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.

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

Post by noman »

There are no distinctions
There are no values
There is nothing more to say
(And I still have stock in those Nigerian oil wells if you are interested.) :mrgreen:
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
Hello 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.

Only if there is some form of useful practical applicability are [lofty ideas] worth anything.

- SomeHopes
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.
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
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 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.

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
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):

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
Again, no worries. Just wanting to understand. I rather like your schemes now that I understand them.

But now the problem with the word ‘atheism’.
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

I don’t need rights - but just a little common sense.

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.
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
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?

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:
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
Very opinionated. Lots of value judgments.


* * * * * * *

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
Last edited by noman on Wed Jul 23, 2008 4:41 am, edited 2 times in total.

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

Post by noman »

So many things to respond to.
Actually, the way the quote reads to me (and the reason it saddens me) is that, from the sound of it, when he wrote it, literalist fundamentalism was limited to some of the fringe of the extremely uneducated and poor.

…at that time, when Campbell wrote these words, it looked as if such beliefs were on the verge of fizzling out and becoming a thing of the past.

I don't think he would be saying the same thing today

- SomeHopes
You’re right - he wouldn’t say exactly the same thing in the same way. Our culture has moved on from the 60s. But his message would be about the same. There were plenty of folks in the 60s with much more than a kindergarten education that believed in the Bible literally, and his lectures are filled with references to them. He once told of a boy standing rigidly on a sidewalk pretending to be a fire hydrant. And then he compared the boy to modern clergymen. What are they pretending to be he wondered?

From Myths to Live By:
P11 …there is everywhere in the civilized world a rapidly rising incidence of vice and crime, mental disorders, suicides and dope addictions, shattered homes, impudent children, violence, murder, and despair. These are facts; I am not inventing them. They give point to the cries of the preachers for repentance, conversion, and return to the old religion.

- Joseph Campbell, Myths to Live By, 1972
Also, he anticipates the rise of conservatism.
P48 In Germany, between wars, the Wandervogel, with their knapsacks and guitars, and the later Hitler Youth, were representatives of this reactionary trend in modern life. And now, right here in God’s Country itself, idyllic scenes of barefoot white and black “Indians” camping on our sidewalks with their tomtoms, bedrolls, and papooses are promising to turn entire sections of our cities into fields for anthropological research.

- Joseph Campbell, Myths to Live By, 1972
Perhaps I’m reading too much into Campbell’s words. But he’s lecturing to people who were painfully aware of what became of those German youth of the 20s and 30s. I think Campbell had the wisdom not to make definite predictions. History proves the experts wrong time and time again he once remarked. But I also think he had a clue about the coming conservatism movement.
As I mentioned in another post, most of the fundamentalists I met weren't even born in the late 60s and early 70s.

- SomeHopes
You bring up a curiosity that always bothered me as well. Why are so many conservative fundamentalists younger than Boomers? There are liberal hippies younger than Boomers. But it seems they are greatly outnumbered by the conservative fundamentalist type.

There was a point in the 60s, I read, that 40% of the American population was younger than eighteen. The impact of this group on the entire culture is sickeningly pervasive as we move through the decades.

Remember the TV show Family Ties from the 80s, with Michael J. Fox as the young Yuppie dressed in a suit and tie living with his hippie parents? The Boomer generation was of hippie liberalism. The next generation would be about conservatism. It’s natural for young folks to act in opposition to their parents philosophically. That was the mythology - but not the reality.

The reality was that the Boomers had reached an age in the 1980s where they were coming out of their jeans and t-shirts, shaving their beards, and entering the authoritarian positions with suits and ties. But it only takes a little shift in society and everyone jumps on the bandwagon. The way you put it, society is constantly being recalibrated by the Boomers. And it irked me, in the early 90s, when Rush Limbaugh rose to national stardom, that young innocent Gen-Xers were being corrupted and misguided by another Boomer trend. In the 60s Bob Dylan was in, in the 90s it was Rush Limbaugh.
Again, my experience of growing up in the 70s and 80s was so different from what you describe. I remember seeing high school graduation group photos shot in the 50s, and they all looked the same. Like clones. I saw the images of perfect housewives, who channeled all their repressed sexual energy into getting their houses all sparkly, and couldn't identify with those ideas of "woman" at all. To me (and many others of my generation in Germany) those images were so much more horrifying than people starting to experiment like crazy and some of that going awry. I remember seeing movies of love-ins (at the time, to me, distant past and a faraway place). I loved the hope and the optimism in those faces.

- SomeHopes
Just a few weeks ago, I saw a documentary on the History Channel about the Sixties and the Haight-Ashbury scene, and the love-ins, and the LSD parties. One of the things they talked about was the difference between the reality, the damage that was being done to these young lives and the press portrayal. One person said that most of the editors of magazines were middle-aged men. And of course they wanted to sell magazines. So they get these photos of half-naked hippie chicks that have felt pen drawings on them that say MAKE LUV, NOT WAR. You think that will sell magazines?

One thing they said was that this media image of hippie utopia was distributed across the country and exported to other countries. Every young person in the world wanted to be part of the experience, of drugs, of sex, of partying, and of changing the world. And I think the farther one was from the spring of this cultural movement, in Haight-Ashbury, the more enchanting it looked.
Why did Campbell's optimism not pan out? What happened?

-SomeHopes
Joseph Campbell was generally optimistic. He always put on a good face. He always said ‘yes’, even when confronted by disaster. But as I recorded in ‘the worst generation’ thread he was totally disgusted with what was happening in the 60s.

There’s a saying I’ve heard that no one can understand the Irish unless they understand how much the Irish hate the English. What I’m trying to tell you, is that you won’t understand fundamentalism unless you understand how much they hate delusional hippy liberalism.

When I looked into this subject one of the books I came across was published in 1984 titled, The 60s, Without Apology. Just consider the title. No one has written a book titled, ‘The 50s, Without Apology’. No one has written a book titled ‘The 80s, Without Apology.’ Though I think an argument could be made that people make mistakes in every decade. But the 60s were way over the top. And some liberals of all ages look back on it and say. ‘So there were a few little excesses here and there. It was a time of great change. What do you expect?’ No. This was too much. And Campbell among others recognized this.

Most of these movements that took off during the 60s were just part of a natural progression. The environmentalist movement is a great example. But Boomers act as though it would never have happened if it weren’t for them.

The image of the changing role of women and ‘sexual repression’ of the 50s being channeled into house work made me laugh. That’s kind of like ‘Rosie the Riveter’ from WWII era. Every age has its mythic images.

If 50s women were sexually repressed, there wouldn’t have been a baby boom – and we wouldn’t be having this conversation. I know – the pill. But what I’ve heard is that today women and men are more likely to make love less often than previous generations because the women are more likely to be working outside the home. Modern couples, in working harder, have less time and energy for nooky. Also divorce and single parenting put the brakes on sexual activity. But after the sexual and women’s revolutions, we certainly have more sexual partners across our lifetime. And now we have Viagra so I don’t know how that factors in.

But I don’t want to get into judgments about how cultural customs are better or worse before and after the 60s. They are better overall, despite the problem we have with fundamentalists in the White House. I just like to point out some of the more delusional beliefs on both sides of the culture war.

The great sociologist Peter L. Berger edited a little book titled:

The Desecularization of the World

This book examines the worldwide religious upsurge. Interestingly, there is a chapter on Europe as the exception. Europe bucks the trend. Why? I don’t know. I’ve read the book but I still don’t know why. My gut feeling is that Europe is somehow more culturally advanced. But that’s the best I can do. I don’t understand it. You were born and raised in Europe, like our very own Martin Weyers. You are the ones that should be explaining it to me.

As for America, I can think of three factors that make America more religious than European countries.

1.) Youth of the nation

Myth/religion is what geographers call a ‘centripetal force’. It helps hold a society together. But America, being so young compared to Europe may need more of it in the form of traditional religion. Americans have shallow roots and are from different ethnic backgrounds. There’s more of a need for a stable center through religion.

2.) More sparsely populated

Joseph Campbell said he in an interview once that living in New York and associating with intellectuals and university people gave him a certain perspective on American religion. He said when he traveled around the country he found a completely different religious culture. The Methodists, he said, were the liberals. And if you get to know rural people you’ll find that they are much more Bible driven. The cities and universities are looked at with suspicion. You probably know, that when Christianity was new, it was those rural people who were ignorant of the new, improved religion. They were called pagans, (from the Latin paganus – meaning ‘country dweller’ or ‘rustic’)

3.) More democratic and with a greater discrepancy between rich and poor

Because of America’s birth as a democratic nation, it is defined more by the center than by a cultural elite. This seems to be an inherent problem with democracy. It is not necessarily what is best that is favored, but what is most popular. Christianity is a ‘first shall be last’ mythology. In a nation where 40% of the people control about 5% of the wealth, Christianity is going to be very appealing.

* * * * * * *

Campbell once said in one of his lectures that nobody in the 20s (he’s talking about educated people here) thought we would be talking about religion in the 70s. These superstitious stories were on the way out. The war to end all wars was won, and the world was made safe for democracy. Great intellectuals such as Shaw and Sartre were advocating atheism.

And here you are in the 1st decade looking back to the 60s and saying something similar to Campbell. You’d think we’d be over the literalist stuff by now.

I don’t think we ever will be – so long as we remain human.

If and when a new mythology does emerge, it will likely have adherents as passionately intense and uncompromising as any mythology of the past. But those of us who are consumer/seekers aren’t so possessed. We can trade our mythology in for another at any time.

- NoMan

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

Post by somehopesnoregrets »

Sweet NoMan;

I'm greatly enjoying your last two posts, specifically the excerpts from your MythNow Blog, your skeletonization of my scheme, and the O’Flaherty quote.
Very opinionated. Lots of value judgments.
Yes, love it. It is opinionated. But at the same time, it firmly and steadily looks beyond the smaller self and towards the bigger picture. I'll buy a Nigerian oil well from you any time. Let's together transform it into a fountain of youth. Actually, no, let's make that a fountain of wisdom. The world needs more of that than it needs youth.
:-)
The words, dualism and transcendence are just as good as the words subjective and objective.
Never looked at it that way. Interesting. Gotta roll that one around in my head for a while.

I am determined to follow your advice to take some time with my response and to really savor your writing and the thoughts and emotions it brings up rather than rushing into hastily shooting back the first answer that comes to mind. Just wanted to let you know (what you possibly figured already), how much I enjoy this conversation. I love how you don't pull any punches and push me further to hold myself to an even higher standard than I do anyhow. That's great.

Not sure if I'm playing games. I used to be extremely competitive in the past and used to treat conversations as a form of such competition. I actually enjoyed when evangelists or Jehova's witnesses came to my doorstep during college, because I treated it as a kind of sport to try converting them (to a non-formal, more open-minded form of tolerant Christianity). I never succeeded, but it was a marvelous intellectual exercise. One time one of them even came back and brought one of his elders, for practice or to show me off as a particularly stubborn specimen, I guess. I know that malicious, little worm of which you speak. But I honestly (and naively?) thought that I had since long squashed it. Who knows, maybe such worms can only be tamed or channeled into more meaningful discourse rather than squashed. I don't want to be one of the people who play games while the world goes downhill faster and faster. But, then, maybe playfulness is the only thing that can truly "save" us and the world (whatever that word may mean; I guess if we humans agreed on its meaning, we wouldn't need saving -- one of life's interesting ironies). And I always loved chess with a passion. It gives me great pleasure to play it, even though I'm only a moderately skilled player (my greatest weaknesses as a chess player are (a) that I prefer an interesting game towards one that I win, so I sometimes make crazy and wild moves, just to see what will happen, and (b) that I draw hastily and get incredibly bored and annoyed when playing with people who take half an eternity to think about each of their moves...).

Hugs.
:-) Julia

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

Post by Evinnra »

Hello NoMan,

Like Julia, I too will need some time to think your post over and reply with something more valuable.

About the question: why do cats exsist?
(That little girl has a long way to go with her ability to ask marvellous questions!) I had precisely the same approach as you did and asked my self; why does any particular thing exist? Shroedinger’s cat provides the problem of exactly equal possibilities for scientists and if Pandora had a cat (*winking at Julia*) she would have sat on that box preventing it to be opened. (My Tiggy just recently proved how well cats are aware of pending disasters. While I was in bed with agonising back pain, she was prowling up and down in front of my bedroom door as if she was guarding me against evil! And she was the one who was the worst behaved kitten I have ever seen in my life, before maturing into her present queen-like gracefulness. )

In addition to your explanation that cats are symbols of mystery, I would also add that cats are symbols of caution. People born in the year of the Cat – according to Chinese zodiac – are extremely graceful, careful, considerate, yet braver under pressure than anyone would ever imagine. Real cats literally go through fire to save their kittens. Cat people are born people pleasers, but they get nervous and make up fibs to please others. It is like a nervous tick when cat-people are fibbing, for they do not expect people to believe them and rather surprised if they get away with lying. The trouble is that cat people – like real cats - tend to develop a superiority complex by thinking that others are not very clever if they can’t see through their veil of ‘politeness’. My eldest brother was a cat person; I loved him dearly, for I am a Tigress – a fellow feline in the Chinese zodiac. Why do these people exist? Why do cats exist? I don’t quite know how life would be without the pleasure of these creatures being around to sweeten our days for us! God probably wanted to express his/her sense of tender care and infinite wisdom by making these creatures manifest.

That’s all for now, must dash …

Cheers, :P
Evinnra
'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

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

Post by Evinnra »

Hello NoMan,

After a weekend of thinking I decided on an indirect approach to answer your question: what is it that makes America more religious than European countries. Will there be a new way, yet another ‘…ism’? First, I’d like to focus on explaining why is it that I believe a particular direction of growth for a society is discernible – at least in theory – before attempting to speculate what will be the new ‘…ism’ to save the people and ‘end all wars’. (O.K. I shouldn’t be sarcastic, mea culpa. :oops: )


If I could change one thing in our culture, it would be to turn off or at least down the ‘white noise’; the background music, the television and radio ads, the billboards and magazines, the consumer and ‘win’ culture we live in.

… what people need to know in our culture is that ‘less is more’. Or the slogan I use is: ‘Fewer, and of higher quality’.

… But our consumer culture works in the opposite direction. The higher the volume of a manufactured good, the higher the profit, and the cheaper the price.
When in fact, it is religion that should be the quiet and stable centre of one’s life, around which turmoil and choices turn.

- NoMan
It is very interesting for me to see that you openly advocate religion to function as the quiet centre of one’s life, around which choices turn – by using the categorical imperative in your sentence: ‘should’. Yet, following this, you make comments about the boomer generation, the delusional hippies of the 60’s, which made me wonder what you were really alluding to here. Indeed, any ideology that grips an entire generation is a form of ‘fundamentalism’ of the worst kind; stubbornly clinging to a precious ‘truth’ that just reached status of realisation in the minds of people.

Then you continue your post by pointing to Julia’s method of aiming for practicality – or rather applicability of ideas in life – by saying:
But as I said, as soon as you begin to apply knowledge gained in the study of any of these subjects, you have to make some value decisions. In my scheme, no one subject is of higher values than any other.



But in my scheme there is no order of value as far as society is concerned. I have my personal preference but that’s irrelevant to my scheme. It is about describing society (trying to be an objective observer as a sociologist). There are going to be good and bad folks in each category.

- NoMan
That is rather difficult to sit on a fence indefinitely if one aims to get somewhere in life. Of course, nobody is forcing the individual to ‘get somewhere’ or ‘aim’ for anything, or make value judgements that will be changed sooner or later. The individual either makes these moves or elects to function otherwise. The point is – as far as I understand your post - that ALL individuals are faced with electing a function and from a sociologist’s perspective, what matters is WHAT will be the majority’s choice. This is where the definition of atheism kicks in with force! Atheism, in your definition is anti-spiritualism, where spiritualism is closely related to accepting the perspective of transcendence as the individual’s own objective view. Julia sees this differently, for her, atheism is the tendency to deny the personal aspect of this transcendental view. The difference between your views is the turning point of this entire topic of discussion as far as I can see.

If we take your statement:


The words, dualism and transcendence are just as good as the words subjective and objective.

-NoMan
then to say that there are ‘atheist spiritual types’ does in fact look like a dichotomy. But, if we freely exchange the term dualism for subjectivity and transcendent perspective for objectivity, we would deny atheists having ANY access to exercise objectivity in their daily judgement. If there is no transcending viewpoint, there is no objectivity, zilch-nada. Yet, that is the precise opposite of what atheists are actually doing – as far as I understand them. Atheists are merely denying that there is a person like quality to these principles governing our existence. Two plus two is not four because there was once a deity deciding that this is what going to make sense to people, two plus two is four … full stop, … ‘nicht warum’ ( no ‘because’). I fully agree with your view that Taoists ought to be classified as spiritual – although the dictionary definition of Taoism is that they are atheists – since they did recognise the ‘person like’ quality of the Way (the Tao), which governs existence as is - Tao = Being. (Mind you, the word Tao covers lots of other terms in our current understanding, including possibilities, qualities, directions, momentum, shared identity between things, etc.etc.)

Chapter Three

Not paying honour to the worthy leads the people to avoid contention.
Not showing reverence for prescious goods leads them not to steal.
Not making a display of what is desirable leads their heart away from chaos.
This is why sages bring things to order by opening people’s hearts and filling their bellies.
They weaken the people’s commitments and strengthen their bones;
They make sure that the people are without zhi, “knowledge”, or desires;
And that those with knowledge do not dare to act.
Sages enact nonaction and everything becomes well ordered.




Chapter Five

Heaven and earth are not benevolent;
They treat the myriad creatures as straw dogs.
Sages are not benevolent;
They treat the people as straw dogs.
Is not the space between Heaven and earth like a bellows?
Empty yet inexhaustible!
Work it and more will come forth.
An excess of speech will lead to exhaustion,
It is better to hold onto the mean.


Chapter Seventy-Nine.

In cases of great resentment, even when resolution is reached, some resentment remains.
How can this be considered good?
This is why sages maintain the left-hand portion of the tally,
But do not hold people accountable.
Those without Virtue oversee collection.
The Way of Heaven plays no favourites;
It is always on the side of the good.


‘The Daodejing’ in P.J. Ivanhoe and B. Van Norden (eds.) (2001) Readings in Classical Chinese Philosophy, Hackett Publishing Company,p. 160 and p.198.


From these quotes above, and especially from the line: “This is why sages bring things to order by opening people’s hearts and filling their bellies.” it would appear that Taoism prescribes avoidance of judgement. Whatever can change is perishable, but the Tao is not perishable, so keeping in line with the Tao would require avoidance of judgement. But, the ‘person like’ quality of the Way must be clear to those who understand what is meant by the term ‘the Way of Heaven’. The Way of Heaven is not the same as the Way it self, the Way of Heaven is merely equal to any transcending level above whatever level is being examined. (As far as I understand, though I'm no expert on Taoism!) There is ALWAYS a transcending level, since transcendence envelopes all levels – I’m not able to express this with words. Perhaps the best I can do to illustrate this ‘enveloping’ is by saying that it is something like the situation where the top seventh floor of an apartment building is transcended by the seventh floor below of this very same building’s foundation, although this seventh floor was never actually built beneath the building. I know, it is rather difficult to make sense of.

However, the Daodejing states that ‘The Way of Heaven plays no favourites; It is always on the side of the good.’

That statement alone looks like a mighty contradiction as it is. Yet, to me it says something very different than what appears at first sight. I interpret it to mean that there are no values as such but there is a direction indicating what will follow. It is impossible to negate quality, the thing that can be negated is being. Hence, what is, is good. Yes, it is a value judgement from our perspective, but from the Tao it is merely a direction of flow and nothing else. The Tao is neutral and the only way for existing things to be like the Tao is to withhold judgement. BUT, the Tao does have a direction, so too the ‘myriad things’ must have a direction to flow, if they want to align the controllable part of their being with the Tao. No contradiction therefore! It is not my evaluation of my context that must change in order to be one with the Tao, it is my being that must change – my bones to be strengthened, not my ‘commitments’ – in order to flow healthily with the Tao.

It is quite a Christian idea of not holding perpetrators accountable for what they did and leaving judgement for God to carry out. Similarly stated in the Daodejing:

“This is why sages maintain the left-hand portion of the tally,
But do not hold people accountable.
Those without Virtue oversee collection.”

It is sages who know right discernment BUT stir clear of punishing the wicked. Why? Because sages want the Tao to deal with things as best as it is possible. (A sage knows well his/her own limitations in ‘zhi’.) Only those who have no idea what they doing ‘oversee collection’, i.e. manifest praise/punishment. The Tao acting by the power of those who ‘do not know’ leaves plenty of room for conflict: “ In cases of great resentment, even when resolution is reached, some resentment remains.” When revolutions happen, it is the Tao acting through the ignorant mass. When peace and prosperity arrives, it is the Tao acting through the ignorant mass. Yet, the Tao is not neutral in its direction, it ‘is always on the side of the good’.

Isn’t it striking how similar is the work of Tao to the ways of existing things? Do we ever know the full outcome of our slightest moves? I could bat an eyelid and there could be a storm brewing in the next galaxy … strange, no? When a sage discerns what is good, s/he makes it grow and when s/he discerns what is bad s/he cuts it down. But the sage’s actions are never without compliance with the Tao! There is a direction of move by the sage, but it is permitted to manifest only by the Tao. How Stoic, indeed! How Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu etc.etc. it is! There is something ‘out-there’ or ‘within but unreachable’ that permits two plus two to be four.
Last edited by Evinnra on Mon Jul 28, 2008 4:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
'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

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

Post by Evinnra »

Yet, to advocate stupidity by denying the possibility of right discernment, to crush people’s belief in justice and goodness by literally following lines in the Daodejing is NOT the direction that the Tao would ALWAYS choose.

“ Heaven and earth are not benevolent;
They treat the myriad creatures as straw dogs.
Sages are not benevolent;
They treat the people as straw dogs.
Is not the space between Heaven and earth like a bellows?
Empty yet inexhaustible!”




The right leader for a particular level of existence is the one that choose the ‘good’ for those things that are under his/her care. If stupidity – in a particular situation – brings uncontrollable chaos, what Son of Heaven in its right mind would increase chaos instead of order? If strict order – in a particular situation - brings stagnation, what Son of Heaven in its right mind would increase order instead of creating a little confusion? A Taoist would never prescribe any particular rule for general use, since there is none that can be found; yet I’m quite sure that a Taoist would agree that there is always a particular direction to take in any situation. (As long as there is perception of anything at all.)

Interestingly, if principles of existence were without cause it ought not make sense to anyone. Two plus two can’t be four without a cause, simply because nothing is without a cause. Taoists – I think – would agree with that.

What distinguishes a sage from the ignorant is basically the difference in knowing what is Virtue. Virtue is a skill that accumulates over time, provided one aims to get it. If one aims not to know virtue, one is ignorant. Yet, just because one is ignorant it does not mean that one is useless. If I wield a club in my hand against my enemy, my club does not need to be virtuous by its own efforts, it gains virtue by being used by me, the person who is being used by something that is more virtuous than me and so on . But if I’m an ignorant person, my club will gain only ignorance while being used in my hand. So, what should follow from this? That the One or the Way or God is NOT ignorant, but Virtuous. As above, so below.

Now, I’d like to return to your solution of current cultural problems by advocating ‘less is more’ or ‘quality rather than quantity that really matters’. In the 60’s the new truth discovered by people was that stuffy rules of morality imprisoning housewives in suburbia felt like a great sin against freedom of growth. Men felt the same urge to grow in all sorts of directions as well. Was that the Tao prescribing a direction for us? Of course it was! In the first decade of the new millennium however, the situation – the context – is the opposite of what it was back in the 60’s. Today we have AIDS, Viagra for males and females, moral relativism and fear of doom. In the 60’s all venereal diseases were non-lethal, males and females couldn’t wait to get into each others’ pants, there were clearly definable social roles and there was no general fear of the future. There was no general need for finding guidelines since these guidelines still existed. Today, we don’t have these guidelines so clearly defined. The new truth is that WE NEED THESE GUIDELINES, males and females do have somewhat different roles to play, and if fact we humans can make a hell of a mess in our own backyard.

I am in perfect agreement with you that the first step should be turning down the white noise. Yet, I would have a purpose for this action, the purpose of focusing on ‘deducing certainty’ from the uncertainties in our context. I’d make a list of what is important. But if I start my deduction by saying that nothing is certain, the whole of my ‘active discernment exercise’ is a waste of precious time.

You write:


There’s a saying I’ve heard that no one can understand the Irish unless they understand how much the Irish hate the English. What I’m trying to tell you is that you won’t understand fundamentalism unless you understand how much they hate delusional hippy liberalism.

-NoMan
You brought up an excellent example to show how any sort of fundamentalism opposes open-minded approach. You are right, it is rather similar to antagonism against something particular. Why is it that fundamentalism in religion did not get a hold on Europe? But fundamentalism of an ideal DID take hold of Europe and most of Asia – the ideal of communism - hence Europe and Asia might be ready by now to embrace open-minded approach to growth a.k.a. liberalism.

More on this when time permits …

Cheers,
Evinnra
'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 »

NoMan wrote: [...] you won’t understand fundamentalism unless you understand how much they hate delusional hippy liberalism.
One interesting thing I found (and it's possible I'm getting sidetracked again here, but it seems like an important point to me) is that hate, true hate, is always powered by seeing something in the other person that I hate in myself. So, my question is, if fundamentalists hate hippies so much, what is it that they see in them that reminds them of their own shadow? And vice versa, because I have seen the hate go into both directions. What do fundamentalists and hippy-dippy liberalists have in common that triggers their pushing their respective buttons?

Of course you could simply say Jung and I are wrong and it is very possible to hate something or somebody who has nothing in common with oneself, but in my eyes such an answer would be a copout. I'm looking forward to your courageous insights.

Hugs.
:-) Julia

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

Post by noman »

’bout Cats

I’ve always liked cats. I am not allergic to them. But I’m also the type that has these terrifying dreams every once in a while about being attacked by a cat of some kind. I think, that just as with snakes, there is a deep innate, respect and fear for cats. Our ancestors had to deal with these menaces for millions of years. But the cat is much more akin to us than the snake for being warm blooded and for being a sly hunter like us.

In my little post about the importance and mystique of the cat I failed to mention the shaman/jaguar connection in Central American myth and religion. Some shamans actually become jaguars at night, and visit people in their dreams. Here is a small sculpture from the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA).

http://collectionsonline.lacma.org/mweb ... _about.asp

It is from Central America and is from the 1st millennium BCE. It is believed to be a shaman turning into a jaguar because it has features of both. Some modern day shamans from Central America still undergo this transformation.


’bout Definitions


Nothing wrong with discussing definitions. Lawyers make their living arguing over definitions. Much of Plato is about defining certain difficult and impressive words such as ‘virtue’, ‘truth’, and ‘love’. Plato believed the language we use is a corruption of a divine language made by divine primordial ‘nomothetes’ - usually translated as ‘legislators’. But a true philosopher will know the true ‘platonic’ meaning of a word. For Plato, philosophers are the authority on definition.


In his famous essay A Defence of Poetry, Percy Bysshe Shelley says:
In the infancy of society every author is necessarily a poet, because language itself is poetry…

But poets, or those who imagine and express this indestructible order, are not only the authors of language and of music, of the dance, and architecture, and statuary, and painting: they are the institutors of laws, and the founders of civil society, and the inventors of the arts of life, and the teachers, who draw into a certain propinquity with the beautiful and the true that partial apprehension of the agencies of the invisible world which is called religion.


http://www.bartleby.com/27/23.html
This self promoting romantic poet is saying in the flowery prose of his time that poets are the legislators of language, and of all the trappings of society. Poets, or people who think like poets, determine the meanings of words.


We all know a famous story told by William James. There was a squirrel clinging to a tree trunk. On the opposite side of the tree was a man. As the man circled the tree the squirrel circled the tree trunk in the same direction so as to always to keep the tree between man and squirrel. A debate ensued. Everyone agreed that the man went around the tree. And everyone agreed that the squirrel went around the tree. But did the man go around the squirrel?


William James settled the dispute by saying, ‘Who the hell cares? I wish you guys would grow up and get a life.’


No, he didn’t say that really.


He told them the dispute lies in two definitions of the verb ‘to go around’. If the verb ‘to go around’ means to go around the tree and squirrel as a whole, then the man has gone around the squirrel in going around the tree-squirrel system. But if the word ‘around’ means to go from the front of the squirrel to the squirrel’s left side, then to the squirrels back, then to the squirrel’s right side, and then to the front of the squirrel again, then the man has not gone ‘around’ the squirrel.



James concluded that both disputants were correct depending on how they define the verb ‘to go around’.


’bout Atheism

Atheism, in [NoMan’s] definition is anti-spiritualism, where spiritualism is closely related to accepting the perspective of transcendence as the individual’s own objective view. Julia sees this differently, for her, atheism is the tendency to deny the personal aspect of this transcendental view. The difference between your views is the turning point of this entire topic of discussion as far as I can see.

- Evinnra

I don’t think so Evinnra. I don’t think SomeHopes and I have a ideological difference concerning atheism, nor do I think we have a dispute based on a misunderstanding of two definitions of the word ‘atheism’ She was objecting to me using the word ‘atheism’ in the way I was using it, knowing full well, I was using the word in a way not defined by a dictionary. In fact, I stated as much before she voiced her objection.



But who gets to decide how a word is used? Are philosophers the authority on definition as Plato asserts? Are poets the authority on definition as Shelley asserts? Some people think Merriam-Webster determines definitions and everyone is expected to respect it. But people who write dictionaries know better. They determine the meaning of a word by examining the way it is being used.



We the people, the users of the language, determine the meanings of words. And meanings will change with time, sometimes referred to as ‘semantic drift’.



In the year of our Lord 2008, in a Western culture, at a Joseph Campbell website, presumed to include associates who are familiar with the work of Joseph Campbell and interested in his vision of religion and mythology, what would be the best definition of the word ‘atheism’?These are quotes from beliefnet.com. It’s a beliefs test that moderator Bodhi will present in these forums every now and then to help people recognize their own belief system.

On Taoism:

A 2,500-plus-year-old spiritual practice, Taoism (not unlike Zen) is like a "finger pointing at the moon." That is, Taoism states that words are just a sign to point to the nonconceptual ultimate reality. It is of value to not obsess over the conceptual pointer but to see the ultimate reality clearly.

The supreme being/ultimate truth is beyond words or any conceptual understanding. When asked to name it, it is referred to as Tao or the Way. The Power of the Way is referred to as Te. Although Tao and Te are similar to other practices' ideas of God, Taoists seldom refer to God.

* * * * * * *

On Theravada Buddhism:

The concept of a supreme Creator God is rejected or at least considered irrelevant to Theravada Buddhism. Buddha, "the Awakened One," is revered above all--not as "God" but as supreme sage, model of a fully enlightened person.

* * * * * * *

On Mahayana Buddhism:

Mahayana Buddhism (like Theravada Buddhism) posits no Creator or ruler God. However, deity belief is present in the Mahayana doctrine of The Three Bodies (forms) of Buddha: (1) Body of Essence--the indescribable, impersonal Absolute Reality, or Ultimate Truth that is Nirvana (Infinite Bliss); (2) Body of Bliss or Enjoyment--Buddha as divine, deity, formless, celestial spirit with saving power of grace, omnipotence, omniscience; and (3) Body of Transformation or Emanation--an illusion or emanation in human form provided by the divine Buddha to guide humans to Enlightenment.

* * * * * * *

On NonTheism:

Atheists do not believe in a god or deity. Atheists' beliefs are similar to those of the Secular Humanists but do not necessarily include the emphasis on humanity's ability to improve the human condition. Views on contemporary issues vary widely.

Agnostics are inclined to question the existence of supernatural being(s) or a force, e.g., the answer to whether or not God (or Deity) exists would be: "We do not and/or cannot know."

* * * * * * *

On New Age:

An umbrella term for a wide range of personal and individual beliefs and practices influenced primarily by Eastern religions, paganism, and spiritism.

God is the impersonal life force, consciousness, ultimate truth and reality, the incorporeal, formless cosmic order personified within all people and matter. God is all and all are God.

* * * * * * *

On Scientology:

Scientology considers the belief in a God or gods as something personal and therefore offers no specific dogma. The nature of the Supreme Being is revealed personally through each individual as s/he becomes more conscious and spiritually aware. There exists a life energy or force (Theta) beyond and within all.


http://www.selectsmart.com/PRO/beliefnet/index1.html
I realize Beliefnet.com is not the authority on definitions of people’s beliefs. But these seem like somewhat fair and accurate descriptions.


Suppose you ask a stranger in a Western country what religion they are, and they replied that they are an atheist. What would you be inclined to believe about this person’s religious life based on this answer alone? Would you think to yourself, this person might be a devout Buddhist, or a Taoist, or a New Ager, or a member of the Church of Scientology? They could be.


But typically, if they are a devout Buddhist they will say they practice Buddhism. If they are a member of the Church of Scientology then they will say so. But if they say they are an atheist, it typically means that they are not interested in religion or spirituality.


This is the way we use the word ‘atheism’. So I don’t see any problem with my using the word in this way. But I also recognize the historical definition of the word as meaning the disbelief in Abraham’s God or a personal God. That’s why I added a little disclaimer saying atheism ‘by my definition’. But it isn’t as much my definition as a definition currently in use.


If SomeHopes and I have an ideological difference, or a misunderstanding due to our differing use of the word ‘atheism’ I can’t see it. What I see is a semantic game used to riddle and/or antagonize as a substitute for any legitimate difference of opinion. That’s why I say, it is SomeHope’s psychology that is most interesting. But I can’t talk about SomeHope’s personality unless I have SomeHope’s permission.


As for the definition of the word ‘atheism’, I believe it is as useless to pursue such a discrepancy in meaning as it would have been for the players in William James’ tale of the squirrel to continue to argue over the meaning of the verb ‘to go around’ once they understood the two definitions.


I’m not saying definitions aren’t important and worthy of discussion. I’m saying the definition of the word ‘atheism’ is not a problem in this particular case, among people familiar with and attracted to Campbell’s work, and among people who have the understanding of, and respect for, the various forms of religious practice throughout the world and throughout history - and among people who understand that a belief in a personal deity is not the deciding factor on whether a person’s set of beliefs and corresponding rituals are to be considered spiritual and/or religious. It’s just common sense.

From POM:
Campbell: Man’s tendency… is to personify… to anthropomorphize natural forces. Our way of thinking in the West sees God as the final source or cause of the energies and wonder of the universe. But in most Oriental thinking, and in primal thinking, also, the gods are rather manifestations and purveyors of an energy that is finally impersonal. They are not its source. The god is the vehicle of its energy.



Moyers: Can men and women live with an impersonality?


Campbell: Yes, they do all over the place. Just go east of Suez. You know there is this tendency in the West to anthropomorphize and accent the humanity of the gods, the personifications: Yahweh, for example, as either a god of wrath, of justice and punishment, or as a favoring god who is the support of your life, as we read, for example, in the Psalms. But in the East, the gods are much more elemental, much less human and much more like the powers of nature.

POM, p258- 260 (small book)
“the gods are much more elemental”, he says. It’s just a matter of terminology.


* * *

I do want to get to your question about hate in the culture wars SomeHopes. It’s a great question. (No NutraSweet added). And I do want to address a contradiction you pointed out Evinnra, that I refer to Europe as being more culturally advanced for being secular while saying that religion ought to be the stable center of our lives. I’m happy you both quoted me on the Irish metaphor. I had thought about posting that line in bold when I first posted it.


I’ll be back to yap about it some more.


- NoMan

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

Post by somehopesnoregrets »

I don’t think so Evinnra. I don’t think SomeHopes and I have a ideological difference concerning atheism, nor do I think we have a dispute based on a misunderstanding of two definitions of the word ‘atheism’
I hope you're not feeling ganged up on here, Evinnra, but I second NoMan's interpretation. I don't see a disagreement, just a habitual difference between my and his use of the word atheism. I don't feel we all have to use words in the same way. In fact, the difference in usage between people can occasionally open a concept up wider and create a poetic resonance where we would otherwise only have the cold, hard concrete of rationalism. I consider that a good thing, even though the possibility for misunderstandings is inherent there, too, of course, and, like anything, there can sometimes be too much of a good thing. That's why, especially in scientific and philosophical exchanges but also in general, I treasure and appreciate sideline discussions about definitions of some of the words used. Not because there is one "right" way of usage, I feel, but because it adds clarity to the discussion. Also, because this way, we have it documented, "on file," that this is the temporarily agreed upon meaning, for now, for this part of the discussion. Anybody else who, in the future, may read these words can go, "ah, so that's what they're talking about" and will find her- or himself in the loop.

This tends to be even more important in multi-layered conversations, in which we may simultaneously find ourselves talking about a topic, about our practical experiences pertaining to the topic, about the thoughts and feelings triggered by the experiences pertaining to the topic, and about out talking.

Other than Plato (who I greatly respect, don't get me wrong, I'm not dissing Plato here) I don't believe in absolute, platonic meanings but that each of our individual life experiences adds new meanings. Thus, concepts and ideas aren't absolute in my world but grow in complexity over time (or, sometimes, may also find themselves impoverished and slowly but steadily lost, depending on the way a community's focus shifts).

I'm happy to use NoMan's definition of "atheism" in this particular thread. It is in my eyes a completely legitimate and functional way of using the word. In my own writing in other threads or in conversations with other people I might use my own definition or any other that might arise between now and then (ideally without failing to clearly define any changes in meaning that might seem appropriate at the time, lest I want to confuse people, which I actually don't, even though some of my nutty run-on-sentences might have it seem otherwise at times... see below for further elaborations on this).

I am also happy this came up, because if we hadn't talked about it, we might have continued confusing apples and oranges without even noticing. There's nothing wrong with apples. There is nothing wrong with oranges. But if we confuse the two, our exchanges of ideas and experiences are bound to suffer.

Also, in the conversations I conduct with myself in my own head, I'm not always super-strict in how I define terms that I use, so it's always helpful for me to be called to some form of order and discipline in such matters.

As mentioned above, somebody reading our exchange without the definitional clarification as to how exactly we are using the word here (as a dualistic opposite of "spiritual person" -- whatever that means, which would be a whole 'nother discussion -- rather than somebody who simply doesn't believe in an anthropomorphized deity but may still have some form of spiritual practice) might misread much of what is being said. The longer I think about it, the more juicy and interesting I find that particular usage of the word. Let's try to not slip into cardboard cutout characterizations with it, though, and not look at it as the "atheist" being a simple one-dimensional villain. I personally find it quite interesting that some people refuse to believe in anything whatsoever but still manage to live relatively functional and sane lives. In my opinion, even by NoMan's stringent definition, Zen Buddhism, in the way I personally and quite a few other people I know practice it on some days, potentially might still qualify as a form of atheism. In its very essence, it is not spiritual at all, but simply observational. I do have spiritual experiences, which I consider "real" on some days and "quirks of the interactions of my mind-body-spirit with the world of mind-body-spirit at large and oscillations between them" on other days. So, I might be an atheist on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday and a pantheist on Tuesday and Thursday (I'm just picking random days here to make a point). But within either of these contexts, not believing into any kind of God on that Monday, Wednesday, and Friday and believing in a multi-faceted, energetic form of deity on Tuesday and Thursday in that particular (hypothetical) week, I more than everything consistently believe in doing whatever I can to, whenever and wherever I can, not cause harm to myself and others and working on finding and maintaining a perspective of open curiosity and compassionate wisdom.

But I do cringe a bit, whenever I have to make a little check mark in a box on a form as to "religious affiliiation," because even though I love my teacher, my tradition, and my practice, to call it "Buddhism (Zen)" seems like such a horrible oversimplification. If there were three boxes "spiritual," "atheist," and "other," I would check "other." But then, I tend to think of myself as "other" in many other contexts, too.

I don't at all feel that these different perspectives of my practice contradict each other. Each of them is, to a point, contained within all the others. So there is no fighting or war between them (at least not on most days). It's just that (my own funky wave- not dude-like quality-type) God is boss on Tuesday and Thursday, while my rationality is boss on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. And I still believe in some of the Bible's (and other Holy book's) wisdom prescriptions even then, for example, even though I consider rational understanding supreme on some of those days, I still wouldn't absolutely "lean" on my own version of it, since I know how fickle it can be (see Proverbs 3:5-6). So, even though I may not believe in God on those three days, I still don't use that to justify going out to hurt and kill people (not even if I would gain something from such action that I greatly desire), but I don't do so not because I fear h*ll but because I just don't think that would be a wise choice of action. Just want to emphasize that, even by NoMan's definition as non-spirituality, "atheism" doesn't automatically equal "villainism" in my book.

Would such usage (of "atheist" as a temporary attitude rather than a life time commitment or life sentence) work for you, NoMan?
But who gets to decide how a word is used?
As with many other issues, I believe in sharing what works for each of us and then, calmly, decide together, which of those different, equally valid usages we decide to adapt for this particular situation. It seems to me that this is what happened here.
:-)
Are philosophers the authority on definition as Plato asserts? Are poets the authority on definition as Shelley asserts?
Not necessarily (to both). I consider any form of overspecialization, including but not limited to full-time philosophy or full-time poetry, problematic. But I also consider any scientist or engineer or preacher or doctor or whatever, who does not have a open mind and heart for and good working understanding of both philosophy and poetry, lost (and, if he or she doesn't cause great harm, simply lucky). To me, conducting philosophy or poetry and nothing else, while letting other people do the dirty work seems a bit arrogant and elitist. This might be my own neurotic stuff here, though, not some general truth.
We the people, the users of the language, determine the meanings of words. And meanings will change with time, sometimes referred to as ‘semantic drift’.
Yes. And I, for one, like taking a rather active role in this process. There are some words that I find used in different ways ("Faith" is one example, "superstition" another) but in regards to which I prefer one particular (non-mainstream) definition over others that are mor frequently used. There might then be more than "semantic drift,", since I find myself actively "rowing" in those cases. It's actually a fascinating process to witness, since internet discussions provide us an until now unprecedented viewpoint at such things. For example, I have noticed that in adoption discussion groups more and more people insist that the (grammatically acceptable) usage of the present tense when talking about adoption is morally wrong. Such people feel that saying a child "is adopted" is labeling them, making their being adopted a primary focus of who they are, while saying that such a child "was adopted" emphasizes the adoption to be merely one more event in the child's past, which affects that child's life is only one of the many things and happenings that define him or her. The drawback of such efforts is of course that linguistic spontaneity may be hampered, turning what was meant to be linguistic mindfulness into some stiff and often insincere form of "political correctness."

But I have very little emotional attachment to either of the definitions of "atheism" we discussed, so I'm fine with using the term in whatever way it seem practical and enlightening.
If SomeHopes and I have an ideological difference, or a misunderstanding due to our differing use of the word ‘atheism’ I can’t see it. What I see is a semantic game used to riddle and/or antagonize as a substitute for any legitimate difference of opinion. That’s why I say, it is SomeHope’s psychology that is most interesting. But I can’t talk about SomeHope’s personality unless I have SomeHope’s permission.
I'm not playing games, at least not consciously (sorry, can't always vouch for my subconscious, it's a bit of a trickster who likes throwing wrenches sometimes, it seems). My intention is not riddling or antagonizing but finding out more about the nature of mind, life, and the world and to do so while celebrating the beauty of thought and language. In the process, I sometimes get lost in those words; that's when the riddles arise. But I'm not intentionally putting them out there. I just type what comes my way and try to sort through it as much as I can, in the hope it will come out legible and intelligible. Sometimes I succeed at that. Sometimes I fail. And I do consider the latter a failure, even if there is beauty. If I were playing games, then wouldn't I consider "confusing people until they haplessly agree or give up" a form of "win"? I don't. I really don't. I consider my tendency to confuse people a weakness of my writing rather than a strength. I guess that's one of the reasons Kassandra fascinates me. I wonder, was her not being heard really a curse, or did she get lost in word play sometimes, trying to be too cool and then first losing her conversation partners by making them audience and then, in a second step, losing said audience, too, making her one of the most tragic myths I have found? Wisdom lost.
But I can’t talk about SomeHope’s personality unless I have SomeHope’s permission.
Permission granted. I consider myself, my psychology, and my personality simply additional phenomena of the natural world, open for discussion. If any of the ensuing discussion causes me emotional hurt or pain, I find that interesting rather than a reason for strife, because it means we hit upon something that I am trying to hide from myself. I feel that I can't have it both ways, exhibitionally talking about my own process and then insisting that nobody else does. So, I consider any and all aspects of myself fair game for discussion (even though I advise caution to jump to any conclusions about me, that you might feel drawn to based on my writing, since that writing, albeit important to me, is still only a small slice of my life).

With much love,
:-) Julia

P.S about cats.: What comes up for me is the difference between cats and dogs, as well as the difference between cat lovers and dog lovers I met. Cats and dogs are both predators, but they tend to hunt (and connect) in very different ways. Dogs run with a pack. They obey and grovel in front of you, if they feel you are the alpha dog. Cats just wouldn't do that. Cats sneak around and play with their food, when that food is still alive. If a dog likes you, there is no mistaking it. Cats tend to be a bit more cryptic about such things. An eternal walking mystery. Maybe cats are from Venus and dogs from Mars? No, not really. Interestingly enough, the proverbial lack of understanding between cats and dogs has mostly semantic causes. Cats who are intensely aroused and about to attack wave their tail back and forth hectically, which a dog can mistake for a happy wag. When cats are comfortable, they purr, which a dog can mistake for an angry growl. And vice versa. They aren't true enemies; they simply keep misunderstanding each other. And there are bilingual dogs. I met one once, who used to hang out with cats a lot when he was a puppy. He had even adopted some cat habits, such as licking himself clean and grooming himself like a cat would. So, the Koan (a Rinzai Buddhist term for deep and fertile practice questions) "Why are cats?" is, like any Koan, bound to have different answers, depending on whom you ask. A dog capable of human speech might remember the last time he got scratched and howl "Yes, why, WHY???" while a cat might simply smile and purr "Well, why not?" or would altogether ignore you.

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

Post by somehopesnoregrets »

This post is an attempt at tying up a few loose ends, by giving more attention to some topics not yet addressed or adding a tidbit here and there to those that we already did talk about.

About precision and accuracy
I wrote: At best, we can conduct science with precision and accuracy.[/b]

NoMan replied: 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.
Actually, I did not mean accurate in reference to any external reality. That would in fact be a form of hubris on my part. If I am honest, I have to admit that I don't know if there is a reality "out there" and, if there is, which I'm simply assuming because I tend to find nihilism utterly depressing, what exactly such reality would look like. I merely meant accurate in reference to my own method. For example, when I collect data, to count right and to not make any mathematical mistakes in my statistical analysis or methodological mistakes in how I collect the data would be performing my operations with accuracy. Not more, not less. If I count, I can count accurately or sloppily. If I calculte, I can do so accurately or sloppily. Etc. Even in published information, that has been reviewed and re-reviewed many times, we may find logical or methodological mistakes. The idea of peer-review is that, when many people who are smart and familiar with the topic, will look at it, somebody will catch it. But, ideally a scientist can save herself some embarrassment by putting a lot of effort into using her tools (surveys, measurements, statistics, etc.) with precision and accuracy. Even if she does, this still doesn't mean that the experiment, survey, etc. that she conducts is at all meaningful to anything in the world outside of her lab. But if she is sloppy in how she does what she does (as all humans are to a point, just at different rates and under different circumstances), then, even if there is some kind of applicability, the gathered data are worthless. It never ceases to amaze me how many self-professed science critics (for example in the area of vaccination fears) keep quoting studies that have long to be shown methodologically problematic or otherwise blatantly inaccurate (in regards to their own inner mechanics, leaving aside any potential relevance to anything outside of themselves).

Precision, on the other hand, means that I, if I conduct the study twice, will get very similar results. And if somebody else does so, using my specification, so would they. Replicability is a big deal for scientists. Many so-called psychic researchers have supposedly found effects that nobody else was able to reproduce, even if they used the exact same methods. In those cases it is very likely that the original researcher fell prey to his or her own bias (or that the effects surveyed are very intermittent and multi-factorial, again, dramatically decreasing the first researcher's published results' viability and reliability).

Again, if I am doing what I am doing with precision and accuracy, then at least I have a chance at results that are in some way meaningful to the world. No guarantees, of course. It's always possible that the "reality" out there looks entirely different from what I am imagining with my little thought model. Any scientific model, no matter how skillful the person who crafted it, is a mere analogy to the mystery of being and happening. But the same is true for any spiritual model of what is. Our vision is limited. So are all of our visions. We stumble around in the dark. At best we get glimpses. But some of these glimpses can alleviate suffering, which is why I put so much emphasis on soteriological intentions and pragmatic applications. Since the "what" ultimately always escapes our grasp, increasingly sophisticated practical applications, the "what for," make it all worthwhile.

About practical applications of theoretical science

Some of these applications might be not what one expects at first. I like the following, which is from the current "Skeptical Inquirer" (a magazine, with which I don't always agree, but whose thought provocations I always appreciate, see www.csicop.org for back issues and a searchable archive), in a "News and Comment" section about Canadian physics professor and string theorist Amanda Peet's defense of the resources poured into building ever larger particle accelerators:
"Peet did not apologize for the vision and far-reaching ambitions of the science community. To challenges regarding the cost and prioritization of physics projects over others of seemingly greater direct benefit to society, she remarked that 'Physicists are these extremely arrogant creatures who are interested in understanding all the forces and all the subatomic legos that make up the universe.' Peet did insist, though, that we bear in mind the diplomatic benefits afforded by the international scope of projects like the LHC [Large Hadron Collider] on which eighty countries are participating." Skeptical Inquirer, July/August 2008, pg. 9
I kind of find myself agreeing with her here. As you said yourself, there is beauty and joy to be found in many endeavors, including science, independent of practical outcomes. Over-focusing on goals can actually interfere with the creative unfolding of ideas. And sometimes, as in the above example, the benefits might be not exactly what we expected. No matter how ultimately worthless or precious the findings of said LHC may turn out to be, anything that gets people from 80 different subcultural perspectives to fruitfully cooperate is a pretty cool thing and said cooperation is truly a miracle in its own right.

About certainty

I wrote the following in my post immediately preceding this one:
This might be my own neurotic stuff here, though, not some general truth.
Please consider the above sentiment implicit in everything I share with you, especially when anything that I write seems overly "certain." I am not in the business of converting people. I don't consider confusing people in order to feel smarter and better about myself an appropriate recreational activity. The only reason that I don't add the above disclaimer to each and every paragraph that I write is that it would make for awfully boring writing. I am very clear with myself about the limited applicability of what I find out for myself. Just because it works for me doesn't mean it can be generalized to all of humanity. I know that. I am also putting a lot of effort into being very clear about my own thinking. So, if anything that I write sounds cocky or certain, then some of that might be due to the fact that I usually describe my own thoughts and experiences (rather than absolute truths or absolute realities). I am quite certain about what I think, I am a little less certain about what I feel (one of my many qiuirks), and I am fundamentally uncertain about how what I think and feel is connected wtih or disconnected from any ultimate reality that is out there and with/from how such a proposed reality would affect other people, you included. I'm NOT saying that there is no such reality, but that I trust "it" is bound to retain some of its mysteriousness no matter how much I poke and prod.

In my own practice, I actually value regular sitting meditation higher than intellectual elaboration. However, my mind is an active one and it secretes intellectual elaboration. So I read and I philosophize and I prophesize and some of it might even be helpful and most of it might simply be hot air. But when I sit, I feel I truly practice, and it settles my crazy mind and helps me focus on what really matters. So I learned to throw my mind the occasional bone to gnaw on, while sitting. But, as I mentioned in my previous post, to think of such bone gnawing in terms of winning or losing arguments or proving myself or playing "a semantic game used to riddle and/or antagonize as a substitute for any legitimate difference of opinion" doesn't really describe my intentions. I don't doubt that I come across this way sometimes, but it's not where I'm coming from. At least that's what it looks like from my end (another of those disclaimers that ideally would accompany each and every one on my paragraphs).

Hugs.
:-) Julia

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

Post by somehopesnoregrets »

The words, dualism and transcendence are just as good as the words subjective and objective.
I thought about this for a while and am not sure I agree. Maybe we are chasing squirrels and trees here and need to (a la James) look at how both of us define "objective."

In my experience, transcendence transcends both subjectivity and objectivity. This might sound like a word game, but isn't meant as such. There are objective elements to transcendence, such as the fact that I don't consider my own petty feelings the center of the universe when in a transcendent state (as I might very well in some of my dualistic states). There is a certain distancing from the intensity of immediate experience, a calming, peacefully finding a center outside of myself. I agree with you that such a distancing is found in the methods of both the sage and the scholar.

But there is more to it.

The scholar is not only objective but, at the same time, also objectifies. If she doesn't, then she tends to be a lousy scholar, because she will have a hard time telling which of her statements apply to herself and which apply to the outside world. She will also have difficulties slicing and dicing as the tool of analysis requires of us (either literally or figuratively). The same thing applies to men and to scientists (I just like using the generic "she," based on principle and on how it makes some of us stop for a moment and wonder).

The sage in a state of transcendence does not make a difference between inside and outside, between "self" and "non-self." That perspective (a term I prefer to "state" since it's not at all "static") is both utterly subjective and not subjective at all (because there is no indifferent, cold rationalizing but there is also no subject). At least that is how it seemed to me in the few moments of what I consider true transcendence that I was granted to experience. There was no "I," and, yet, there was experience. I and God was one. Those experiences were momentary, and, from what I understand, they are quite rare. Nevertheless, they profoundly affected the "dualistic" rest of my life.

I hope this makes sense. Symbolic references and transcendence don't agree with each other that well, and it's easy to sound like a complete fool when talking about such things.

With much love,
:-) Julia

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

Post by Evinnra »

I don’t think so Evinnra. I don’t think SomeHopes and I have a ideological difference concerning atheism, nor do I think we have a dispute based on a misunderstanding of two definitions of the word ‘atheism’ She was objecting to me using the word ‘atheism’ in the way I was using it, knowing full well, I was using the word in a way not defined by a dictionary. In fact, I stated as much before she voiced her objection.
Forgive me NoMan, please do! If the meaning of my previous post came across to you, as saying that there is an ideological difference between you and Julia on atheism, I made a serious mistake in that post. My intention was to highlight the practicality of your solution: that the next step perhaps is having clear preferences in personal/individual attitudes and choosing quality over quantity. That is why I thought the turning point of this entire topic lies in clarifying the meaning of atheism. The second part of my answer to what ‘…ism’ is likely to come – after explaining why I think it is possible to discern a direction of growth for society – was to explain why I think choosing quality over quantity clarifies the meaning of atheism.

Before further ado, I’d like to use the difference between Cats and Tigers – of the Chinese zodiac – as an example of how I see the next ‘…ism’ taking hold on our global society.
Cats live on the vibe by pleasing others, they are gracious because by showing a particular demeanour they ARE viewing the self as part and parcel of context. Tigers on the other hand don’t think about pleasing others, (generally speaking) they FEEL how closely they are connected to all things. The vibe of life force is internalised in Tigers, whereas Cats enact the vibe or life force. Tigers are simply big Cats, and they are bigger because they internalise the life force.

It seems we all agree on the common sense meaning of the word ‘atheism’ to be non-spiritualism. The way I see it – and I assumed you did as well, NoMan – 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. Yet the difference between atheism and spiritualism is only in the degree of uncertainty regarding the predictability of forces governing existence. The difference between all forms of religions is again the very same as between spiritualism/atheism.

Yet, the situation is not as simple as saying ‘the difference between belief and non-belief is the same as different degrees of certainty held by the individual regarding the predictability of life force’.
As I see it, the difference is in the ability of individuals to internalise the certainty regarding the predictability of life force. An atheist would say: I can learn the scientific laws governing existence, since I can internalise the truths of these laws intellectually. A spiritually inclined individual would say: I can internalise the truths of laws governing existence because I love the perfection of the One. (Disclaimer: obviously the last two sentences are gross generalisations on my behalf, but I fear going cryptic/complicated with my explanation in this post.) So, as I see it, the atheist sees truth to be known, spiritually inclined sees truth to be loved. Both internalise truth but by different methods.

Take for example the new ‘…ism’ of our current century: ENVIRONMENTALISM.

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. There is a move of direction – I sense – within humanity to embrace the good by our own natural disposition. WE all have this inclination toward the good! Spiritually inclined people could take a leaf out of the atheists’ book by TAKING FOR GRANTED the objective existence of laws governing life. The good WILL triumph! Atheists too, could take it to HEART that despite the differences between religions, we all working for the same boss.

In this post I tried to express my thoughts as simply as possible, for confusing people is one of my greatest apprehensions. Currently the only thing I can know for sure is that nobody needs further confusion. Environmentalism – as I see – must also include strengthening law enforcement, unifying education on the global scale, improving health and safety standards, protecting the image (or rather status) of marriage/commitment, cultivating beauty and persisting in clear communication. Huge list, I know. To make this list much shorter, I could say Environmentalism for me is taking loving care of existence. Taking loving care of existence is similar to saying loving the One. Presto, the Age of Aquarius arrived!

Cheers,
Evinnra
'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

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

Post by Evinnra »

P.s.: Just one more thing if I may add. It does not bother me much if people call me opinionated, stupid, pretentious, ugly, fat, old, and arrogant, etc. etc. :roll: There is some truth to all of these pejorative terms attempting to describe me. Calling me atheist however has no truth in it what so ever. The only thing I know about my self for sure, the only thing I know for certain in this reality is that I am not an atheist.

Bless ALL who are able to say the same,

Evinnra
'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

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

Post by Clemsy »

Re cats and dogs:

Dogs have masters.

Cats have staff.
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 »

About environmentalism

I actually am not entirely sure that another "-ism" is what the world truly needs. There are far too many "-ism"s out there as we speak, I feel. I don't exclude "Buddhism" from that list. I treasure the tradition and the sacrifices people made in order to preserve it and carry its knowledge through the generations, to be taught to me by my teacher. I treasure my teacher. I treasure the rituals that help me focus on my practice whenever I get confused, compulsively self-centered, or otherwise sidetracked. But the main reason I keep emphasizing on these boards here that I am a practicing "Buddhist" is because I don't want to claim credit where such credit is in fact rather due to the people who taught me. So, my calling myself a "Buddhist" is a form of source attribution rather than a pledge of allegiance.

I wonder what the world would be like, if we were not caught up in the cognitive frameworks and prisons of our respective "-isms" but would instead simply be present with life, a moment at a time, trusting that this presence of mind, body, and spirit would be sufficient for supplying us with all the information we need to make sound, kind, and wise choices. I wonder what the world would be like, if we would not try to match some externally set standard but if each of us would sincerely attempt to be the best "me" we could be, finding inspiration rather than limitation in life's "-ism"s.

What would we call that? Anti-ism-ism? Paradoxism? Practice?
:-)

More about atheism and predictabilty
Yet the difference between atheism and spiritualism is only in the degree of uncertainty regarding the predictability of forces governing existence.
It's interesting to me, Evinnra, that you define the atheism/spiritual axis over rebellion/acceptance of the mystery and our own powerlessness in the face of it. The funny thing that I see, though, is that many people who passionately consider themselves theists are actually nurturing an illusion of control. What, for example, about petitionary and intercessory forms of prayer? Are those not attempts at controlling the world rather than open ourselves up to what the world/God has to offer? What about people who insist on literal interpretation of the Bible and on replacing evolutionary teachings with creation myths? Isn't that an attempt at explaining and controlling others? To me all of those are forms of hubris, but the people in question would certainly be quite offended, were we to call them atheists.

On the other hand, I met a good number of scientists and rationalists, who would have no problem being called atheist but who nevertheless humbly treat their subject matter, the world, as a source of mystery, bewilderment, and wonder. But they simply refuse to use supernatural explanations but instead utilize science to, piece by piece, find causal connections between the different phenomena they observe. I know self-professed atheists, who would passionately agree with your notion of "a sizable unpredictability influencing ALL outcomes"

The people who seem to have the most difficulty with the concept of partial and relative unpredictability of events are fundamentalists, as well as many adherents of new age beliefs (many self-declared psychics seem to want to control everything, from the health status of people around them, especially those willing to pay them well, to our knowledge and control of the future). This desire to predict the unpredictable and to control the uncontrollable to me seems to be one of the hallmarks of pseudo-science (and pseudo-spirituality).

So, it seems to me that your definition of atheism, Evinnra, if I understand it correctly (my apologies if I didn't and am causing confusion here), might leave a huge, ill-defined gray zone of religious control freaks and humble rationalist freethinkers (please note that I fully understand that not all religious folks are control freaks and not all rationalists are humble, but there are sizable contingents of such in both groups).

Hugs.
:-) Julia

Locked