Abortion: Three Day Grace Period

[earl]

When does "human" life begin? Tough, ultimately metaphysical question. I've seen a couple "New Agers" whose work I respect claim that the soul desn't fully meld with the body until birth. If so, that might assist in answering the question but how do you measure what can't be seen? As an aside, does anyone else see a certain hyprocisy among those who describe themselves as "pro-life" yet have no moral consternation in having no problem with supporting capital punishment and war? earl

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Nick, please consider Romans 1:18-20

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

Yes, even examining worldly things can point to God.

Someone once told me that true religion points to God, as does true science. It makes sense to me.

I agree. Christianity seeks to allow ourselves to get out of our own way to objectively take in life's impressions with an open heart. The heart is "covered" so we are governed by shallow negative emotions that justify our defense mechanisms. Carrying our cross is just the attempt to consciously experience objective reality and witness our own perverted view of it. The gradual experience of external life in this way begins to touch and open the heart at the expenses of the dominance of our shallow negative emotions.

Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. Einstein

Why don't so many others see this? It's not denied by the body or by thought but rather our negative emotions that justify our defense mechanisms..

Romans 1

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

The more the heart is darkened the more that shallow negative emotions dominate to justify the darkening. I contend that the denial of "respect for life" is a natural result of the darkened heart and dominance of negative emotion.that justify it

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by earl

When does "human" life begin? Tough, ultimately metaphysical question. I've seen a couple "New Agers" whose work I respect claim that the soul desn't fully meld with the body until birth. If so, that might assist in answering the question but how do you measure what can't be seen? As an aside, does anyone else see a certain hyprocisy among those who describe themselves as "pro-life" yet have no moral consternation in having no problem with supporting capital punishment and war? earl

Yes, that is what the thread is about. Why not kill babies at three days old since we justify killing in wars and executions etc. It is one thing to label an action as good or bad. it is another to recognize the mindset that promotes it. Jesus was forever trying to awaken the Pharisees to this distinction but to no avail.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by earl

As an aside, does anyone else see a certain hyprocisy among those who describe themselves as "pro-life" yet have no moral consternation in having no problem with supporting capital punishment and war? earl

Yes. I am for life, and that means I am also anti-war, anti-capital punishment, and anti-parallel issues that indirectly cause death such as the HMO health insurance-dominated health care system.

Social systems that cause loss of human life are, to me, against Christ's teachings of the sanctity of life. I also think they do not work. War doesn't work. Capital punishment doesn't work. We have more capital punishment here than in other first world nations, but we also have higher violent crime rates... year after year.

What really gets me is the number of Christian conservatives I know and also see on the media that claim a pro-life stance but still are pro-war and pro-capital punishment. How can we take seriously a government that says it is for the sacredness of life, and yet claims the power to kill its own citizens? That claims roots in a religion that says to love one's enemies, and yet is OK with capital punishment (which does nothing except give a victim a sense of revenge) or offensive, pre-emptive war?

And how can I take seriously the pro-life movement, when all it seeks to do is lay more blame at the feet of the mother, who already faces great challenges in life without social support?

It isn't just about the women who can get on welfare, as SG points out. Managed care is often a disaster of mismanagement, resulting in harm to women and children. We have one of the highest maternal and infant mortality rates in the first world. Our health care system for pregnant women is lousy compared to that of Iceland, Sweden, and so forth. So... to me, if people are really all about pro-life and babies' rights-- why are they not for regulating the health care industry more so that all babies get an equal access to the care necessary for life?

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I'm pro-life for the same reason, Nick. But I see reality for what it is, and I realize that if all I do about it is say abortion is wrong and yet don't bother to fix the social reasons women get abortions... it's not helping.

I'm a pragmatic sort. To me, it's not enough to have some ideals and spiritual truths. Without practice, without working toward a society and humanity that gives every support possible for those ideals to become manifest in reality... it's fluff for me. It's lip service.

I don't mean that as an affront to you or other pro-life people. But I'm just telling it like it is.

The Bible was quite clear, I think, that the community is of great importance, and that we as individuals are responsible for the well-being of each other. I think there is great clarity that it is not enough to hold some ideals and talk about what others should do. We are called to build a kingdom on earth where the community supports its members in ethical behavior.

Nowadays, with the costs being what they are for health care and raising a child, that means the working poor need financial support to be successful in taking a pro-life stance. Some women are not being selfish in deciding to have an abortion. They are facing very stark and harsh realities of not enough money to pay for the prenatal and delivery care, and not being able to take any time off work and still care for their other children.

We can either face the reality of what our competitive and grossly unequal economy does to families and children, or we can ignore it and pretend it is all about individual choices and spiritual ideals.

I am consistently for the sanctity of life and the dignity of humanity due to my spirituality. Because of that, I am politically for changes that would allow humans to have the basic needs met that uphold dignity and life. In the case of pregnant women and fetuses, this means quality health care, nutritious food, shelter, time off work if necessary, and care for other children and house if necessary so that the baby can be safely and healthily delivered.

To me, it's a pretty simple matter.

A lot of conservative Republicans would call me unAmerican and dangerous because I am "socialist." I'm not X or Y or Z. I'm just a person that seeks to follow Christ's teachings without apology, even when it goes against cultural norms. And I'm a person that recognizes that gross inequality, lack of care for women and children in need, and shoving all responsibility onto the mother... these things are not Biblical and they don't work. I study society and I look for root causes to problems. I want change that will yield a positive outcome. Criminalizing abortion and making abortion a personal ethical issue rather than a social one doesn't work. It just alienates women who are unsupported and desperate even further.

Hi Path

Well thought out post even if I disagree in part. Even though you're passionate, you're not just ranting as so often happens which cannot lead anywhere.

The Bible was quite clear, I think, that the community is of great importance, and that we as individuals are responsible for the well-being of each other. I think there is great clarity that it is not enough to hold some ideals and talk about what others should do. We are called to build a kingdom on earth where the community supports its members in ethical behavior.

This may be true for secular religion. Its purpose may be to provide a structure for ethical behavior in life but the transcendent paths have a greater purpose. The community has the common purpose of transcendence, to repair the fallen man. Rather the emphasis on what to do, the emphasis here is in striving to be and helping others to do the same. It is the mutual striving towards awakening rather than just adapting to defined correct mechanical behavior..

"Respect for life" and human spiritual potential in comparison to the psychological human condition we find ourselves in is an essential part of the transcendent path within which a person seeks to become themselves in pursuit of objective meaning and purpose.

Nowadays, with the costs being what they are for health care and raising a child, that means the working poor need financial support to be successful in taking a pro-life stance. Some women are not being selfish in deciding to have an abortion. They are facing very stark and harsh realities of not enough money to pay for the prenatal and delivery care, and not being able to take any time off work and still care for their other children.

"Our being attracts our life" What you are describing is the normal result of the fallen collective nature of "human "being." How then to deal with it. We can abort and kill the fetus. We can kill these people caught up in this mess. We can provide help for the body and or provide help for the spirit. The secular gravitates towards help for the body within society. The spiritual seeks to help in allowing a person to find the alternative to the human condition they've found themselves in. Simone Weil describes it well:

"Grace fills empty spaces, but it can only enter where there is a void to receive it We must continually suspend the work of the imagination in filling the void within ourselves."
"In no matter what circumstances, if the imagination is stopped from pouring itself out, we have a void (the poor in spirit). In no matter what circumstances... imagination can fill the void. This is why the average human beings can become prisoners, slaves, prostitutes, and pass thru no matter what suffering without being purified."

Our problem is in accepting the imagination that creates the human condition you describe. This acceptance denies the purification that can allow for real change.

You are a well meaning socialist which is fine by me. However, the emphasis on the secular leads us away from an essential truth regarding the human condition described in such an extraordinary way by Simone:

"Humanism was not wrong in thinking that truth, beauty, liberty, and equality are of infinite value, but in thinking that man can get them for himself without grace." Simone Weil

So for me the question is how to help in such a way that grace is allowed to enter. I maintain that if we had "respect for life" that invites grace, there would be fewer unwanted pregnancies and consequent abortions.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

Hi Path

Well thought out post even if I disagree in part. Even though you're passionate, you're not just ranting as so often happens which cannot lead anywhere.

Thanks. I rant, but not without thought behind it.

This may be true for secular religion. Its purpose may be to provide a structure for ethical behavior in life but the transcendent paths have a greater purpose. The community has the common purpose of transcendence, to repair the fallen man. Rather the emphasis on what to do, the emphasis here is in striving to be and helping others to do the same. It is the mutual striving towards awakening rather than just adapting to defined correct mechanical behavior.

.

My own spirituality is focused on transcendence. However, I am also a cognitive anthropologist. We know from neuroscience that most people's brains shut down to higher level thinking and learning when they are lacking basic needs (food, safety, shelter, etc.).

Because we know this, I see that the Bible offers many rules and commands for structuring society in a way that people's basic needs are met, and therefore they are able to reach the higher-order thinking necessary for beginning a journey of transcendence.

It is part of one whole process to me. I do not separate secular life from transcendent life. All life is sacred, all moments are sacred. We can either create a society where people can focus on the sanctity of life or not. I think the United States, in many ways, is very antithetical structurally and culturally to living a life of transcendence. I think it is cruel and irresponsible to not try to develop a society that provides fertile ground for people to become engaged in the transcendent journey. Neuroscience and social science has provided us with some knowledge of what that fertile ground is, and it corresponds to much of what Christ taught- that people should be fed, sheltered, cared for, treated with compassion and dignity.

Our bodies are a part of ourselves in this life. We must care for human bodies and brains in a way that allows humans to reach above and beyond... to go deeply inward and profoundly outward in a way that they are able to transcend themselves and unite with God. To ignore the basics of human neurology, learning, and biological need is to ignore the reality of the life God has given us. If God had wanted us to not have any learning process through caring for our bodies and minds, I think S/He would have created us without them. That we have physical and psychological needs and limitations means there is something to learn there... and I think that it is intimately tied with society and communal living. Caring for one another, providing a fertile ground for meeting between God and humanity... this raises up entire communities rather than only individuals. To those of us who have been given much, be that material wealth or spiritual resilience, much is expected for helping those along the path who have not been so richly blessed. In so doing, others transcend and those who are helping in this process become evermore vessels for God's light and love and grace.

"Our being attracts our life" What you are describing is the normal result of the fallen collective nature of "human "being." How then to deal with it. We can abort and kill the fetus. We can kill these people caught up in this mess. We can provide help for the body and or provide help for the spirit. The secular gravitates towards help for the body within society. The spiritual seeks to help in allowing a person to find the alternative to the human condition they've found themselves in. Simone Weil describes it well:

I do not think that just because there is a focus on the body, one is secular. The body and the spirit are together in this life. So transcendence must feed body and soul, or more appropriately, the body must be fed so that transcendence for the soul is possible. In feeding others bodily, we prepare them for transcendence, we show compassion, and we show humanity. Christ fed people before teaching them. Healed them before teaching them. Much of the time, He showed great care for people's bodily needs.

With all due respect to Simone, my own experience is that body and spirit are united in this lifetime for a reason. The body is not a bad thing, or a thing to be ignored. It is a gift and a set of limitations to be worked through. It is important.

The problem with secularism is that it ignores the spirit. The problem with much of Christian religion is that it has a tendency to ignore the body, the community, the mind. We are united in this life- body and soul. To me, spirituality for maximum efficacy in the work of transcendence must work in this journey in both body and soul. This is why I am a follower of Christ and also a Druid. This life, this body is important and should not be ignored. God gave me this body and the material world around me. There is meaning there.

Our problem is in accepting the imagination that creates the human condition you describe. This acceptance denies the purification that can allow for real change.

I believe that purification includes purification of the community and of humanity as a whole. Real change is not just in the self, but the collective. Jesus talked of the "Kingdom of God" or "Kingdom of Heaven," not just of individuals. I believe I'm on a journey not only of personal transcendence, but of reaching out to those around me as much as I can and in every way that I can be of service to their body, mind, and soul. In this way, I hope to do my small part in purifying humanity as a whole, and in building a society that naturally yields a focus on the spirit.

You are a well meaning socialist which is fine by me. However, the emphasis on the secular leads us away from an essential truth regarding the human condition described in such an extraordinary way by Simone:

Why assume that I emphasize the secular? Have you considered that what to you is secular, to me is sacred? You seem to set the sacred aside as a subset of life. I do not. I see all of my life as sacred. And I see all this as being directly by the grace of God. There is no "me" at all- I am only a temporary manifestation of the Creator's creativity. If there is any sense of "me," it is as a bit of God's creation. I strive to get closer to being a vessel for God's grace and light and love. I recognize that in order to do this, I must care for the bodily vessel that I was given. By extension, for others to do the same, I must reach out as much as possible in an effort to have their bodily needs met as well. In this way, they are then free to focus on the things of the spirit and to realize that all of their life is sacred as well. The material world, to me, is a gift. It is not something to ignore or to throw away. Nor is it at all secular. Intent is what makes an activity sacred. The sacred is not defined from the secular by attribute, but by motivation.

[earl]

I agree Path. Bread and roses Nick A. Quite taken with Simone W it seems. earl

[Nick_A]

Hi Path

It is part of one whole process to me. I do not separate secular life from transcendent life. All life is sacred, all moments are sacred. We can either create a society where people can focus on the sanctity of life or not. I think the United States, in many ways, is very antithetical structurally and culturally to living a life of transcendence. I think it is cruel and irresponsible to not try to develop a society that provides fertile ground for people to become engaged in the transcendent journey. Neuroscience and social science has provided us with some knowledge of what that fertile ground is, and it corresponds to much of what Christ taught- that people should be fed, sheltered, cared for, treated with compassion and dignity.

Agreed. Secular life and the transcendent calling are both separate and connected. That is how I understand Jesus' meaning in the following passage:

Luke 20

20Keeping a close watch on him, they sent spies, who pretended to be honest. They hoped to catch Jesus in something he said so that they might hand him over to the power and authority of the governor. 21So the spies questioned him: "Teacher, we know that you speak and teach what is right, and that you do not show partiality but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. 22Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"
23He saw through their duplicity and said to them, 24"Show me a denarius. Whose portrait and inscription are on it?"
25"Caesar's," they replied.
He said to them, "Then give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." 26They were unable to trap him in what he had said there in public. And astonished by his answer, they became silent.

The objectively balanced person balances these obligations. But we are not balanced people so where the purpose of society should be to further a person becoming themselves, dominant secularism demands the sacrifice of this inner potential to unconsciously serve society or what Plato called the "Beast" The beast, by definition attached to the earth, strives to keep the human soul attached to it.
I agree that the United States once understood this and how society should serve the individual as opposed to a person becoming a psychological captive to the Beast. You may at some point enjoy reading this book since it amplifies what you are saying as I understand it:
Amazon.com: The American Soul: TK: Jacob Needleman: Books

Our bodies are a part of ourselves in this life. We must care for human bodies and brains in a way that allows humans to reach above and beyond... to go deeply inward and profoundly outward in a way that they are able to transcend themselves and unite with God. To ignore the basics of human neurology, learning, and biological need is to ignore the reality of the life God has given us. If God had wanted us to not have any learning process through caring for our bodies and minds, I think S/He would have created us without them. That we have physical and psychological needs and limitations means there is something to learn there... and I think that it is intimately tied with society and communal living. Caring for one another, providing a fertile ground for meeting between God and humanity... this raises up entire communities rather than only individuals. To those of us who have been given much, be that material wealth or spiritual resilience, much is expected for helping those along the path who have not been so richly blessed. In so doing, others transcend and those who are helping in this process become evermore vessels for God's light and love and grace.

But at the same time we know that life is suffering. Christianity seeks to allow us to psychologically profit from it in the cause of awakening. If suffering is unavoidable it makes sense to consider how to profit from it. As usual, Simone hits the nail on the head:

"The tremendous greatness of Christianity", writes Simone Weil, "comes from the fact that it does not seek a supernatural remedy against suffering but a supernatural use of suffering."

Maslow and his heirarchy of values agrees with you. Yet affliction as in the book of Job suggests that affliction can also further ones connection to the greater good. Granted these people are a minority but then results of these efforts further nourish the collective souls of society.

Christianity is the religion of slaves. It accepts the human condition yet believes there is hope to escape from it. Escape doesn't deny societal service but rather participating in it without being attached to it. It doesn't deny the body but rather seeks the help of the body for a greater concern than its own.

I do not think that just because there is a focus on the body, one is secular. The body and the spirit are together in this life. So transcendence must feed body and soul, or more appropriately, the body must be fed so that transcendence for the soul is possible. In feeding others bodily, we prepare them for transcendence, we show compassion, and we show humanity. Christ fed people before teaching them. Healed them before teaching them. Much of the time, He showed great care for people's bodily needs

But again they are not equal. Does the body serve the soul or does the soul sacrifice itself for the body? Does the shell of an acorn protect the kernel of life within it and eventually pass on in service to the living kernel or is the kernel sacrificed to preserve a beautiful acorn shell. Dominant secular values have made it so our image (acorn shell) is furthered at the expense of the soul's need for growth. (living kernel within the acorn shell)
It is the domain of the shell that furthers abortion to protect the mother's image (personality) It is recognition of respect for the process of life itself as a continuum spanning conception with death. The mother's real choice here is potential "perspective."

The problem with secularism is that it ignores the spirit. The problem with much of Christian religion is that it has a tendency to ignore the body, the community, the mind. We are united in this life- body and soul. To me, spirituality for maximum efficacy in the work of transcendence must work in this journey in both body and soul. This is why I am a follower of Christ and also a Druid. This life, this body is important and should not be ignored. God gave me this body and the material world around me. There is meaning there.

Nothing to disagree with here. Being part Armenian I also am aware that Stonehenge actually may have been constructed by Armenians. It resembles the Armenian stonehenge that is even more ancient.
Astrology on the Web: Armenia's Stonehenge

I believe that purification includes purification of the community and of humanity as a whole. Real change is not just in the self, but the collective. Jesus talked of the "Kingdom of God" or "Kingdom of Heaven," not just of individuals. I believe I'm on a journey not only of personal transcendence, but of reaching out to those around me as much as I can and in every way that I can be of service to their body, mind, and soul. In this way, I hope to do my small part in purifying humanity as a whole, and in building a society that naturally yields a focus on the spirit.

Next year In honor of Simone Weil's birth centennial year 2009, I'd like to help promote some discussions in college philosophy and religion clubs. She is qualified to unite the transcendent with the secular since she was once an atheist and Communist and died a Christian mystic
As she was dying from TB, she wrote her only book "The need for Roots" All other books are commentaries, organizations of her letters, essays, and notebooks. She wrote it as her contribution for rebuilding France after Hitler's devastation. It is very provocative. Yet she deals with what interests you.
It is useful for me to discuss it since it helps prepare me for objections as these ideas are introduced to interested students.
How would you like to discuss it as outlined by Wiki? I didn't think up until now that anyone here would want to sink their teeth into it but it seems right up your ally. Read some of this and if you find it intriguing, I can start a thread on it and we can ponder its merits and consider if it is all possible in this day and age.
Simone Weil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

T.S. Eliot wrote in the preface to Simone Weil's "The Need for Roots:"

"This is one of those books which ought to be studied by the young before their leisure has been lost and their capacity for thought destroyed; books the effect of which, we can only hope, will become apparent in the attitude of mind of another generation."

[earl]

Nick A, are not shell, acorn and oak not all of 1 cycle/process? Why settle on a dichotmous contradistinction of body and soul? What if body were a reflection of soul? You prompted me to do a little research re Simone-someone who apparently chronically suffered from migraines and an eating disorder much of her life. Her writings did indeed seem to so much revolve around the sufferings of life but she seemed to almost compulsively want to place herself into harm's way to work on the behalf of others, seemingly wanting to intensify her experience of suffering to achieve a release from it by a very deep embrace of it. See, too, that she wrote of mystical experiences of Christ. So, it appears she had a relationship of sorts with the guy. earl

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by earl

Nick A, are not shell, acorn and oak not all of 1 cycle/process? Why settle on a dichotmous contradistinction of body and soul? What if body were a reflection of soul? You prompted me to do a little research re Simone-someone who apparently chronically suffered from migraines and an eating disorder much of her life. Her writings did indeed seem to so much revolve around the sufferings of life but she seemed to almost compulsively want to place herself into harm's way to work on the behalf of others, seemingly wanting to intensify her experience of suffering to achieve a release from it by a very deep embrace of it. See, too, that she wrote of mystical experiences of Christ. So, it appears she had a relationship of sorts with the guy. earl

Earl,


We simply cannot judge those like Simone from our limited perspective. Of course there is that debate that she was anorexic and her death is totally misunderstood.

Psychologists will have a field day trying to understand Simone and her relationship to her older brother Andre. How can we understand the relationship between two young geniuses who were so close?

Andre was three years older. He became a peer of Einstein. He was three years older than Simone. He was eight and taught her to read the evening paper at five. The five year old became aware of the suffering French troops and their limited rations so refused to eat more that than the rations of the poor. Is this anorexic or her need to become one with human suffering so as to devote herself to alleviate it. She also refused sugar and socks at the age of five since the fighting troops didn't have them.

When she was twelve, she was discussing Greek Philosophy with Andre in the ancient Greek language. I surely don't understand this but I do know the quality of ideas she left for us to ponder as well as inspiring us to live our philosophy. She is an essential influence for the eventual unification between science and religion as well as religion and culture. This is why people with understanding call her the "New Saint" meaning the saint with a mind. Though not widely known, After her centennial year it will change from the documentaries and new books etc. For young women she is a female philosopher now considered in the same category as Kierkegaard. It is good that young women learn of a woman whose philosophy consisted of something more than politics and gender rights.

I value what she brings and open to programs IRL that lead to sincere discussion.for the benefit of those within which philosophy is still as described by Plato: the love of wisdom.

Who else could be admired both by Leon Trotsky and Pope Paul VI? Who else that dies at the age of 34 could warrant such an article? Sometimes it is better to put our guard down and try to understand such people rather then judge them from our limited perspective.

Simone Weil (Bauer) - CESNUR 2002


If the body were a reflection of the soul, Socrates would not have said:

"May the outward and inward man be at one." Socrates

Our trouble is that we believe we have what in reality we only have as potential.

[earl]

I'd say the outward man is mind-body while inward man is soul-spirit. Unification does not posit rejection of either pole. While I cannot really know another without walking in their shoes, I do know Simone W was very focused on suffering even to the point of saying she envied Christ every time she saw an image of the crucifix. She died very young and she pushed herself to dive into the suffering of others. She no doubt did good works and thought great thoughts but perhaps she was uncomfortable in her own body and often was at war with it. Just some thoughts to ponder. earl

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by earl

I'd say the outward man is mind-body while inward man is soul-spirit. Unification does not posit rejection of either pole. While I cannot really know another without walking in their shoes, I do know Simone W was very focused on suffering even to the point of saying she envied Christ every time she saw an image of the crucifix. She died very young and she pushed herself to dive into the suffering of others. She no doubt did good works and thought great thoughts but perhaps she was uncomfortable in her own body and often was at war with it. Just some thoughts to ponder. earl

Why would you think that one must be rejected? The inner man is what we ARE and the outer man is what we DO. The idea isn't to abandon the ability to DO but rather develop what we ARE so that we DO something worthy of the name "Man" and further the connection between above and below. "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven."

Simone was clumsy, suffered migrains, and had abnormally small hands so you can say she struggled with her body but she didn't deny its value. We all struggle with our body. Hatha yoga for example is a method to organize our movements and balance our energies so that they serve higher purpose rather the our disorganized movements, tensions, and postures furthering our emotional chaos.

According to this article she had a genuine interest in the future of somatic practice and I know her views that right work with the hands is really a spiritual practice and a very Eastern idea.

Making the World my Body: Simone Weil and Somatic Practice - Ann Pirruccello - Athenaeum Library of Philosophy

She brings to life a lot of Platonic ideas and in that alone what she brings IMO has great merit for opening our minds to the contemplation of higher ideas..

[earl]

Nick A, the reason I mused that she might have been "at war" with her body was the combination of seeing she had chronic issue such as migraines and an eating disorder-not my words but others-along with seeing what appeared to be a pattern of pushing herself beyond a balanced approach plus the biggie for me-as I mentioned before-she seemed quite consumed with the issue of suffering and seemed to want to seek out suffering. In other words it was as if she was trying to add more personal sufferng to her load in order to somehow understand and transcend it. As I said she said she envied Christ on the cross. earl

[earl]

Nick, now I know how she died-anorexia, the ultimate battle with one's body. Doesn't look like her parents had a very healthy attitude toward the life of the body. earl

The Factory of Genius : Simone Weil

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by earl

Nick A, the reason I mused that she might have been "at war" with her body was the combination of seeing she had chronic issue such as migraines and an eating disorder-not my words but others-along with seeing what appeared to be a pattern of pushing herself beyond a balanced approach plus the biggie for me-as I mentioned before-she seemed quite consumed with the issue of suffering and seemed to want to seek out suffering. In other words it was as if she was trying to add more personal sufferng to her load in order to somehow understand and transcend it. As I said she said she envied Christ on the cross. earl

Yes she sought out suffering. Even at a very young age she never would accept more than the underprivileged. Trying to understand the why of it is beyond this thread but it raises several important question that pertain to the thread.

"Human beings are so made that the ones who do the crushing feel nothing; it is the person crushed who feels what is happening. Unless one has placed oneself on the side of the oppressed, to feel with them, one cannot understand." Simone Weil

"Imagination is always the fabric of social life and the dynamic of history. The influence of real needs and compulsions, of real interests and materials, is indirect because the crowd is never conscious of it." Simone Weil

Simone Chose to live a life free of imagination. she would expose herself to the raw truth in order to understand in the real meaning of the word.

We don't do this because as a whole we live in imagination and don't feel the absurdity of what we accept as "normal" It is also imagination that denies us "respect for life."

The unborn are like the oppressed. We don't feel their crushing to the extent that allows many to just accept it

If more people would be willing to stop hiding behind their imagination, begin to feel what respect for the life process means, and openly witness the life cycle including abortion, it wouldn't be so easy.

For Simone her body was a tool for the sake of the experience of truth. We are not so free nor do we need truth as she did and are content with fantasy.

I'm not suggesting people to be like Simone. We would be incapable of living without our inner lies. Only a few of these type come along in a generation However, she does indicate that abortion as we know it is an absurdity normal for living in daily imagination so we lose the respect for the life process itself and its relation to the greater good that fantasy denies.