The Many Pathways to Bliss.

Share thoughts and ideas regarding what can be done to meet contemporary humanity's need for rites of initiation and passage.

Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.

Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra »

Who said we all have to follow an '...ism'?

Why is it being a control freak if one relates one's troubles to God and asks for guidance ?

Those self confessed atheists who never the less admit to a sizable unpredictability in existence, why should they be classified as ‘spiritual’ ?

Julia, I'm sorry but I can't re-write my previous post in a more concise manner ... if you don't understand it, please give me the benefit of doubt and read it again. Alternatively, you could talk about the stuff that you actually understood.
'A fish popped out of the water only to be recaptured again. It is as I, a slave to all yet free of everything.'
http://evinnra-evinnra.blogspot.com

somehopesnoregrets
Associate
Posts: 266
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 6:01 pm
Location: Northern California

Post by somehopesnoregrets »

Evinnra asks:Who said we all have to follow an '...ism'?
Evinnra wrote (previously): Environmentalism (six syllables, right?) as I see it is not merely an attempt to clean up our mess on this globe, not merely the aching for sustainability, self-reliance in energy/food/water resources, but also a cleaning up of our acts. Cutting out the ‘white noise’ and finally hearing the internal voice of preference is much the same – in my humble opinion - as internalising the truth of our context through love.
Sounded to me as if you considered that a positive development. Sorry if I misread you. I actually don't think we will be able to escape "-isms" in the long run. Seems to be a basic human trait to take direct experience and transform it into "-isms."
Evinnra asks:Why is it being a control freak if one relates one's troubles to God and asks for guidance?
It is not. I have no problem with anybody's asking for guidance, acceptance, willingness, courage, humility, or any other virtue that helps us be of service to others and the world. I do, however, consider people who routinely ask for material goods and divine favors, such as their own country or their own football team to be blessed over all others, as I've seen some people do (the same thing exists for non-anthropomorphized deities in form of "positive thinking" and/or visualizing personal gain, success, riches, fame, etc.) forms of "control freaks." That is exactly, why I limited my statement to "petitionary and intercessory forms of prayer." Sorry if that was misleading. Hope the above clarifies the point I was trying to make. I consider asking for guidance neither "petitionary" (something asked or requested) nor "intercessory" (the act of interceding in God's plan rather than offering myself up to it). Maybe instead of saying "petitionary" or "intercessory" prayer, I should rather say "greedy" or "superstitious" prayer. Would that make more sense?
Evinnra asks: Those self confessed atheists who never the less admit to a sizable unpredictability in existence, why should they be classified as 'spiritual'?
Evinnra wrote (previously): atheism does not fit Buddhism, Taoism or even Scientology for the simple fact that none of these ‘…isms’ deny a sizable unpredictability influencing ALL outcomes. The common sense view of atheism – I think – is that the impersonal nature of forces governing existence is largely predictable. [...] An atheist would say: I can learn the scientific laws governing existence, since I can internalise the truths of these laws intellectually.
Seemed to me that this was what you were doing here. My mistake.

Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy »

Ladies and gentleman, this is a fascinating and marvelously sustained conversation. ( I hope you're saving your posts elsewhere for posterity, as I do with mine when such threads occur. Alas, time will bury bury this topic eventually, and you may very well want to recall one post in particular and searching can be frustrating!)

I have a moment to jump in...

Evinnra, it has been my observation that people follow their desires, and other people label that desire with an -ism. We do have an awful habit of labeling and pigeon holing and not always because we like things nice and neat.

Sometimes so we can minimize and dismiss.

Sometimes the atheist will do this to the theist and vice-versa, basically in order to reject the validity of the other's 'pathway to bliss.' I see this sort of thing at the opposing fringes of our 'culture wars,' where each side uses very disturbing language to describe 'the other.'

Essentially, it seems others have to be wrong for one to be right. At the risk of sounding a bit dismissive myself, I often wonder if such a view is the result of an imagination deficit. Compassion and empathy require a fairly developed imagination and a deep comprehension of the noble abstracts like justice, liberty, god, love, etc.

I'm not sure of the relationship between imagination and the ability to understand abstracts, but it does seem that the more concrete, and absolute, the thinking, the greater the deficit in either area.

Vocabulary like 'theist' and 'atheist' tend to, in my mind, radiate an inability, or an unwillingness, to fully appreciate an individual's perspective. I've long felt that one of the drawbacks of our Judeo-Christian heritage has been the pigeon holing of 'god,' so that, from either side, there is no other way of thinking about it. There are theists who would be quite certain of my atheism, and atheists just as certain of my theism and both sides positive that I'm wrong either way.

One hopes that we live in an age in which an individual's own world view can be more accepted as valid as any other, and that this attitude is becoming more and more accepted.

(Oooops! I think I just committed a moral relativism!)

It won't surprise anyone to know that I disagree with Noman's "hippy-liberalism" causing a surge in religious fundamentalism. One of the many results of the 60's and early 70's was the questioning of our heretofore unquestionable cultural parameters.

Questioning god, and his arbitrary rules and regulations, being one of them.

The 1920's and the 1890's were very similar in the infusion of new ideas and technology. The result of both decades, just like the 1960's, was a surge in conservative fundamentalism.

Change is scary, especially if it dismantles your comfy spot in the world.

Cheers,
Clemsy
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

noman
Associate
Posts: 670
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:26 am

Post by noman »

More on Atheism
Just want to emphasize that, even by NoMan's definition as non-spirituality, "atheism" doesn't automatically equal "villainism" in my book.

- SomeHopes
I understood that feeling of yours from the start. But as I pointed out, ‘my’ definition was also your definition when you used the expression ‘atheists and spiritual types’. It is also closer to the definition currently in use as I explained in my last post quoting belief.net. And Campbell refers to the elemental deities from the East as gods. To say Eastern religions are atheistic is to degrade them from a Western point of view – implying they are not ‘real’ religion.

But in order to get your feeling about atheism across you talk about the definition of the word.

Here is what I said:
Though I’ve just peeked through the window on this subject of Buddhism and its history I gather that the American manifestation of it is something new arrived at through synchronicity. But in my mind, it is still traditional, based on thousands of years of tradition. But it certainly does not fall into the category of atheism.

Atheism (in my definition) is anti-spiritualism.

- NoMan
And here is how you quoted me.
But it certainly does not fall into the category of atheism.
- Noman
Oh, yes it does, by most people's definition of the word at least.
athe•ism Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity
Most people’s definition of the word ‘atheism’ at least in the West, is the way both you and I used it prior to you posting the dictionary definition of the word. That is what I explained in my last post.

But you could have saved a great deal of pixels and mental energy simply by addressing the real issue for you - that of how you feel about atheism rather than worrying about the way both you and I happened to be using the word.

My interpretation of your feelings on atheism is that you see atheism as somewhere between enlightened liberal Buddhist heaven you operate in, and fundamentalist conservative hell that you hate. Or another way to look at it is that atheists are the enemy of your enemy and so they are your friends.

But I see fundamentalism and atheism as two untenable and opposite positions. Well, untenable for me anyway – I shouldn’t speak for others. But from surveying your philosophy of religion from these conversations I don’t really think there is too much difference in our positions. If you read the first line of my ‘worst generation’ thread you’ll see that I’m not too thrilled with fundamentalism as well.


More on ‘Accuracy’


Science as a tool cannot produce certainty. At best, we can conduct science with precision and accuracy. Accuracy means closeness of our particular estimate or calculation to what we are trying to measure. Precision means that the outcomes of different measurements I conduct are located in a fairly narrow area, with little spread. But there is always a measure of uncertainty in any science, and if I, as a scientist, don't see that then I'm kidding myself. Scientists who don't get that are in the wrong business. I know this sounds a bit arrogant, but I'm rather certain about that. And I do understand that such certainty is rather un-scientific...

- SomeHopes


* * * * * * *

You may conduct science with precision but how will you be so cocksure that you are conducting science with accuracy. It may be very accurate, or it may not be accurate. This is where belief comes in and makes a mess of things. But you act as though this is no problem if the methods are sound.

- Noman

* * * * * * *

Actually, I did not mean accurate in reference to any external reality. That would in fact be a form of hubris on my part.

- SomeHopes
Definitions again.

The words precision and accuracy are very basic concepts in science. There is not much room for semantic play. (though I know you will find room). Here is the definition from Wiki:
accuracy is the degree of conformity of a measured or calculated quantity to its actual (true) value.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision
You used an old metaphor in this thread that I’ve always liked. You said we are an island of knowledge in an ocean of mystery. The way I heard the metaphor used, ‘as the island grows, so grows the shoreline of that mystery’. Science is about exploring that ocean of mystery, about discovering the unknown.

Before Einstein, astronomers thought they were getting an accurate measurement of the relative distance between stars. They may have been very precise in their measurements. They may not have been sloppy at all. But Einstein explained that those measurements may not be accurate due to the fact that light can be bent by gravity.

It is just the most plain, simple, basic concept about science. That you can never be sure if what you are measuring is close to that ‘true’ or ‘correct’ value. And anyone who has taken a high school science course has seen and explanation of the words ‘precision’ and ‘accurate’ with the depictions of targets as shown at the Wiki site and many other websites.

But you decide to use the word ‘accuracy’ to mean ‘not sloppy’.

If I count, I can count accurately or sloppily. If I calculate, I can do so accurately or sloppily.

- SomeHopes
But in common use, sloppiness is usually associated with imprecision. If an experiment is done over and over again and the measurement is the same, then it is precise. Though it may or may not be accurate.

So I say to myself, okay, she decided, on a whim, to use the word ‘accuracy’ in her own peculiar way, but neglected to mention it to me (unlike my using the word ‘atheism’ in which I clearly stated that I was using the word in way not defined in a dictionary)

But my impression of your thought processes doesn’t hold up – because when you first used the word ‘accuracy’ you said this:

Accuracy means closeness of our particular estimate or calculation to what we are trying to measure.

- SomeHopes
“What we are trying to measure” – is the ‘actual (true) value’ in the Wiki definition.

Why complexify the situation with a semantic shift on the word 'accuracy' the way you complexified the situation with a semantic shift on the word 'atheism'? This is what I mean by a psycho-semantic game that goes nowhere special.


- NoMan

somehopesnoregrets
Associate
Posts: 266
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 6:01 pm
Location: Northern California

Post by somehopesnoregrets »

But as I pointed out, ‘my’ definition was also your definition when you used the expression ‘atheists and spiritual types’.
Actually, it wasn't. When I used the expression "atheist and spiritual types," I was not doing so to denote polar opposites but merely listing different expressions of the same thing. Then you quoted me with your interpretation of that statement and I winced; but not enough to clarify and risk being accused of starting another unnecessary tangent. NO, I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT CONSIDER ATHEISM THE OPPOSITE OF SPIRITUALITY. If that's how you read what I wrote, you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I merely tried to say that what matters is the attitude and perspective. Transcendent mystics can be found amongst secular humanists just as they can be found amongst conventionally religious people. People caught in hardened dualistic value judgments as well as pragmatics can be found in both the conventionally spiritual and the conventionally non-spiritual. To me that means that the distinction into spiritual and non-spiritual is rather superficial and pointless, since I consider the main difference the focus of that person's practice or non-practice (self-transcendent, overly dualistic, or pragmatic synthesis... of course this is an oversimplification, there are all kinds of different shades of gray between these extremes), not their defining themselves as practicing or non-practicing. To me that self-definition into "spiritual" and "non-spiritual" types is not more important to me than if they have blue or brown eyes or if their noses are long or short. Yes, some people make a big deal out of nose length, but I'm not one of them.

However, since that distinction seemed to matter to you, I begrudgingly accepted it for the duration of this thread.

Hope this makes some kind of sense to you. I'm not even sure if it makes sense to me.
;-)
This is what I mean by a psycho-semantic game that goes nowhere special.
Actually, that wasn't a game, just a moment of confusion and sloppiness, as well as lack of semantic precision and accuracy on my part. Another reason I'm keen on definitions. Not only do they make it easier for us to be on the same page when talking but it also helps me stay on track when I think about such topics by myself. When I don't clearly define terms I use, then this is exactly what happens. Meanings shift, and I might not even notice. Often I get away with that, because some people are too impressed with my long sentences and fancy words... But, nooo, not NoMan! Which is why I enjoy this conversation, even though stretches of it can be irritating for both of us. In my opinion that is a "good" and healthy irritation. Like an herbal soak that makes your skin tingle, a verbal soaks get to tickle our brains. Ideally, that stimulation lures out wisdom and put ego to sleep for a moment, but that doesn't always work. Worth the effort, I guess.
But in common use, sloppiness is usually associated with imprecision. If an experiment is done over and over again and the measurement is the same, then it is precise. Though it may or may not be accurate.
Makes sense. Good call.
But you could have saved a great deal of pixels and mental energy simply by addressing the real issue for you - that of how you feel about atheism rather than worrying about the way both you and I happened to be using the word.
Actually, no, I'm not sure I could have. My opinions tend to be works in progress. I often start a discussion with one particular position and then either integrate what the other person says and change my mind or find myself having certain emotional reactions to what is being said and probe those in my own thinking, coming to greater clarity of why I believe what I believe. I consider none of my beliefs sacred (even though some of them, e.g. the beliefs in tolerance, love, and wisdom, are dearer to my heart than others). All of them are subject to periodic (and some even on-going) re-evaluation. Shifts in meaning are a natural result of that process. I'm sorry if that can be annoying or confusing. Some of those issues might seem more "real" to you than others, but most of them emerge through the act of my mulling them over with others or in contrast to what others say. Therefore, I don't think any of the pixels and mental energy have been wasted.
With them, the "real issue" is one thing. Without them, it would be something else.

I'm actually not too happy with your use of the word "feeling" here (see my sermon about this to Evinnra further above, which you considered as pointless tangent). The value of atheism as yet another perfectly legitimate approach at truth- and wisdom finding is an opinion on my part, not a feeling. The irritation that arises when it seems to me that you are misunderstanding me, is a feeling. But the idea "he's misunderstanding me" is NOT a feeling but a thought (or, if you prefer that term, a judgment). The happiness and joy that arise when I suddenly notice something I didn't see before are feelings. But the realization "that is new!" is a thought. Unfortunately, the way the English language is commonly used, we tend to mix and mush thoughts and feelings a lot. I am guilty of that myself on many counts. For example, I tend to often add "I feel" to opinions that I describe here on the forum, just to qualify them and
emphasize that I consider those outgrowths of my perspective rather than absolute truths or to specify that what I just said is based on an intuitive rather than an empirical process. Maybe I should be clearer and more precise about my wording in those contexts, in order to more accurately describe the underlying internal processes. On the other hand, I might then end up using even more pixels. Linguistic inefficiencies due to unnecessary over-explaining might be one of the possible banes of the non-native speaker and writer. Even though I feel very much at home in my chosen language, English, there are moments when I find out that I use some it differently from the way other people do. I'm not fishing for compliments here, just for understanding and patience.
My interpretation of your feelings on atheism is that you see atheism as somewhere between enlightened liberal Buddhist heaven you operate in, and fundamentalist conservative hell that you hate. Or another way to look at it is that atheists are the enemy of your enemy and so they are your friends.
Good try. No, that's completely off. Are you sure you're not projecting here? I don't care about liberal Buddhism. I don't mind it, but what matters to me is the practice of sitting. The underlying concepts are simply mind candy, but the sitting is the substantial nourishment. I might come across as a liberal Buddhist, but I am simply practicing with Buddhists, because I got to know them as open-minded, intelligent, and pleasant people. For over a year, I did go to both my Buddhist temple and a (fundamentalist) Missionary Baptist Church in the poor, mostly black part of town. I loved the emotional intensity, the prayer, and the singing. I disliked that I wasn't able to be open about my less conventional attitudes towards sexuality without completely shocking the sweet little old church ladies, who embraced me and from whom I learned so much. I still use what I was taught there when I pray, to this day. At the same time I felt sad for the lack of education and opportunity many of the people at this church (including the pastor) had experienced during their upbringing (and tremendous gratitude for the education that I had received, not due to merit but simply due to the chance of what one might call a "lucky birth." So, no, I don't "hate" fundamentalism, I really don't think I do. Even though I of course, as usual, make room for the possibility that I might just be in utter denial. What bothers me is the way that fundamentalism is seeping into politics, the judiciary, and the administrations here. To me that's a problematic and dangerous development. But I honestly don't hate the people who are part of this development, because I trust that they aren't truly evil folks but simply well-meaning but misguided (with the less closed-minded of them potentially thinking just the same thing about me).
But I see fundamentalism and atheism as two untenable and opposite positions.
I generally don't consider them opposites but variations on the same theme, but I understand your position, even though I don't share it right now. I do share it, during the depressed states of my mind, actually. Fortunately I don't experience those as often as I used to when I was younger. To me both of them, (your definition of) fundamentalism and (your definition of) atheism, if I understand both of them correctly, are simply hardened forms of personal dogma that result in a narrowed perspective, which forgets that true wisdom is neither found in extremes nor in bland, lukewarm wishy-washy-ness (even non-extreme-ness can be pushed to an extreme), but in a healthy and dynamic balance of passionate engagement of one's own experience and calm mindfulness. I don't believe we find this in any philosophy, not even liberal Buddhism, but only in life itself.

With loving respect,
:-) Julia

noman
Associate
Posts: 670
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:26 am

Post by noman »

Okay SomeHopes,

You got game. I can say that for you. If I try to simplify with definitions you will complexify by saying there are shades of grey. If I try to simplify with by using very loose and broad definitions you will come back by saying we need to define terms so we can be on the same page. Even in your evasiveness you seem totally transparent to me. You’re a Zen master! But I do admire your command of the language.

The heart of the problem with the word ‘atheism’ seems to be the wince factor. You have an emotional stake in the word that I don’t quite understand. I don’t get angry at the differing meanings of words, or the way words are used. I have my preferences. But your objection to the way I used the word just seemed like mindless antagonistic word play – because I knew you understood me – and I couldn’t see why anyone having an emotional stake in the word ‘atheism’. My bad.

(This reminds me of a discussion we had in these forums trying to define the words ‘sexual freedom’. I said that I thought the word ‘freedom’ should mean freedom. And the word ‘morality’ should mean morality, and why infect the word freedom with morals. But I wasn’t angry about it. I just thought I had the best way to use the English language.)

For clarity’s sake, I will refer to NPG-atheism (no personal god atheism) and NS-atheism (non-spirituality atheism) to distinguish the two different meanings that we both recognized from the start.

If I learn that someone is an NPG-atheist, this gives me very little useful information about the person’s spiritual life except that he is not into traditional Western religion. He could be the holiest monk in all of Southeast Asia for all I know, or he could be a shallow minded American that has no interest in religion or spirituality at all. It just doesn’t seem all that useful a distinction.

In POM Joseph Campbell relates the story of how he is asked by a priest if he believed in a personal God. Campbell makes a point of emphasizing the word ‘personal’. And as I recall, Campbell answers ‘no’. But how often do you hear Campbell referred to as an atheist – except by some Koran thumping fundamentalist? I just can’t see him rubbing shoulders with the Richard Dawkins crowd. He’d fit in better in an open-minded church or temple.

You say that NPG-atheists can experience transcendence. I just don’t see the significance in that. Why not call these people – transcendentalists – or something like that - to distinguish them from the NPG-atheists that don’t experience transcendence? It doesn’t click for me – but – you have - every right - to feel - the way you do.

I just don’t see why you have to feel at all! There might be a quantum leap in high quality information I can extract from you. I’ll be back with some questions – soon.

- NoMan

Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy »

This comic relief brought to you by your friendly neighborhood mod squad, courtesy of last weeks edition of the Ironic Times.
RELIGION
Survey: 21% of Atheists
Believe in God, 10% Pray
One out of four atheists not sure what “atheist” means.
Now, Ironic Times always takes current news and gives it a satirical spin.... but this one they really didn't have to play with too much.

This is from the Washington Post article about this poll:
Even Americans who describe themselves as atheist or agnostic have a robust sense of a higher power: Twenty-one percent of those who describe themselves as atheists expressed a belief in God or a universal spirit, and more than half of those who call themselves agnostic expressed a similar conviction.

Smith said some people may identify with the term atheist or agnostic without fully understanding the definition, or they have a negative view of organized religion, even though they believe in God. LINK

As we live in a society that's more used to being told what god is, rather than being taught to come to one's own conclusion, no wonder people get all tangled up in the vocabulary when some go ahead and think for themselves anyway and decide that "I'm not that."

Of course Campbell had a thing or two to say on such thinking, no?
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

noman
Associate
Posts: 670
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:26 am

Post by noman »

SomeHopes,

earlier in this thread I quoted from Don Lattin’s 2003 book titled Following Our Bliss: How the Spiritual Ideals of the Sixties Shape our Lives Today. He is quite the savvy religious journalist having written the religious column in the San Francisco Chronicle for nearly two decades. Here is a little bio:

http://donlattin.com/pageprofile/dl_profile.html

He quotes Marianne Williamson and then makes some comments on what she said.
P57 What we need, Williamson says, is love. And, as Jesus said, that means loving our enemies. “What I need healed is my left-wing arrogance that I know more than they do,” Marianne confessed. “I have to be harmless in my heart toward George Bush. As Martin Luther King said, you have no persuasive power among people who feel your underlying contempt.”


Williamson’s confession points to one of the pricklier legacies of the Sixties, the feeling that it was us against them. There was a real feeling of “Whose side are you on?” It was culture or counterculture. Establishment or antiestablishment. Black or white. Gay or straight. Sexist or feminist. Young or old. Those divisions remain in many ways, but especially in the realm of race, economics, religion, and politics. Blame the white man. Blame the black man. Blame the Jews. Blame the religious right. Blame the secular left.


Can the New Age Left get it together, form real political coalitions, and truly change the world? It’s a tall order, Williamson says, but now is the time. “This is the baby boomers’ last chance.”


In the sixties, we were stopped by conditions outside ourselves and conditions inside ourselves. Often, we were stoned on one thing or another. But there is a sobriety among us now – at least among enough of us. We want to take one more shot at it.”


We can always hope, but it seems like Marianne Williamson took her shot and missed. Her efforts to go beyond personalized spirituality and to inspire social engagement were admirable but ultimately unsuccessful. Williamson was supposed to be one of the big draws at MasterPeace 2001, but the Stanford conference was a financial disaster.



Following Our Bliss, Don Lattin, 2003
And I said in this thread in response to this quote:
The prickly legacy of which Don Lattin speaks is what I was ranting and raving about in the ‘worst generation’ thread. Hopefully, it’s boomer thing.

- NoMan
And you said in response to what Don Lattin said (posted in bold above):
See, and to me that's no true "enlightenment," but simply good old duallism dressed in new bell-bottoms, with a cool soundtrack. But I wonder if that was the entire movement or just the political activist angle. I personally love the ideas of "Make love not war" and "Fighting for peace is like f*cking for virginity."

- SomeHopes
The paragraph that you quoted of Lattin (in bold above) was the theme of my ‘worst generation’ thread. It was something I knew from experience. And after researching a bit – I read Don Lattin stating this idea in the most clear, plain and simple, understandable, and concise language possible. It was something he said in passing. It wasn't a major theme in his book.


But you say that this observation by Don Lattin is not true “enlightenment” with scare quotes around the word enlightenment. If you know something Don Lattin doesn’t know, if you know what true enlightenment is, I’d like to hear about it.

The ‘good old dualism’ and continuing dualism is what the culture wars is all about. I don’t know what to make of your cutsie metaphor about bell bottoms. That doesn’t provide much info on what is wrong with Don Lattin’s observation.

Then you suggest that this may be just the political activist’s angle. But Don Lattin speaks of ‘one of the pricklier legacies of the 60s’. The words ‘one of’ implies that there are others. So it seems rather obvious that he is referring to the political legacy – the culture wars – and not the whole enchilada.

Then – after stating the obvious - that there was more to the 60s than politics and the divisive culture wars you quote your preference for a couple of slogans from the left side of the culture wars - about 'making love not war' etc.

I know you are not a boomer, but I’m afeard you’ve been infected. First you state that the dualism is wrong – that thinking in those terms is not true “enlightenment”. Then you state your preference for the Left.

And this is exactly what I was trying to convey in my ‘worst generation’ thread. It’s the persistent belief that ‘true enlightenment’ as you put it, is knowing that the your side is good and the other side is evil. And your counterpart on the Right is saying the same thing. There is no dualism. That is not enlightenment – or correct thinking. I am right, and she is wrong.

I’m lucky to have Clemsy to indulge me on this issue. He says he can’t see liberal hippyism as the cause of conservative fundamentalism. But just to see this from a Boomer fundamentalist’s point of view - who would you rather have as your leader?

This man?

Image
Charlie Manson

Or this man?

Image
Jerry Falwell


That’s why we have fundamentalists in the White House.

- NoMan

Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy »

Noman, proving your point by reducing it to the psychosis of Charlie Manson vs. the spiritual tyranny of Jerry Falwell? From a boomer fundamentalist"s point of view?

Charlie Manson is the fundamentalist's spokesperson for 'hippy-liberalism' ? Really?

That would be not only ignorant, but facile and sensationalistic.

Actually, I think even the fundamentalist would be more likely to choose someone that would make sense, like John Lennon.

Both sides would agree but have a completely different opinion of the man.

Actually, Falwell and Manson have quite a bit in common. One just tweaked by quite a few more twists of the wire. They both had a dogmatic ideology (and believing the Teletubbies were part of the 'gay agenda', that people can be turned into pillars of salt for turning around or that some guy collected a pair of every creature on earth for a boat ride isn't that far off from believing Helter Skelter was the call to a racial war the aftermath of which will be lorded over by a chosen people) and attracted people who preferred or required a father figure to tell them what and how to think.

I try to think of this as a human condition, not a weakness. I admit to not being totally successful in the attempt.

Discussion of Manson may very well belong over in the thread about The Dark Knight. There really is a "Joker' feel to the man.

Consider: Manson is responsible for the brutal murder of a number of people. LBJ and Nixon were responsible for the slaughter of over one million Vietnamese men, women and children, as well as the deaths of over 50,000 Americans and the ruin of countless more American lives.

Which, of course, inspired the counterculture among those most likely to be affected by the war, and those most likely to question authority: boomers.

Of Mr. Falwell, a supporter of that war,:
Falwell strongly supported racial segregation. In 1965, he gave a sermon at his Thomas Road Baptist Church criticizing Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Civil rights movement, which he sometimes referred to as the "Civil Wrongs Movement". On his Evangelist program The Old-Time Gospel Hour in the mid 1960s, he regularly featured segregationist politicians like Lester Maddox and George Wallace.[
Both Charlie and Jerry were racists who really had no problem with killing people.

I'm sure they would both say they were on their Pathways to Bliss.

Two peas in a pod.

If Charlie had short hair and wore a suit, the thought wouldn't even have entered your mind.

Yeah. John Lennon would be the fundamentalists' very devil. In fact...

Image

He was!

Cheers,
Clemsy

Oh yes, we have an oil man, not a fundamentalist, in the White House because greed and power are very organized and, alas, have an amoral compass.
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy »

Noman, I will give you this: extremism begets extremism. However, fundamentalists were around long before Tim Leary and, as I've argued before this, react to keep others from walking their own pathway to bliss in the mistaken certainty that the existence of any other 'way' nullifies their own.
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

somehopesnoregrets
Associate
Posts: 266
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 6:01 pm
Location: Northern California

Post by somehopesnoregrets »

I was just out of town without e-mail access for a few days, so I'll have to sit with your posts a bit, NoMan, in order to not answer too hastily. In thinking about some of our conversations during my trip, a question kept hitting my consciousness. Let's put aside how truly inspired or completely inaccurate your analysis of fundamentalism as a direct reaction to and effect of misguided hippie-counter-culture might be and look at the next step: If that is your truth, if that is what life teaches you, then...

...what will you be doing with this knowledge??? (and, no, simply talking and writing to other people, trying to convince them, and attempting to spread the idea doesn't count to me as "doing"--I mean a change in daily habits and attitudes outside of the realm of discourse and talking)

How does it affect your own practice? How do you notice misguided do-goodism in your own life and what are you, yourself, doing in order to recognize tendencies towards hardened thought patterns (if any) in yourself? It seems to me that even the keenest analysis is nothing but hot air if it isn't followed by practical action or a change in attitude. So, how does what you found out affect what you do and how you interact with other human beings?

If that is too personal a question and you don't feel comfortable answering it, feel free to happily ignore it. It is not my intention to put you on the spot here, but this is my true area of interest: not the theories we come up with but the practice those theories do inspire in individual lives. I am flattered by your assumption that I am a Zen master, but I am afraid I might simply be talking a good game. True Zen masters are measured not by their words but by their actions. In that regard I'm work in progress. I keep falling on my face a lot and there are many moments, when I look back at what I just did, in self-pity or pride, instead of being present with what is happening now. That does not feel like mastery. A Zen fool, maybe, who keeps tripping over her own giant shoes -- which isn't that bad a thing to be, I guess.

To me one action counts more than ten thousand words, and that fact is also one of the reasons I keep talking so much about my practice in these musings. It's not narcissistic pandering, I hope, but an attempt at directing this discussion towards what in my opinion truly matters: not ideas and opinions, but how those translate into practical action in the confusion of daily life.

Actually, there's another thing I want to address right away:
NoMan wrote: The heart of the problem with the word ‘atheism’ seems to be the wince factor. You have an emotional stake in the word that I don’t quite understand.
When you see somebody wince, please try to not automatically assume you know what they are wincing about. I have no problem at all with your using the term "atheism" in whatever way you choose. What bothers me is when you misread a simple list or enumeration that I give to you (atheism AND spiritual types) to be a description of two mutually exclusive polar opposites (atheists VERSUS spiritual types). Sorry if I might have said what I said in a way that promoted the misunderstanding. I never considered atheism to be the opposite of spirituality, but I don't mind it at all if you do. It's not because I'm emotionally over-attached to the words "atheism" or "types" (even though I must admit that I do have a certain attachment to a very specific, not exactly mainstream definition of "spiritual") that I objected but because I felt misunderstood, and I dislike misunderstandings. It's a personal weakness. By the way, neither of the quotation marks I'm using here are meant to be "scare-quotes;" they are simply attempts at differentiating the symbols/words/term "atheism," "types," and "spiritual" (the linguistic level of what we're discussing) from their respective meanings (the semantic level). Again, sorry if that wasn't clear from the context. If you're unfamiliar with that particular usage of quotation marks, it might be possible that it's a German thing. Would italics work better and be less loaded with additional, unintended meanings of artificial effect or sarcastic distance?

If you are curious about how I personally define the term atheist (if I remember correctly, you never actually asked me), I'd be happy to tell. It's rather easy. I consider atheists people who self-define as such, no matter what type of practice or non-practice they follow. I am much, much more picky in what I consider spiritual. For example, I consider neither Falwell's nor Manson's practice spiritual, even though most likely both of them would at least partially disagree with my assessment. What I in fact consider spiritual (or enlightened-- I consider these two synonyms) is something, which to explain will take more time. I promise that this is not a cop-out but that I will return to this topic in a later post. (Did those italics work better than the quotation marks in denoting the difference between semantic and linguistic levels?)

BTW, since we're talking of wincing: I'm also kind of uncomfortable each time I read "NS-atheist," because as somebody who grew up in Germany, the abbreviation "NS" seems to, in my mind, be firmly associated with "National-Socialists" (Hitler's Nazi-Party). Unless that is an association that you find helpful, could you settle for "NP-atheist" (no-practice-atheist) instead, or does that not cover the same territory you were trying to encompass? (this might of course tick-off the neuro-linguistic programming folks; well, we can't make everybody happy, can we?)

Clemsy, your "Ironic Times" post brought up a few interesting thoughts.
Clemsy quoted the following:
RELIGION
Survey: 21% of Atheists
Believe in God, 10% Pray
One out of four atheists not sure what “atheist” means.
That's pretty funny and, at the same time, quite interesting. I actually consider that a positive development. Sounds as if more and more people come to an intimately personal relationship with their own spirituality. I have a strong distrust in all kinds of organized religion. Attempting to organize and institutionalize tends to chase away both transcendence and Spirit, I found. This reminds me of something I read in one of my psychological journals, according to which (sorry, don't remember the actual numbers) in the general population the people who believe in God outnumber the people who pray, while amongst psychologists it is the other way around. There are quite a few psychologists, who are happy, well-adjusted NPG-atheists, but who nevertheless consider prayer a helpful and healthy tool.
This is from the Washington Post article about this poll: "Even Americans who describe themselves as atheist or agnostic have a robust sense of a higher power: Twenty-one percent of those who describe themselves as atheists expressed a belief in God or a universal spirit, and more than half of those who call themselves agnostic expressed a similar conviction."
This reminds me of a recent discussion in an extended nursing mommy Yahoo group, of which I am a member. Many of the moms in that group self-identify as Christian. Some of them sound more tolerant than others. The group is not limited to nursing related topics. Amongst other things, we had a recent discussion on creationism and evolution. Turns out that most of the Christian women on that group feel that the belief in creation and the belief in evolution are fully compatible. I pointed out to them that, based on the ideas they were sharing, they would not qualify as "creationists" in the true sense of the word. Turns out that they interchangeably used the terms "believing in creation" and "believing in creationism," not at all differing between the two, even though, upon further probing, it turned out that they did not at all support some of the core convictions of creationISM (e.g. lobbying for giving Christian creation myths equal treatment compared with evolution in biology classes). That made me wonder a bit about the horrendous statistics about fundamentalism in the U.S. Who knows, maybe there are quite a few people who simply misunderstood the question, and things don't look as dire after all?

Ever the optimist,
:-) Julia

Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy »

That made me wonder a bit about the horrendous statistics about fundamentalism in the U.S. Who knows, maybe there are quite a few people who simply misunderstood the question, and things don't look as dire after all?
Hi Julia!

Yes, I do agree here. Being an English teacher manning the trenches against fuzzy thinking, I return to my point about our cultural abstraction deficit and the tendency for people to have no other schema than the Judeo-Christian for god.

I have a rather strong feeling therein lies the answer to the atheists who do believe in a 'higher power.'

How many Americans have a clue as to what 'impersonal god' means?

Returning to the question of abstracts, some time ago I purchased Myths, Dreams, and Religion: Eleven Visions of Connection, an anthology of essays edited by Campbell. The first essay, by Alan Watts, was brilliant and I absorbed it with delight. The second, however, ("Orestes: Myth and dream as Catharsis" by David Miller) stuffed my head with cotton and I abandoned it. Some time later I tried again and the same thing happened. Instead of giving up, I asked myself what was blocking my comprehension. The central theme of the essay is that Orestes is the model for modern man, not Orpheus (Rilke), Oedipus (Freud), Prometheus (Kerenyi) or Sisyphus (Camus).

I realized I had a fairly complete schema for each of these characters... but not for Orestes. Hell, it's been about thirty years since I visited Aeschylus. So I took my yellowed Penguin Classic off the shelves and sat down with the Oresteian Trilogy.

I quickly became amazed by a theme, justice, worked out so brilliantly two and a half millenia ago, and find myself exasperated that we're still struggling with that same theme: justice.

More later... gotta run.
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

bodhibliss
Working Associate
Posts: 1659
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 5:00 am

Post by bodhibliss »

noman wrote:He says he can’t see liberal hippyism as the cause of conservative fundamentalism. But just to see this from a Boomer fundamentalist’s point of view - who would you rather have as your leader?

This man?

Image
Charlie Manson

Or this man?

Image
Jerry Falwell


That’s why we have fundamentalists in the White House.
Gee - talk about a Hobson's choice! Then again, you could have replaced Manson's image with Ted Kennedy or Mother Teresa (no fundamentalist) to explain why we have fundamentalists in the White House - but that would miss the sensationalism factor.

And, of course, that logic ultimately fails come January 20, 2009, when, no matter who wins the election, a fundamentalist will no longer be running the White House.

We've been through this discussion before. Though I'd rather not belabor the point, since I and my many hippie friends (some of whom are legislators, while others are major philanthropists, religious leaders, and innovators in education, technology, and the private sector) are thus tied by implied association to Manson, I feel the need to challenge misimpressions that might otherwise be accepted by those who have not explored the history of the era.

Manson, of course, preyed on hippies, but in terms of culture and biography was no hippie.

Is he the face of "hippyism"? Maybe - as the creator of the category of "hippyism" and, as far as I know, it's only proponent, you're free to define this nonexistent movement any way you wish, Noman.

But is Charlie Manson the face of the actual hippies? Pure evil? Really, now, think about that a moment ...

At least you've chosen a real fundamentalist to represent fundamentalists - why not choose a real hippie to represent hippies? If the choice were between Jerry Falwell and Wavy Gravy, fundamentalists would almost universally choose Falwell and your point would be made (though I suspect that many Associates, myself included, would prefer Wavy, whereas no one would choose Manson).

Or do you stick with Manson because it's difficult to find real hippies who embody evil?

I've often wondered what those who blame society's ills on hippies (a more polite phrase than hippie-haters) would do if Manson had preyed on some other social group? Thank god there was at least one manipulative mass murdering evil-doer out of the seven million who used LSD so we can claim he is the face of "hippyism" - and, again thanks to the sensationalism of the media and the naivete' of the public, Manson is indeed what's scary about hippies for so many older Americans - but why encourage such ignorance?

Manson may have had the requisite wardrobe, coiffure, and illicit substances, but he is the direct antithesis of the bedrock of hippie culture.

Far from a product of the youth culture, Manson was well over 30 by the Summer of Love. He spent most of the 60s not at the corner of Haight and Ashbury in San Francisco, but in the United States penitentiary (arrested in Laredo, Texas, in June of 1960 for a violation of the Mann Act - white slavery - tried in L.A. on check-cashing charges ,sentenced to 10 years in prison and transferred to Washington until his release, on March 21, 1967! )

So from 1960 through early 1967, during the years the hippie culture formed, evolved, and came of age, Manson was safely locked a thousand miles away. He arrived in San Francisco just in time for the Summer of Love, as thousands of teenagers descended on the Haight Ashbury neighborhood and Golden Gate Park - hippie wannabes, ripe for the plucking. Manson's reception was cool from hippie elders who looked on him with suspicion, but he played the guru to young waifs recently arrived, and before the end of summer struck out with a group of them for southern California. (Jerry Garcia and the Grateful Dead, for example, recognized Manson for the con artist he was, and not a true hippie, so refrained from dealings with him during his brief visit to San Francisco in 1967)

This is one instance where the popular hippie advice to "never trust anyone over 30" holds true.

Hippies taught peace and love, tolerance, free love, and non-attachment, while eschewing violence, hierarchy, authority and power. They were apolitical, despised as much by liberals as conservatives (and most hippies I know today who remain true to their heritage tend to be more suspicious of liberals than conservatives - at least you know where you stand with conservatives).

In contrast, Manson preached hatred and race war, controlled who could have sex with whom among his disciples, wielded cult-like control over his Family, and, through more-or-less random, bloody killings of innocent people, sought to precipitate chaos and revolution ("helter skelter") that would leave him in control of the post-apocalyptic survivors.

To continue promoting Manson as representative of the hippie movement strikes me as akin to claiming Barack Obama is a Muslim, or that John McCain is the Manchurian candidate and, as president, will follow the orders of the Communist overlords who brainwashed him when he was a POW in Vietnam.

Certainly there are hooks for these projections in the popular imagination, but why encourage such poppycock?

I am deeply offended by the repeated use of this stereotype, as it tars myself and so many others who have contributed to our society, from Ken Kesey, Stewart Brand, Ram Dass, Allen Ginsberg, and Jerry Garcia, to Steve Jobs and even Ben & Jerry, with the broad brush of guilt-by-association - the penultimate ad hominem argument, which could only be trumped if there were some way to tie hippies to Hitler.

This isn't to say your overall argument has no merit, Noman - but there are ways to make your point without returning to this image. I would appreciate it if you would consider my feelings, and those of the many JCF associates (not to mention friends and colleagues of Joseph Campbell) whose participation and positive achievements in our society can be traced to their hippie roots.

Let's leave Manson in his cell.

namaste,
bodhibliss
Last edited by bodhibliss on Wed Aug 13, 2008 8:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.

somehopesnoregrets
Associate
Posts: 266
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 6:01 pm
Location: Northern California

Post by somehopesnoregrets »

with the broad brush of guilt-by-association - the penultimate ad hominem argument, which could only be trumped if there were some way to tie hippies to Hitler.
Back in Germany, I attended a lecture of a young, self-described humanist philosopher who did in fact render all of Norse mythology guilty by association with Hitler. His point was that, because the Nazis used some of those mythological figures, they were now permanently tainted. During the question and answer that followed, I innocently asked him if he also felt that it would not be a good idea to brush one's teeth, since Hitler most likely did that, too. Shouldn't that, by his logic, henceforth discredit the teeth-brushing as a fascist habit? I don't remember what he answered, but I do remember that I did not find his answer satisfying.

Bodhibliss is making a number of very good points. Manson was a psychopath who went for easy prey: idealistic, impressionable, young people full of hope and dreams. To consider him the "face of hippyism" seems to me like blaming the victim. Those kids, on whom he preyed, might not have had very good answers, but it seems to me that they asked much better questions than the generation before them. Questions such as, for example, "Are greed and fear all there is to life?" or "Do we really have to hate and kill one another?" might seem naive to some, but I do believe they are showing a genuine search for growth and a curiosity about life in all its facets. I don't see either Falwell or Manson ask themselves those types of questions. Manson and Falwell might instead ask "What can I do to get more control and power?" or "How can hate be useful to me?" To me they are two of a kind, not polar opposites of one another (even though, if I had to choose one to hang out with for a while, Falwell would most likely disgust me less, because I believe he's simply misguided while I get truly evil vibes from Manson -- either way, solitude seems like the nicer alternative overall...).

As to my previous comment about the "us versus them"-attitude not being "true "enlightenment," but simply good old duallism dressed in new bell-bottoms, with a cool soundtrack":

You can find some of my understanding of "enlightenment" in the following post in the thread on Buddhist detachment. I am quoting one of my school papers on the similarities and differences between the medieval Japanese Zen master Ehei Dogen and the Greek philosopher Socrates in it. It seems to me as if they both had a functional understanding of "enlightenment" as I see it. If you are interested in the paper in its entirety, send me a private message with an e-mail address, and I'll be happy to e-mail you the complete Word file. There are a lot of quotations and such, because that was the form my teacher required, but in its essence it describes my understanding of wisdom/spirituality/Faith/enlightenment rather accurately.

http://www.jcf.org/new/forum/viewtopic. ... 5226#45226

To me, the terms "enlightenment," "spirituality," "Faith," and "wisdom" are completely interchangeable. When I use any of these terms, I always mean the same thing, an understanding and life style that playfully unifies ego-transcendence and dualistic pragmatism. I also have a hunch that Joseph Campbell's talking of "bliss" might point to the same attitude/actions. Enlightenment, as I understand it, cannot be pinned down, because it is not a simple set of rules or behaviors, but an attitude and understanding that responds as openly and as appropriately as one can, given our limited perspective, to what life throws at us, resulting in compassionate action. Since there are no one-size-fits-all responses in life, enlightenment cannot be easily described or pinned down with words. In contrast to many of my Hindu acquaintances, I do not believe in permanent enlightenment, but am convinced that enlightenment is something that takes on-going work and practice. Such work and practice does not have to be drudgery. It can be quite joyful. But it is work. I made this little sketch in one of my diaries a while ago, of a Yogi on an exercise bicycle, whose peddling powers a light bulb that makes him see things better. That kind of work.

This is something that is rare. Don Lattin might be a fine journalist and a nice guy, but that does not mean he has a functional understanding of enlightenment. I don't know enough about him to tell if he does. I usually have a pretty good enlightenment-radar, but it works better when I meet people in person than when I see their writing, especially if such writing is quoted in excerpts by somebody else.

In my experience, most people don't have a functional understanding of enlightenment. Sorry if that sounds certain and offends your sensitivities, but it's simply what I have observed. Those who do have such an understanding can be found in many different faiths and persuasions. Any professional and religious community I've ever snooped into has a few practitioners who got "It" and many who don't. I sometimes get it but keep losing it, too. For me, it's an ongoing dance between clarity and delusions, one which I have learned to accept and work with (more begrudgingly on some days, more playfully on others).

As any fad, the hippie-era had its posers and its genuine wisdom practitioners (and by now you will probably be able to guess that I don't consider Manson one of the latter). That does NOT mean the latter are always right and without fault but, as I mention further above, they tend to ask the right questions and sometimes even find the occasional answer. But many others, especially towards the end of the "movement," when the fashion and music industry noticed that there was money to be made, were simply rebelling, aimlessly, buying into the marketing hype that was resulting from what started out as a genuine attempt at changing the world for the better. That's what I meant with saying what Lattin describes and what Williamson decries is not "true 'enlightenment' but simply good old dualism dressed in new bell-bottoms, with a cool soundtrack." This difference between people who say all the right things but still have not true understanding and people who embody understanding can be found in any religion I've ever seriously looked into (even atheism, if one would call that a "religion").

Don't know if this helps and makes it any clearer. Words have a funny way of sometimes reducing clarity rather than increasing it.

With loving respect,
:-) Julia

somehopesnoregrets
Associate
Posts: 266
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 6:01 pm
Location: Northern California

Post by somehopesnoregrets »

Dear NoMan;

is there any possibility that what triggers fundamentalist rebounds more than "hippyism" could be the idea of anarchy?

Not every hippie is an anarchist. In fact some hippies I met support taxes, public schooling, universal healthcare, environmental and social restrictions, and other things that would have to be imposed by a small group of rulers rather than emerge through spontaneous self-organization.

Also, not every anarchist is a hippie. The idea of anarchy goes back hundreds of years. Even though I sympathize with some of the ideas that are being expressed by anarchists (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy for details), I also feel that overly permissive forms of (non-)government risk vulnerability to guys like the aforementioned Manson, Falwell, and other constitutional bullies whose temperamental desire for dominance, combined with a messed up childhood may make them perpetually resistant to any philosophy that assumes people to be basically good, kind, and caring. I still believe even those bullies would have turned out "good" (meaning a functional and helpful part of something larger than themselves rather than the societal cancer that they usually turn out to be) given the right circumstances, but it does seem that some of the choices we make can lead us to points of no return and render us perpetually unable to humbly cooperate with others, a skill without which most if not all anarchist ideas of society are bound to fail, lest some near-death-experience or other extremely dramatic mind-body-spirit event pulls the plug on us and helps our mindset reboot from scratch. Even then, some of us seem to fall back into old patterns after a while.

Love,
:-) Julia

Locked