Secular Intolerance

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Locked
Belinda
Posts: 8035
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Belinda »

Nick_A wrote:
In short you seem to be describing the value of becoming normal and awakening to the reality of objective quality.
I don't want to be so optimistic as to believe in objective quality. Cosmic purpose if it existed would not necessarily be good.


Greta, men are more powerful than other intelligent species and we can and do decimate those other species. We even can sort of control the incidence of pandemics although antibiotic resistant pathogens are fighting back. The good fight is not only within the sterile confines of philosophy but is out among nature asking how to support life on Earth in view of over- population by humans. The closest to Nick's "objective quality" that I get is life not death.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Greta »

Belinda wrote: Thu May 25, 2017 8:19 amGreta, men are more powerful than other intelligent species and we can and do decimate those other species.
I see us as agents of larger forces than ourselves. Think of the breakdown of tissue during gestation. That's the equivalent to what I think is happening. Why do I think we are manipulated by larger forces? Seriously, how many people like the overcrowded, hyper competitive and increasingly uncaring hornets' nests that we call cities? Why do we live in such difficult places? Because those who lived in such unpleasant conglomerates passed on more genes than intrepid individualists. Being colonial has long been naturally selected in humans and I see only progression of that concept, not a lessening.

It's our eusocial nature that makes us so dominant, and yet is a bane for us.
Belinda wrote:The closest to Nick's "objective quality" that I get is life not death.
Logic tells me that life will probably survive and even thrive after the Earth's surface's sterilisation by the Sun. Sadly, it will surely only be a minuscule proportion of the descendants of today's inhabitants, if any, but hopefully some survivors will retain the intelligence and awareness gains of humanity. Given the scale of the cosmos, it would seem certain that life at least somewhere, at some time, will advance to a degree that we'd find miraculous and "unrealistic" today.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Nick_A »

Walker wrote: Thu May 25, 2017 4:17 am
Nick_A wrote: Wed May 24, 2017 3:37 pm\
I’ll admit to being weird. One of my ancestors was an archbishop in the Armenian church and friendly with Helena Blavatsky, the founder of Theosophy. Another was an artist who had few if any peers in his ability to depict the interactions of elemental forces in nature arousing the feelings of awe and wonder. This is weird. But at the same time it has allowed me to meet and learn from people whose minds and hearts are far more advanced than mine. Would I want to exchange being weird for secular life for the advantages of deriving the belief in meaning through what the Great Beast offers. NO.
Do you know of the Brockwood School?

It may be the secular model you seek.



https://www.brockwood.org.uk
I live in NY and not all that familiar with what goes in in the UK but from what I've just read, the aim of the Brockwood School is to educate the whole student. Krishnamurti was open to levels of reality and a the necessity of a conscious source beyond the limitations of time and space. Secular spirit killing cannot be a "good" of the school. All in all, it seems students would be fortunate to attend.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Nick_A »

Belinda
I don't want to be so optimistic as to believe in objective quality. Cosmic purpose if it existed would not necessarily be good.
Is it right to say that what you consider to be subjectively evil is also objectively evil? Maybe the subjective evil is really an objective good

Is what is good for a forest also what is good for a tree within the forest? For the good of the forest, trees must die which is evil for the tree . Is this a contradiction? Does objective evil exist? A good question. Imagine trying to discuss that in a political secular environmnet dedicated to defining good and evil for you. You'll get kicked out in five minutes for disturbing the peace. :) Snowflakes will be compelled to hide under the bed
Belinda
Posts: 8035
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Belinda »

But, Nick, men aren't trees and societies aren't forests. Societies with their cultures of belief and practice shouldn't exist to benefit themselves as institutions, but should benefit the individuals who make up the society. A belief is good when it supports quality life, the biosphere, and bad when it deals only death and nothing but death.

Life is dynamic and human lives thrive upon learning, the opportunities to learn. Static entities such as sacred institutions and their gods are suited only to static societies in which the cultures of belief and practice don't change, either because the power elite is oppressive, or because the economic base is unchanging and effective enough.

You see, I have stated what I take to be objective evil and objective good: death and life.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Nick_A »

Belinda wrote: Thu May 25, 2017 5:28 pm But, Nick, men aren't trees and societies aren't forests. Societies with their cultures of belief and practice shouldn't exist to benefit themselves as institutions, but should benefit the individuals who make up the society. A belief is good when it supports quality life, the biosphere, and bad when it deals only death and nothing but death.

Life is dynamic and human lives thrive upon learning, the opportunities to learn. Static entities such as sacred institutions and their gods are suited only to static societies in which the cultures of belief and practice don't change, either because the power elite is oppressive, or because the economic base is unchanging and effective enough.

You see, I have stated what I take to be objective evil and objective good: death and life.
But, Nick, men aren't trees and societies aren't forests. Societies with their cultures of belief and practice shouldn't exist to benefit themselves as institutions, but should benefit the individuals who make up the society. A belief is good when it supports quality life, the biosphere, and bad when it deals only death and nothing but death.
The Great Beast sustains itself by training individuals to serve the Beast. Individuals serve the Beast. If the Beast served to promote human conscious evolution it would no longer be the Great Beast.

The secular perspective only appreciates one way of furthering the good of Man. It can only be concerned with the outer man or man’s personality. The Beast needs individuals with personalities created to serve the Beast at the expense of the inner man.

This is why secularists are closed to understanding the Bible. It seeks to arouse the inner man for the sake of its evolution. Dr. Nicoll’s book “The new man” has helped me to understand the deeper more essential purpose of scripture
The Gospels speak mainly of a possible inner evolution called "re-birth". This is their central idea. ... The Gospels are from beginning to end all about this possible self-evolution. They are psychological documents. They are about the psychology of this possible inner development --that is, about what a man must think, feel, and do in order to reach a new level of understanding. ... Everyone has an outer side that has been developed by his contact with life and an inner side which remains vague, uncertain, undeveloped. ... For that reason the teaching of inner evolution must be so formed that it does not fall solely on the outer side of man. It must fall there first, but be capable of penetrating more deeply and awakening the man himself --the inner, unorganized man. A man evolves internally through his deeper reflection, not through his outer life-controlled side. He evolves through the spirit of his understanding and by inner consent to what he sees as truth. The psychological meanings of the relatively fragmentary teaching recorded in the Gospels refers to this deeper, inner side of everyone.

- Maurice Nicoll; The New Man
Secularism denies the reality of the inner man and equates it with the outer man or our personality. If this is true, what good is created by those seeking to kill eros in the young which attracts the inner man even though they consider it good?

Life and death is a natural cycle which dominates our universe. Galaxies are born and die. Stars are born and die as are planets and so on down to even the most minute creations. If the cycle is good because it is necessary, how can the down side of it be considered objectively evil?

The universe serving man is considered a subjective good. Man serving the universe is an objective good. It should be a reciprocal relationship but the human condition has put them into opposition. Man serves the universe as a reactive creature but with the potential to serve the universe as a conscious being connecting levels of reality. Conscious man receives from above and gives to below. It is vertical consciousness. Man on earth limited to reactive horizontal consciousness just transforms substances on earth as does the rest of organic life on earth serving their collective purpose
Belinda
Posts: 8035
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Belinda »

Nick_A quoted:
The Gospels speak mainly of a possible inner evolution called "re-birth". This is their central idea. ... The Gospels are from beginning to end all about this possible self-evolution. They are psychological documents. They are about the psychology of this possible inner development --that is, about what a man must think, feel, and do in order to reach a new level of understanding. ... Everyone has an outer side that has been developed by his contact with life and an inner side which remains vague, uncertain, undeveloped. ... For that reason the teaching of inner evolution must be so formed that it does not fall solely on the outer side of man. It must fall there first, but be capable of penetrating more deeply and awakening the man himself --the inner, unorganized man. A man evolves internally through his deeper reflection, not through his outer life-controlled side. He evolves through the spirit of his understanding and by inner consent to what he sees as truth. The psychological meanings of the relatively fragmentary teaching recorded in the Gospels refers to this deeper, inner side of everyone.

- Maurice Nicoll; The New Man
This is undoubtedly one interpretation which would tend to support life, learning, peace and prosperity. I cannot see anything in the above quotation which is contrary to what a thoughtful and liberal secular society would have as an aim. Are you perhaps equating secularism with consumerist materialism?
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Nick_A »

Belinda wrote: Fri May 26, 2017 1:59 pm Nick_A quoted:
The Gospels speak mainly of a possible inner evolution called "re-birth". This is their central idea. ... The Gospels are from beginning to end all about this possible self-evolution. They are psychological documents. They are about the psychology of this possible inner development --that is, about what a man must think, feel, and do in order to reach a new level of understanding. ... Everyone has an outer side that has been developed by his contact with life and an inner side which remains vague, uncertain, undeveloped. ... For that reason the teaching of inner evolution must be so formed that it does not fall solely on the outer side of man. It must fall there first, but be capable of penetrating more deeply and awakening the man himself --the inner, unorganized man. A man evolves internally through his deeper reflection, not through his outer life-controlled side. He evolves through the spirit of his understanding and by inner consent to what he sees as truth. The psychological meanings of the relatively fragmentary teaching recorded in the Gospels refers to this deeper, inner side of everyone.

- Maurice Nicoll; The New Man
This is undoubtedly one interpretation which would tend to support life, learning, peace and prosperity. I cannot see anything in the above quotation which is contrary to what a thoughtful and liberal secular society would have as an aim. Are you perhaps equating secularism with consumerist materialism?
Secularism being confined to one level of reality cannot be open to the potential for rebirth, Rebirth for a caterpillar into a moth doesn't require consciousness. It is a mechanical response to natural laws. Human rebirth is the beginning of an evolution in human Being" It is the transition from reactive animal life into conscious human life capable of conscious action and consciously connecting levels of reality - above and below.

Often young people feel this human calling but don't understand it. Adults who don't understand it try to kill this calling leading to spiritual repression in the young. It is getting worse and all those who understand the problem are morally obligated to support these people who have the ability to support and protect the minds and hearts of these young people who are beginning to feel the need to be human as opposed to an indoctrinated atom of the Great Beast.
Belinda
Posts: 8035
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Belinda »

Nick_A wrote;
Secularism being confined to one level of reality cannot be open to the potential for rebirth, Rebirth for a caterpillar into a moth doesn't require consciousness. It is a mechanical response to natural laws. Human rebirth is the beginning of an evolution in human Being" It is the transition from reactive animal life into conscious human life capable of conscious action and consciously connecting levels of reality - above and below.

Often young people feel this human calling but don't understand it. Adults who don't understand it try to kill this calling leading to spiritual repression in the young. It is getting worse and all those who understand the problem are morally obligated to support these people who have the ability to support and protect the minds and hearts of these young people who are beginning to feel the need to be human as opposed to an indoctrinated atom of the Great Beast.
Top
I'm surprised that you seem not to recognise " the transition from reactive animal life into conscious human life" in people you have met personally or vicariously. While it's unwise to idolise anybody , there is goodness and truth among people even although these might be transient glimpses.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Nick_A »

Belinda wrote: Sat May 27, 2017 7:17 am Nick_A wrote;
Secularism being confined to one level of reality cannot be open to the potential for rebirth, Rebirth for a caterpillar into a moth doesn't require consciousness. It is a mechanical response to natural laws. Human rebirth is the beginning of an evolution in human Being" It is the transition from reactive animal life into conscious human life capable of conscious action and consciously connecting levels of reality - above and below.

Often young people feel this human calling but don't understand it. Adults who don't understand it try to kill this calling leading to spiritual repression in the young. It is getting worse and all those who understand the problem are morally obligated to support these people who have the ability to support and protect the minds and hearts of these young people who are beginning to feel the need to be human as opposed to an indoctrinated atom of the Great Beast.
Top
I'm surprised that you seem not to recognise " the transition from reactive animal life into conscious human life" in people you have met personally or vicariously. While it's unwise to idolise anybody , there is goodness and truth among people even although these might be transient glimpses.
There is goodness and truth in many. The trouble is that the outer man has become dominant and prevents conscious development

Namaste In Hinduism it means "I bow to the divine in you". The idea is expressed in Christianity as “love the sinner but not the sin.” Either way there is something within the human organism that didn’t arise on the earth but rather descended from above – a higher level of reality. Thi seed of the soul contains the potential for conscious evolution. This certain something is easily killed and secular intolerance does its best to kill it.
Belinda
Posts: 8035
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Belinda »

Nick_A wrote:
Namaste In Hinduism it means "I bow to the divine in you". The idea is expressed in Christianity as “love the sinner but not the sin.” Either way there is something within the human organism that didn’t arise on the earth but rather descended from above
Does it matter whether one believes that it descended from above, or evolved to be man's present awareness of good, truth, and beauty?
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Nick_A »

Belinda wrote: Sat May 27, 2017 5:23 pm Nick_A wrote:
Namaste In Hinduism it means "I bow to the divine in you". The idea is expressed in Christianity as “love the sinner but not the sin.” Either way there is something within the human organism that didn’t arise on the earth but rather descended from above
Does it matter whether one believes that it descended from above, or evolved to be man's present awareness of good, truth, and beauty?
An essential question for the inner man. When taken wrongly it is actually demonic. It creates the psychological belief that we are God depriving us of the experience of what we are and what we need to transcend the effects of imagination.
“Nothing can have as its destination anything other than its origin. The contrary idea, the idea of progress, is poison.” ~ Simone Weil
Conscious evolution is the return to the origin of man rather than becoming God.
Belinda
Posts: 8035
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Belinda »

Nick_A wrote: Sat May 27, 2017 6:45 pm
Belinda wrote: Sat May 27, 2017 5:23 pm Nick_A wrote:
Namaste In Hinduism it means "I bow to the divine in you". The idea is expressed in Christianity as “love the sinner but not the sin.” Either way there is something within the human organism that didn’t arise on the earth but rather descended from above
Does it matter whether one believes that it descended from above, or evolved to be man's present awareness of good, truth, and beauty?
An essential question for the inner man. When taken wrongly it is actually demonic. It creates the psychological belief that we are God depriving us of the experience of what we are and what we need to transcend the effects of imagination.
“Nothing can have as its destination anything other than its origin. The contrary idea, the idea of progress, is poison.” ~ Simone Weil
Conscious evolution is the return to the origin of man rather than becoming God.
The belief that we are God is indeed arguably demonic. What I had in mind is not hubris of this magnitude but more the realisation that if God does indeed exist we are His labourers. If God does not exist we still are labourers working for good, truth, and beauty.
what we need to transcend the effects of imagination.
Nick, this usage of 'imagination' i.e. 'imagination' synonymous with 'fantasy ' is a trite usage of the word 'imagination'. The really important usage of 'imagination' refers to how we men create with truth and love of truth.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Nick_A »

Belinda
The belief that we are God is indeed arguably demonic. What I had in mind is not hubris of this magnitude but more the realisation that if God does indeed exist we are His labourers. If God does not exist we still are labourers working for good, truth, and beauty.
But if Plato’s “Good” doesn’t exist, what is the reason for working for good, truth, and beauty? What is wrong with survival of the fittest which governs animal life? Plato wrote that justice is the norm for the soul. We must be abnormal
Plato realises that all theories propounded by Cephalus, Thrasymachus and Glaucon, contained one common element. That one common element was that all the them treated justice as something external "an accomplishment, an importation, or a convention, they have, none of them carried it into the soul or considered it in the place of its habitation." Plato prove that justice does not depend upon a chance, convention or upon external force. It is the right condition of the human soul by the very nature of man when seen in the fullness of his environment.
If the Good and the soul do not exist, higher values cannot exist either. There is no reason for them for animal man. Might is right.
Nick, this usage of 'imagination' i.e. 'imagination' synonymous with 'fantasy ' is a trite usage of the word 'imagination'. The really important usage of 'imagination' refers to how we men create with truth and love of truth.
Imagination may be far more influential than you are aware of

Greta wrote this about me on the second page of this topic:
Yes. "Monomania" is an excellent word in context. In philosophy forums, as with any forums (I'm also a member of a music forum) everyone has "their thing". The ones who annoy are those who keep harping about the same thing, starting numerous threads on more or less the same thing, often with some whining - bumping their agendas at the expense of more open minds.

However, the forum's "failure", ie. his banning, was due to him going a bit feral with the abusiveness and contemptuousness, persistently ignoring warnings. It was the fourth and final strike before which he'd gifted the forum with 107 of his topics, many about Plato's save, Simone's ideas and/or The Great Beast. So he had a good run before finally becoming too annoying to other members and mods who were/are just trying to talk about stuff without too much drama.
Obviously all this is untrue. Have you suffered any feral attacks or harassed by my agenda whatever that is? Is there anything against the rules to discuss Plato and others F4 called a "cast of characters?" I there anything wrong with including their ideas in the perspective of modern problems? No it isn’t against the rules but it does provoke secular intolerance against what it believes is right. This is intolerable and this annoyance must be eliminated. This doesn’t bother me but when you consider the harm done by this mentality in secular progressive education it truly is a crime against the young.

The cause of secular intolerance is imagination which demands egoistic self justification. Imagination is the cause of unnecessary fears which also provoke New Age and Religious fantasy.

The quality of imagination Einstein and others refers to easily becomes corrupted by egoism and fears and devolves conscious collective potential deeper into fantasy. It remains valuable as creative directed attention but most are content to let imagination offer consolation and imagined security. A minority will allow imagination to enable their potential for intuition by first admitting fantasy for what it is. We need them. The Great Beast prefers to eliminate them. If the young are spiritually killed in the schools, what can be better for the worship of the Great Beast than their indoctrination into the land of snowflakes where the Great Beast defines what the love of truth means to politically correct snowflakes.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Greta »

Nick_A wrote: Mon May 29, 2017 12:59 amGreta wrote this about me on the second page of this topic:
Yes. "Monomania" is an excellent word in context. In philosophy forums, as with any forums (I'm also a member of a music forum) everyone has "their thing". The ones who annoy are those who keep harping about the same thing, starting numerous threads on more or less the same thing, often with some whining - bumping their agendas at the expense of more open minds.

However, the forum's "failure", ie. his banning, was due to him going a bit feral with the abusiveness and contemptuousness, persistently ignoring warnings. It was the fourth and final strike before which he'd gifted the forum with 107 of his topics, many about Plato's save, Simone's ideas and/or The Great Beast. So he had a good run before finally becoming too annoying to other members and mods who were/are just trying to talk about stuff without too much drama.
Obviously all this is untrue. Have you suffered any feral attacks or harassed by my agenda whatever that is? Is there anything against the rules to discuss Plato and others F4 called a "cast of characters?" I there anything wrong with including their ideas in the perspective of modern problems? No it isn’t against the rules but it does provoke secular intolerance against what it believes is right. This is intolerable and this annoyance must be eliminated. This doesn’t bother me but when you consider the harm done by this mentality in secular progressive education it truly is a crime against the young.

... politically correct snowflakes.
Oh, are you still going on about this? *yawwwn*

I have no reason to lie. If you weren't being over-the-top I wouldn't have banned you. As I said before, I find some of your musings of more interest than some so I would have preferred not to have banned you.

However, you were extremely insulting towards my fellow moderator. Repeatedly. At first we let it go but you pushed and pushed. You were given warnings and you ignored them. You gave us no choice. After your misrepresentations of us here I feel better about the banning now. Thank you.

The final three words of your post, highlighted above, summarise how tolerant you are, ie. even less tolerant of others than others have been of you.
Locked