Secular Intolerance

[Nick_A]

Gretanut strikes again

The Nickhead is not finished yet and his pace is accelerating. I suspect you may have given him a new goal in life. He is highly impressionable and prone to parroting (he always parrots my barbs) so I expect him to be right on board with the idea of owning an endless thread. Publicity! Notoriety! Influence! Nicky's dream!! The next Simone Weil!!! Watch this space (or not).

It should be an endless thread. It is an essential struggle. As previously quoted:

IN a recent work, Henri Nouwen emphasizes the essence of spirituality in a most succinct fashion: “To whom do we belong? This is the core question of the spiritual life. Do we belong to the world, its worries, its people and its endless chain of urgencies and emergencies, or do we belong to God and God’s people.”

If another person joins in the discussion willing and able to participate as one of God’s people, it really could be meaningful. Gretanut, F4 and others will defend belonging to and glorifying the World and hopefully another and me the perspective of the people of God.

o the Nickhead, you and I and most others here are like Chalmers's philosophical zombies - with only physical sensations and abstracted thoughts, but no actual sense of inner experience or depth of emotion or empathy. He does not believe that any of us are fully human - only himself and a few other similarly enlightened superior souls.

Yes, to be alive as a human being is to be awake. You prefer to argue in your sleep

The millions are awake enough for physical labor; but only one in a million is awake enough for effective intellectual exertion, only one in a hundred millions to a poetic or divine life. To be awake is to be alive. I have never yet met a man who was quite awake. How could I have looked him in the face? - Thoreau, Walden

Also, apparently, we are all engaged in supporting The Great Beast - society at large - and betraying individuals and individualism for conformity. This of course is a strawman based on blinkered B&W thinking, lacking any nuance or sense of continua.

Yes, the Great Beast is your God and its kingdom is Plato’s cave – the ultimate evolution of human consciousness for the secularist.

The same applies to his accusations of spirit-killing education. The public education system is paid for by the many so its aims are for the many (not for power-hungry theocrats). So the aim is to produce productive units for the economy rather than individual building of character. In the past schools were more focused on the person (and in some cases, brainwashing) but many - and fair - complaints made by parents about ideological biases one way or another resulted in the "character shaping" aspects of the public education system being withdrawn and delegated back to families.

Yes, the aim of education for secularism is “to produce productive units for the economy rather than individual building of character.” This requires the young enduring metaphysical repression so as to forever deny the questions of their hearts. Their meaning and purpose is to serve the Beast as productive units for the economy. They are things – atoms of the Beast, lacking any feeling for the objective questions their hearts once called them to. Now they have matured and know they belong to the Great Beast and secular intolerance will make sure they never forget it.

[Greta]

Yes, the aim of education for secularism is “to produce productive units for the economy rather than individual building of character.” This requires the young enduring metaphysical repression so as to forever deny the questions of their hearts. Their meaning and purpose is to serve the Beast as productive units for the economy. They are things – atoms of the Beast, lacking any feeling for the objective questions their hearts once called them to. Now they have matured and know they belong to the Great Beast and secular intolerance will make sure they never forget it.

There is actually an increasing interest in religion and decreasing interest in physical reality.

Like many other would-be spiritualists, you are keen to dismiss physical reality as shadows in Plato's cave, as though you have something better to do than to embrace the physical reality with which you have been gifted against enormous odds.

[Dubious]

One quick question
Newton's first law of motion- sometimes referred to as the law of inertia. Newton's first law of motion is often stated as. An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force
Before the big bang, what is the unbalanced force that put matter into motion?

The two parts of your analogy couldn’t be more incompatible though I understand the inference. To keep it short, there was no “matter” before the big bang. Newton’s laws, meaning ALL of them have no reference to what happened before or immediately after the big bang. None of it can be explained by classical physics.

A much better analogy employing Plato’s Cave metaphor is one modern cosmology offers in describing our 3D universe as a mere “shadow” of a four dimensional suprauniverse. It’s a model which contravenes neither physics or math while explaining a great deal of this universe especially events prior to the Big Bang. There’s no point in going further except to say according to the model we are still dwellers in a Cosmic Cave derived from the projections of a 4D universe in which intent and purpose (presuming such) are likewise shadows.

When the universe dies and its matter is at rest, is that all there is?

Who knows, and from an “Existential” point of view, who cares! It’s got nothing to do with our improvised existence on this planet or any others we manage to screw up. How the universe ends, if it ends, is more mysterious than its beginning. It is also of no concern to philosophy only to physicists and cosmologists who’s business it is to figure it out.

I was reminded recently that the universe just keeps “banging on” as a continuation of its origin...and so it does but at a vastly reduced rate of star formation. To put it metaphorically, what was once ten thousand kettle drums banging away is now reduced to a few dozen bongos.

The universe is supposedly going to last another ten trillion years and yet it’s already in a considerable rate of creative decline after 14 billion years...a spit in the bucket compared to how long it’s presumed to last. It doesn't add up and remains a mystery more impervious to discovery than the BB. That which would cause IT not to be is yet to be determined. However long it lasts it's either going to recycle itself or be recycled by something else. As mentioned, its end is more inscrutable than its beginning.

I have nothing further to say on this thread but you asked a question which I didn’t want to ignore. I don’t regard you in the same way others do; you make some valid points while being totally off the mark on others. That diminishes the more cogent claims you make. If it’s not possible for any equally valid arguments to even cause a crack in what you believe then any argumentation is futile.

[Nick_A]

Yes, the aim of education for secularism is “to produce productive units for the economy rather than individual building of character.” This requires the young enduring metaphysical repression so as to forever deny the questions of their hearts. Their meaning and purpose is to serve the Beast as productive units for the economy. They are things – atoms of the Beast, lacking any feeling for the objective questions their hearts once called them to. Now they have matured and know they belong to the Great Beast and secular intolerance will make sure they never forget it.

There is actually an increasing interest in religion and decreasing interest in physical reality.

Like many other would-be spiritualists, you are keen to dismiss physical reality as shadows in Plato's cave, as though you have something better to do than to embrace the physical reality with which you have been gifted against enormous odds.

No, there is an increased interest in self justifying escapism created through imagination . That is not spirituality which is an attribute of consciousness. The Great Beast loves imagination but is intolerant of consciousness disturbing the peace and revealing the Beast for what it is.

[Greta]

Yes, the aim of education for secularism is “to produce productive units for the economy rather than individual building of character.” This requires the young enduring metaphysical repression so as to forever deny the questions of their hearts. Their meaning and purpose is to serve the Beast as productive units for the economy. They are things – atoms of the Beast, lacking any feeling for the objective questions their hearts once called them to. Now they have matured and know they belong to the Great Beast and secular intolerance will make sure they never forget it.

There is actually an increasing interest in religion and decreasing interest in physical reality.

Like many other would-be spiritualists, you are keen to dismiss physical reality as shadows in Plato's cave, as though you have something better to do than to embrace the physical reality with which you have been gifted against enormous odds.

No, there is an increased interest in self justifying escapism created through imagination . That is not spirituality which is an attribute of consciousness. The Great Beast loves imagination but is intolerant of consciousness disturbing the peace and revealing the Beast for what it is.

If the GB loves religious fantasy, why is it that a so-called GB lover like me is not a fan? This seems inconsistent.

As a matter of interest, I've noted that you claim that almost everyone is getting life wrong. Is there anyone who is getting life right? Some especially enlightened group of monks or a sect or cult or just a few especially gifted individuals such as your goodself?

[Nick_A]

One quick question
Newton's first law of motion- sometimes referred to as the law of inertia. Newton's first law of motion is often stated as. An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force
Before the big bang, what is the unbalanced force that put matter into motion?

The two parts of your analogy couldn’t be more incompatible though I understand the inference. To keep it short, there was no “matter” before the big bang. Newton’s laws, meaning ALL of them have no reference to what happened before or immediately after the big bang. None of it can be explained by classical physics.

A much better analogy employing Plato’s Cave metaphor is one modern cosmology offers in describing our 3D universe as a mere “shadow” of a four dimensional suprauniverse. It’s a model which contravenes neither physics or math while explaining a great deal of this universe especially events prior to the Big Bang. There’s no point in going further except to say according to the model we are still dwellers in a Cosmic Cave derived from the projections of a 4D universe in which intent and purpose (presuming such) are likewise shadows.

When the universe dies and its matter is at rest, is that all there is?

Who knows, and from an “Existential” point of view, who cares! It’s got nothing to do with our improvised existence on this planet or any others we manage to screw up. How the universe ends, if it ends, is more mysterious than its beginning. It is also of no concern to philosophy only to physicists and cosmologists who’s business it is to figure it out.

I was reminded recently that the universe just keeps “banging on” as a continuation of its origin...and so it does but at a vastly reduced rate of star formation. To put it metaphorically, what was once ten thousand kettle drums banging away is now reduced to a few dozen bongos.

The universe is supposedly going to last another ten trillion years and yet it’s already in a considerable rate of creative decline after 14 billion years...a spit in the bucket compared to how long it’s presumed to last. It doesn't add up and remains a mystery more impervious to discovery than the BB. That which would cause IT not to be is yet to be determined. However long it lasts it's either going to recycle itself or be recycled by something else. As mentioned, its end is more inscrutable than its beginning.

I have nothing further to say on this thread but you asked a question which I didn’t want to ignore. I don’t regard you in the same way others do; you make some valid points while being totally off the mark on others. That diminishes the more cogent claims you make. If it’s not possible for any equally valid arguments to even cause a crack in what you believe then any argumentation is futile.

Actually what you call 4D is the first dimension of time for me. The first three dimensions refer to space. The fourth dimension is the first dimension of time. Time is the repetition of a moment. The moments of a person’s life strung together represented by a line is the fifth dimension or eternity. (think eternal recurrence) Yet we have an infinity of potential eternities and they take place in the sixth dimension which science now speculates as multiverses.

Animal Man is limited to experiencing three dimensions. “Feeling “ existence is a sensitivity to time. The complimentary flow of forces taking place within time called evolution and involution taking place within the six dimensions of existence is the domain of objective meaning and purpose if it does exist. You say it doesn’t and common sense to me says it does.

[Nick_A]

There is actually an increasing interest in religion and decreasing interest in physical reality.

Like many other would-be spiritualists, you are keen to dismiss physical reality as shadows in Plato's cave, as though you have something better to do than to embrace the physical reality with which you have been gifted against enormous odds.

No, there is an increased interest in self justifying escapism created through imagination . That is not spirituality which is an attribute of consciousness. The Great Beast loves imagination but is intolerant of consciousness disturbing the peace and revealing the Beast for what it is.

If the GB loves religious fantasy, why is it that a so-called GB lover like me is not a fan? This seems inconsistent.

As a matter of interest, I've noted that you claim that almost everyone is getting life wrong. Is there anyone who is getting life right? Some especially enlightened group of monks or a sect or cult or just a few especially gifted individuals such as your goodself?

There are many forms of escapist fantasy. You have yours as do others. Some call it spiritual. Call it what you wish, it is still escapist fantasy taking the place of conscious experience of the physical

Maybe there are such people but we don't know them or could we understand them. We live in the domain of opinions, of partial truths. when we glorify opinions and argue them as something more than partial truths we are getting it wrong. A minority strive to consciously experience knowledge or the wholeness which includes all opinions existing as ONE within a higher level of reality..

[Dubious]

Actually what you call 4D is the first dimension of time for me. The first three dimensions refer to space. The fourth dimension is the first dimension of time. Time is the repetition of a moment. The moments of a person’s life strung together represented by a line is the fifth dimension or eternity. (think eternal recurrence) Yet we have an infinity of potential eternities and they take place in the sixth dimension which science now speculates as multiverses.

Animal Man is limited to experiencing three dimensions. “Feeling “ existence is a sensitivity to time. The complimentary flow of forces taking place within time called evolution and involution taking place within the six dimensions of existence is the domain of objective meaning and purpose if it does exist. You say it doesn’t and common sense to me says it does.

No problemo! Customize it in whatever way suits you.

[fooloso4]

Nick, you have ignored the following question twice:

Are you merely “open to remembering the good” or do you remember and thereby know it?

Why is that? It is, I think, a rather good question. Unfortunately for you an honest answer would undermine all your claims about an objective meaning and purpose and values. It would expose the fact that you really have no knowledge of what you are talking about. It is all just an escape to an imaginary world.It is spiritual onanism. It may feel good but means nothing more.

[Nick_A]

Nick, you have ignored the following question twice:

Are you merely “open to remembering the good” or do you remember and thereby know it?

Why is that? It is, I think, a rather good question. Unfortunately for you an honest answer would undermine all your claims about an objective meaning and purpose and values. It would expose the fact that you really have no knowledge of what you are talking about. It is all just an escape to an imaginary world.It is spiritual onanism. It may feel good but means nothing more.

In the pure state, a person remember what the soul is born with which are expressions of the good and apriori knowledge. However a person can also remember what the soul has acquired which is what is so dangerous about modern new age practices, They can easily make one corrupt on the inside through egoistic escapism

I've often wondered how Simone Weil could have the knowledge that she did and also have such violent reactions to world hunger:

Weil's fellow student, the feminist writer Simone de Beauvoir, wrote of Weil in her book Memoirs of a Dutiful Daughter:

She intrigued me because of her great reputation for intelligence and her bizarre get-up; "A great famine had broken out in China, and I was told that when she heard the news she had wept: these tears compelled my respect much more than her gifts as a philosopher. I envied her having a heart that could beat right across the world. I managed to get near her one day. I don't know how the conversation got started; she declared in no uncertain tones that only one thing mattered in the world: the revolution which would feed all the starving people of the earth. I retorted, no less peremptorily, that the problem was not to make men happy, but to find the reason for their existence. She looked me up and down: 'It's easy to see you've never been hungry,' she snapped.

The only way I can explain it is that Simone was a partially developed soul that had experienced famine. This experienced had become a part of her and what had already been a developing soul was using suffering as a means for conscious inner cleansing or the conscious experience of suffering.

[Nick_A]

As I’ve said, the great harm of secular intolerance is that it is a spirit killer, It deprives the young of the natural attraction to eros. It is an impossible concept to discuss with secularists since they deny the premise. Unfortuntely they deny themselves of the extraordinary idea of metaxy which Simone Weil wrote of as metaxu. Since I did bring it up, I should elaborate on what spirit killers actually kill. From Wikipedia.

Metaxy (Greek: μεταξύ) is defined in Plato's Symposium via the character of the priestess Diotima as the "in-between" or "middle ground". Diotima, tutoring Socrates, uses the term to show how oral tradition can be perceived by different people in different ways. In the poem by Socrates she depicts Eros as not an extreme or purity; rather, as a daemon, Eros is in between the divine Gods and mankind. Diotima thus exposes the flaws of oral tradition; it uses strong contrasts to express truth, thus revealing vulnerability to sophistry. This portion of the dialogue points to the idea that reality is perceptible only through one's character (which includes one's desires and prejudices and one's limited understanding of logic). Man moves through the world of Becoming, the ever changing world of sensory perception, into the world of Being—the world of forms, absolutes and transcendence. Man transcends his place in Becoming by Eros, where man reaches the Highest Good, an intuitive and mystical state of consciousness. Neoplatonists like Plotinus later used the concept to express an ontologicalplacement of Man between the Gods and animals.[1] Much like Diotima did in expressing that Eros as a daemon was in between the Gods and mankind. Love (Eros) is the thing in between or child of Poverty (Penia) and Possession (Poros).

Secularism restricts itself to one level of reality I’ve called Plato’s cave. Metaxy refers to the conscious connection between levels of reality. The ideals of a free society should express metaxy, the connection between Man and his Source. The ideal of a secular slave society must have ideals which glorify the Great Beast and requires the Beast to enforce them. Secular intolerance in schools will of course deny metaxy in favor of glorifying the Beast. The kids who have experienced the calling of eros but give in to societal influences will often die inside the more they become indoctrinated into the mindset of the Beast. Those like Greta and F4 side with the Beast and deny metaxy. I side with those like Plato and Simone who understood metaxy

[Greta]

As I’ve said, the great harm of secular intolerance is that it is a spirit killer ...

And I have said that religious schools, with their many rock spiders, have done far more to crush people's spirits than just focus on the three Rs.

It's not "secular intolerance" - it's living with other people with insufficient solitude and having to always bend to their wishes that kills the spirit. The freedom provided by secularism will suit some people. However, it's true that others lack internal controls and need guiding religion's "programming" to keep their lives under control.

There is no one-size-fits-all solution to the human condition. Various religions have had thousands of years to achieve this and failed. Some people do best with simple rules and others do best when free to be creative.

Sorry to continually p**** your ideological balloon but you persist in naive and silly accusations against Fooloso and me.

[Nick_A]

As I’ve said, the great harm of secular intolerance is that it is a spirit killer ...

And I have said that religious schools, with their many rock spiders, have done far more to crush people's spirits than just focus on the three Rs.

It's not "secular intolerance" - it's living with other people with insufficient solitude and having to always bend to their wishes that kills the spirit. The freedom provided by secularism will suit some people. However, it's true that others lack internal controls and need guiding religion's "programming" to keep their lives under control.

There is no one-size-fits-all solution to the human condition. Various religions have had thousands of years to achieve this and failed. Some people do best with simple rules and others do best when free to be creative.

Sorry to continually p**** your ideological balloon but you persist in naive and silly accusations against Fooloso and me.

All this means is that you and F4 cannot reason from anything but a cave perspective. You wrote of what is good for the cave and what is bad for the cave but metaxy honoring the call to eros is foreign to you yet vital for nourishing the seeds of the souls.

Simone Weil lamented that education had become no more than "an instrument manipulated by teachers for manufacturing more teachers, who in their turn will manufacture more teachers." rather than a guide to getting out of the cave.

The bottom line is that those like you and F4 will support teachers and others either consciously or unconsciously denying the quality of metaxy necessary for psychological freedom from cave life. You would prefer spiritually dead kids than anyone supporting the quality of metaxy that stimulates the impulse for freedom from cave life and its god the Great Beast. The Great Beast is a selfish God and doesn't want its slaves to awaken to their potential for receiving inner help from higher consciousness the pursuit of eros leads to,

[fooloso4]

Nick_A:

In the pure state, a person remember what the soul is born with which are expressions of the good and apriori knowledge.

But you are not in a “pure state”. You are merely repeating what you have been told and although you believe it to be true, you do not know if what you have been told is true. The acceptance of mythological tales is not knowledge and is not philosophy.

However a person can also remember what the soul has acquired ...

You have not remembered having acquired the knowledge of the good. I did not ask about “a person”, I asked about you. You simply accept a myth as the truth.

You have not answered the question. As I said the first time I asked the question: And now, once again, the dance of equivocation …

[Arising_uk]

If you don't know what it means to educate rather than indoctrinate, methods are meaningless for you. ...

I know the difference and that is why I know that that is exactly what you propose, indoctrination. Specifically an indoctrination into your religious beliefs.

For example I assert that teaching conscious attention skills is essential for an educated as opposed to an indoctrinated human being. ...

Will you be teaching Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Mathematics, English, History, Geography, Art, Music, et al, along with these 'conscious attention' skills?

You don't know what conscious attntion is and how it differs from directed or reactive attention so there is no sense in introducing it to dedicated secularists insisting on indoctrination.

Why not? After all our kids would be going to your school if you got your way so surely we have the right to know what you'll be up to.

I have my own ideas about what 'conscious attention' skills are but I doubt they are the same as yours as I'm guessing yours will be about your 'God' in some way. What will you do with the kids who have other 'god's' than yours?