There are no values
There is nothing more to say
(And I still have stock in those Nigerian oil wells if you are interested.)
Hello SomeHopes,What is the problem you have with values?
dead dogma… is a set-up for disaster.
But the opposite, pretending that there is no value at all, in nothing, ever, is just as problematic.
- SomeHopes
The words, dualism and transcendence are just as good as the words subjective and objective.
I think much of the criticism of Campbell comes from the fact that he would flip-flop from one perspective to the other. He would speak with awe and reverence for primary culture human sacrifice. But he wouldn’t want to take part in such a ritual. In one lecture he said there is no need to worry about the atom bomb destroying the world. In the Hindu tradition we are one of many billions of worlds that come into and out of existence. But at another time he spoke of the ‘horrific act’ of America bombing Hiroshima, ‘and the second bomb, ‘what a disgrace’ he says.
Critics point to the fact that Campbell says in POM that life can’t be said to have a purpose, and that people aren’t seeking meaning in life. But I know when he says these things he is speaking from the objective/transcendent point of view. But just as often he’ll jump into subjective/dualist mode and say this or that is great or terrible.
When I’m theorizing about modes of thinking, or subjects of study, I can’t help but try to be as objective as possible. When I’m trying to wrap my head around a subject I do my best not to let values interfere. An astronomer doesn’t say this galaxy is good, and that supernova was bad, or those stars are in the wrong place. She takes the information gathered and puts it in some kind of order – tries to make sense out of it.
But the soft sciences have more of a tendency to let personal values influence observations made of a subject matter which includes human beings. It is not something one can be completely dispassionate about. I think it’s your training as a soft-scientist that makes it seem natural to interject values into these schemes. But it’s not dogmatically right or wrong to do so. It was just something that jumped out at me.
When it comes to talking values, I’m just as opinionated, probably more opinionated, as anyone else in these forums. But I know when I’m talking values, and I know when I’m trying to understand something by analyzing it. I’m far from being against values.
Ditto for being practical. Practicality is the outcome of values. Joseph Campbell said he was doing his post graduate work on philology in the 1920s in France. The subject was getting pretty old for him and he finally just said the hell with it. He said every student or scholar eventually has to ask themselves what in the world they are going to do with their acquired knowledge.
Years later he started teaching at Sarah Lawrence. The female students he met in the 30s were a lot different from post 60s students. Remember, we are talking about the Great Depression here. These women wanted practical knowledge. This helped inspire Campbell to look for ways that myths can be useful for common folks, and not just as an academic curiosity.
Many people don’t know anything about astronomy or cosmology because it doesn’t have any practical use for them. But for some folks, learning and understanding, is joyful, by itself, even if it has no practical use. It’s like watching a sunset, or listening to Mozart. But I don’t believe there is anything particularly virtuous about this attitude. It’s the one I adopt in trying understand and formulate theories - such as my schemes. Once I understand something, in theory, then I can talk about purpose, about values, and about the benefits and detriments of practice.
Only if there is some form of useful practical applicability are [lofty ideas] worth anything.
- SomeHopes
Of course. But you asked me where I thought medicine fit into my scheme. People favor those subjects that have practical applications. This is why so many people study medicine, engineering, and law. These are practical applications of these broad categories. Professors don’t just live in their ivory tower and forget about practical problems.But to figure out how to skillfully practically apply something is in itself a subject of study -- and not an easy one, I might add.
- SomeHopes
But if you look at my list of subjects from my point of view you will see why clinical psychology was not listed – nor law, nor chemical engineering, nor typing. These are the practical applications of broad categories of study that I listed.
That’s all.
I don’t think we have any disagreements here. I remember a line from the scholar and mythologist Wendy O’Flaherty. She said that while Socrates may be right in saying that the unexamined life is not worth living, it must also be noted that the life that is not lived is not worth examining.
Okay, now we’re on the same page. You weren’t talking about types of people as much as certain approaches to life. I’m seeing both your schemes like this now (skeletonized):1.A) All sciences ("hard" or "soft") conducted with self-transcendent motivation (love for wisdom, wanting to further enlightenment, easing suffering)
1.B) All sciences ("hard" or "soft") conducted with selfish motivation (profit, ego-gratification, fame)
2.A) Art/politics/philosophy/spirituality/religion conducted with self-transcendent motivation (see above)
2.B) Art/politics/philosophy/spirituality/religion conducted with selfish motivation (see above)
3.A) Tricksters, shamans, true bridge people, natural mystics, mythological master-minds and -hearts
3.B) Snake-oil sales people, merchants in the temple and other frauds
4.A) Confused yet well-meaning cannon fodder
4.B) Confused yet ill-meaning perpetrators
- SomeHopes
* * * * * * *
a) self-transcendent atheists and self-transcendent spiritual types, whatever terminology they may use
b) selfishly dualistically moralizing atheists and spiritual types
c) pragmatic types who are realistic about the limits of human nature without losing their optimism over it (come in both atheist and spiritual types, too)
* * * * * * *
I can see that my wording lent itself to being misunderstood. Instead of separating the world into pure-hearted and despicable scientists, artists, shamans, and consumers/sheep, I was attempting to give a map of attitudes between which we seamlessly switch back and forth.
- SomeHopes
Again, no worries. Just wanting to understand. I rather like your schemes now that I understand them.
Four different roles we might play in life:
1.) scientists
2.) artists
3.) shamans
4.) consumer/seekers
Two different ways to engage in them:
(a) with self-transcendent motivation
(b) with selfish motivation
* * * * * * *
Two different types of people:
1.) spiritual types
2.) atheists
Three different approaches to life for each:
(a) with self-transcendent motivation
(b) with selfish-dualism
(c) with pragmatism that uses both transcendence and dualism
But now the problem with the word ‘atheism’.
I don’t need rights - but just a little common sense.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
* * * * * * *
Oh, yes it does, by most people's definition of the word at least.
Quote:
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
Since I keep reserving the privilege to at will personally redefine such words as "Faith" or "superstition," I, by my own standards of equality, have to give you the same right. But most Buddhists are spiritual and they are atheists.
- SomeHopes
In your second scheme you use the expression ‘atheists and spiritual types’ three times. Now don’t you think a reasonable person would look at that as a dichotomy? There are atheists and there are spiritual types. I interpret them as being different. And I include Taoists, for example, in the spiritual camp, even though by a dictionary definition they are atheists. I thought I could use the word in this way – especially - when I explicitly state that I’m using the word in this way.
And there is an obvious reason for using the word in this way. Some people I meet are anti-spiritual. They are anti-religion - period. They don’t concern themselves over whether a religion has a personal deity, as in the West, or an elemental one, as with Taoism, or no deity at all, as with Buddhism. So I use the word ‘atheism’ to describe it even if it means tweaking the dictionary meaning.
And I believe you understood that tweaked meaning well when you used the expression ‘atheists and spiritual types’. If you were thinking of atheists in the dictionary definition you would have said, ‘atheists and Western religious people that believe in a personal God’ for a dichotomy. Or you would have said ‘non-spiritual types and spiritual types, for the dichotomy. Or if you weren’t thinking in terms of a dichotomy you could have said ‘atheists, spiritual types, and Buddhists and others that are both atheists and spiritual types’.
But you didn't say any of those because you were thinking, as many people do, of atheists as being non-religious, non-spiritual.
Of course you like atheists in the dictionary definition. Some of them become Buddhists. So why state the obvious? Why beat on an open door?Interesting. I do like atheists, because I like courage, and to me it is quite courageous to know we have to die but to not come up with some fancy afterlife scheme.
- SomeHopes
You play on the word ‘atheism’ the same way I told you played on the word ‘feel’ with Evinnra – taking a literal interpretation so you can point out a statement is wrong.
I know your game SomeHopes. You’re very smart. Very clever with words. And I think you have just a little malicious worm in you that wants to intellectually riddle a person with semantic games. It’s alright. I was playing chess on the web long before I started doing this. I rather enjoy it. But if you look at this discussion over the word ‘atheism’ you’ll notice that neither one of us has gained any knowledge from the other. And I think we have better things to discuss.
I don’t like the idea of non-spiritualism which I sometimes refer to as a-theism.
I believe you understood me from the start.
Quoting myself from my MythNow Blog:
Very opinionated. Lots of value judgments.Those of us disenchanted by traditional religion find ourselves living lives within a loosely defined mythology. But I think we can take instruction from the images we have been creating and presenting to ourselves, in the same way we use dream images to instruct us in our personal lives. We have our deities - that we respect, and worship, and pay homage to, and that we take very seriously – even to the point of sacrificing human happiness and human life. They are Peace, Truth, Justice, Beauty, Charity, Equality, Progress, Technology, Economic Efficiency, Ecological Harmony, and so on. We pay homage to them in our own way – without slaughtering any animals.
Now I know, that the Richard Dawkins crowd, as well as those from traditional Western religions, will say that what I am describing is not religion at all, because my deities are not in anthropomorphic form. But that’s as ridiculous as Aaron in the Book of Exodus fashioning a golden calf, telling his people the anthropomorphic God of Moses is no good, that a true deity must be in theriomorphic form.
And from the New Age crowd, as well, I see the fashioning of golden calves; looking back in history with too much vigor to the ‘cult of the noble savage’, or the ‘cult of the Neolithic Goddess’ - as if going back far enough in the evolution of myth will somehow solve the problem of the loss of third stage mythology. Nor is it wise for Westerners to displace themselves from their culture by adopting wholeheartedly the religions of the Far East. As Joseph Campbell used to say, “All of our mythologies are archaic.”
- NoMan
* * * * * * *
But now I feel the need to sweeten my post. You remember a long time ago I said that women use more words than men and you told me that was a John Gray myth? Now I think you were right and I was wrong. After a web search it seemed more and more ridiculous. If there is a difference at all, it would probably be due to occupation rather than sex. But to think that a woman could actually use two to three times as many words as a man per day just doesn’t seem like even a remote possibility.
There must be a reason for the misconception. I think women love language more. Just guessing.
I’ll respond to Fundamentalism tomorrow.
No worries
- NoMan