Right Speech vs. Politically Correct Speech

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

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

Where you inserted "(political correctness)" into my quote, it was actually referring to "right speech." However, defining "right speech" and holding people to it is political correctness, like I said earlier. (post #9)

"Right speech" is tailored to fit a given individual situation, whereas "political correctness" seeks to shape all situations on a broad scope by regulating speech.

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

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

It isn't as much a matter of topic as of attitude. Transcendent awareness includes the awareness of human evolution into a higher quality of being. It is what separates Man from the rest of organic life on earth which is complete in its evolution. A horse serves its purpose. Man serves the same purpose as the horse but has the potential to serve a higher conscious purpose. Man has the potential to transcend one level of being and become another.

None of this has any value for secularism which only concerns itself with conditioning the collective level of being as it is. It openly frowns on higher awareness. Christianity knows this as the world's condemnation and Plato described it as unwanted. From Plato's Cave Analogy:

[Socrates] And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the cave, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable) would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.


Socrates is describing the natural collective societal response to one becoming open to transcendent realities.

I know this to be true so it would be naive to think it would be any different on a web site. However I also know that there is a minority that are open to this idea of the relativity of human "being," but it requires the intent to respect it rather than the normal intent to ridicule it if people that are aware of it to any degree can become able to share on it.

Where political correctness deals with conditioning the "right " way to be, Right Speech is concerned with the quality of "NOW." As conditioned beings, we don't experience it but rather dream it. Right speech as described in Earl's link concerns itself with reacting to the conditioned world but right speech as it pertains to those wishing to be more real and less conditioned has to express honesty as well. For example it would be politically incorrect to express selective prejudice say against black people but acceptable against whites. This is normal for the selective morality furthered by political correct speech. However right speech amongst people interested in reality is unafraid to listen to a person revealing an honest prejudice regardless of what it is against. There is no should be this way or that but rather what IS. To Know Thyself requires being free of imagining oneself.

We are so conditioned that we do not know what "NOW" is since our lives are the result of the habitual conditioning of the past and anticipation of the future. People with transcendent awareness find it beneficial to admit being a chicken in order to become open to returning to their origin represented in this classic analogy as an eagle. It is meaningless and insulting to secularism but like Plato's cave analogy, just another indication of the human condition unnecessarily attached to the earth and how it denies human conscious evolution.

"A man found an eagle's egg and put it in a nest of a barnyard hen. The eaglet hatched with the brood of chicks and grew up with them. All his life the eagle did what the barnyard chicks did, thinking he was a barnyard chicken. He scratched the earth for worms and insects. He clucked and cackled. And he would thrash his wings and fly a few feet into the air.

Years passed and the eagle grew very old. One day he saw a magnificent bird above him in the cloudless sky. It glided in graceful majesty among the powerful wind currents, with scarcely a beat on his strong golden wings. The old eagle looked up in awe. "Who's that?" he asked. "That's the eagle, the king of the birds," said his neighbor. "He belongs to the sky. We belong to the earth - we're chickens." So the eagle lived and died a chicken, for that's what he thought he was."

Anthony de Mello
(1931-1987) Jesuit Priest

I've even read the secular perspective describe this as anti chicken. Yet those having become aware even theoretically of Man's possible conscious evolution or the change of being alluded to in Christianity as re-birth for example can begin to appreciate and share on the meaning of this story. It couldn't be done on a secular board that would consider it demeaning but could on a transcendent board that is more open to the reality of the human condition...

Politically correct speech concerns itself with subjective interpretations of a better barnyard while Right Speech between people with transcendent awareness even if just theoretically concerns another with allowing another to experience the necessary reality that furthers understanding.

Christian love for example from the secular perspective is different than from the transcendent perspective. Yet discussing it would require a psychological atmosphere that would include Right Speech since the transcendent perspective is politically incorrect. Mixing the two would be meaningless since it would spawn the usual sarcasms and ridicule etc that have become conditioned.

This thread is about whether people are open to respect the potential of Right Speech necessary to further understanding experiential transcendent awareness. It seems clear to me that people view it as an obstacle to creativity rather than a necessary aspect of shared transcendent awareness necessary to further transcendent Interfaith. The bottom line is that they cannot realistically coexist on the same site in a meaningful way that would allow a board being dedicated to it. As I said, no harm no foul. Live and learn.

[juantoo3]

Quite an interesting conversation.

A quick observation...passionate communication (speech, writing, etc.) is the most effective communication (noted by J. Watson in developing Behaviorism psychology). However, it is also the most prone to error, and the error is usually hidden from view until after the passion subsides. How else does one rile a mob into a lawless anarchic frenzy to dispatch vigilante justice? ( I can prove this with a *false* accusation levelled with a threatening glare and pointed finger at any hapless male victim..."CHILD ABUSER!" )

Might does not equal right. Volume does not confer correctness. Because a majority holds an opinion does not mean that opinion is valid, unless everyone jumping off a bridge can somehow be construed as valid. Then again, even lemmings have their role to play in the grand scheme of things... ...mindlessly hurtling themselves onto the rocks of their passions.

(In case there is any wonder, I am no fan of PC, and what I am seeing in this thread about "right speech" is just a variant of PC)

[Nick_A]

Hi Juantoo

(In case there is any wonder, I am no fan of PC, and what I am seeing in this thread about "right speech" is just a variant of PC)

I agree. Right Speech like anything else of quality becomes degraded into a tool of manipulation. However, Right Speech has the "potential" to reflect the desire to be free of inner lies. It is really a shock to learn how much we are dominated by inner lies denying us a realistic conscious experience of human meaning and purpose. This is why intent becomes so important. A person has to be honest with themselves and determine if their goal is self justification and manipuation or being open to experience the human condition.

"We must prefer real hell to an imaginary paradise." Simone Weil

People open to transcendent human potential could discuss this idea while secularism would find it repulsive and not politically correct since it makes no sense from a secular perspective.

Transcendent Interfaith begins with awakening to see that we are eagles having been conditioned by society to become as chickens. It doesn't matter if one calls themselves Christian, buddhist, Hindu, or whatever. We are all chickens in the same barnyard with the potential for a conscious individualty beyond our comprehension. This is the "hell" Simone is referring to. The right and wrong of the exoteric expressions of these paths becomes secondary to the collective question as to how to be less of a chicken and more like the individuality of a human being represented by the eagle.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

People open to transcendent human potential could discuss this idea while secularism would find it repulsive and not politically correct since it makes no sense from a secular perspective.

Perhaps, but then I would need to see M. Weil's comment in context to understand the gist with which it was intended before I could agree or disagree. However, as to the follow on comment I would say that being "open to transcendent human potential" is a loaded term that could be construed to mean most anything and used to include and exclude any whom the person doing the quoting might desire. As for matters of heaven and hell, theologians argue over them, secularists deny them, philosophers dance around them, fanatics invoke them and the average joe ignores and avoids them. All of whom are right and politically correct within their own given contexts...just ask. And all of whom are wrong and politically incorrect outside of their given contexts...just ask their adversaries.

[earl]

Nick A, I'm far from a fan of "poltically correct speech," but "right speech-" a term from the Buddhist perspective, reflects, as do all Buddhist practices and views the "transcendent" in the sense that Buddhsim points to transcending the delusional views of the self. It is far from "secular." However, it is often said in Buddhism that the Buddhist precepts including that of right speech are the natural way an enlightened person would act, which should always reflect a compassionate awareness of the interdependence-the interbeing-of all things. Buddhism is always about encouraing one to be fully aware of all their actions and how these affect others as well as affect and reflect the state of one's awareness. Jesus' chief teachings seemed to focus more on the "spiritual health" of all, but he also certainly preached caring for others in other than spiritual ways. You mentioned the image of the cross earlier-speaking of both its vertical and horizontal axes. That is a good symbol for the uniting of heaven and earth. The cross is that integration, the integration of the transcendent and the immanent, the material and the spiritual. If we're not walking our talk in this material form, we haven't really "transcended" our self-imposed limitiations. earl

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

Hi Juantoo


I agree. Right Speech like anything else of quality becomes degraded into a tool of manipulation. However, Right Speech has the "potential" to reflect the desire to be free of inner lies. It is really a shock to learn how much we are dominated by inner lies denying us a realistic conscious experience of human meaning and purpose. This is why intent becomes so important. A person has to be honest with themselves and determine if their goal is self justification and manipuation or being open to experience the human condition.



People open to transcendent human potential could discuss this idea while secularism would find it repulsive and not politically correct since it makes no sense from a secular perspective.

Transcendent Interfaith begins with awakening to see that we are eagles having been conditioned by society to become as chickens. It doesn't matter if one calls themselves Christian, buddhist, Hindu, or whatever. We are all chickens in the same barnyard with the potential for a conscious individualty beyond our comprehension. This is the "hell" Simone is referring to. The right and wrong of the exoteric expressions of these paths becomes secondary to the collective question as to how to be less of a chicken and more like the individuality of a human being represented by the eagle.

You do it by dropping the chicken mask, not by crafting an eagle mask. Both masks are unreal.

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Perhaps, but then I would need to see M. Weil's comment in context to understand the gist with which it was intended before I could agree or disagree. However, as to the follow on comment I would say that being "open to transcendent human potential" is a loaded term that could be construed to mean most anything and used to include and exclude any whom the person doing the quoting might desire. As for matters of heaven and hell, theologians argue over them, secularists deny them, philosophers dance around them, fanatics invoke them and the average joe ignores and avoids them. All of whom are right and politically correct within their own given contexts...just ask. And all of whom are wrong and politically incorrect outside of their given contexts...just ask their adversaries.

Quite true. This is why the authentic paths initiating from a conscious source begin with the realization of ones nothingness. We can imagine anything but the realistic experience of ourselves as in opposition to ourselves is the beginning. A person coming to experience the human condition in themselves and what is lost from its acceptance as part of what Plato called the "Beast;" his term for society, can lead to awakening to the psychological possibility of more including the gradual experience of human conscious potential.

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

You do it by dropping the chicken mask, not by crafting an eagle mask. Both masks are unreal.

This sounds good but is not experiential. It is nice to express as part of secular Interfaith but is it your experience?

It is not a matter of a mask but what we've become. Try and take it off and you will see that it sticks like glue. We are our personality or as you say "mask." We have the potential to do it but as of now the mask rules us. Transcendent Interfaith seeks to experientially verify the truth of ourselves rather than create acceptable imagination normal for politically correct secular expression. This is why it requires Right Speech as opposed to the consolations of politically correct speech that furthers the dominance of the mask.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

This is why the authentic paths initiating from a conscious source begin with the realization of ones nothingness.

With all due respect...authentic? By whose standards? Conscious source? Whose consciousness? Realization? Whose? This is the fraught"ness" I am attempting to expose.

Saying, or even agreeing, that one is "open-minded" does not make it so. In practice, it really means being open to those in agreement...which necessarily means being closed-minded to those who disagree.

Genuine open-mindedness is not only being receptive to thoughts that agree, but being receptive even to those thoughts that disagree. Being receptive does not mean being in agreement, it means allowing for that expression to exist and seeing it in its rightful context.

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

With all due respect...authentic? By whose standards? Conscious source? Whose consciousness? Realization? Whose? This is the fraught"ness" I am attempting to expose.

Saying, or even agreeing, that one is "open-minded" does not make it so. In practice, it really means being open to those in agreement...which necessarily means being closed-minded to those who disagree.

Genuine open-mindedness is not only being receptive to thoughts that agree, but being receptive even to those thoughts that disagree. Being receptive does not mean being in agreement, it means allowing for that expression to exist and seeing it in its rightful context.

A transcendent board has to begin with the idea that transcendence as a conscious continuance of human evolution exists. Otherwise why bother. Its existence is argued on secular boards. If we are connected to higher consciousness that seeks to help in awakening mankind, it exists in the sacred traditions since conscious awareness does not arise from the earth but descends from above. It isn't a matter of arguing about which ones since as we are we cannot know, but just to admit that it does exist. if not, then our position is hopeless without help from above.

So rather than the usual secular approach of arguing what is authentic, the transcendent approach asserts it exists but our chicken status doesn't allow us to differentiate. So rather then arguing about it the question becomes how to awaken sufficiently to develop any sort of objective discrimination.

Open mindedness is a quality that isn't conditioned. Closed minded people can be very open minded and receptive in their imagination. This is meaningless. If we are conditioned creatures of reaction, open mindedness truly begins when one is less conditioned so the process of becoming open minded begins when we can admit to how much are conditioning creates our mindset.

What do you mean by "rightful context?" Is this a secular conditioned context or a transcendent context that exists in us as a human potential?

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

This sounds good but is not experiential. It is nice to express as part of secular Interfaith but is it your experience?

Nick, the mask also serves as a filter of which experiences we become conscious of, and which ones we ignore.

It is not a matter of a mask but what we've become. Try and take it off and you will see that it sticks like glue. We are our personality or as you say "mask."

I disagree. We are much more than what we are only consciously aware of.

We have the potential to do it but as of now the mask rules us.

Speak for yourself, and not for the rest of us, please.

Transcendent Interfaith seeks to experientially verify the truth of ourselves rather than create acceptable imagination normal for politically correct secular expression. This is why it requires Right Speech as opposed to the consolations of politically correct speech that furthers the dominance of the mask.

Your definition of what constitutes "right speech" is only another form of political correctness. Sarcasm and satire certainly have their places within the context of "right speech." Deleting them from the realm of "right speech" is analogous to the phenomenon of the Newspeak Dictionary containing fewer and fewer words with each new edition. [sarcasm] Good job, Big Brother. [/sarcasm]

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

What do you mean by "rightful context?" Is this a secular conditioned context or a transcendent context that exists in us as a human potential?

Why does a lemming do what a lemming does? And is that right...or just politically correct?

[Nick_A]

SG

Nick, the mask also serves as a filter of which experiences we become conscious of, and which ones we ignore.

Yes and this filter creates the imagination that keeps humanity in the barnyard as chickens

I disagree. We are much more than what we are only consciously aware of.

For those that have made the conscious effort to impartially "Know Thyself" it is clear that we are what we do. This means that objectively, all we to is transform substances through our life processes in the same way the rest of organic life on earth does.

Speak for yourself, and not for the rest of us, please.

This is why transcendent Interfaith cannot be mixed with secular Interfaith. It is too insulting.

Your definition of what constitutes "right speech" is only another form of political correctness. Sarcasm and satire certainly have their places within the context of "right speech." Deleting them the realm of "right speech" is analogous to the phenomenon of the Newspeak Dictionary containing fewer and fewer words with each new edition. [sarcasm] Good job, Big Brother. [/sarcasm]

Right Speech to flatter a secular gathering can be politically correct since it is right to flatter the image in Caesar's domain. However for those willing to risk the psychological experience of real hell at the expense of an imaginary paradise in pursuit of the "pearl of great price," then the brutal sincerity of right speech is essential to share so that we can expose what we are so as to let it go and become our potential.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

SG
For those that have made the conscious effort to impartially "Know Thyself" it is clear that we are what we do. This means that objectively, all we to is transform substances through our life processes in the same way the rest of organic life on earth does.

ROFLMAO!

This is why transcendent Interfaith cannot be mixed with secular Interfaith. It is too insulting.

To the secularists or to the 'transcendentalists?'

Right Speech to flatter a secular gathering can be politically correct since it is right to flatter the image in Caesar's domain. However for those willing to risk the psychological experience of real hell at the expense of an imaginary paradise in pursuit of the "pearl of great price," then the brutal sincerity of right speech is essential to share so that we can expose what we are so as to let it go and become our potential.

Oh, well now you say sarcasm can be part of 'right speech?'
{Is that because you have experienced it, as opposed to just adhering to (pun referencing the earlier remark about glue intended) what you have been told?}