Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
I believe it would be beneficial somewhere for atheists to contribute to the question of the human condition as it relates to a conscious perspective which by definition must include concepts of above or below. otherwise consciousness is just a means for explaining reactions. The harsh reality is that emotional denial prevents it. This doesn’t insult me but just leaves the question open as to why emotional denial and its associated bigotry becomes so dominant.
Actually, I’ve given a number of conscious perspectives on the human condition on threads you’ve participated in that, at least implicitly (and often only very thinly disguised), do include the concepts of above and below. Perhaps my technique of shock and awe has been too abrasive, however, and I should take a tip from 0username0 and be nicer. But it really would be a good idea to carry out a developing discussion rather than sticking to the single note that “we” (All of us? Everybody? If not, who not?) have all been devoured by the Great Beast and now remain mired in the cave of its belly, resolutely denying that this is so.
I agree with the definition of bigotry that you have supplied, but I’m struggling to understand how those of us on this forum are examples of that kind of blind stupidity. I would however, add one thing to the definition above. Bigotry is not entirely an emotional reaction to some characteristics but it also comes with one overriding intellectual component that being the rational conclusion that the bigot is in some way superior to those whom he is denigrating and dehumanizing. The notion of “supremacy” MUST be the uppermost intellectual consideration of the one doing the discrimination. This attitude is essential and necessary to the emergence of the actual bigot. All of your postings and the whole of the G. theosophy are steeped in the notion of supremacy, but of course you cannot see that because on that front you are completely blind.
This is what interests me. The idea of a hierarchy is repulsive to you. The very fact that there may be qualities of consciousness that dwarf ours is somehow seen as unfair and degrading. You seem closed to the concept of hierarchy because of the harmful results of some artificially created hierarchies
Kasparov is a better chess player than I am. He is superior to me. I don’t see any reason for considering this insulting. He is higher on the hierarchy of chess strength than me.
It is not insulting for me to consider that there are those far superior to me as conscious human beings. The trouble is that we have a scale of chess strength but not of human consciousness. Without this scale, you consider contemplating it insulting. I call it essential since without such a scale. I believe humanity is doomed
It’s not that the “idea of a hierarchy” is repulsive to me Nick. You’re treating my questions about your assumptions as if you are talking to a 3yr.old. Bringing up the divergence in chess-playing skills as an example of how some people are more adept at certain cognitive accomplishments than others is just pandering to the obvious. I mean, as if I’d reject the scale of Kasparov being a higher quality chess player than me? The hierarchy I reject is the one based on the Gurdjieff theosophy, to accept that scale you might as well believe in the existence of minds, souls, angels, and other spirits. Of course you believe in the existence of those imaginary things, so you don’t find that hierarchy repulsive (of course within the context of the theosophy, believing in those things automatically takes you up one notch or two in the hierarchy, so there is no repulsion to be experienced by the believers like yourself).
You speak about the possibility of having a rational discussion, yet when I bring up certain necessary conditions (i.e., the intellectual state of the bigot which gives him a sense of superiority over those with the characteristics he dislikes and finds emotionally repugnant) you ignore that insight and jump to your erroneous assessment concerning my reaction to hierarchies.
Just for the sake of arguing your case - that we are essentially bigots here at this forum - which of those human characteristics are the ones that you believe that we have an emotional reaction against? Here’s the list from Wiki:
Bigotry may be based on real or perceived characteristics, including sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, race, ethnicity, nationality, region, language, religious or spiritual belief, personal habits, political alignment, age, economic status or disability. Bigotry is sometimes developed into an ideology or world view.
What we have, Nick, is an intellectual rejection of those who accept as knowledge the sorts of things that do not correspond to the facts or those who explicitly dismiss the facts as irrelevant to their parameters for what counts as knowledge. As you have witnessed from the responses to your “bait” in this thread, non of us are emotionally obstructed by your charges against us. The emotional denial you keep throwing back at us is merely your own misreading of how we feel about your theory and the entire context of what you accept as knowing.
It is frightening to me that this bigotry against expressions of secular religion has graduated to include relative consciousness making its collective contemplation impossible. It must be limited to “under the table” forms of discussion so as to appeal to the conscious sameness of political correctness.
It seems atheists here are open to hierarchy of reactions as with hippo, now, and flashlight, but are emotionally closed to being less of a reactive machine and more of a conscious being. Where the human machine is glorified, the objective conscious hierarchy of human “being” is emotionally denied
These two paragraphs make no sense whatsoever. The notion of a human machine is part of your own explanation of reality (see the O.P.), that you think we are glorifying your own mistaken impressions is laughable.
But if that is how recognition of the human condition and what is lost through the blind acceptance of it must start, then that is the way it is. it is obvious that nothing good can come from the bigotry of dominant emotional denial.
Well, you apparently seem resigned to some facts (skewed as they may be by your blindness). And of course the obvious nature of what is the good and the evil for you plays a significant role in your perspective.
The trick is finding those not burdened with emotional denial and open to impartial reason as it pertains to the question of consciousness. It is not as diffucult in real life as it is on the Internet. Yet I cannot believe that it wouldn’t be possible on the Internet to discuss relative consciousness without the need for a personal God concept. It is just easier said than done.
Atheism cannot intellectually deny what it cannot understahnd literally but it seems that they can emotionally deny it leading to bigotry against its expression.
I think I can sense that you’re about to “play the victim card” here Nick. “Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do.”
Pffft. Emotional denial and bigotry. Nice try Nick. I expressly stayed away from your marathon because, frankly, it bored the hell out of me.
To be honest, according to that definition you provided, perhaps I am bigoted towards people like you. I really, really don’t like annoying people who constantly spout woo. I have no issues debating matters of religion or almost anything else with anybody who is reasonable, but I have seen your brand of debate, and it leaves a lot to be desired. Think what you like about the folks here who don’t agree with your ideas, but I certainly have not seen anything from anybody here that would approach bigotry (except Tony C., but we know what happened to him).
The BM thread was created by moving posts from a thread begun by the one atheist’s bigotry seeks to eliminate.
This is as if Faux News were covering the events of PR. Who wouldn’t want to eliminate BM’s?
The emotional denial of atheists here expressing itself as bigotry against some sort of narrative concerning religion prevents being open to the question if a human being can be more than a living machine with a narrative.
No… we are saying no we cannot be. No just means no. We do that with our brains and it will take more than an emotional appeal to our cardiac system to convince us otherwise. You make no attempt to live up to the argument you claim to be making.
I’ll begin a thread on another site if I can find one where bigotry is not… etc.
That is a really good idea. Be sure to wear plenty of that Bigotry-brand Sunscreen. It seems effective.
Actually, why not just let Nick start a thread here where he has final decision as to who is allowed to participate. That could get interesting pretty quickly. My own suspicion is that he would end up banning everybody.
You are making a game out of an important issue. Atheism as described by Simone Weil is important as a purification for gradual secular religious distortion. Unfortunately there are many atheists for some reason that have been captured by emotional denial that even leads to expressions of obvious bigotry.
The human condition should be discussed. The future of humanity may well depend on how many in the future in the real world will be open to its contemplation. Simone led me to believe that atheists can have an important contribution to make. It does seem though that atheism for some reason attracts emotional denial and bigotry in many nullifying its beneficial potential.
But life goes on regardless. It there are those lurking with an intellectual atheistic mindset that find the human condition as it relates to consciousness worthwhile discussing without the unfortunate added ingredient of emotional denial, feel free to PM me. As I said, if there is sufficient interest I’ll search for an openminded forum willing to host such a discussion.
Pffft. Emotional denial and bigotry. Nice try Nick. I expressly stayed away from your marathon because, frankly, it bored the hell out of me.
To be honest, according to that definition you provided, perhaps I am bigoted towards people like you. I really, really don’t like annoying people who constantly spout woo. I have no issues debating matters of religion or almost anything else with anybody who is reasonable, but I have seen your brand of debate, and it leaves a lot to be desired. Think what you like about the folks here who don’t agree with your ideas, but I certainly have not seen anything from anybody here that would approach bigotry (except Tony C., but we know what happened to him).
Apparently you are one who needs to win debates. Unfortunately the human condition as it relatess to consciousness isn’t a debate. There is nothing to win. It must be discussed for the sake of understanding. That is why such a discussion would neither serve your purpose of winning or aid in anyone elses understanding. Only atheists free of this emotional need to win, to condemn, to prove superiority. etc. could benefit either themselves or others from sacrificing self justifying opinions for the sake of knowledge.
Pffft. Emotional denial and bigotry. Nice try Nick. I expressly stayed away from your marathon because, frankly, it bored the hell out of me.
To be honest, according to that definition you provided, perhaps I am bigoted towards people like you. I really, really don’t like annoying people who constantly spout woo. I have no issues debating matters of religion or almost anything else with anybody who is reasonable, but I have seen your brand of debate, and it leaves a lot to be desired. Think what you like about the folks here who don’t agree with your ideas, but I certainly have not seen anything from anybody here that would approach bigotry (except Tony C., but we know what happened to him).
Apparently you are one who needs to win debates. Unfortunately the human condition as it relatess to consciousness isn’t a debate. There is nothing to win. It must be discussed for the sake of understanding. That is why such a discussion would neither serve your purpose of winning or aid in anyone elses understanding. Only atheists free of this emotional need to win, to condemn, to prove superiority. etc. could benefit either themselves or others from sacrificing self justifying opinions for the sake of knowledge.
You’re better off just cursing out Christianity.
Bigotry, emotional denial, consciousness, attachment, Simone Weil, yawn. Dude, someone really fucked you up. Why not question that guy/girl? I can assure you it would be much easier and more rewarding than whatever your plight is here. WHATEVER your plight is here!
I doubt this amount of misinformed warped cognition came from skewed autodidacticism. So just reflect on whoever spoon fed you this shit and take your own advice by not denying reality in light is that situation.
People, don’t get sucked in to another of Nick’s posts. He using more of his verbal gymnastics to try to make us out to be the bad guys.
I, for one, am not playing. That may seem “bigoted” to Nick, but there’s a difference between bigotry and not wasting one’s time.
However, I will openly admit that I’m bigoted. I’m bigoted against ignorance and stupidity, and I don’t consider that a bad thing. I wish more people were.
Boo woo, boo woo, poor Nick, standing on the Project Reason corner with Simone Weil in hand spouting his philosophically bankrupt bullshit, but his hat remains empty, oh the bigotry of it, boo woo, boo woo.
The BM thread was created by moving posts from a thread begun by the one atheist’s bigotry seeks to eliminate.
This is as if Faux News were covering the events of PR. Who wouldn’t want to eliminate BM’s?
The emotional denial of atheists here expressing itself as bigotry against some sort of narrative concerning religion prevents being open to the question if a human being can be more than a living machine with a narrative.
No… we are saying no we cannot be. No just means no. We do that with our brains and it will take more than an emotional appeal to our cardiac system to convince us otherwise. You make no attempt to live up to the argument you claim to be making.
I’ll begin a thread on another site if I can find one where bigotry is not… etc.
That is a really good idea. Be sure to wear plenty of that Bigotry-brand Sunscreen. It seems effective.
Actually, why not just let Nick start a thread here where he has final decision as to who is allowed to participate. That could get interesting pretty quickly. My own suspicion is that he would end up banning everybody.
You are making a game out of an important issue. Atheism as described by Simone Weil is important as a purification for gradual secular religious distortion. Unfortunately there are many atheists for some reason that have been captured by emotional denial that even leads to expressions of obvious bigotry.
The human condition should be discussed. The future of humanity may well depend on how many in the future in the real world will be open to its contemplation. Simone led me to believe that atheists can have an important contribution to make. It does seem though that atheism for some reason attracts emotional denial and bigotry in many nullifying its beneficial potential.
But life goes on regardless. It there are those lurking with an intellectual atheistic mindset that find the human condition as it relates to consciousness worthwhile discussing without the unfortunate added ingredient of emotional denial, feel free to PM me. As I said, if there is sufficient interest I’ll search for an openminded forum willing to host such a discussion.
I’m only making a game here because you don’t really discuss anything. All you ever do is complain that people are not accepting your assertions. If you would come up with something other than that you might start gaining some traction. After all, I did leave the door open for you, all you need to do is step through:
“Actually, I’ve given a number of conscious perspectives on the human condition on threads you’ve participated in that, at least implicitly (and often only very thinly disguised), do include the concepts of above and below. Perhaps my technique of shock and awe has been too abrasive, however, and I should take a tip from 0username0 and be nicer. But it really would be a good idea to carry out a developing discussion rather than sticking to the single note that “we” (All of us? Everybody? If not, who not?) have all been devoured by the Great Beast and now remain mired in the cave of its belly, resolutely denying that this is so.”
So perhaps you could start off by answering some questions (of course, to the best of your ability, only - nobody expects perfection): Who is stuck in the cave? Is this universal? What are the parameters of this cave? Who are the people you believe are not so stuck? What suggestions do you have for becoming unstuck? Perhaps you could say something in response to Nhoj’s comment that it’s caves all the way up (rather, I guess, than turtles all the way down). I mean, just saying that people are in denial and rejecting your premises because of this (rather than because you have not explained them very well, Weil notwithstanding) doesn’t get you very far. To quote an unmentionable former denizen of this forum, that and twenty five cents will get you a brightly colored gumball.
People, don’t get sucked in to another of Nick’s posts. He using more of his verbal gymnastics to try to make us out to be the bad guys.
I, for one, am not playing. That may seem “bigoted” to Nick, but there’s a difference between bigotry and not wasting one’s time.
However, I will openly admit that I’m bigoted. I’m bigoted against ignorance and stupidity, and I don’t consider that a bad thing. I wish more people were.
However, I will openly admit that I’m bigoted. I’m bigoted against ignorance and stupidity, and I don’t consider that a bad thing. I wish more people were.
Thank you for your honesty. Yes, you’ve described the mind of a bigot accurately. Each one has their own appreciation for what is ignorant and stupid which justifies their bigoted expression. Unfortunately this tendency seems to be growing with atheists. But I still believe that even so, there are those capable of serving the purification previously referred to without the emotional necessity for bigoted expression. Those are the ones who can be valuable in the collective human efforts to confront the human condition in relation to human conscious potential
The BM thread was created by moving posts from a thread begun by the one atheist’s bigotry seeks to eliminate.
This is as if Faux News were covering the events of PR. Who wouldn’t want to eliminate BM’s?
The emotional denial of atheists here expressing itself as bigotry against some sort of narrative concerning religion prevents being open to the question if a human being can be more than a living machine with a narrative.
No… we are saying no we cannot be. No just means no. We do that with our brains and it will take more than an emotional appeal to our cardiac system to convince us otherwise. You make no attempt to live up to the argument you claim to be making.
I’ll begin a thread on another site if I can find one where bigotry is not… etc.
That is a really good idea. Be sure to wear plenty of that Bigotry-brand Sunscreen. It seems effective.
Actually, why not just let Nick start a thread here where he has final decision as to who is allowed to participate. That could get interesting pretty quickly. My own suspicion is that he would end up banning everybody.
You are making a game out of an important issue. Atheism as described by Simone Weil is important as a purification for gradual secular religious distortion. Unfortunately there are many atheists for some reason that have been captured by emotional denial that even leads to expressions of obvious bigotry.
The human condition should be discussed. The future of humanity may well depend on how many in the future in the real world will be open to its contemplation. Simone led me to believe that atheists can have an important contribution to make. It does seem though that atheism for some reason attracts emotional denial and bigotry in many nullifying its beneficial potential.
But life goes on regardless. It there are those lurking with an intellectual atheistic mindset that find the human condition as it relates to consciousness worthwhile discussing without the unfortunate added ingredient of emotional denial, feel free to PM me. As I said, if there is sufficient interest I’ll search for an openminded forum willing to host such a discussion.
I’m only making a game here because you don’t really discuss anything. All you ever do is complain that people are not accepting your assertions. If you would come up with something other than that you might start gaining some traction. After all, I did leave the door open for you, all you need to do is step through:
“Actually, I’ve given a number of conscious perspectives on the human condition on threads you’ve participated in that, at least implicitly (and often only very thinly disguised), do include the concepts of above and below. Perhaps my technique of shock and awe has been too abrasive, however, and I should take a tip from 0username0 and be nicer. But it really would be a good idea to carry out a developing discussion rather than sticking to the single note that “we” (All of us? Everybody? If not, who not?) have all been devoured by the Great Beast and now remain mired in the cave of its belly, resolutely denying that this is so.”
So perhaps you could start off by answering some questions (of course, to the best of your ability, only - nobody expects perfection): Who is stuck in the cave? Is this universal? What are the parameters of this cave? Who are the people you believe are not so stuck? What suggestions do you have for becoming unstuck? Perhaps you could say something in response to Nhoj’s comment that it’s caves all the way up (rather, I guess, than turtles all the way down). I mean, just saying that people are in denial and rejecting your premises because of this (rather than because you have not explained them very well, Weil notwithstanding) doesn’t get you very far. To quote an unmentionable former denizen of this forum, that and twenty five cents will get you a brightly colored gumball.
It cannot be done simply because the dominance of emotional denial expressing itself as bigotry would cheapen ideas and i do not wish to be a part of it
If you want to arrange a private thread I’ll explain the cave and the conscious limitations of Nietzsche’s Overman as the highest expression of cave life. It would be the only way to assure the necessary freedom from bigotry.
Nhoj has intentionally restricted himself to one level of reality the highest part of which is defined by imaginary narratives. So for him, there is nothing but cave life which is sustined through these narratives fed by imagination.
The cave is the world. Before discussing the effects of being in the world reflecting the human condition, a person has to sense that they need and are capable of more than creatures of blind reaction habitually reacting to interpreted impressions. If a person is satisfied in believing that cave life is the ultimate for them, there is nothing to discuss. If people are content, why rock the boat?
http://explorersfoundation.org/glyphery/0.html Bracketing, of course, those who take the plunge blindly, only to find that the pool was drained years ago and planted over with genetically modified strawberries.
The BM thread was created by moving posts from a thread begun by the one atheist’s bigotry seeks to eliminate.
This is as if Faux News were covering the events of PR. Who wouldn’t want to eliminate BM’s?
The emotional denial of atheists here expressing itself as bigotry against some sort of narrative concerning religion prevents being open to the question if a human being can be more than a living machine with a narrative.
No… we are saying no we cannot be. No just means no. We do that with our brains and it will take more than an emotional appeal to our cardiac system to convince us otherwise. You make no attempt to live up to the argument you claim to be making.
I’ll begin a thread on another site if I can find one where bigotry is not… etc.
That is a really good idea. Be sure to wear plenty of that Bigotry-brand Sunscreen. It seems effective.
Actually, why not just let Nick start a thread here where he has final decision as to who is allowed to participate. That could get interesting pretty quickly. My own suspicion is that he would end up banning everybody.
You are making a game out of an important issue. Atheism as described by Simone Weil is important as a purification for gradual secular religious distortion. Unfortunately there are many atheists for some reason that have been captured by emotional denial that even leads to expressions of obvious bigotry.
The human condition should be discussed. The future of humanity may well depend on how many in the future in the real world will be open to its contemplation. Simone led me to believe that atheists can have an important contribution to make. It does seem though that atheism for some reason attracts emotional denial and bigotry in many nullifying its beneficial potential.
But life goes on regardless. It there are those lurking with an intellectual atheistic mindset that find the human condition as it relates to consciousness worthwhile discussing without the unfortunate added ingredient of emotional denial, feel free to PM me. As I said, if there is sufficient interest I’ll search for an openminded forum willing to host such a discussion.
I’m only making a game here because you don’t really discuss anything. All you ever do is complain that people are not accepting your assertions. If you would come up with something other than that you might start gaining some traction. After all, I did leave the door open for you, all you need to do is step through:
“Actually, I’ve given a number of conscious perspectives on the human condition on threads you’ve participated in that, at least implicitly (and often only very thinly disguised), do include the concepts of above and below. Perhaps my technique of shock and awe has been too abrasive, however, and I should take a tip from 0username0 and be nicer. But it really would be a good idea to carry out a developing discussion rather than sticking to the single note that “we” (All of us? Everybody? If not, who not?) have all been devoured by the Great Beast and now remain mired in the cave of its belly, resolutely denying that this is so.”
So perhaps you could start off by answering some questions (of course, to the best of your ability, only - nobody expects perfection): Who is stuck in the cave? Is this universal? What are the parameters of this cave? Who are the people you believe are not so stuck? What suggestions do you have for becoming unstuck? Perhaps you could say something in response to Nhoj’s comment that it’s caves all the way up (rather, I guess, than turtles all the way down). I mean, just saying that people are in denial and rejecting your premises because of this (rather than because you have not explained them very well, Weil notwithstanding) doesn’t get you very far. To quote an unmentionable former denizen of this forum, that and twenty five cents will get you a brightly colored gumball.
It cannot be done simply because the dominance of emotional denial expressing itself as bigotry would cheapen ideas and i do not wish to be a part of it
If you want to arrange a private thread I’ll explain the cave and the conscious limitations of Nietzsche’s Overman as the highest expression of cave life. It would be the only way to assure the necessary freedom from bigotry.
Nhoj has intentionally restricted himself to one level of reality the highest part of which is defined by imaginary narratives. So for him, there is nothing but cave life which is sustined through these narratives fed by imagination.
The cave is the world. Before discussing the effects of being in the world reflecting the human condition, a person has to sense that they need and are capable of more than creatures of blind reaction habitually reacting to interpreted impressions. If a person is satisfied in believing that cave life is the ultimate for them, there is nothing to discuss. If people are content, why rock the boat?
In other words, you lack the cojones to actually carry out a public discussion. Do you realize how patronizing your statement here is? Probably not.
The BM thread was created by moving posts from a thread begun by the one atheist’s bigotry seeks to eliminate.
This is as if Faux News were covering the events of PR. Who wouldn’t want to eliminate BM’s?
The emotional denial of atheists here expressing itself as bigotry against some sort of narrative concerning religion prevents being open to the question if a human being can be more than a living machine with a narrative.
No… we are saying no we cannot be. No just means no. We do that with our brains and it will take more than an emotional appeal to our cardiac system to convince us otherwise. You make no attempt to live up to the argument you claim to be making.
I’ll begin a thread on another site if I can find one where bigotry is not… etc.
That is a really good idea. Be sure to wear plenty of that Bigotry-brand Sunscreen. It seems effective.
Actually, why not just let Nick start a thread here where he has final decision as to who is allowed to participate. That could get interesting pretty quickly. My own suspicion is that he would end up banning everybody.
You are making a game out of an important issue. Atheism as described by Simone Weil is important as a purification for gradual secular religious distortion. Unfortunately there are many atheists for some reason that have been captured by emotional denial that even leads to expressions of obvious bigotry.
The human condition should be discussed. The future of humanity may well depend on how many in the future in the real world will be open to its contemplation. Simone led me to believe that atheists can have an important contribution to make. It does seem though that atheism for some reason attracts emotional denial and bigotry in many nullifying its beneficial potential.
But life goes on regardless. It there are those lurking with an intellectual atheistic mindset that find the human condition as it relates to consciousness worthwhile discussing without the unfortunate added ingredient of emotional denial, feel free to PM me. As I said, if there is sufficient interest I’ll search for an openminded forum willing to host such a discussion.
I’m only making a game here because you don’t really discuss anything. All you ever do is complain that people are not accepting your assertions. If you would come up with something other than that you might start gaining some traction. After all, I did leave the door open for you, all you need to do is step through:
“Actually, I’ve given a number of conscious perspectives on the human condition on threads you’ve participated in that, at least implicitly (and often only very thinly disguised), do include the concepts of above and below. Perhaps my technique of shock and awe has been too abrasive, however, and I should take a tip from 0username0 and be nicer. But it really would be a good idea to carry out a developing discussion rather than sticking to the single note that “we” (All of us? Everybody? If not, who not?) have all been devoured by the Great Beast and now remain mired in the cave of its belly, resolutely denying that this is so.”
So perhaps you could start off by answering some questions (of course, to the best of your ability, only - nobody expects perfection): Who is stuck in the cave? Is this universal? What are the parameters of this cave? Who are the people you believe are not so stuck? What suggestions do you have for becoming unstuck? Perhaps you could say something in response to Nhoj’s comment that it’s caves all the way up (rather, I guess, than turtles all the way down). I mean, just saying that people are in denial and rejecting your premises because of this (rather than because you have not explained them very well, Weil notwithstanding) doesn’t get you very far. To quote an unmentionable former denizen of this forum, that and twenty five cents will get you a brightly colored gumball.
It cannot be done simply because the dominance of emotional denial expressing itself as bigotry would cheapen ideas and i do not wish to be a part of it
If you want to arrange a private thread I’ll explain the cave and the conscious limitations of Nietzsche’s Overman as the highest expression of cave life. It would be the only way to assure the necessary freedom from bigotry.
Nhoj has intentionally restricted himself to one level of reality the highest part of which is defined by imaginary narratives. So for him, there is nothing but cave life which is sustined through these narratives fed by imagination.
The cave is the world. Before discussing the effects of being in the world reflecting the human condition, a person has to sense that they need and are capable of more than creatures of blind reaction habitually reacting to interpreted impressions. If a person is satisfied in believing that cave life is the ultimate for them, there is nothing to discuss. If people are content, why rock the boat?
In other words, you lack the cojones to actually carry out a public discussion. Do you realize how patronizing your statement here is? Probably not.
If you had respect for the objectrive value of ideas you wouldn’t say that. Of course the Buddhist conception of right speech must seem horribly old fashion and condescending but I believe their tradition makes good sense.
For many of us, the most difficult part of practicing right speech lies in how we express our sense of humor. Especially here in America, we’re used to getting laughs with exaggeration, sarcasm, group stereotypes, and pure silliness — all classic examples of wrong speech. If people get used to these sorts of careless humor, they stop listening carefully to what we say. In this way, we cheapen our own discourse. Actually, there’s enough irony in the state of the world that we don’t need to exaggerate or be sarcastic. The greatest humorists are the ones who simply make us look directly at the way things are.
I’ve found that people who truly value ideas naturally practice right speech. Those who don’t, find it attractive to abuse speech.
