Secular Intolerance

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Locked
marjoram_blues
Posts: 1629
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by marjoram_blues »

Thanks Nick for your response.
I had a quick read and it seems like a Grand Project with Glorious Goals; and pretty much theory and no practice.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. You are the expert, I've only had time to dip my toes in.

As a philosophical theory of education - it doesn't seem to address your concern of any 'spirit-killing' in the classroom. For me, any 'spirit-killing' in education would be about being judged on the performance of a single test, following narrow aims. And this kind of test being the basis on which a child's life is based. And killing any love of learning.

What do you consider to be practical goals easily achieved so that a child, teacher and class can gain a sense of wellbeing, who care about themselves and the world.

How much time is spent in school, compared to being out there - having to relate with others in the workplace.
What skills/values are required, and how are they taught?
Most important, for me, is the need to keep learning and question any proposed theory about the world, and our place in it.
So, basic life skills with curiosity engaged and encouraged.
Being able to take initiative and be vocal - using and not just gaining knowledge.
Learning how to think. Being mindful, internally and externally.

How do you reach such goals? How long would it take?

By creating the right kind of environment - understanding how learning works - listening to individuals - giving support, respect and getting real with passion. Not only in schools but in the community.

This can happen right now. No need to wait for '100 years if we live that long '.

How do you apply your theory?
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Nick_A »

marjoram_blues wrote: Mon May 22, 2017 7:15 pm Thanks Nick for your response.
I had a quick read and it seems like a Grand Project with Glorious Goals; and pretty much theory and no practice.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. You are the expert, I've only had time to dip my toes in.

As a philosophical theory of education - it doesn't seem to address your concern of any 'spirit-killing' in the classroom. For me, any 'spirit-killing' in education would be about being judged on the performance of a single test, following narrow aims. And this kind of test being the basis on which a child's life is based. And killing any love of learning.

What do you consider to be practical goals easily achieved so that a child, teacher and class can gain a sense of wellbeing, who care about themselves and the world.

How much time is spent in school, compared to being out there - having to relate with others in the workplace.
What skills/values are required, and how are they taught?
Most important, for me, is the need to keep learning and question any proposed theory about the world, and our place in it.
So, basic life skills with curiosity engaged and encouraged.
Being able to take initiative and be vocal - using and not just gaining knowledge.
Learning how to think. Being mindful, internally and externally.

How do you reach such goals? How long would it take?

By creating the right kind of environment - understanding how learning works - listening to individuals - giving support, respect and getting real with passion. Not only in schools but in the community.

This can happen right now. No need to wait for '100 years if we live that long '.

How do you apply your theory?
Appreciating transdiciplinarity requires becoming familiar with CIRET. Reading on the Charter and Moral project as well as activities will give you an idea of what it is about. How can i explain the value of those skilled in mechanics as well as those of intellectual and emotional intelligence realizing they all have a piece of a higher truth in which they are united and seek the experience of this higher reality through conscious cooperation. As I said, it is ahead of its time so it tends to attract the more open minded. I support CIRET but branches don’t yet exist in America. When they do I’ll join. There is no way a secularist can understand the Law of the Included Middle since it opens one to the vertical third dimension of thought and freedom from the limitations of dualism. Secularism will struggle against it as best it can to preserve its dominance especially in head centered school curriculums.

http://ciret-transdisciplinarity.org/index_en.php

However you had asked if I did more than talk so I provided examples of what I at least support financially as well as adding to contemplation on the meaning of art. The only school I know of which is not dominated by secular spirit killers is the Blue Rock School in West Nyack NY. By spirit killing I mean the intentional nasty denial for opening the heart allowing the student to grow spiritually and instead replacing it with indoctrination and head knowledge. I completely agree with their aims and techniques which prove what is possible for an institution not obsessed with spirit killing. If you would ever like to start a thread on education, I’ll support it and participate. If you want to experience rigid annoyed secularists, try discussing the potential for human education.

http://www.bluerockschool.org/

If you are open to this post, we can take it from there. I appreciate your polite intelligent tone.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Greta »

Nick_A wrote: Mon May 22, 2017 1:58 pmAdmit it. You are repulsed by the idea of a conscious source for creation.
One again you are wrong. You've been wrong every time so why not try asking me first before assuming?

For your information I actually dearly hope that a mind-first model of the universe is true. However, unlike you, I don't claim to know what is obviously impossible for us to know for sure. You believe it seemingly unquestioningly, despite surely being aware of at least some of the numerous ways that our minds can fool us.

There's many possibilities. Here's a few: God may be the result Omega Point of previous universes where life evolved to transcend space and time (science fictionalism). Then again, perhaps in the beginning there was just a tendency - to grow, to expand, envelop and encompass (deism and sophisticated theism)? Maybe all tendencies emerged with the BB's energy - codependent and simultaneous? (materialism and Spinozism)? Maybe there's an initial spirit that started materiality and its mentality is interpreted by us as "love" (spirituality). Maybe it's a whopping big man in another dimension who created everything and who apparently thinks gender and homosexuality matter more than anything else (fundamentalist Abrahamic theism)? Or maybe God is an AI (I suppose, also in another dimension) that created everything as a simulation (simulation hypothesis)?

Not all are equal probability. None of us know the answer to whether it's "matter first" or "mind first", obviously, but when I snuff it, I hope mind-first is true. So no, I am not at all revolted by the concept, just by your whining and misrepresenting assumptions.
Nick_A wrote:The purpose of man is to serve creation rather than the common belief that the universe serves Man. How could any secularist tolerate that?
Why the affectation of knowledge? You don't know that at all, you're just guessing again, choosing what you want to believe. It's pretentious.

My own guess is that humans are a function of life's need to persist and grow. The Earth's surface is in the latter stages of its life-bearing phase, with probably less than a billion years left. Now humans (as part of the Earth) are trying to bring the information of Earth to other worlds, where we hope life will reproduce and develop.

That is my guess. You have your guesses. It's that simple.
Nick_A wrote:Years back when i created threads like "The Great Beast" "Simone, Plato, and the Cave" and Jesus, Nietzsche, and Simone" for example there were members who could discuss these things. Rising secular Intolerance has driven them off. It makes you feel justified but I see it as a hollow victory.

Human adaptation isn't the same as human evolution. You equate them which is why you do not understand conscious evolution. Secular intolerance will do its very best to assure that no one else can understand it either.
Conscious evolution appears to be already happening anyway. Where's the drama?
Please stop pinning false assumptions on me - and others, for that matter. It's an unpleasant and dishonest habit that brings most of your much-complained forum problems on your own head.
marjoram_blues
Posts: 1629
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by marjoram_blues »

Thanks, Nick, for another substantial post with informative links.
I will need more time to fully appreciate your perspective.
Right now, I'm wondering why there is no 'Philosophy of Education' section.
Given its clear relevance to growth of individual and world wellbeing...

Later...
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Nick_A »

Greta
NA: Human adaptation isn't the same as human evolution. You equate them which is why you do not understand conscious evolution. Secular intolerance will do its very best to assure that no one else can understand it either.

G: Conscious evolution appears to be already happening anyway. Where's the drama?

G: Please stop pinning false assumptions on me - and others, for that matter. It's an unpleasant and dishonest habit that brings most of your much-complained forum problems on your own head.
Again, you do not recognize the difference between human conscious evolution and human adaptation even theoretically. Those like you and F4 even become insulted when people question their answers. You don’t realize that true philosophy doesn’t provide answers but inspires questions worthy of conscious contemplation. This is insulting for the secularist.

That is why Philosophy Forums has devolved into Psychology forums where its idols will no longer be those like Plato but instead be those like Dr. Phil.

Those like Plato and Plotinus provide a logical scale of creation within which human meaning and purpose can be inwardly remembered and understood through contemplation rather than superficially argued from a position of imagined secular superiority. You are better off thinking wonderful thoughts and leave philosophy to those who have felt the attraction to eros and admitted their nothingness in front of this attraction and at the same time be willing to "annoy the Great Beast" as Simone Weil remarked in pursuit of eros.
"The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection." Albert Einstein
The great insult to secularism. Is there any better reason for secular intolerance? Imagine a scientist skilled in associative thought admitting his nothingness when secularism knows there is nothing more intelligent than Man. Talk about an insult! Where was Richard Dawkins when we needed him?
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Nick_A »

marjoram_blues

I said that it will be 100 years before society as a whole begins to appreciate its potential human purpose. It is natural to think this is an exaggeration and the human condition isn’t as hopeless as that.

Secular intolerance though an important part of the problem isn’t the only form of intolerance to be concerned with. Intolerance is the norm for the human condition that doesn’t “know thyself” and prefers to “imagine thyself.” Intolerance is the normal defense for egoistic imagination in general. Consider this initial excerpt from the Moral project of CIRET

http://ciret-transdisciplinarity.org/moral_project.php
We are witnessing an unprecedented revolution engendered by the fundamental sciences and in particular by physics and biology. This revolution is overturning conventional ideas of logic, epistemology and day to day life as a consequence of its technological developments. It is vital to recognize the existence of a considerable discrepancy between the new vision of the world which is emerging from the study of natural systems and the values which predominate in the social sciences and in the life of modern society; values based, to a large extent, upon mechanical determinism, positivism or nihilism. This discrepancy is extremely harmful and harbours the threat of destruction of our species. It is essential to seek the underlying causes, to reflect upon possible remedies and to try to put these into operation.
2 -
One of the obvious causes of this discrepancy is the fragmentation of knowledge. Extreme specialisation is a necessary evil since it helps to accelerate the acquisition of knowledge, but it leads, at the same time, to a darkening of meaning. On the one hand the fragmentation leads man to see himself as a stranger in a world invaded by an incomprehensible complexity. On the other hand it causes a rupture between the organs of reflexion and those of decision-making in society. Thereby are thrown open the doors to absurdity, to non-sense, to violence and to implacable dynamic of self-destruction.
Faced with this situation it is vital to encourage, in every possible way, research activity into a new scientific and cultural approach - transdisciplinarity - in an attempt to reconstitute a coherent picture of the world.
Meaning has been darkened. The greats in philosophy like Plato and Plotinus have helped us to become open to objective meaning and values by opening our minds to something greater than ourselves. Secularism insists on limiting meaning to our subjective beliefs. The initial goal of science was the search for truth. Have you noticed that it has become a tool for pragmatic political considerations so science has become largely a servant of societal desires.

I cannot see how the unification of human meaning and scientific fragmentation necessary for our survival as a species is possible in less than 100 years. Intolerance on all sides will deny it. Secular intolerance must deny an objective source of universal meaning and human meaning within it. Idolatry capturing the concept of an objective source will secularize it making it a tool for acquiring societal power. The technological advancements resulting from the fragmentation of knowledge will only further societal decay through the collective loss of objective meaning.

We need people like Dr. Nicolescu to awaken us to the human condition. Yet the world is intolerant of them. Secular intolerance opposes objective values. Secularized religion opposes science and taken together have created an imaginary division threatening human existence. Awakening the young is the beginning of realistic awakening but being inflicted with spirit killers, their situation is often as hopeless as ours. Yet these rare people like Dr. Nicolescu try. So if we have the common sense to value what they awaken us to, we owe it to support them by our attitudes if nothing else. Collective Internet attitudes show us how far we are from even such a basic beginning.

I hope you can show me how I am wrong but I don’t think you can. It seems too logical, Our only hope seems to be the influence of individuals capable of opening to objective meaning with a scientific mind and living a quality of life indicative of such an understanding. A long shot but people have drawn to an inside straight before so no sense giving up.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Belinda »

Nick_A wrote:
I said that it will be 100 years before society as a whole begins to appreciate its potential human purpose.
Nick you seem to think that purpose is a thing. But purpose is not a thing, it's something that people do. People purpose (verb).

Maybe you think that God purposes (verb).
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Nick_A »

Belinda wrote: Tue May 23, 2017 8:58 pm Nick_A wrote:
I said that it will be 100 years before society as a whole begins to appreciate its potential human purpose.
Nick you seem to think that purpose is a thing. But purpose is not a thing, it's something that people do. People purpose (verb).

Maybe you think that God purposes (verb).
What purpose does a dog serve? What does it do? It transforms substances through the functions of its bodily processes. How is Man's purpose related to a dog's purpose?
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9563
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Harbal »

Nick_A wrote: Tue May 23, 2017 9:16 pm How is Man's purpose related to a dog's purpose?
You often see them going for walks together, that would seem to be a common purpose.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Belinda »

Nick_A wrote:
What purpose does a dog serve? What does it do? It transforms substances through the functions of its bodily processes. How is Man's purpose related to a dog's purpose?
What you are doing is called reification, Nick.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Nick_A »

Harbal wrote: Tue May 23, 2017 9:22 pm
Nick_A wrote: Tue May 23, 2017 9:16 pm How is Man's purpose related to a dog's purpose?
You often see them going for walks together, that would seem to be a common purpose.
Yes they are serving their objective purpose. As they are walking they are transforming substances. Their breathing amongst other things is transforming oxygen into carbon dioxide. The dog lifts his leg on a tree and changes substances unused into what is released. The English gentleman does the same as he steps behind the tree. Yes, the primary objective purpose of the dog and its walker is transforming substances even though the subjective purpose is going for a walk..
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Nick_A »

Belinda wrote: Tue May 23, 2017 9:33 pm Nick_A wrote:
What purpose does a dog serve? What does it do? It transforms substances through the functions of its bodily processes. How is Man's purpose related to a dog's purpose?
What you are doing is called reification, Nick.
Objective purpose is one thing and subjective purpose is another. You are a secularist so only accept the concept of subjective purpose. CIRET would only be annoying for you since it assumes the potential for an objective conscious purpose for Man in addition to that of the man animal. This is lunacy for the secularist so leads to intolerance.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9563
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Harbal »

Nick_A wrote: Tue May 23, 2017 9:57 pm The dog lifts his leg on a tree and changes substances unused into what is released. The English gentleman does the same as he steps behind the tree.
I'm afraid, these days, some English gentlemen are as unselfconscious as their dogs when it comes to releasing their unused substances, many wouldn't bother stepping behind the tree.
marjoram_blues
Posts: 1629
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by marjoram_blues »

Harbal wrote: Tue May 23, 2017 10:17 pm
Nick_A wrote: Tue May 23, 2017 9:57 pm The dog lifts his leg on a tree and changes substances unused into what is released. The English gentleman does the same as he steps behind the tree.
I'm afraid, these days, some English gentlemen are as unselfconscious as their dogs when it comes to releasing their unused substances, many wouldn't bother stepping behind the tree.
Pissant pissants.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Belinda »

Nick_A wrote:
Objective purpose is one thing and subjective purpose is another. You are a secularist so only accept the concept of subjective purpose. CIRET would only be annoying for you since it assumes the potential for an objective conscious purpose for Man in addition to that of the man animal. This is lunacy for the secularist so leads to intolerance.
But how can there be a purpose floating around unattached to any subject?
Locked