The Sham

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: The Sham

Post by Enki »

Marcus wrote:
Enki wrote:We are entering into an age of synthesis where the individual recognizes itself in relation to the collective without losing individuality, but knowing itself to be a part of, and not separate and distinct from the rest of the universe.
". . . the story comprises three great epochs. In the first, one God triumphs over the many false gods. This process fills the first millennium of our era, and its outcome is the Christian Church. Therefore church history is the interesting and important aspect of the first thousand years A.D. In the second epoch one earth is won from the plural of unconnected countries and undiscovered lands; no Chinese walls remain effective. This is the point at which we stand today: geographically, technically, statistically, the earth is finally one, and so indeed is the whole world of nature, thanks to modern science which Christendom created. The master institutions of the second millennium are, first the Papacy as a worldly power, then the system of territorial states which grew from under its wings. Therefore world history or political history is the theme of this period.

"Today we are living through the agonies of transition to the third epoch. We have yet to establish Man, the great singular of humanity, in one household, over the plurality of races, classes, and age groups. This will be the center of struggle in the future,... They pose the questions the third millennium will have to answer. ... The State is on the defensive because it is inadequate for the needs of the coming age. The theme of future history will be not territorial or political but social:..."

The Christian Future Or The Modern Mind Outrun, Rosenstock-Huessy, Harper & Row, 1946, pgs. 114-115
One humanity in one world under one God?
I wouldn't be that optimistic, but the reality that with all of our theological differences they are as genial as being only mildly insulting from time to time, that's better than warlords marching hordes across the continent to slaughter strangers. So definitely progress has been made, a huge amount of progress.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: The Sham

Post by Marcus »

Enki wrote:
Marcus wrote:
Enki wrote:We are entering into an age of synthesis where the individual recognizes itself in relation to the collective without losing individuality, but knowing itself to be a part of, and not separate and distinct from the rest of the universe.

". . . the story comprises three great epochs. In the first, one God triumphs over the many false gods. This process fills the first millennium of our era, and its outcome is the Christian Church. Therefore church history is the interesting and important aspect of the first thousand years A.D. In the second epoch one earth is won from the plural of unconnected countries and undiscovered lands; no Chinese walls remain effective. This is the point at which we stand today: geographically, technically, statistically, the earth is finally one, and so indeed is the whole world of nature, thanks to modern science which Christendom created. The master institutions of the second millennium are, first the Papacy as a worldly power, then the system of territorial states which grew from under its wings. Therefore world history or political history is the theme of this period.

"Today we are living through the agonies of transition to the third epoch. We have yet to establish Man, the great singular of humanity, in one household, over the plurality of races, classes, and age groups. This will be the center of struggle in the future,... They pose the questions the third millennium will have to answer. ... The State is on the defensive because it is inadequate for the needs of the coming age. The theme of future history will be not territorial or political but social:..."

The Christian Future Or The Modern Mind Outrun, Rosenstock-Huessy, Harper & Row, 1946, pgs. 114-115


One humanity in one world under one God?


I wouldn't be that optimistic, but the reality that with all of our theological differences they are as genial as being only mildly insulting from time to time, that's better than warlords marching hordes across the continent to slaughter strangers. So definitely progress has been made, a huge amount of progress.



Well, if it happens, I damn' sure won't be here to see it, but when one considers that R-H penned that projection 56 years ago, that's impressive. Too, I think theological differences matter less and less as the decades roll on. I've seen quite a change over my seventy-plus years . . heck, 60 years ago my little Roman Catholic playmates would tell me I was going to hell 'cause their priest told them there ain't no salvation outside the Church. These days, folks aren't quite so sure they know exactly what the Church is.
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: The Sham

Post by Enki »

What a lot of people outside of Occupy wouldn't realize is quite how spiritual a movement it actually is. The loud leftists who take all the spotlight are pretty much the leftist stereotype, but there is a quieter group that is highly spiritual that is coming together on a different level. I can only imagine that this sort of quiet spiritualism is wide-spread. The increase in people doing Yoga seems pretty indicative of that. A friend of mine thinks that there will be a revival of churches.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: The Sham

Post by Ibrahim »

Marcus wrote:
Enki wrote:
Marcus wrote:
Enki wrote:We are entering into an age of synthesis where the individual recognizes itself in relation to the collective without losing individuality, but knowing itself to be a part of, and not separate and distinct from the rest of the universe.

". . . the story comprises three great epochs. In the first, one God triumphs over the many false gods. This process fills the first millennium of our era, and its outcome is the Christian Church. Therefore church history is the interesting and important aspect of the first thousand years A.D. In the second epoch one earth is won from the plural of unconnected countries and undiscovered lands; no Chinese walls remain effective. This is the point at which we stand today: geographically, technically, statistically, the earth is finally one, and so indeed is the whole world of nature, thanks to modern science which Christendom created. The master institutions of the second millennium are, first the Papacy as a worldly power, then the system of territorial states which grew from under its wings. Therefore world history or political history is the theme of this period.

"Today we are living through the agonies of transition to the third epoch. We have yet to establish Man, the great singular of humanity, in one household, over the plurality of races, classes, and age groups. This will be the center of struggle in the future,... They pose the questions the third millennium will have to answer. ... The State is on the defensive because it is inadequate for the needs of the coming age. The theme of future history will be not territorial or political but social:..."

The Christian Future Or The Modern Mind Outrun, Rosenstock-Huessy, Harper & Row, 1946, pgs. 114-115


One humanity in one world under one God?


I wouldn't be that optimistic, but the reality that with all of our theological differences they are as genial as being only mildly insulting from time to time, that's better than warlords marching hordes across the continent to slaughter strangers. So definitely progress has been made, a huge amount of progress.



Well, if it happens, I damn' sure won't be here to see it, but when one considers that R-H penned that projection 56 years ago, that's impressive. Too, I think theological differences matter less and less as the decades roll on. I've seen quite a change over my seventy-plus years . . heck, 60 years ago my little Roman Catholic playmates would tell me I was going to hell 'cause their priest told them there ain't no salvation outside the Church. These days, folks aren't quite so sure they know exactly what the Church is.
The change here is the rise in secularism in the West, not any of "R-H's" nonsensical predictions. As Christianity weakens as a social force the remaining groups that still want to religiously influence law and politics band together rather than butting heads. E.g. Evangelicals and conservative Catholics in the US lobby better as a united front.

The prediction that religion can provide what the state cannot is refuted by comparing social programs with church attendance in developed countries like Scandinavia. Religion is more dominant as a social force when the population has few alternatives, or none. E.g. the growth of Hamas in the absence of any effective government in parts of Palestine.
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: The Sham

Post by Enki »

I was talking about genuine spirituality, not political tribalism.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: The Sham

Post by Marcus »

Enki wrote:. . A friend of mine thinks that there will be a revival of churches.
I'd agree . . but for the most part they will little resemble past forms as is increasingly evident.

And even more:
“As I have read the Gospels over the years, the belief has grown in me that Christ did not come to found an organized religion but came instead to found an unorganized one. He seems to have come to carry religion out of the temples into the fields and sheep pastures, onto the roadsides and the banks of the rivers, into the houses of sinners and publicans, into the town and the wilderness, toward the membership of all that is here.”

—Wendell Berry
Berry's convictions echo Rosenstock-Huessy's prognostications . . .
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: The Sham

Post by Ibrahim »

Enki wrote:I was talking about genuine spirituality, not political tribalism.
Everybody engaging in political tribalism will tell you that what they are doing is genuine spirituality. Chick-fil-a is guided by the Bible, not the desire for free press in a politically-receptive region of the country. Just ask them!
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: The Sham

Post by Enki »

Ibrahim wrote:
Enki wrote:I was talking about genuine spirituality, not political tribalism.
Everybody engaging in political tribalism will tell you that what they are doing is genuine spirituality. Chick-fil-a is guided by the Bible, not the desire for free press in a politically-receptive region of the country. Just ask them!
Your semantics are biased toward political tribalism. It's not what I am talking about.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: The Sham

Post by Enki »

Marcus wrote:
Enki wrote:. . A friend of mine thinks that there will be a revival of churches.
I'd agree . . but for the most part they will little resemble past forms as is increasingly evident.

And even more:
“As I have read the Gospels over the years, the belief has grown in me that Christ did not come to found an organized religion but came instead to found an unorganized one. He seems to have come to carry religion out of the temples into the fields and sheep pastures, onto the roadsides and the banks of the rivers, into the houses of sinners and publicans, into the town and the wilderness, toward the membership of all that is here.”

—Wendell Berry
Berry's convictions echo Rosenstock-Huessy's prognostications . . .
It's the difference between religion as corporate brand and flag waving, versus, Christ is an actual spiritual mantle that actually exists and has an alchemical property that transmutes the spirit that exists between the material body and the soul.

I would call it a difference between sectarian biblists and actual Christians. Jesus seems to me like he was offering an actual spiritual transformation, something that was really real, that actually exists, something that makes the sectarian pretensions of the system of hate commodification utterly beside the point.

I believe that every community of Christ contains the seeds and always passes on those actual seeds, but the true Christ consciousness doesn't necessarily flower fully, it flowers to the degree it is able within the soil in which it is planted.

When I see people picking and choosing which sin they are obsessed with, I can only believe they are missing the point. Sin is sin is sin. There are degrees of sin, but different sins are not greater or worse. Sin is the corruption of the spirit, and any sinful act is merely a symptom of underlying sin. So attacking rape, murder, theft, is treating the symptom. The underlying cause is spiritual corruption: sin.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: The Sham

Post by Marcus »

Enki wrote:It's the difference between religion as corporate brand and flag waving, versus, Christ is an actual spiritual mantle that actually exists and has an alchemical property that transmutes the spirit that exists between the material body and the soul.

I would call it a difference between sectarian biblists and actual Christians. Jesus seems to me like he was offering an actual spiritual transformation, something that was really real, that actually exists, something that makes the sectarian pretensions of the system of hate commodification utterly beside the point.

I believe that every community of Christ contains the seeds and always passes on those actual seeds, but the true Christ consciousness doesn't necessarily flower fully, it flowers to the degree it is able within the soil in which it is planted.

When I see people picking and choosing which sin they are obsessed with, I can only believe they are missing the point. Sin is sin is sin. There are degrees of sin, but different sins are not greater or worse. Sin is the corruption of the spirit, and any sinful act is merely a symptom of underlying sin. So attacking rape, murder, theft, is treating the symptom. The underlying cause is spiritual corruption: sin.
We are much closer than you might think.
"Christianity came into a world of divided loyalties -- races, classes, tribes, nations, empires, all living to themselves alone. It did not simply erase these loyalties; that would have plunged men into nihilism and cancelled the previous work of creation, and Jesus came not to deny but to fulfill. Rather, by its gift of a real future, Christianity implanted in the very midst of men's loyalties a power, which, reaching back from the end of time, drew them step by step into unity."

—Rosenstock-Huessy
I'd add only that sin is "any lack of conformity unto or violation of the law of God." And what is the law of God? You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind. And you shall love your neighbor as yourself. Sin, while real, is an abstraction until an actual, concrete violation of the law of God occurs.
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: The Sham

Post by Enki »

I would reduce that even to simply 'love'. Love is the law of God. The wages of sin is death. Deviate from love you sin, you sin you die.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: The Sham

Post by Ibrahim »

Enki wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Enki wrote:I was talking about genuine spirituality, not political tribalism.
Everybody engaging in political tribalism will tell you that what they are doing is genuine spirituality. Chick-fil-a is guided by the Bible, not the desire for free press in a politically-receptive region of the country. Just ask them!
Your semantics are biased toward political tribalism. It's not what I am talking about.


Fine, but how will you ever separate the political from religion. And by this I don't mean secularism and the legal separation of modern nation states. Rather, I'm asking how will people ever separate their religious conviction from their politics or social relationships? Aside from hermits it seems impossible, and tribalism will still have to be accounted for.
User avatar
Juggernaut Nihilism
Posts: 1417
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:55 pm

Re: The Sham

Post by Juggernaut Nihilism »

I don't want to derail this Dioscuri's great thread with more stuff that belongs in the Politics forum, but Ib is right that you can't simply destroy one power structure and one meaning system without replacing them. I know Enki's not assuming otherwise, but too many of the happy hippy types seem to be under the naive impression that power structures , and the fetishization of meaning systems are themselves the problem, and that once men are free of them, their natural goodness will shine through. The reality is that they are expressions of the human personality, and there is no such thing as being free of them. If you want people to drop a defunct meaning system, you must offer them another with the understanding that the vast majority of them will treat it as a religious object... that many, to the horror of the idealist, will soon be ready to kill to defend it, and to attack those whom the meaning system designates as "Other".
"The fundamental rule of political analysis from the point of psychology is, follow the sacredness, and around it is a ring of motivated ignorance."
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5641
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: The Sham

Post by Parodite »

All ideologies are idiotic, whether religious or political, for it is conceptual thinking, the conceptual word, which has so unfortunately divided man.
- Jiddu Krishnamurti
Deep down I'm very superficial
Simple Minded

Re: The Sham

Post by Simple Minded »

Parodite wrote:
All ideologies are idiotic, whether religious or political, for it is conceptual thinking, the conceptual word, which has so unfortunately divided man.
- Jiddu Krishnamurti
Great quote Parodite.

I always have a tough time discerning between us and them, same and other, the oppressed and the privledged, the good and the bad, the rich and the poor, the Left and the Right, the smart and the dumb, etc.

That smart and dumb distinction is especially tricky.... we're all always in flux. ;)

Often, I'm wrong.... :(

Thankfully, lots of people point it out! :D

Its almost like different people use the same words to mean different things. Weird!
Last edited by Simple Minded on Mon Jul 30, 2012 1:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Simple Minded

Re: The Sham

Post by Simple Minded »

Parodite wrote:
All ideologies are idiotic, whether religious or political, for it is conceptual thinking, the conceptual word, which has so unfortunately divided man.
- Jiddu Krishnamurti
On Talking
Kahlil Gibran

You talk when you cease to be at peace with your thoughts;
And when you can no longer dwell in the solitude of your heart you live in your lips, and sound is a diversion and a pastime.
And in much of your talking, thinking is half murdered.
For thought is a bird of space, that in a cage of words may indeed unfold its wings but cannot fly.


There are those among you who seek the talkative through fear of being alone.
The silence of aloneness reveals to their eyes their naked selves and they would escape.
And there are those who talk, and without knowledge or forethought reveal a truth which they themselves do not understand.
And there are those who have the truth within them, but they tell it not in words.
In the bosom of such as these the spirit dwells in rhythmic silence.


When you meet your friend on the roadside or in the market place, let the spirit in you move your lips and direct your tongue.
Let the voice within your voice speak to the ear of his ear;
For his soul will keep the truth of your heart as the taste of the wine is remembered
When the colour is forgotten and the vessel is no more.
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: The Sham

Post by Enki »

I was always keeping it on topic, though I can see why that is unclear.

Basically my point is there is such a thing as spiritual growth. The over-reliance on brand narrative aka tribalism gets people to ask the (no offense) imbecilic question, "Which spirituality?", religion is at its root just a big corporate brand. The Mac v PC v Linux debate is probably the best metaphor for how meaningful it isn't. Mac/PC/Linux all have one thing in common, they are computers. What this means is they have many things in common, in that there are certain core pieces of standard functionality that they must exhibit otherwise they are useless. Religion is the same. So when you are asking, "Which religion?", whether its the Macintosh, Windows or Ubuntu, they are all flavors of the same thing. The same is true for Christianity, Islam, Hinduism etc... Things that are true are true regardless of how we choose to describe them. Our powers of connotation and denotation don't create the universe ex nihilo, they apply to our ability and methodology for manipulating that which really exists. We do indeed reshape reality with our words and deeds, but we aren't 'creating' it. So when I use the word spirituality, I am stripping it of all connotation as it regards a particular religion or the ego-maniacal root chakra measurement that goes along with it.

As people become more spiritually advanced, their material needs are fundamentally altered. As material needs are fundamentally altered the way we interact with human material institutions changes. This can result in the retooling of an institution as the difference between a modern S, C, or LLC corp is retooled compared to the sort of bridge building corporate charter model of the early corporations. Or we can see institutions just straight up abandoned due to obsolescence.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: The Sham

Post by Ibrahim »

I wouldn't liken ancient distinctions between religions to modern concepts like "branding." There are real differences in philosophy and outlook between different sects. If you take religion seriously there are meaningful differences. That people become tribalistic over them is regrettable, but it doesn't mean that the differences themselves are illusory.
User avatar
Juggernaut Nihilism
Posts: 1417
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:55 pm

Re: The Sham

Post by Juggernaut Nihilism »

Ibrahim wrote:I wouldn't liken ancient distinctions between religions to modern concepts like "branding." There are real differences in philosophy and outlook between different sects. If you take religion seriously there are meaningful differences. That people become tribalistic over them is regrettable, but it doesn't mean that the differences themselves are illusory.
Agree with Ibrahim here, for the most part. It is just too easy to take the "God is one, the sages call him by different names" idea too far into pop New Age land, white washing the important and fundamental differences. It is too easy to assume that "spiritual growth" means movement toward homogenization and unity. It rests on what I think is a naive wishful fallacy: that all conflict and disagreement and violence are the result of some misunderstand, some accident, and that if only people saw things clearly, none of those things would exist. I just can't see any reason to think that's true, at least for this world.

Where I part ways with him is that I don't think it's regrettable that people become tribalistic over religion. It's tragic, to be sure, but it's just an expression of human nature to form in-groups and out groups. Religious chauvinism (or nationalism or racism or any of the others for that matter) do have something to do with branding in the sense that people reify and make a fetish out of whatever abstract symbol system gets embedded in their psyche. That's not to say that "Nike" and "Christianity" and "America" are the same, but that, at a superficial level, people put them to the same psychological use. And I don't really think that can be helped insofar as it is simply a part of being human. We could regret the fact that we have to kill animals and plants in order to survive but, again, while tragic, I can't call it regrettable.
"The fundamental rule of political analysis from the point of psychology is, follow the sacredness, and around it is a ring of motivated ignorance."
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: The Sham

Post by Enki »

Juggernaut Nihilism wrote: Agree with Ibrahim here, for the most part. It is just too easy to take the "God is one, the sages call him by different names" idea too far into pop New Age land, white washing the important and fundamental differences. It is too easy to assume that "spiritual growth" means movement toward homogenization and unity.
But I never assumed such a thing. Usually only the straw man rebuttal assumes such things. I am just saying that 'spiritual growth' is spiritual growth. Assuming that there is such a thing as spirit, that the spirit may grow and become more than what it currently is. Doesn't necessarily mean homogenization as much as it means that the multiple different spiritual identities can interact on a higher and wiser level with one another.
It rests on what I think is a naive wishful fallacy: that all conflict and disagreement and violence are the result of some misunderstand, some accident, and that if only people saw things clearly, none of those things would exist. I just can't see any reason to think that's true, at least for this world.
No, it's based off of the notion of file deletion, at the very root of it. If you delete a file that supports the other program, then your program gets more of the resources of the processor. (To use a computer metaphor) Spiritual growth is not fully and completely about an alteration in understanding, it's about an alteration in a state of being. Literally the need for the resources that one competes for can be transcended. When one transcends competition for a particular resource, then combat for control of that resource ceases.
Where I part ways with him is that I don't think it's regrettable that people become tribalistic over religion. It's tragic, to be sure, but it's just an expression of human nature to form in-groups and out groups. Religious chauvinism (or nationalism or racism or any of the others for that matter) do have something to do with branding in the sense that people reify and make a fetish out of whatever abstract symbol system gets embedded in their psyche. That's not to say that "Nike" and "Christianity" and "America" are the same, but that, at a superficial level, people put them to the same psychological use. And I don't really think that can be helped insofar as it is simply a part of being human. We could regret the fact that we have to kill animals and plants in order to survive but, again, while tragic, I can't call it regrettable.
And if you reach a certain level of enlightenment, Nike trainers become unecessary. Needing a fashion brand to complete your identity becomes obsolete. For instance, my goal when I put on fashion brands, is purely for other people's benefits. If I want to assimilate into a Wall Street crowd, I must alter certain aspects of my appearance. Those who I consider my actual peers are those who can see me regardless of what clothes I am wearing.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: The Sham

Post by noddy »

Simple Minded wrote:
Parodite wrote:
All ideologies are idiotic, whether religious or political, for it is conceptual thinking, the conceptual word, which has so unfortunately divided man.
- Jiddu Krishnamurti
Great quote Parodite.
without concepts you are stuck in reactive mode and dont get to plan/create much... anyway.

i think this is gobbedlygookery, its not the fault of conceptual thinking its about the diabolical irrational game between ego/arrogance/insecurity when dealing with the concepts :P

an insecure person will lash out at anything that affects their little ego, no concepts required... it can be as simple as walking past their front door.
ultracrepidarian
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: The Sham

Post by Enki »

I think we overemphasize the ego and being egoless as though it's important. The ego is simply the frontal cortex. Understanding that your mind is greater than just the frontal cortex and how to use the rest of your mind is important. All of this bashing of the ego, is in and of itself an ego loop.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: The Sham

Post by Ibrahim »

Enki wrote:I think we overemphasize the ego and being egoless as though it's important. The ego is simply the frontal cortex. Understanding that your mind is greater than just the frontal cortex and how to use the rest of your mind is important. All of this bashing of the ego, is in and of itself an ego loop.

By "we" do you mean Buddhists and some Hindus? Abrahamic religions are pretty friendly towards the ego for the most part, exceptions for some more mystical sects.
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: The Sham

Post by noddy »

Ibrahim wrote:
Enki wrote:I think we overemphasize the ego and being egoless as though it's important. The ego is simply the frontal cortex. Understanding that your mind is greater than just the frontal cortex and how to use the rest of your mind is important. All of this bashing of the ego, is in and of itself an ego loop.

By "we" do you mean Buddhists and some Hindus? Abrahamic religions are pretty friendly towards the ego for the most part, exceptions for some more mystical sects.

id say nothing brings out the dissonance within and between groups like this conversation ;P

in broadbrush cliche land i would agree that the abrahamics (westerners,arabs,jews) and the chinese are pretty damn big on it and that many of the southern hemisphere groupings (south east asia,india,pacific) have different views and are far more able to deal with complete difference and multiple options... less aggressively needy of everyone to agree with them... not so hung up on the "final solution" and "slippery slope" crap that westerners are obsessed with.

this isnt really satisifying as a position because both are capable of both but the baselines are different, india and south east asia have far far more diversity and far more different little groups living their own realities and the aforementioned northerners have long since slaughtered most of that away.

I will say I do have a real problem with the hyper ego aspects of the modern west, alas the fine lines between confidence and arrogance are always hard to put in to words.
ultracrepidarian
Simple Minded

Re: The Sham

Post by Simple Minded »

noddy wrote: in broadbrush cliche land i would agree that the abrahamics (westerners,arabs,jews) and the chinese are pretty damn big on it and that many of the southern hemisphere groupings (south east asia,india,pacific) have different views and are far more able to deal with complete difference and multiple options... less aggressively needy of everyone to agree with them... not so hung up on the "final solution" and "slippery slope" crap that westerners are obsessed with.
this isnt really satisifying as a position because both are capable of both but the baselines are different, india and south east asia have far far more diversity and far more different little groups living their own realities and the aforementioned northerners have long since slaughtered most of that away.

I will say I do have a real problem with the hyper ego aspects of the modern west, alas the fine lines between confidence and arrogance are always hard to put in to words.
Nicely put. The desire to continually broadbrush millions of people one has never met with intentionally vague labels such as Left, Right, Liberal, Conservative, Racist, Progressve, Enlightened, etc. seems a bizarre phenomena to my simple mind.

Hell hath no fury like the crusader for "diversity tolerance" who encounters one who disagrees with their chosen confirmation bais.......

Very easy to live in a Hell of one's own creation. It often seems just.
Post Reply