angry person and it does you no good to either support or defend it. If you cut your nose off to spite your face what good does that do?

[Greta]

Greta, you can't BS an old BSer. You do not live with visions of sugar plums dancing in your head. You've been hurt in some ways by expressions of secularized religion and have become hostile to the concept of religion itself without knowing what it is or even how an authentic religion begins as an esoteric school which devolves in society into secularized religion. Cut the BS. You are an angry person and it does you no good to either support or defend it. If you cut your nose off to spite your face what good does that do?

Let's skip the schoolyard taunting and see where substance lies.

There is a differentiation made between secularised religion and "authentic religion". That strikes me as a "no true Scotsman" fallacy driven by your solipsist non-empathetic worldview that seemingly cannot notice or acknowledge the psychological and spiritual depths of those who are different to them.

We are all on the same journey and you are not running in the "spiritual fast lane" as you like to believe. We live in a fledgeling modern society. We have never formed or lived in modern societies before, nor do we know of anyone else doing so. So, both individually and collectively, we are feeling our way through, making mistakes, sometimes ignoring or wilfully exacerbating them, sometimes learning from them.

It's one thing to have a guru complex and another to actually be a guru. If you think you have something special to offer, let's see you attract a band of followers.

[Nick_A]

Greta

There is a differentiation made between secularised religion and "authentic religion". That strikes me as a "no true Scotsman" fallacy driven by your solipsist non-empathetic worldview that seemingly cannot notice or acknowledge the psychological and spiritual depths of those who are different to them.

An authentic tradition has a conscious influence as its source who has become what a person is capable of. An esoteric school is built around this influence so as to teach what is necessary for becoming what a person is consciously capable of. In Christianity it is Jesus for example. Over time the conscious influence loses it potency for nourishing the being of man so is adopted or secularized by people seeking to use its reputation for pragmatic egoistic gains. They create a myriad of secular interpretations which often result in the opposite of the original conscious intention. The original esoteric school or church goes underground and the secularized interpretations become influential in exoteric society.

We are all on the same journey and you are not running in the "spiritual fast lane" as you like to believe. We live in a fledgeling modern society. We have never formed or lived in modern societies before, nor do we know of anyone else doing so. So, both individually and collectively, we are feeling our way through, making mistakes, sometimes ignoring or wilfully exacerbating them, sometimes learning from them.

We are not on the same journey. Why are you interested in religion? There are some who are legitimate seekers of truth but the majority feel the need to belong to a tradition or live in fear of offending some god. Others seek to manipulate it for egoistic advantage and cash like Scientology for example does taking advantage of the innocent desire to change the world. Some use the essence of religion to experience their own nothingness in relation to the potential for human being. Others use religious perversion to glorify their ego as God.

It's one thing to have a guru complex and another to actually be a guru. If you think you have something special to offer, let's see you attract a band of followers.

But I am not a guru so why would I need followers unless they are cute blondes?

At one time in my life I experience metanoia and since then have been concerned with the naïve division between science and religion. It has been shared by many in the now infamous cast of characters who I have quoted. I am limited in what I can offer so openly support the minority aware of the fallen human condition and how it is affected by both facts and objective values in order to experience human understanding. I am a student and not a teacher and good students like Simone Weil raise questions which annoy the Great Beast.

You don’t seem to recognize objective quality in a spiritual search. For you all efforts are equal. Would you say the same in mathematics? Would you say all answers are equal? No. But for some reason you deny this simple logic for the spiritual search.

This attitude is a spirit killer. Imagine some kid who has had legitimate spiritual experiences being told they have no real quality because we create our own reality and it is an insult to think differently. What sensitive young person will stand up against this intimidation and not begin to doubt themselves so as to fit in? I may be old fashioned but there is nothing attractive for me about spiritually dead kids resulting from the efforts of spirit killers and physically dead fetuses as a result of abortions. Something is unnatural about this which proves the absence of consciousness in the world. These things would never happen in a world inhabited by conscious beings.

[Systematic]

Let's just say that you are allowed to believe whatever crazy nonsense you want. But before you go forcing it on other people, remember that you are going to Hell if you convert anyone forcefully.

[Greta]

There is a differentiation made between secularised religion and "authentic religion". That strikes me as a "no true Scotsman" fallacy driven by your solipsist non-empathetic worldview that seemingly cannot notice or acknowledge the psychological and spiritual depths of those who are different to them.

An authentic tradition has a conscious influence as its source who has become what a person is capable of. An esoteric school is built around this influence so as to teach what is necessary for becoming what a person is consciously capable of. In Christianity it is Jesus for example. Over time the conscious influence loses it potency for nourishing the being of man so is adopted or secularized by people seeking to use its reputation for pragmatic egoistic gains. They create a myriad of secular interpretations which often result in the opposite of the original conscious intention. The original esoteric school or church goes underground and the secularized interpretations become influential in exoteric society.

Fair enough except that you are wrong to say that the issue is "secularisation", which is essentially being influenced by that which lies outside of the church. Being cloistered away is a recipe for stagnation. It's nothing to do with secularism and everything to do with size and organisation. By the same token small startups can "lose their soul" once they start expanding.

We are all on the same journey and you are not running in the "spiritual fast lane" as you like to believe. We live in a fledgeling modern society. We have never formed or lived in modern societies before, nor do we know of anyone else doing so. So, both individually and collectively, we are feeling our way through, making mistakes, sometimes ignoring or wilfully exacerbating them, sometimes learning from them.

We are not on the same journey. Why are you interested in religion?

I'm not interested in religion. However, religious people and I, all being human, tend to have the same existential interests and concerns, ergo, we are thrust screaming and clueless into this existence and usually somehow manage to do something vaguely useful to someone before the decline and the great unknown of death. It's interesting - why wouldn't one wonder about it?

You don’t seem to recognize objective quality in a spiritual search. For you all efforts are equal. Would you say the same in mathematics? Would you say all answers are equal? No. But for some reason you deny this simple logic for the spiritual search.

You don't seem to recognise the spirituality inherent in people's everyday lives, and seem keen to have the superiority of your own journey to be acknowledged.

Yet what of those who feel their own compulsions - be it towards science, teaching, mathematics, the arts, nursing, farming, policing, sport or whatever? Are their journeys less valuable than yours because their inclinations are less metaphysical? I think not.

Passion, enthusiasm. That's what matters. The conduit is window dressing.

[Arising_uk]

...
But I am not a guru so why would I need followers unless they are cute blondes? ...

Would this be an inner cute blonde beauty or an outer cute blonde beauty?

[Belinda]

Nick wrote:

You are referring to secular interpretations of religion

"Secular" interpretations of religion are impartial. A man can be impartial as to beliefs and also sure as to personal , felt, experiences like satori.

Experiences like satori and cognitive impartiality are not mutually exclusive. You have heard of insight. Insight into one's own experiences comes from impartiality. True, spontaneous joy or sorrow and so on do change the mood in which we view what happens to us. To serve truth we have to respect reality which trumps moods, reason, and mystical insight.

There is evidence for inborn sense of justice. Very young children, almost babies, have shown that fairness is not learned but is inborn. That being the case any man who has mystical experiences under his belt may have more experience than the man who lacks it, but the mystic is not better than or wiser regarding justice than the man whose learning from experience is not mystical i.e. other than, as Greta says it, "metaphysical".

Here is one of many reports from a variety of sources regarding the experiment (cross cultural)about inborn sense of justice.

https://www.bu.edu/research/articles/ch ... -fairness/

If you are seriously averse to "edu" in addresses there are popular reports too.

[Belinda]

Nick wrote:

You are referring to secular interpretations of religion

"Secular" , and scientifically rigorous, interpretations of religion are impartial. A man can be impartial as to beliefs and also sure as to personal , felt, experiences like satori.

Experiences like satori and cognitive impartiality are not mutually exclusive. You have heard of insight. Insight into one's own experiences comes from impartiality. True, spontaneous joy or sorrow and so on do change the mood in which we view what happens to us. To serve truth we have to respect reality which trumps moods, reason, and mystical insight.

There is evidence for inborn sense of justice. Very young children, almost babies, have shown that fairness is not learned but is inborn. That being the case any man who has mystical experiences under his belt may have more experience than the man who lacks it, but the mystic is not better than or wiser regarding justice than the man whose learning from experience is not mystical i.e. other than, as Greta says it, "metaphysical".

Here is one of many reports from a variety of sources regarding the experiment (cross cultural)about inborn sense of justice.

https://www.bu.edu/research/articles/ch ... -fairness/

The research is ongoing.
“Right now, we have a good measurement of behavior but no in-depth understanding of cultural patterns, socialization, or anthropology,” says Warneken."

If you are seriously averse to "edu" in addresses there are popular reports too. Google "Babies' inborn sense of fairness."

_______________________

Nick , I think you and I are on the same page about secularised religion. We don't like it. Whare we differ is that you are more optimistic about religion than I am. You think that religion can be pure and unadulterated by learned prejudices and the shadow side of men. I am pessimistic about that possibility and I think that religion is always man made and therefore not from God; moreover as man made institutions go, religions are peculiarly liable to corruption and self seeking.

Mystical experience in its pure form,if such is possible , does not have to be attached to any belief whatsoever. The fact that you attribute your mystical experience to Platonic ontology and gnostic spirituality is an accident of the culture which you have absorbed.

[Nick_A]

Let's just say that you are allowed to believe whatever crazy nonsense you want. But before you go forcing it on other people, remember that you are going to Hell if you convert anyone forcefully.

Yes, this is the condescending attitude of secular intolerants who permeate institutions of psychological child abuse called schools. All "crazy nonsense" is prohibited so as not to contaminate the purity of the declarations of the Great Beast. Spirit killing at its finest.

[Belinda]

Nick wrote:

Yes, this is the condescending attitude of secular intolerants who permeate institutions of psychological child abuse called schools. All "crazy nonsense" is prohibited so as not to contaminate the purity of the declarations of the Great Beast. Spirit killing at its finest.

And yet you have never described the curriculum or methods that would free school children from the shades of the prison house.

[Harbal]

And yet you have never described the curriculum or methods that would free school children from the shades of the prison house.

After just a day of being educated by Nick, not only would their spirits be dead, they'd be losing the will to live, themselves.