Right Speech vs. Politically Correct Speech

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Example?

From another forum that I moderate (I'm not posting a link,) Someone posted a video of Cynthia McKinney claiming that 5,000 black prisoners were executed and dumped into a swamp under the cover of Hurricane Katrina. When someone questioned her credibility, citing the cries of racism surrounding her hitting a police officer at her Capitol Hill Police incident, another moderator called the post calling Ms. McKinney out on it a racist statement and hate speech. (In the moderators' discussion regarding the post in question, the other mod started in about hate crimes and such, and that the post should be removed and the poster suspended, if not being outright banned. She then started going on about justice in her bloodlust. When I wrote out the logical reasoning behind how outlawing hate would only undermine justice, she seemed embarrassed, and said she understood my reasoning intellectually, but wanted how she could get the emotional satisfaction of justice being served, liberally peppering her argument with such slogans as, 'hate speech is not free speech," etc. {I refrained from telling her that emotional satasfaction could be found by cleaning all the crap out of her mind. } She has been similarly ranting about other posts being 'hate speech' that pushed any emotional button did not fit her ideology, locking threads, throwing fits, and similarly 'calling for blood,' using examples of real hate crimes as a means to support her argument {as if mere words that pushed her buttons could possibly be considered to be equivilent to the horrendous hate crimes she would try to tie to the posts she wanted to censor, and that people who wrote these posts are guilty of those crimes. (Collective guilt by associatation fallacy.) Justice would only be further undermined by the implimentation of her recommendations.}

Example?

My post that you just quoted.

How is 'right speech' defined? And is there consensus on any one definition?

It would certainly be defined by those who would enforce it, possibly according to their own whim, especially if they are empowered to do so.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

The Jester, the Holy Fool, and even the Moral Entrepreneur often must create their own rewards.

If the satire is effective in getting someone to turn around and practice joy instead of jealousy, that is reward enough. Laughing at ones own foibles is a great way to get started.

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

A pattern I've seen with those who insist upon politically correct speech is a preoccupation with 'justice' in a collective sense (at least their view of justice) instead of on an individual level. When I come acrossed such instances, I often employ sarcasm, usually involving references to The Newspeak Dictionary and doublespeak. {However, I'll also often add the 'politically correct' [sarcasm] [/sarcasm] labels to further prove my point.}

Requiring people to only use 'right speech' in all circumstances is just another form of political correctness, imo.

Oops! I didn't cite George Orwell's 1984 as my authoriative reference in regards to The Newspeak Dictionary and doublespeak.

Would you agree that justice in a collective sense is a subjective measure of right and wrong.

Sarcasm may be a natural secular expression of frustration and part of the continual division of perspectives between different people but why do you think that Buddhism sees it more as a hindrance than a help. Is this awareness a strength or a weakness towards becoming able to experience an objective reality?

Requiring people to only use 'right speech' in all circumstances is just another form of political correctness, imo.

I agree this is the case from the secular perspective. But the secular perspective is concerned with the "goal." The transcendent perspective is concerned with the process by which perspectives are created and this can only be experienced and shared through intentional honest communication without the aim of a manipulative goal. Otherwise we end up with politically correct BS which will become frustrating and turn to sarcasm and we are back to square one.

I'm becoming more convinced that it is impossible for the Internet and such relationships can only be possible at selective times within either a real church or a sangha. The pressure to protect and further our prestige prohibits anything else.

I don't think it would be possible to discuss for example Basarab Nicolescu's Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity that reveals the dangers of fragmentation that has become the calling of the modern age in a secular setting. Transdisciplinarity is the attempt to reveal transcendent realities naturally without the secular psychological restrictions.and normal sarcasms for defending dominant fragmentation. It feels demeaning to discuss with right speech ideas that reveal our ignorance of something greater than ourselves.

I guess I have to admit that though possible, it would be too difficult to ask people having never done it, to admit the importance of right speech in collectively experiencing the higher truths we normally block through our normal expressions of self importance.

My Aries idealism sometimes wants to assert itself but practically I must admit the difficulties right speech is for normal secular expression when platitudes are questioned.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

Would you agree that justice in a collective sense is a subjective measure of right and wrong.

To some people, maybe. To others, no.

Sarcasm may be a natural secular expression of frustration and part of the continual division of perspectives between different people but why do you think that Buddhism sees it more as a hindrance than a help. Is this awareness a strength or a weakness towards becoming able to experience an objective reality?

[satire]If you think that Buddhism as a whole says sarcasm is more of a hindrance than a help, you have obviously not studied many varieties of Buddhism.

[/satire]

I agree this is the case from the secular perspective. But the secular perspective is concerned with the "goal." The transcendent perspective is concerned with the process by which perspectives are created and this can only be experienced and shared through intentional honest communication without the aim of a manipulative goal. Otherwise we end up with politically correct BS which will become frustrating and turn to sarcasm and we are back to square one.

And requiring "right speech' is not manipulative?

I'm becoming more convinced that it is impossible for the Internet and such relationships can only be possible at selective times within either a real church or a sangha. The pressure to protect and further our prestige prohibits anything else.

Oh, you mean you keep tripping on your ego?

I don't think it would be possible to discuss for example Basarab Nicolescu's Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity that reveals the dangers of fragmentation that has become the calling of the modern age in a secular setting. Transdisciplinarity is the attempt to reveal transcendent realities naturally without the secular psychological restrictions.and normal sarcasms for defending dominant fragmentation.

And let's see: requiring "right speech" is "natural," and without _______ psychological restrictions? Can we say doublespeak?

It feels demeaning to discuss with right speech ideas that reveal our ignorance of something greater than ourselves.

That's your hang up. Own it, and deal with it.

I guess I have to admit that though possible, it would be too difficult to ask people having never done it, to admit the importance of right speech in collectively experiencing the higher truths we normally block through our normal expressions of self importance.

Didn't Jesus say, "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." Get off your high horse if you really want to help.

My Aries idealism sometimes wants to assert itself but practically I must admit the difficulties right speech is for normal secular expression when platitudes are questioned.

ROFLMAO!

[Nick_A]

SG

Collectively means taken as a whole which includes differing perspectives.

[satire]If you think that Buddhism as a whole says sarcasm is more of a hindrance than a help, you have obviously not studied many varieties of Buddhism.

The theoretical purpose of a transcendent board is actually similar to the first three steps on the Eightfold path

Buddhist Studies (Secondary) The Fourth Noble Truth

1. Right Understanding
To understand the Law of Cause and Effect and the Four Noble Truths.
2. Right Attitude
Not harbouring thoughts of greed and anger.
3. Right Speech
Avoid lying, gossip, harsh speech and tale-telling.

People willingly entering a transcendent board already know the limitations of their secular BS so wish to "understand" The right attitude means to surrender the normal techniques of secular right and wrong in order to experience this "greater" psychology one is drawn to. Right speech then furthers the collective striving to better understand.

It is true that in the student teacher relationships, what may be called satire and ridicule could be used for the benefit of the student's awakening. However, such a board must presume that people are equal in their ignorance so are willing to sacrifice the normal secular defensive techniques.

And requiring "right speech' is not manipulative?

Political correctness tells you what to know and how to act. Right speech for it is manipulative by definition. Those seeking transcendent understanding view the process more important so do not seek to manipulate for a goal but rather to experience "understanding." that is our potential.

Oh, you mean you keep tripping on your ego?

Of course. Am I really in the presence of such a saint that does not? How would nasty sarcasm further your saintliness?

And let's see: requiring "right speech" is "natural," and without _______ psychological restrictions? Can we say doublespeak?

Not at all. Right speech requires "intent." We've become conditioned to the point that it is unnatural. A transcendent board would have to insist on the unnatural in order to further its purpose which is becoming open to experiential understanding.

That's your hang up. Own it, and deal with it.

This is the purpose of being involved with an esoteric path. Its aim is to become able to deal with it so as to further "understanding."

Didn't Jesus say, "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." Get off your high horse if you really want to help.

It is not a high horse but a very low one. This isn't a matter of helping sinners but rather questioning the possibility if people could be honest enough and value right speech for the sake of our potential for "understanding."

There is just no sense in one idiot calling another idiot and idiot as is normal for secularism. A transcendent board begins with the collective acceptance of our idiocy and how to deal with it for the sake of "understanding."

You've pretty much convinced me that such a transcendent board to compliment secular Interfaith is an impossibility. The joys of people hitting each other over the head with Peace signs is far too strong and could never allow others to see this mutual expression for what it is rather then continually justify one side or the other.

[seattlegal]

Nick, I take it that you didn't like my translation into Zen-style secular speak?

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Sure, but you would have to let the power of your good example coerce others into wanting to confine themselves to that style of discourse. It's better to multi task and enjoy different kinds of conversation with different sorts of people as the opportunities arise rather than hold out for the perfect scenario.

Good grief yes Chris. One particular thing I like about IO is not just what people say here but the way that they say it, whether it’s a ristretto from ciel or a banquet from AndrewX. Everyone has their own style of communicating; we aren’t automatons, software programs or dry academics discussing the minutiae of some arcane mathematical theory. (For reference to support my assertion: see every other post on this website).


s.

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Nick, I take it that you didn't like my translation into Zen-style secular speak?

What is Zen style secular speak?

Satori seems to be the ultimate objective experience of Zen while secular speak would seem to be its ultimate degeneration into acceptable interpretation. I'm not sure how you relate it to politically correct or right speech

[Ciel]

Ciao Snoopy

- c -

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Good grief yes Chris. One particular thing I like about IO is not just what people say here but the way that they say it, whether it’s a ristretto from ciel or a banquet from AndrewX. Everyone has their own style of communicating; we aren’t automatons, software programs or dry academics discussing the minutiae of some arcane mathematical theory. (For reference to support my assertion: see every other post on this website).


s.

You are enjoying a secular Interfaith site which is fine. I was curious if it were possible to include a transcendent Interfaith board as a part of an Interfaith site. Because of its nature it requires an intent for the sharing of truth rather than politically correct styles and observations. For you, how people say something is more important then what they say. On a transcendent board the intent would be to reveal sincere substance even if the style is not so exciting. Right speech then would be more important then impressive politically correct speech.

But I do thank you and others for answering my question and concluding that Trancendent Interfaith cannot exist with secular Interfaith on the Internet that is dependent on language. They each flourish using different qualities speech. Where secularism thrives on image, transcendence requires inner verification. The quality of speech reflects these two different mindsets.

[earl]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

What is Zen style secular speak?

Satori seems to be the ultimate objective experience of Zen while secular speak would seem to be its ultimate degeneration into acceptable interpretation. I'm not sure how you relate it to politically correct or right speech

As to what "right speech" is from a Buddhist/Zen perspective:

Lecture on Buddhist Precept of Right Speech

NickA, am a bit perplexed by your frequent allusions to "secular" as you first of all use that term disparagingly in reference to any view that disputes your own, religious or otherwise and secondly as you use it so generically, it is unclear what you'd specifically define that term to mean. If you find this Buddhist exposition on right speech to be too "secular," perhaps you should clue us in as how you're defining that. earl

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

(Political correctness) would certainly be defined by those who would enforce it, possibly according to their own whim, especially if they are empowered to do so.

I think you and I agree that passion without humility is not effective and I think this applies to all political extremists.

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by earl

As to what "right speech" is from a Buddhist/Zen perspective:

Lecture on Buddhist Precept of Right Speech

NickA, am a bit perplexed by your frequent allusions to "secular" as you first of all use that term disparagingly in reference to any view that disputes your own, religious or otherwise and secondly as you use it so generically, it is unclear what you'd specifically define that term to mean. If you find this Buddhist exposition on right speech to be too "secular," perhaps you should clue us in as how you're defining that. earl

Draw a horizontal line on a piece of paper. Imagine that it connects before at the extreme left and after on the extreme right. The line itself connects everything between before and after. This is our secular life.

Now imagine a vertical line that intersects it in the middle and creates a cross. This vertical line represents the line of "being" and it can be drawn to intersect any point along the horizontal line. This line connects the slow vibrations of the life force within matter furthest from God and the rapid vibrations of God well beyond our comprehension This vertical line represents the objective quality of the moment itself defined by distance from God. The higher along the line of being that the horizontal line intersects produces a greater quality of the moment.

Transcendent Interfaith concerns itself with the vertical line pf being while secular Interfaith concerns itself with the horizontal line of our reactions to the impressions of daily life. In biblical terms, the horizontal line represents the domain of Caesar and the vertical line of being is the expression of God, The truly intelligent person is able to Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. Secularism has become so dominant that those attached to it only recognize the domain of Caesar and debate how it can be made better or worse. Those that respect transcendent Interfaith know that as the quality of the moment grows in a person, it produces a quality of understanding that automatically effects the quality of human life along the horizontal line for the better. The fact that this is forgotten ancient knowledge doesn't make it false but only forgotten in a quickening secular technological age.

My concern if explorations of the line of being within ourselves that determine the quality of a moment could ever be incorporated into an Interfaith site together with the quality of speech necessary to further and sustain it as described in both the Christian and Buddhist teachings. I see it is unwanted, seen as restrictive and boring, and impossible. I have my answer. No harm, no foul

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by earl

As to what "right speech" is from a Buddhist/Zen perspective:

Lecture on Buddhist Precept of Right Speech

NickA, am a bit perplexed by your frequent allusions to "secular" as you first of all use that term disparagingly in reference to any view that disputes your own, religious or otherwise and secondly as you use it so generically, it is unclear what you'd specifically define that term to mean. If you find this Buddhist exposition on right speech to be too "secular," perhaps you should clue us in as how you're defining that. earl

Good article, Earl. Speech being likened to an 'energy leak' is something I had never heard before, but it is so true.

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

Draw a horizontal line on a piece of paper. Imagine that it connects before at the extreme left and after on the extreme right. The line itself connects everything between before and after. This is our secular life.

Now imagine a vertical line that intersects it in the middle and creates a cross. This vertical line represents the line of "being" and it can be drawn to intersect any point along the horizontal line. This line connects the slow vibrations of the life force within matter furthest from God and the rapid vibrations of God well beyond our comprehension This vertical line represents the objective quality of the moment itself defined by distance from God. The higher along the line of being that the horizontal line intersects produces a greater quality of the moment.

Transcendent Interfaith concerns itself with the vertical line pf being while secular Interfaith concerns itself with the horizontal line of our reactions to the impressions of daily life. In biblical terms, the horizontal line represents the domain of Caesar and the vertical line of being is the expression of God, The truly intelligent person is able to Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. Secularism has become so dominant that those attached to it only recognize the domain of Caesar and debate how it can be made better or worse. Those that respect transcendent Interfaith know that as the quality of the moment grows in a person, it produces a quality of understanding that automatically effects the quality of human life along the horizontal line for the better. The fact that this is forgotten ancient knowledge doesn't make it false but only forgotten in a quickening secular technological age.

My concern if explorations of the line of being within ourselves that determine the quality of a moment could ever be incorporated into an Interfaith site together with the quality of speech necessary to further and sustain it as described in both the Christian and Buddhist teachings. I see it is unwanted, seen as restrictive and boring, and impossible. I have my answer. No harm, no foul

Thanks for this Nick. It helps me understand what you're on about.

What sort of politically incorrect, transcendent things would you like to talk about? How does vertical, transcendent being-ness differ from horizontal, secular being-ness in terms of the relative political correctness of one's speech?

Chris