Is Liberty possible without the Ideal of the Nuclear Family?

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Is Liberty possible without the Ideal of the Nuclear Family?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Nick_A wrote: Sat Oct 10, 2020 1:56 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Oct 09, 2020 6:53 pm Concisely, then: is that right?
Yes.
That's all I wanted to know.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Is Liberty possible without the Ideal of the Nuclear Family?

Post by Nick_A »

“Americans are so enamored of equality, they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.” ― Alexis de Tocqueville

The modern secular attack against marriage as the union of the male and female energies under God has the intent of creating equality. But can society evolve towards equality or devolve into the equality of slavery?

There is nothing wrong about excluding others since there is no source. There is nothing for the man and woman to join with. This means that marriage can be between two men, two women, a man and his horse or a woman and her dog and so on. Marriage is considered a secular ritual.
Metaxu (Greek: μεταξύ) or metaxy 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." (Wikipedia)
Art and ideas of a certain quality serve the purpose of metaxu and attract contemplation of what is greater than ourselves. it is here where a person can experience higher values natural for a higher level of reality that serve to enable the human potential for liberty.

Traditional marriage is a ritual which invites us to raise our minds for the purpose of making liberty possible. It makes us aware of voluntary obligations essential for liberty. The condemnation of these rituals assure the devolution of consciousness into the equality of slavery. In reality it is denied so the problem can only be resolved by the struggle known as "might makes right." May the stronger animal win.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Is Liberty possible without the Ideal of the Nuclear Family?

Post by Belinda »

Nick_A wrote: Wed Sep 30, 2020 11:14 pm Marxists argue that the nuclear family performs ideological functions for Capitalism – the family acts as a unit of consumption and teaches passive acceptance of hierarchy. It is also the institution through which the wealthy pass down their private property to their children, thus reproducing class inequality.

Those who understand liberty know that capitalism is a tool the nuclear family uses to sustain itself and pass on to their children. It recognizes the essential difference between men and women. The essential value liberty defends is the ability for the nuclear family to pursue happiness as it is understood as in religion which is more than economics. Without the nuclear family, a strong central government appealing to Marxism is essential to take the place of the father.

The center of town for the marxist is a government office. For the nuclear family it is a church. That is the difference and why America is in decline.
Unfortunately for some of those who trusted churches, priests employed by churches abused
small children from trusting families.

Unfortunately for many women, especially those women who have children to care for , many men have tortured, murdered, beaten, overworked, traded, and despised their wives, and taught their children to do likewise. This is why there have to be women's refuges.

Nick, you traduce the fair name of Liberty.

Nick wrote:
There is nothing wrong about excluding others since there is no source. There is nothing for the man and woman to join with. This means that marriage can be between two men, two women, a man and his horse or a woman and her dog and so on.
You can't marry a horse or a dog because animals can't consent to a social contract as they don't know what it means. Under certain regimes a small child who cannot in all conscience consent to a social contract is forced to marry. These are regimes where women's rights are non existent and women and children are commodities, chattels, possessions. Families, not individuals, are held to be the unit with the most honourable status, and then you have honour killings of women by their fathers and their brothers.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Is Liberty possible without the Ideal of the Nuclear Family?

Post by Nick_A »

Belinda wrote: Sat Oct 10, 2020 8:37 am
Nick_A wrote: Wed Sep 30, 2020 11:14 pm Marxists argue that the nuclear family performs ideological functions for Capitalism – the family acts as a unit of consumption and teaches passive acceptance of hierarchy. It is also the institution through which the wealthy pass down their private property to their children, thus reproducing class inequality.

Those who understand liberty know that capitalism is a tool the nuclear family uses to sustain itself and pass on to their children. It recognizes the essential difference between men and women. The essential value liberty defends is the ability for the nuclear family to pursue happiness as it is understood as in religion which is more than economics. Without the nuclear family, a strong central government appealing to Marxism is essential to take the place of the father.

The center of town for the marxist is a government office. For the nuclear family it is a church. That is the difference and why America is in decline.
Unfortunately for some of those who trusted churches, priests employed by churches abused
small children from trusting families.

Unfortunately for many women, especially those women who have children to care for , many men have tortured, murdered, beaten, overworked, traded, and despised their wives, and taught their children to do likewise. This is why there have to be women's refuges.

Nick, you traduce the fair name of Liberty.

Nick wrote:
There is nothing wrong about excluding others since there is no source. There is nothing for the man and woman to join with. This means that marriage can be between two men, two women, a man and his horse or a woman and her dog and so on.
You can't marry a horse or a dog because animals can't consent to a social contract as they don't know what it means. Under certain regimes a small child who cannot in all conscience consent to a social contract is forced to marry. These are regimes where women's rights are non existent and women and children are commodities, chattels, possessions. Families, not individuals, are held to be the unit with the most honourable status, and then you have honour killings of women by their fathers and their brothers.
A society never stays the same. It is either following the cycle of evolution and the collective conscious awareness of the wholeness of its source or involution which is the psychological pull into fragmentation or away from the wholeness of its source into its parts.

A secularized church is either participating in the lawful process of evolution or involution. To answer why it devolves into involution is a necessary question for anyone concerned with the loss of of the values necessary to sustain liberty.

Idolatry comes from the fact that, while thirsting for absolute good, we do not possess the power of supernatural attention and we have not the patience to allow it to develop (Simone Weil, Gravity and Grace 53).

Our current psychological descent into fragmentation, though considered evolutionary, is actually involutionary. It leads one away from the human attraction to the wholeness of our source into attachments to parts and the struggle for possession of "parts." This tendency makes liberty the truly impossible dream since we lack the quality of attention necessary to deal with it.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Is Liberty possible without the Ideal of the Nuclear Family?

Post by Belinda »

Nick_A wrote: Sat Oct 10, 2020 1:58 pm
Belinda wrote: Sat Oct 10, 2020 8:37 am
Nick_A wrote: Wed Sep 30, 2020 11:14 pm Marxists argue that the nuclear family performs ideological functions for Capitalism – the family acts as a unit of consumption and teaches passive acceptance of hierarchy. It is also the institution through which the wealthy pass down their private property to their children, thus reproducing class inequality.

Those who understand liberty know that capitalism is a tool the nuclear family uses to sustain itself and pass on to their children. It recognizes the essential difference between men and women. The essential value liberty defends is the ability for the nuclear family to pursue happiness as it is understood as in religion which is more than economics. Without the nuclear family, a strong central government appealing to Marxism is essential to take the place of the father.

The center of town for the marxist is a government office. For the nuclear family it is a church. That is the difference and why America is in decline.
Unfortunately for some of those who trusted churches, priests employed by churches abused
small children from trusting families.

Unfortunately for many women, especially those women who have children to care for , many men have tortured, murdered, beaten, overworked, traded, and despised their wives, and taught their children to do likewise. This is why there have to be women's refuges.

Nick, you traduce the fair name of Liberty.

Nick wrote:
There is nothing wrong about excluding others since there is no source. There is nothing for the man and woman to join with. This means that marriage can be between two men, two women, a man and his horse or a woman and her dog and so on.
You can't marry a horse or a dog because animals can't consent to a social contract as they don't know what it means. Under certain regimes a small child who cannot in all conscience consent to a social contract is forced to marry. These are regimes where women's rights are non existent and women and children are commodities, chattels, possessions. Families, not individuals, are held to be the unit with the most honourable status, and then you have honour killings of women by their fathers and their brothers.
A society never stays the same. It is either following the cycle of evolution and the collective conscious awareness of the wholeness of its source or involution which is the psychological pull into fragmentation or away from the wholeness of its source into its parts.

A secularized church is either participating in the lawful process of evolution or involution. To answer why it devolves into involution is a necessary question for anyone concerned with the loss of of the values necessary to sustain liberty.

Idolatry comes from the fact that, while thirsting for absolute good, we do not possess the power of supernatural attention and we have not the patience to allow it to develop (Simone Weil, Gravity and Grace 53).

Our current psychological descent into fragmentation, though considered evolutionary, is actually involutionary. It leads one away from the human attraction to the wholeness of our source into attachments to parts and the struggle for possession of "parts." This tendency makes liberty the truly impossible dream since we lack the quality of attention necessary to deal with it.
Well I don't agree with Simone. Idolatry comes from hubris and vanity.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Is Liberty possible without the Ideal of the Nuclear Family?

Post by Nick_A »

Belinda
Idolatry comes from the fact that, while thirsting for absolute good, we do not possess the power of supernatural attention and we have not the patience to allow it to develop (Simone Weil, Gravity and Grace 53).

Our current psychological descent into fragmentation, though considered evolutionary, is actually involutionary. It leads one away from the human attraction to the wholeness of our source into attachments to parts and the struggle for possession of "parts." This tendency makes liberty the truly impossible dream since we lack the quality of attention necessary to deal with it.

Well I don't agree with Simone. Idolatry comes from hubris and vanity.
Fantasy or imagination takes the place of conscious attention. They are mutually exclusive. A person in a state of conscious contemplation is free of imagination. Hubris and vanity are only dominant in the absence of conscious attention. I've discovered that only a rare few are willing to sacrifice the pleasures of hubris and vanity to develop conscious attention as a seeker of truth. The dominant pursuit in the world is prestige as representatives of hubris and vanity so it looks like everything remains the same.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Is Liberty possible without the Ideal of the Nuclear Family?

Post by Belinda »

Nick_A wrote: Sat Oct 10, 2020 7:27 pm Belinda
Idolatry comes from the fact that, while thirsting for absolute good, we do not possess the power of supernatural attention and we have not the patience to allow it to develop (Simone Weil, Gravity and Grace 53).

Our current psychological descent into fragmentation, though considered evolutionary, is actually involutionary. It leads one away from the human attraction to the wholeness of our source into attachments to parts and the struggle for possession of "parts." This tendency makes liberty the truly impossible dream since we lack the quality of attention necessary to deal with it.

Well I don't agree with Simone. Idolatry comes from hubris and vanity.
Fantasy or imagination takes the place of conscious attention. They are mutually exclusive. A person in a state of conscious contemplation is free of imagination. Hubris and vanity are only dominant in the absence of conscious attention. I've discovered that only a rare few are willing to sacrifice the pleasures of hubris and vanity to develop conscious attention as a seeker of truth. The dominant pursuit in the world is prestige as representatives of hubris and vanity so it looks like everything remains the same.
But it's hubristic to believe you can know everything, to be 100% certain of anything. To believe so is to set up a false idol.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Is Liberty possible without the Ideal of the Nuclear Family?

Post by Nick_A »

Belinda wrote: Sat Oct 10, 2020 10:22 pm
Nick_A wrote: Sat Oct 10, 2020 7:27 pm Belinda
Idolatry comes from the fact that, while thirsting for absolute good, we do not possess the power of supernatural attention and we have not the patience to allow it to develop (Simone Weil, Gravity and Grace 53).

Our current psychological descent into fragmentation, though considered evolutionary, is actually involutionary. It leads one away from the human attraction to the wholeness of our source into attachments to parts and the struggle for possession of "parts." This tendency makes liberty the truly impossible dream since we lack the quality of attention necessary to deal with it.

Well I don't agree with Simone. Idolatry comes from hubris and vanity.
Fantasy or imagination takes the place of conscious attention. They are mutually exclusive. A person in a state of conscious contemplation is free of imagination. Hubris and vanity are only dominant in the absence of conscious attention. I've discovered that only a rare few are willing to sacrifice the pleasures of hubris and vanity to develop conscious attention as a seeker of truth. The dominant pursuit in the world is prestige as representatives of hubris and vanity so it looks like everything remains the same.
But it's hubristic to believe you can know everything, to be 100% certain of anything. To believe so is to set up a false idol.
Very true. The person of wisdom or the true seeker of truth comes to realize as Socrates did that "I know nothing? Then the question is "why?" How is it that if the universe has a purpose, I don't realize it and do not consciously respond to it?
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Is Liberty possible without the Ideal of the Nuclear Family?

Post by Belinda »

Nick_A wrote: Sun Oct 11, 2020 4:24 pm
Belinda wrote: Sat Oct 10, 2020 10:22 pm
Nick_A wrote: Sat Oct 10, 2020 7:27 pm Belinda



Fantasy or imagination takes the place of conscious attention. They are mutually exclusive. A person in a state of conscious contemplation is free of imagination. Hubris and vanity are only dominant in the absence of conscious attention. I've discovered that only a rare few are willing to sacrifice the pleasures of hubris and vanity to develop conscious attention as a seeker of truth. The dominant pursuit in the world is prestige as representatives of hubris and vanity so it looks like everything remains the same.
But it's hubristic to believe you can know everything, to be 100% certain of anything. To believe so is to set up a false idol.
Very true. The person of wisdom or the true seeker of truth comes to realize as Socrates did that "I know nothing? Then the question is "why?" How is it that if the universe has a purpose, I don't realize it and do not consciously respond to it?
I think people use the word 'purpose' in different ways. When you wrote "if the universe has a purpose," I don't know if you mean "if the universe is a meaningful ordered thing", or if you mean
" if the universe intends to be as it is" , or if you mean "if the Maker of the universe intends the universe to be an ordered planned sort of thing".
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Is Liberty possible without the Ideal of the Nuclear Family?

Post by Nick_A »

Belinda wrote: Sun Oct 11, 2020 5:25 pm
Nick_A wrote: Sun Oct 11, 2020 4:24 pm
Belinda wrote: Sat Oct 10, 2020 10:22 pm
But it's hubristic to believe you can know everything, to be 100% certain of anything. To believe so is to set up a false idol.
Very true. The person of wisdom or the true seeker of truth comes to realize as Socrates did that "I know nothing? Then the question is "why?" How is it that if the universe has a purpose, I don't realize it and do not consciously respond to it?
I think people use the word 'purpose' in different ways. When you wrote "if the universe has a purpose," I don't know if you mean "if the universe is a meaningful ordered thing", or if you mean
" if the universe intends to be as it is" , or if you mean "if the Maker of the universe intends the universe to be an ordered planned sort of thing".
I meant to ask if the great machine we call universe has an intentional conscious purpose for its existence. We know that for Man, the conscious purpose of the machine we call "car" has the intention to transports us. That is its essential purpose. Does the universe and Man within it have a conscious purpose for its existence? If it does, why are the masses oblivious of it? It is a sensible question that is rarely asked. If true, and Man is as defined by Plato: "a being in search of meaning," how can we become able to know?
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Is Liberty possible without the Ideal of the Nuclear Family?

Post by Belinda »

Nick_A wrote: Sun Oct 11, 2020 6:37 pm
Belinda wrote: Sun Oct 11, 2020 5:25 pm
Nick_A wrote: Sun Oct 11, 2020 4:24 pm

Very true. The person of wisdom or the true seeker of truth comes to realize as Socrates did that "I know nothing? Then the question is "why?" How is it that if the universe has a purpose, I don't realize it and do not consciously respond to it?
I think people use the word 'purpose' in different ways. When you wrote "if the universe has a purpose," I don't know if you mean "if the universe is a meaningful ordered thing", or if you mean
" if the universe intends to be as it is" , or if you mean "if the Maker of the universe intends the universe to be an ordered planned sort of thing".
I meant to ask if the great machine we call universe has an intentional conscious purpose for its existence. We know that for Man, the conscious purpose of the machine we call "car" has the intention to transports us. That is its essential purpose. Does the universe and Man within it have a conscious purpose for its existence? If it does, why are the masses oblivious of it? It is a sensible question that is rarely asked. If true, and Man is as defined by Plato: "a being in search of meaning," how can we become able to know?
There is actually no such entity as a purpose. If you search all your life for a purpose you cannot find one of those as they don't exist. You have a nose, and a leg bone, and a hormone. True, you purpose and purposing is something you do.

Motor cars cannot purpose as they have no brains to purpose with.( Perhaps a self driving car can purpose as it has a computer thing in the boot.) I know someone who purposes only his car to lie on the drive as an indication someone is at home. I know someone else who purposes only that his car will show people how rich he is and what good taste he has. I have read about a man whose only purpose for his car was to escape from his wife.
The universe is not an animate thing and can't purpose anything; unlike a self driving car it has no inbuilt computer. True it contains animate things like a rabbit hutch contains live rabbits and visiting mice, and same as the rabbit hutch universe would not exist in its present form but for the live things in it.

Men search for meaning, true. It's unreasoning to presume that because men search for meaning they ever find eternal truth. The masses find a huge array of meanings none of which is eternally true.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Is Liberty possible without the Ideal of the Nuclear Family?

Post by Nick_A »

Belinda wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 11:11 am
Nick_A wrote: Sun Oct 11, 2020 6:37 pm
Belinda wrote: Sun Oct 11, 2020 5:25 pm
I think people use the word 'purpose' in different ways. When you wrote "if the universe has a purpose," I don't know if you mean "if the universe is a meaningful ordered thing", or if you mean
" if the universe intends to be as it is" , or if you mean "if the Maker of the universe intends the universe to be an ordered planned sort of thing".
I meant to ask if the great machine we call universe has an intentional conscious purpose for its existence. We know that for Man, the conscious purpose of the machine we call "car" has the intention to transports us. That is its essential purpose. Does the universe and Man within it have a conscious purpose for its existence? If it does, why are the masses oblivious of it? It is a sensible question that is rarely asked. If true, and Man is as defined by Plato: "a being in search of meaning," how can we become able to know?
There is actually no such entity as a purpose. If you search all your life for a purpose you cannot find one of those as they don't exist. You have a nose, and a leg bone, and a hormone. True, you purpose and purposing is something you do.

Motor cars cannot purpose as they have no brains to purpose with.( Perhaps a self driving car can purpose as it has a computer thing in the boot.) I know someone who purposes only his car to lie on the drive as an indication someone is at home. I know someone else who purposes only that his car will show people how rich he is and what good taste he has. I have read about a man whose only purpose for his car was to escape from his wife.
The universe is not an animate thing and can't purpose anything; unlike a self driving car it has no inbuilt computer. True it contains animate things like a rabbit hutch contains live rabbits and visiting mice, and same as the rabbit hutch universe would not exist in its present form but for the live things in it.

Men search for meaning, true. It's unreasoning to presume that because men search for meaning they ever find eternal truth. The masses find a huge array of meanings none of which is eternally true.
Purpose is the intent of the creator rather than the created. From the earthly perspective the purpose of the car is the intent of its inventor and not the machine itself that serves its purpose. From a universal perspective, purpose is the intent of its creator and not the machine called universe.

We can define universal purpose by observing what it does. We know it essentially transforms substances through universal laws so that is its purpose. But the purpose for its existence or the intent and need of our source to create the machine is another matter and a subject for deep contemplation.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Is Liberty possible without the Ideal of the Nuclear Family?

Post by Belinda »

Nick_A wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 8:49 pm
Belinda wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 11:11 am
Nick_A wrote: Sun Oct 11, 2020 6:37 pm

I meant to ask if the great machine we call universe has an intentional conscious purpose for its existence. We know that for Man, the conscious purpose of the machine we call "car" has the intention to transports us. That is its essential purpose. Does the universe and Man within it have a conscious purpose for its existence? If it does, why are the masses oblivious of it? It is a sensible question that is rarely asked. If true, and Man is as defined by Plato: "a being in search of meaning," how can we become able to know?
There is actually no such entity as a purpose. If you search all your life for a purpose you cannot find one of those as they don't exist. You have a nose, and a leg bone, and a hormone. True, you purpose and purposing is something you do.

Motor cars cannot purpose as they have no brains to purpose with.( Perhaps a self driving car can purpose as it has a computer thing in the boot.) I know someone who purposes only his car to lie on the drive as an indication someone is at home. I know someone else who purposes only that his car will show people how rich he is and what good taste he has. I have read about a man whose only purpose for his car was to escape from his wife.
The universe is not an animate thing and can't purpose anything; unlike a self driving car it has no inbuilt computer. True it contains animate things like a rabbit hutch contains live rabbits and visiting mice, and same as the rabbit hutch universe would not exist in its present form but for the live things in it.

Men search for meaning, true. It's unreasoning to presume that because men search for meaning they ever find eternal truth. The masses find a huge array of meanings none of which is eternally true.
Purpose is the intent of the creator rather than the created. From the earthly perspective the purpose of the car is the intent of its inventor and not the machine itself that serves its purpose. From a universal perspective, purpose is the intent of its creator and not the machine called universe.

We can define universal purpose by observing what it does. We know it essentially transforms substances through universal laws so that is its purpose. But the purpose for its existence or the intent and need of our source to create the machine is another matter and a subject for deep contemplation.
Then your usage of 'purpose' is about the same as Aristotle's causes. For Aristotle intention is a cause. I claim intention applies only to human beings and other animals that are capable of learning. Human intention is a lot more complex than that of a dog or a sheep.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Is Liberty possible without the Ideal of the Nuclear Family?

Post by Nick_A »

Belinda
Then your usage of 'purpose' is about the same as Aristotle's causes. For Aristotle intention is a cause. I claim intention applies only to human beings and other animals that are capable of learning. Human intention is a lot more complex than that of a dog or a sheep.
This is a basic disagreement. Intent is explained in the Bible. It is often read read superficially but it is a deep concept. "Let there be light" is an expression of intent.
Genesis 1

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Is Liberty possible without the Ideal of the Nuclear Family?

Post by Belinda »

Nick_A wrote: Wed Oct 14, 2020 2:33 pm Belinda
Then your usage of 'purpose' is about the same as Aristotle's causes. For Aristotle intention is a cause. I claim intention applies only to human beings and other animals that are capable of learning. Human intention is a lot more complex than that of a dog or a sheep.
This is a basic disagreement. Intent is explained in the Bible. It is often read read superficially but it is a deep concept. "Let there be light" is an expression of intent.
Genesis 1

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
That is part of an ancient creation myth of which there are several.

The history of God is such that the early Jahweh God was not interested in people's intentions and demanded unthinking obedience to his word. The OT prophets introduced intentions as worthy of consideration when judgements are made
Post Reply