posted January 19, 2015 11:49 PM            

When I was 17 I became fascinated with philosophy and studied it...and didn't hesitate to argue with a lot, and I recall I happened to argue quite a bit from Aristotle (though I still thought him brilliant, but it's surprising how many classic logical fallacies the great philosophers made from time to time which thus weakens the entire foundation of their school of thought but we're not supposed to point it out other than when one of the other great philosophers did, which ironically is an appeal to authority which can become yet another logical fallacy). I also recall that when I read of Objectivism (Ayn Rand) my greatest beef with it was the seeming worship of Aristotle (while also surprised that they never seemed to refute what Aristotle had to say about the nature of money and trade, and that greed is NOT good, but that actually ties into what I'm about to point out, but I'm sure some Objectivist somewhere, maybe even Ayn Rand herself, tried to say he was misquoted on that).

As this was so long ago (approaching 15 years) my memory is very vague on the specifics, but one problem I had with it is how strictly it tried to divide and separate everything (particularly when it came to contradictions)...which has its uses and was no doubt brilliant and innovative of its time but it would morph into the problem I'm going to bring up.

I think what poisoned the well of Aristotelian thought is Christianity that adopted Aristotelian thought and adapted it to a dualistic monotheist paradigm, so that things defined as opposites where only one side could be true and the other false (or one good and the other evil). The Dark Side of Christian History is very well done that sums up how and WHY Christianity as established by the Council of Nicea changed through the centuries to give us a "world without God" (in which science and religion are officially at odds), and while I highly recommend it I thought it overlooked (or at least downplayed) how Aristotelian thought also shaped how bad Christianity became and also giving us the "world without God" in which spirit and nature have become to be viewed as wholly separate with tragic consequences.

This was much worse centuries ago but it still lingers and I find it makes it difficult to communicate with people because they assume absolutes. For example, if I mention I'm less prone their black & white minds automatically translate that as "never" (apparently thinking in degrees is too complicated) so that if they can find even one lone exception (even over a period of years) that it therefore negates the statement!

It also leads to the thinking many have that one can only be good or bad which has the unfortunate consequence of putting the undeserving on both pedestals and in prisons, and worse one can't confront own's shadow side because to admit one is not perfect is to embrace the idea that one is bad and that therefore one can't be good...a surprising number of people do obviously hold to this (if only subconsciously) while others can't admit to any mistake or flaw for the same reason as to admit to a mistake is to "confess" to being worthless (that's how it FEELS anyway). It also makes it difficult to speak of different paradigms because "obviously" only one paradigm can be correct...and if one believes any other paradigm is flawed or even evil then it should be obvious how that causes severe problems in the world.

It also seems to facilitate a lot of overly detailed classifications that are enforced by both direct and indirect means (including gender roles, but also to say gays because the minds of people have been so scrambled by this black and white thinking).

And at it's most absurd is when people believe there is no control because one does not have total control so one shouldn't even bother to try to affect the outcome! While I'm sure such people tend to take some precautions I've seen this promoted as a conscious belief. Contrariwise, others believe that without total control there is chaos (thus, must wage a war on drugs or we'll OD, we must make sure gays can't marry or humanity will become extinct as only gays marry and apparently never care to reproduce despite that some already do, etc).

Another problem that comes up is like self-defense...I recently heard someone talk about how she was nearly raped by violent means but she didn't fight back because that would "make her as bad as the rapist." What nonsense! To be as bad as the rapist she would have to rape her attacker or perform some other vigilante justice as opposed to fight back to escape, but this utterly absurd notion is also surprisingly common. Because there can be "no contradiction." Since violence was bad, any violent self-defense is equally aggressive, but to me that's like saying amputation to save someone with gangrene is as bad as chopping off body parts for vengeance, that is to say the motive, degree, and context are also equally important, but this is a very difficult concept for many to deal with.

Heck, some are surprised I have a gun because I'm not some Clint Eastwood character...or like how one guy showed me an article on how a naked man was shot in the back as he fled (it was a prank gone wrong) and some idiot assumed he was a threat and gunned him down as he ran away (must have been a cop to have gotten away with that but the article didn't say) and the guy who showed me that article was surprised that I was angry such had happened and that the shooter got away with it...because in his messed up mind a right to defend myself or to own guns meant I supported Road Warrior anarchy or some such, can't be any other way ([sarcasm]yeah, and everyone who uses a stove is a pyromaniac, too! Everyone who supports demolishing a condemned building support the idea of plowing through occupied homes at will![/sarcasm]). It's another example of how it makes it difficult for me to talk to people because they have these insane assumptions that blow my mind...I've become more aware of them over the years as I've encountered them again and again and try to tailor anything I say (and also what I hear) as a learned response, though I can still forget and overlook a lot.

I understand that Aristotle didn't intend people to get that moronic with his ideas (and I expect a great many people who do have never read a book of his in their life and only have a vague idea of who he is) it's just the general thought, his definition and treatment of seeming contradictions mixed with the role of duality within monotheism that has shaped thought much like how the currents will shape rocks, a process that many don't ever become lucid of, and it creates unnecessary problems in which making it hard for me to communicate with (because of radically different underlying assumptions that we assume are obvious to everyone else) being the least of them.

posted January 20, 2015 01:01 AM            

I never read Aristotle or Ayn Rand but hope someone else has...it could be interesting to follow that discussion.

Just in case you were alluding to my comment about being too invested in an outcome, I'm going to reply to this:

quote:

---

And at it's most absurd is when people believe there is no control because one does not have total control so one shouldn't even bother to try to affect the outcome! While I'm sure such people tend to take some precautions I've seen this promoted as a conscious belief.

---

Speaking for myself, I sometimes set my mind on a goal and then step back, assess the situation, and realize that flowing along will be a more interesting process, rather than forcing things. It's more intuitive than rational, with my own peace as the primary goal and intellectual "victory" on the backburner.

But maybe you are talking about the kind of person sits on the fence forever waiting for God to tell them what to do?

Not sure if I've ever met someone who speaks the way you are referring to.

But sometimes when I am trying to put an idea across, I am misunderstood, projected upon, and have my words taken out of context. Assumptions run rampant and clutter the dialogue to the point where it's not even salvageable.

It's difficult being curious and looking at all sides in a world that wants you to pick one pre-packaged ideology and stick with it in a bland, conformist manner (or even fanatical manner...but you are expected to identify with some polemical ideas!)

ETA:

quote:

---

that not only is nature and spirit separate but that spiritual laws are automatically wiser and just than we shall ever be

---

I just assume there is an order to the Universe that we are a holographic representation of, though not always consciously so. Wisdom and justice are, to me, better described as issues of consciousness and awareness in this scheme. If you are aware of the spiritual nature of the universe, you will behave a certain way...that is the theory of some, and there's evidence of this being the case.

posted January 20, 2015 01:57 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faith:
Not sure if I've ever met someone who speaks the way you are referring to.

---

Oh great...I used to have a perfect example of what I meant from posts in a LL thread and shared it in another thread (that then got shared in yet another thread) but having shared it apparently some of the people have gone back and changed their answers so that I couldn't do that! I should have quoted them when I had the chance!

What HAD been said is that sometimes people practice birth control but still get pregnant while those who try to get pregnant fail and that therefore it was all God/Destiny that was controlling it and it was futile to try to change the outcome. Things like that get said at LL quite a bit.

posted January 20, 2015 02:10 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faith:
I just assume there is an order to the Universe that we are a holographic representation of, though not always consciously so. Wisdom and justice are, to me, better described as issues of consciousness and awareness in this scheme. If you are aware of the spiritual nature of the universe, you will behave a certain way...that is the theory of some, and there's evidence of this being the case.

Not to talk above my station...because I'm not totally sure what you are talking about, on the whole. Just kicking ideas around.

---

What I mean is "You were born crippled because you were a ******* in another life" or "you were raped because you didn't pray hard enough." They think of cosmic laws as having human emotions and agendas rather than as natural laws that are beyond our own perspectives. It's all justice to them as humans understand the term, and all done for our own ultimate good, and bad things don't happen to good people (as HUMANS, rather than the cosmos, understands such concepts). That's not universal laws (such as "fire burns" or "gravity makes you fall"), however, that's human laws if made universal (a specific type of human at that).

posted January 20, 2015 02:27 AM            

For example, I read of a woman abducted...her boyfriend was stabbed and I think killed, and she taken, raped, stabbed several times, but she gets away. As she runs naked and bleeding through the snowy woods at night she fights despair but tells herself that God wouldn't let her die...yet what of all those who do die? And what does it say that God WOULD let her be tortured like that but not let her die? And she still believed...I don't think she could function without that belief.

As for me, when I was left alone while bound by a rapist I didn't waste time praying (though I did repeat a poem by Emily Dickinson over and over that gave me hope and comfort) I instead freed myself. Had I thought some God was watching and ALLOWING all that had happened to me I'd have been far from comforted and instead thought of the monster in It's a Good Life and it would have scared the living crap out of me and I would seek death rather than escape or just give in to despair completely.

Likewise, plenty think if we're not headed to some utopia (at least after death) then doing any good is pointless. I don't get that idea at all but I've run into a bit, and these people think that because I believe life is never going to be perfect and that there are no assured happy endings for anyone, that I must be cold and bitter...but I'm not, I'm grateful for all the good things rather than taking them for granted, and I don't get upset when life gets rough, that's just life to me, and I often realize it could be worse and be glad for what I have. And the reason I volunteer and do the good that I do despite not believing in a good universe or happy ending? Because it means my actions for good are all the more important and meaningful!

Since I don't understand the other orientation/paradigm I described I don't know how to explain my own orientation/paradigm to them. But it's possible that this has something to do with the "problem of religion and philosophy," in that it's not so much the theology and philosophy that invisibly shapes people who aren't aware of being shaped (which would happen automatically by being immersed in it as opposed to deliberate brainwashing) but that their minds grasp what they need to get by while mine does the same...and we need different things. OTOH, I'm certain that had I been raised in church with other aspects of my life being different (too complicated to go into) then I'd have accepted certain axioms so that what I "needed" would be different.

And it's not neat anyway. For example, plenty of gays commit suicide because they believe God hates them and even that they DESERVE eternal torment. And one woman who rejected her family's religion and became an atheist said she found it hard to vote against Prop 8 in California because even though she no longer believed in God of the Bible she could still "feel God's terrible disappointment" as she voted against Prop 8 and it hurt her...she said she knew she was being stupid yet it still affected her negatively. And that's how people can choose a paradigm that which is contrary to their needs to get by.

posted January 20, 2015 03:05 AM            

I've read your first post now a number of times and I'm still left scratching my head as to where I should interject an opinion one way or another;

(Didn't see any of the later posts sorry, so haven't been able to account for anything else mentioned)

Perhaps though that's sort of the point of your opening statement!?

That both Philosophy like the Aristotelian model of the universe with everything attempted at being accounted for by rational means, versus the Theological/Religious model that essential applies the SAME system of thought; But slammed through a filter where ultimately man cannot “know” what IS good because such an assumption suggests that man (singular) knows the mind of God (completely contradictory to the very Monotheistic religion they perhaps practice), which essentially in my view has the combined effect of leaving people completely powerless!

If you are in the Aristotle camp, you are powerless against the Irrational, the Insane, The Chaos of our lives that no rational means whatsoever can account for.

In such instances we looked then to that which is Irrational, Religion, Belief in that which is unaccountable, the intangible... Perhaps still definable in the Aristotelian model but NOT fully understandable!

Which again leads one down the circular path of having to either choose an empowerment you know is false (Aristotelian Spirituality), or choose an empowerment system you don't WANT to believe is actually false (Theology / Religion)...

When both systems return a negative result you know its fu.cked...!

Does this then suggest that both Aristotle and Religion are useless as means for understanding our world/universe, and ourselves? No...! If anything both camps have done the Mammoth task of showing us ALL the potholes to avoid from being overly invested in either system.

I would be inclined then to say, that the positive result we are all looking for is not in any ONE system, and if its anywhere at all, its emanating from the one place we dare not look, ourselves...

I know I'm rambling probably, I've spent many a night trying to uncover the very rule system of the universe that surely accounts for everything, and thus allows then for maximum empowerment... what's another night added to that list!?

Check out the Aristotelian view of God which generally breaks down like this;

quote:

---

Aristotle believed that God exists necessarily, which means that God does not depend on anything else for existence. He never changes or has any potential to change, never begins and never ends, and so is eternal. Eternal things, Aristotle claimed, must be good; there can be no defect in something that exists necessarily, because badness is connected with some kind of lack, a not-being of something which ought to be there, an absence of the ‘actuality’ that Aristotle thought God most perfectly has.

---

Its something I've often puzzled over, because in the weirdest sense I actually agree with Aristotle. In fact not only do I agree, but to NOT agree with this view is absolute MADNESS! If you choose then to not agree with him, you are essentially living in a universe where ALL bets are off and Chaos is King!

So OK... Aristotle HAS to be correct in his assertions about the universe/God!?

Then try this on for size...

Line up how he defines God - And then apply this definition in an attempt to understand, that which he would define as how Evil even CAME into existence... Wait 30 seconds... Then feel your head start to explode!

Apparently though, John Calvin solved this problem... or so he thought lol!

posted January 20, 2015 10:02 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
Yet the opposite also exists (and sometimes simultaneous with the above) in that if one's group doesn't have complete control then they have zero control. Some fundies can be an example. Surely everyone knows how fundie groups say they're persecuted if they have to obey the law of the land and can't pass out Bibles in school but also that if they get to pass out Bibles they get upset if other religions get to do the same? It happens quite a bit.

---

Oh I know who you mean...whiners!
"The liberal media says... "

Yes, people tend to exaggerate all the plights they encounter as they advance their agendas. I do that, too. "Everyone hates astrology and makes me feel like a fool when I couch my excuses in astrological terms!"

quote:

---

What I mean is "You were born crippled because you were a ******* in another life" or "you were raped because you didn't pray hard enough." They think of cosmic laws as having human emotions and agendas rather than as natural laws that are beyond our own perspectives.

---

It's weird how people treat their own imaginations with so much reverence and then expect others to have the same respect. "I just made this up off the top of my head, but possibly in a former life you drove your carriage over a wounded cat in the road on purpose and that's why you are now paralyzed from the waist down. Shame on you, really."

LOL

Even though I'm casually okay with ideas about karma carrying over lifetimes, as I mentioned to Vajra on the Karma thread, I get confused about how you can accumulate karma in one moral/legal context and then "pay for it" in another life with a different moral/legal context.

Even the idea that there are just a few, clear-cut moral absolutes and only a few ways to accumulate karma is problematic. And if there is only one true crime-- say, the coldblooded murder of another human being-- either we've all murdered someone in every life until this one (continually re-earning our reincarnation) or we are living our last life, so long as we don't murder this time (since being murderers is the only thing keeping us from nirvana.)

---

The idea of moral absolutes just confuses me, it forces classification onto the nebulous cloud of human intention and presupposes there is some consciousness beyond that nebulous cloud that can see it for what it essentially is, even though the person living within that cloud does not have the same view-- yet, he or she will be held responsible not for their own view, but for the view they gave this remote observer. Even if the subconscious is the remote observer, and we choose our karma once we die and become cognizant of all we've done "wrong," it still seems like the only true crime we committed was to neglect cultivating a proper relationship with our subconscious, so that we could behave in an enlightened way all along.

If that's the case, then it's a matter of weighing the opportunities we had to build this bridge to the subconscious against all the factors that prevented us from building the bridge, and figuring the amount of karma to ascribe to that failure to build the bridge. Add a slice of karma from that giant pie of collective karma that plague (or plagued) the people we interact with (and now that the internet has established a "global village" that's quite a few people) and you have some idea of the baggage you've got for the next life (?)

posted January 20, 2015 10:30 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
I think it's interesting that some people are comforted by the thought of an All Knowing and All Powerful God/dess looking out for them. I, OTOH, find that thought creepy if not downright terrifying, given what I know goes on and what has happened in my own life...but it's not just that.

---

I understand what you mean. I say to myself that there is a Higher Purpose, but that thought crumbles in certain situations. (As when I was dealing with frightening paranormal stuff, quite against my will. I saw no Higher Purpose there, or at least not a clear-cut winner in the Higher versus Lower contest.) So it's not the most durable assumption, just like an all-purpose jacket that protects me in a comfortable naivete in most of my current situations.

Still my reading about the WWII concentration camps and the few spiritual luminaries who emerged at that time (including one man who watched his family being executed, forgave all completely, and transformed the Nazi soldiers in his midst) gives me a strong suspicion that theoretically we can tap into a source of power (the inner divinity) in any circumstance, and that will elevate us to another level. So we will not be dealing with sordid horrors in our usual state but with a Third Eye awareness or something of that sort. (As you can tell, I speculate and don't pretend to know.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
As for me, when I was left alone while bound by a rapist

---

OMG

So sorry that happened to you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
Had I thought some God was watching and ALLOWING all that had happened to me I'd have been far from comforted and instead thought of the monster in It's a Good Life and it would have scared the living crap out of me and I would seek death rather than escape or just give in to despair completely.

---

Right, I see what you mean. If you were at the mercy of a god who could decide to let it go either way, towards your rescue or your demise, depending on what you uttered to him/her/it, that is not a benevolent god at all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
Likewise, plenty think if we're not headed to some utopia (at least after death) then doing any good is pointless.

---

I've encountered this argument so often it bores me to tears. I empathize. There is nothing you can do to "win" that argument, I don't think, since it is connected to a whole infrastructure of assumptions and ego-based identification with one's religion. They can't admit one point if it's a load-bearing part of the scaffold.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
But it's possible that this has something to do with the "problem of religion and philosophy," in that it's not so much the theology and philosophy that invisibly shapes people who aren't aware of being shaped (which would happen automatically by being immersed in it as opposed to deliberate brainwashing) but that their minds grasp what they need to get by while mine does the same...and we need different things.

---

^^ Brilliant point.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
And that's how people can choose a paradigm that which is contrary to their needs to get by.

---

Or the paradigm reflects "mixed" needs: ie "I need to fit in with my family, but I don't, so I need to belong somewhere else." Really this situation is a reflection of the way society arranges itself into factions and some of us try to walk along on top of those fences and others get impaled there.

posted January 20, 2015 10:39 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lei_Kuei:
When both systems return a negative result you know its fu.cked...!

Does this then suggest that both Aristotle and Religion are useless as means for understanding our world/universe, and ourselves? No...! If anything both camps have done the Mammoth task of showing us ALL the potholes to avoid from being overly invested in either system.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lei_Kuei:
I would be inclined then to say, that the positive result we are all looking for is not in any ONE system, and if its anywhere at all, its emanating from the one place we dare not look, ourselves...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lei_Kuei:
I know I'm rambling probably, I've spent many a night trying to uncover the very rule system of the universe that surely accounts for everything, and thus allows then for maximum empowerment... what's another night added to that list!?

---

"the very rule system of the universe that surely accounts for everything and thus allows then for maximum empowerment..."

posted January 20, 2015 07:29 PM            

Hmmm...

I've often imagined Aristotle in his current incarnation (humor me) reading Atlas Shrugged, and becoming so horrified by the tentacles of his own philosophy that he renounces objectivism and becomes a devout Hindu! Then years later, during a deep introspective mediation he encounters a vision of Kali... who points to him and says: Your ARE the Law!

Then, upon awakening from his mediation Aristotle rewrites his Metaphysical Treatise with regards the principle of the Prime Mover to include at the end of his forethought – It was I who made the First Move <3 I just didn't realize this until I found GOD, sorry for the mess...

quote:

---

"the very rule system of the universe that surely accounts for everything and thus allows then for maximum empowerment..."

^^ If you figure that out, be a good soul and start a thread here about it, k?

---

Look at the world around you, it seems obvious to me... Someone already has that rule book but has cleverly made it impossible for anything less than a GOD to even surmise such a thing.

But GOD didn't stop Newton from defining the world we live in, or Einstein for that matter... So what's stopping YOU from figuring it out Faith...?

The more we allow people to define who we are and what we can do, the deeper the slave pen we all fall into. Now while I'd be inclined to say that Newton & Einstein's core difference is perhaps that they sought truth in an effort to empower mankind universally... (And they have!)

But is that really true!? Or are their works just the acts of Self-Righteous Egomaniacs who developed self assured viewpoint that allows for them to rest easier at night (Most likely true in Newtons case)...? Not much difference perhaps when lined up next to a Evangelical Preacher spouting their own rules...

posted January 20, 2015 07:51 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lei_Kuei:
So what's stopping YOU from figuring it out Faith...?

---

posted January 21, 2015 03:52 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faith:
Or the paradigm reflects "mixed" needs: ie "I need to fit in with my family, but I don't, so I need to belong somewhere else." Really this situation is a reflection of the way society arranges itself into factions and some of us try to walk along on top of those fences and others get impaled there.

---

Like the metaphor.

posted January 21, 2015 10:31 PM            

quote:

---

I don't recall which of the philosophers pretty much defined "laws as reason without passion" (though they all admitted it didn't always work out that way) but I thought that was surprisingly naive (being 17 I laughed over such assertions as the young had grand visions for they were not yet humbled by life or aware yet of its limitations but then promoted the idea of philosopher kings that kept the entire system honorable and laws just) but in addition to making the gods superhuman and all good promotes the belief (as that's how the subconscious comes to think of it) that not only is nature and spirit separate but that spiritual laws are automatically wiser and just than we shall ever be (which might not be so bad save that they put human sensibilities, typically their own prejudices, onto the process).

---

Hehe as for: Laws as reason without passion!
Its attributed to Aristotle... the fiend lol!

Speaking of quotes, I remembered hearing one time a theologian say: “The God of the Philosophers is NOT the God of the Bible”, which I thought was pretty clever at the time

With regards to the notion of Philosopher Kings, and Supermen in general. And just as you said its a projection of our subconscious, and I feel a part of us all does want to believe that such is possible. That not only can such people exist, but maybe... just maybe we can be as they are too.

Is it an unrealistic fantasy to believe in such things!?

Probably, but there could be far worse things to aspire too in life, and so apart of me is inclined to agree that the notion of Philosopher Kings is bordering on a healthy awareness of what man could be, what our leaders and state heads maybe SHOULD be.

Sadly though, as of yet in our world I think examples of those types of people are too few and far between for us to make an assessment of that kind of a system actually doing more good than harm. Ahhh.. Benevolent Dictator ~ The Dream... lol

I would LOVE to see Aristotle as president of the World, just to see the hoops his poor mind would have to dive through in order to keep the peace and the populace safe.

posted January 21, 2015 11:04 PM            

quote:

---

That not only makes it easy for me to talk past someone else when we speak of things as karma but has done a lot of damage on its own. I'm getting sad just thinking of real life examples so I won't give any now (and I don't have unlimited time to post).

---

When it comes to Karma, I feel people tend to view it as a literal black hole of imagined badluck/fate that once you allow into your life, it will drain away ALL of your self empowerment and hand it to the Wheel of Fate, The Gods of Chaos... But F.RAK THAT!

In my mind Karma IS a blind machine, the reverberations of incalculable causality produced by Newtons 3rd Law of Motion and nothing more than that. Over the course of existence since Aristotle's Supreme Cause, this beast, this God of Chaos has been gathering massive strength and sometimes too, it even appears to lash out at us on a individual level but this is merely an illusion! It can get even worse than that I feel, as people can even use that beast of Karma for their own designs, to justify their own deeds even!

But this is where it also falls down as Karma suggests the removal of free will, fate, submission to a blind God. WRONG, we all have something that trumps even that which has gathered enough strength to tare the cosmos apart. Choice! We can choose exactly how to deal with any Karma that comes our way, even if Azathoth himself wilfully chooses to pi.ss on your camp-fire (remember he cant, its an illusion but just the same). Laugh, give him the finger and build a new one, don't sit in the dark and cry about it.

In this regard I feel Pix is someone who is a prime example of how to deal with such things effectively. My heart breaks just thinking of the situation she faced locked up in that room. And yet she choose deal with it in the best way she could rather than simply submitting to her fate. In which case, by acting as she did! Pix not only defeated Azathoth... But took from the blind machine all of its power and made from it's energy the desire to heal, not destroy. To hell with Aristotle, PixieJane for president of the World!?

posted January 22, 2015 03:56 PM            

quote:

---

To hell with Aristotle, PixieJane for president of the World!?

---

posted January 24, 2015 01:58 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faith:
Or the paradigm reflects "mixed" needs: ie "I need to fit in with my family, but I don't, so I need to belong somewhere else." Really this situation is a reflection of the way society arranges itself into factions and some of us try to walk along on top of those fences and others get impaled there.

Above all I think people are seeking meaning for their lives and sometimes would rather die than live without meaning or context.

---

Stray thought...sex is a primal part of the brain and it connects to both God/dess (religion) spots and to feelings of love (there's a reason many, especially women due to neurological differences that have been observed in scans, can't tell the difference between orgasm and love) but this part of the brain is separate from the more social aspects that allow one to empathize (btw, the "bonding" experience of sex is due to another neurological chemical that's not sexual, though orgasm is one of the things that triggers it into the "cuddle effect"), socialize, and the like. This is why love and lust are both rarely logical, the sexual part of the brain can literally intoxicate the brain as well as put on blinders that cause alienation with family and friends who aren't so "love/lust blind" and thus seeing the sitch more soberly.

Btw, I've seen that go to extremes...one extreme case a woman was literally going to have her dog of several years destroyed to please her man. This is NOT her, but she so utterly changed and he took advantage of that, and she became angry and upset whenever anyone pointed it out to the point of rewriting history to demonize the person trying to talk sense into her. It was scary and I consider who she once was to be dead, though I suppose after a couple of years or so the brain chemicals that did that to her have fizzled out and even she's wondering what the hell she got into. But talking to her while she was insane like that was scary, like talking to a pod person or more accurately an alien who had infected the person. A more primal part of her brain had hijacked her higher brain functions (and she had mentioned "temporary insanity" before related to that).

So anyway, the sexual/primal part of the brain operates on a different system than the more sophisticated parts of the brain that allow for socialization, and that creates so many problems we're familiar with. Throw in homosexuality now, especially one who is religious (as most self-hating gays are), and you have a primal sexual part asserting itself that feels love and God yet as the socialized portions of the brain dealing with bonding, survival, and God come into play it leads directly into conflict with the primal brain that was born that way. Thus when the primal asserts itself the socialization says "that is wrong" and the fear of loss (instinctively a fear of loss of survival itself, not that it's consciously recognized as such) becomes intense and agonizing as the brain wars with itself (and they can feel how God hates them, how terrible they are, etc, but only if their socialized parts have that specific programming). In some cases they resolve it, but if insecure (and in such a case it would be hard not to be) then I can see why the suicidal despair arises.

posted January 24, 2015 12:03 PM            

I hope you won't edit that as I would like to be able to come back and re-read it.

What do you think about war, and how that is also a primal instinct (I'm assuming)? Do you know what part of the brain that instinct abides in?

Because I am endlessly perplexed by my Christian friends' abhorrence of immodest dress and "loose" behavior, combined with their appreciation for violence.

One of my friends would probably ex-communicate me if, when her daughter was visiting mine, I let them watch a PG-13 romance, but this same friend lets my daughter watch violent PG-13 movies at her house.

"Make war, not love!!!"

So is that also a reflection of sex impulses and war impulses occupying separate areas of the brain, you think? Because I really thought they would be overlapping or communicating, as sex and violence share such a close relationship.

Interestingly most Americans nowadays are in favor of one or the other, free love (Liberal) OR war (Conservative), so that could show two ways the socialized part of the brain connects to the primal.

quote:

---

Thus when the primal asserts itself the socialization says "that is wrong" and the fear of loss (instinctively a fear of loss of survival itself, not that it's consciously recognized as such) becomes intense and agonizing as the brain wars with itself (and they can feel how God hates them, how terrible they are, etc, but only if their socialized parts have that specific programming). In some cases they resolve it, but if insecure (and in such a case it would be hard not to be) then I can see why the suicidal despair arises.

---

posted January 25, 2015 04:32 AM            

That is to say war is very much about sex and reproduction (not to be confused with love making) even when waged by people offended by any show of love or nudity.

The Malleus Maleficarum, the book I mentioned above, is also an excellent study on (failed) sexual repression and punishing of women for "making" men desire them. (Gotta love that line on why women were evil being "for the rape of a woman, Troy fell" with the point being because a man was filled with desire the men had to fight over her and it was her fault). If you can get a copy of the edition which is introduced by Montague Summers (tip: libraries should easily get this for you if they don't already have it) who translated and reprinted it saying it needed to be brought back to put the Suffragettes of the early 20th century back in their place (this was a manual that didn't even hide that it was about human sacrifice to appease God, how to prevent suicide before the sacrifice so that God would be pleased and thus not punish them, and also how to lie, such as saying if a woman confesses then the judge won't condemn her to death and after she confesses then the judge has himself replaced by another judge to condemn her to death instead, though the worst punishments were for priests that sided with their villages against the Inquisition).

You may also find my musings interesting here:
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum21/HTML/000597.html

Note specifically that plenty of Christians (some whom people think of as normal, heck even people in my own family said things along this nature and they're a lot more moderate for where they're at, plus more than one politician that was successfully elected to office said such things as well) that believe you have to show which side you're on or God will destroy us like Sodom (and think about it, if gays marrying or no prayer in school has the same effect as dumping a nuke on us then it makes sense to counter it by law, that is government violence, though interesting that they don't consider God a mutant terrorist as they would if say Magneto or some evil Transformer were to start destroying America because his morals were offended!). You have to show your side, the proper dress code, colors (be it flag or gang colors, the psychology is pretty much the same, only we hold parade for the violence over the flag colors but shake our heads at violence over gang colors, but it's heroic or villainous nature is determined by how popular it is), and such to show you're on the right side.

Just one example:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/falwell.asp

ETA: You might also find this of interest, political bias affects the brain (and I'm sure that's true of any form of tribalism, including religion when it's about politics and identity/tribe rather than spirituality):

posted January 25, 2015 04:34 AM            

They looked at me like I was being obnoxious but given that they tried to make us (kids included) homeless and did other obnoxious things such as giving our 12-year-old a girl a pamphlet and told her to read it before giving it to us that said (with Bible verses) that Christians were OBLIGATED to hate us and any who supported us (and you can bet they wouldn't have handled it anywhere as gracefully if I then gave THEIR kids pamphlets on why Christians needed to be executed in the same way, though they'd probably love it in a sick way) I don't give a ******* how they felt about it.

x
ETA: Oh yeah, they also supported the vandal that destroyed sidewalk chalk art of Obama. This was a Fourth of July contest that I was at since my own girl (the one the fundies gave the pamphlet to I just mentioned above though this hadn't happened yet) was in the contest and I saw 2 little girls work hard on that picture of Obama hoping for a prize. Next day I went to collect recyclables there and saw someone had very carefully washed it all away. I felt terrible for those little girls (and I'm not a big fan of Obama either, that's irrelevant, this was all about the little girls who spent HOURS making that just for some self-righteous ******* to destroy it in the middle of the night though careful not to hurt the art on either side of it) and wonder what the girls learned about that.

posted January 25, 2015 11:10 PM            

I brought up the boy who stabbed one of the jocks who horribly bullied him and how he (the principal) lied to the news cameras and how those cheerleaders tormented girls into suicide as well as the one who about broke her back and that did not matter to him. Baffled I asked, "Why do you let them get away with whatever they want? They almost never win anyway."

That statement had him flip out (which also baffled me since at that point I wasn't even yelling at him, I was just curious) and I was placed in In School Suspension.

For years I mulled over that, especially as I learned it wasn't unusual for schools and communities to give preferential treatment to jocks even when they recorded themselves carrying out felonies (and ties in to the violence around sporting events). I realize now that it was TRIBAL, and their victories and losses was felt keenly by faculty and community that the team represented. When I beat the crap out of that cheerleader, I beat the crap out of the community, when my classmates beat the crap out of that jock who punched me, they beat the crap out of everyone who identified with the team. And therefore the school and community excused anything their representatives did as they would themselves while taking what we did to their representatives with extreme hostility as if we'd done it to them.

posted January 25, 2015 11:18 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faith:
I am endlessly perplexed by my Christian friends' abhorrence of immodest dress and "loose" behavior

---

Btw, I wanted to point out that just because they're against it doesn't mean they're not doing it.

And I recall one sting getting child molesters that was televised (in this case it was actually adults pretending to be underage tweens, like 11-14) and a large proportion were ministers or preachers (or at least had been at one time) with one cop saying he wasn't even surprised when they netted another preacher.

posted January 26, 2015 07:11 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
Prometheus Rising by Robert Anton Wilson looked into that, something about the maternalistic vs paternalistic societies.

---

I wish my library system carried his books. I'll have to check inter-library loan or just buy it. I've been meaning to delve into his work, as I love all the quotes I've seen by him.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
...it has to do with property, and women are yet more property to be seized by men (and anyone who thinks those "moral" soldiers--including UN Peacekeepers, btw--even in this century don't have plenty seizing the women of the enemy for rape are incredibly naive, among other controversial things I could say on the matter).

---

I agree about all that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
Probably related, when I shared how I was sexually assaulted at 13 a guy sympathized but then got furious when he later learned the guy was black and demanded to know why I didn't say so (he didn't know why, or wouldn't say, when I asked why it mattered).

---

Sorry, again, that you were in that position. I wonder what that guy was thinking.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
That is to say war is very much about sex and reproduction (not to be confused with love making) even when waged by people offended by any show of love or nudity.

---

Yes, I've seen these overlapping...well, men are more likely to kill their male enemies and rape the female enemies. I remember reading that during the Revolutionary War, the Hessian soldiers just went from house to house raping (writers back then called it "ravishing"...a linguistically curious euphemism) any woman they got their hands on. And they were mercenary soldiers, showing that ANY "justification" for rape is good enough (as I doubt those soldiers would have raped women in their own country...perhaps out of fear of the law.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
The Malleus Maleficarum, the book I mentioned above, is also an excellent study on (failed) sexual repression and punishing of women for "making" men desire them.

---

Puke

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
If you can get a copy of the edition which is introduced by Montague Summers

---

Not sure I have the stomach for it.

posted January 26, 2015 09:30 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
That is to say war is very much about sex and reproduction (not to be confused with love making) even when waged by people offended by any show of love or nudity.

---

It shows up in strange ways, like the crucial distinction the Bible makes between the circumsized and uncircumsized men. I mean, why are you looking there so much?

Who is this uncircumcised Philistine that he should defy the armies of the living God?
-1 Samuel 17:26

LOL

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
You may also find my musings interesting here:
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum21/HTML/000597.html

---

I think it all goes back to the Bible. Where the ancient Jews went to battle time and time again, usually under God's command, to establish the Promised Land. So Christianity's roots are territorial both in the mental and literal sense, and weapons have played key roles in maintaining both: ie, "conversion by the sword," the Crusades, Holy Wars and all that.

Plus there is the fundamental exclusionary nature of religion: you are either Chosen and subject to the protections and restrictions of that designation, or you are Reprobate, subject to different rules, and "fair game" to the punishments of the superior Chosen Ones. In this scheme, the crime itself doesn't matter nearly so much as the identity of the criminal. So, for instance, the sin of fornication was usually not punishable by death in OT times, but if an Isrealite fornicated with a Baal worshipper, that was grounds for execution. (As you see in The Book of Numbers. )

Had the sinners all been Israelite, then murder would be worse then fornication, but Midianites were involved, so fornication was worse than murder.

And it's the same today...most Christians don't give much thought to the Just-War Doctrine and scrutinize their consciences to be sure that the current war effort is worth supporting, but lazily defer judgement to leaders like Billy Graham who centralize modern "Christian" thinking and have steamlined it to blend smoothly with neoconservative empirial objectives through groups like the Council for National Policy. And this idea of delegating judgement to moral superiors is pretty common in Christian circles, overriding independent critical thinking. And on that note, it's no wonder the Christians love their guns, since they are practically a standing militia, ready to do anything they are told to do by God, and He has always wanted them to kill people, since ancient times. Usually He did not just kill people for them, as with plagues, but insisted they get into the violence in gruesome ways, if only for their own satisfaction ("Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!" cheers the Psalms.)

But anyway, it's not the murder or violence that bothers these people, it's the threat to their idea of God that they find so abhorrent, as if the world would devolve into chaos without that God...and they do not recognize the existing chaos for what it is; they call it eudokia ("For God's good pleasure") or variations of the sort, or say "The Lord works in Mysterious ways" but feel very secure in that. Just so long as they are on His side and will be rewarded in the end, everything is dandy, and being on His team means they can do whatever they want including shooting people since God is on their side.

But, by the way, did you ever see a Nazi belt buckle?

posted January 26, 2015 11:11 PM            

As if the first human condition we needed to look at was, the propensity to commit atrocities. And that matched my prioritization of spiritual quandaries at the time: above all else, I wondered, "Why are people so f*cked up, why do they do such twisted things?" (Though I would never go back to Calvinism, I was desperate to put that into some semblance of rational context at the time.)

Here's another quote that comes to mind:

Regarding tribalism, I think it eludes me, except for the basic idea that there is strength in numbers, and people want to identify with a hoard. I don't have anything to contribute...

I was laughing that you beat up a cheerleader as that is...oddly, like a sacrosanct image...I've never seen a cheerleader get beat up in a movie or in the news.

As for the girl who preserved her virginity in an idiosyncratic way...my guy friend from high school dated a girl like that. Before we had the chance to ask him not to reveal so much information, he had already sprang it on us. *eye roll* I remember hearing about a famous Mormon family of singers, The 5 Browns, three of whom were anally raped by their father. (Because they have to remain virgins, of course!) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2034324/Actual -abuse-5-Browns-daughters-father-Keith-Brown-went-far-charges.html

What's really awful is, they can still smile and look okay.

And another awful thing is, most of us have such wonky intuition, we don't sense when things are off, even when they are way off...and people attend churches led by pedophiles and abusers...similar to how they stuck around on the beaches when the tsunami was coming instead of heading inland like all the animals did.