Equality and Selective Morality

Nick_A

Interfaith Forums
Messages
2,264
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Hi All

"Equality is the public recognition, effectively expressed in institutions and manners, of the principle that an equal degree of attention is due to the needs of all human beings." Simone Weil

At first glance this seems like a quite reasonable ideal. However, when reality sets in we see the difficulty.

Secular society lives by selective morality expressed as political correctness in one form or another to further its own aims. By definition, selective morality makes equality impossible.

It is often thought that selective morality leads to equality which is impossible since the acceptance of selective morality encourages the struggle to be the favored ones.

Simone Weil gives a too accurate description of equality since when contemplating it, we see how we are incapable of it because of the dominance of selective morality and what it subjectively supports.

Any thoughts?


 
According to Weil it is illegitimate hierarchies that render equality impossible.

I wish I understood what you're on about when it comes to "secularism", Nick. What is the political ideal against which you compare the inadequacy of secularism?

Chris
 
According to Weil it is illegitimate hierarchies that render equality impossible.

I wish I understood what you're on about when it comes to "secularism", Nick. What is the political ideal against which you compare the inadequacy of secularism?

Chris

The political ideal is also expressed well by Simone since equality and consideration is not debated in relation to each other as in secularism but taken together in relation to the "good" of higher consciousness.

"The combination of these two facts – the longing in the depth of the heart for absolute good, and the power, though only latent, of directing attention and love to a reality beyond the world and of receiving good from it – constitutes a link which attaches every man without exception to that other reality. Whoever recognizes that reality recognizes that link. Because of it, he holds every human being without any exception as something sacred to which he is bound to show respect. This is the only possible motive for universal respect towards all human beings." ~ Simone Weil“Draft for A Statement of Human Obligations” SIMONE WEIL, AN ANTHOLOGY ed. Sian Miles

This is the meaning of one nation under God. We've lost the ability to appreciate it so have now become willing slaves to selective morality and preserve it through socially acceptable hypocrisy..
 
OK, but when was "One Nation Under God" anything but a slogan? I agree about the prevalence of socially acceptable hypocrisy, but how is immaterial idealism ever going to be a practical a solution? And what are you suggesting as a pragmatic alternative? Theocracy? Kumbaya-ism?

Chris
 
OK, but when was "One Nation Under God" anything but a slogan? I agree about the prevalence of socially acceptable hypocrisy, but how is immaterial idealism ever going to be a practical a solution? And what are you suggesting as a pragmatic alternative? Theocracy? Kumbaya-ism?

Chris

That is a thread in itself. Fortunately there are men like Prof. Jacob Needleman that are willing to tackle the problem. From the intro to his book "Lost Christianity"

But in fact, no assumption of moral authority by secular humanism has taken hold or now seems in any way likely or justified. The modern era, the era of science, while witnessing the phenomenal acceleration of scientific discovery and its applications in technological innovation, has brought the world the inconceivable slaughter and chaos of modern war, along with the despair of ethical dilemmas arising from new technologies that all at once project humanity's essence-immortality onto the entire planet: global injustice, global heartlessness, and global disintegration of the normal patterns of life that have guided mankind for a millennia. Neither the secular philosophies of our epoch nor its theories of human nature - pragmatism, positivism, Marxism, Liberalism, humanism, behaviorism, biological determinism, psychoanalysis - nor the traditional doctrines of the religions, in the way we have understood them, seem able to confront or explain the crimes of humanity in our era, nor other wise and compassionate guidance through the labyrinth of paralyzing new ethical problems.

What is needed is either a new understanding of God or a new understanding of Man: an understanding of God that does not insult the scientific mind while offering bread, not a stone, to the deepest hunger of the heart; an understanding of Man that squarely faces the criminal weakness of our moral will while holding out to us the knowledge of how we can strive within ourselves to become the fully human being we were meant to be -- both for ourselves and as instruments of a higher purpose.

The new understanding of Man will reveal a new understanding of God. Where the secular glorifies man on earth, this new understanding will reveal the potential to play a conscious part as instruments of higher purpose. Where secularism encourages self esteem, realizing how far we are from our conscious potential encourages sane humility and the realization that "only fools fight in a burning house."

Can a new understanding of man for some be enough to effect society for the better? I believe so since with enough individuals beginning to awaken to reality, it must have some beneficial effect.
 
Secular society lives by selective morality expressed as political correctness in one form or another to further its own aims. Any thoughts?


How is it that you surmise selective morality from political correctness? Seems like a leap to me.
 
How is it that you surmise selective morality from political correctness? Seems like a leap to me.

I don't see any leap. When one group is favored over another this is selective morality and it becomes politically correct to bend towards the favored group.

Suppose for example that two men, one white and black, have similar qualifications for a job or to enter college. Current politically correct standards would often force the employer to hire the black man or the college to reject the white student. Society is replete with similar instances where one is favored over another for reasons of selective morality. A fashionable perspective becomes politically correct in society and nullifies any objective appreciation of equality.
 
Namaste Nick,

thank you for the post.

Nick_A said:
Secular society lives by selective morality expressed as political correctness in one form or another to further its own aims.

yet i don't live in this manner nor do i consider my morals to be selective though they certainly are subjective. my moral view arises from my world view inasmuch as every other beings does.

By definition, selective morality makes equality impossible.

i don't see how that follows.

i'm not really sure what "selective" morality even means nor why it's only method of expression is political correctness. heck, i'm not even sure what you mean by political correctness.

It is often thought that selective morality leads to equality which is impossible since the acceptance of selective morality encourages the struggle to be the favored ones.


umm.... what?

i personally think that equality arises from the application of reason rather than moral values.

Simone Weil gives a too accurate description of equality since when contemplating it, we see how we are incapable of it because of the dominance of selective morality and what it subjectively supports.

Any thoughts?



wait.. are you arguing against subjective morality or selective morality? i'm well aware of subjective morality, it's what we all have, but i don't know what selective morality is unless you mean to say that a being is well aware of all the moral choices before them and proceeds to choose one option over the others but then that seems to be how everyone operates anyways.

metta,

~v
 
Hi Vaj

I see I've confused you with all this so let me approach it from another direction for clarification.

20th WCP: Plato's Concept Of Justice: An Analysis

Plato realizes that all theories propounded by Cephalus, Thrasymachus and Glaucon, contained one common element. That one common element was that all the them treated justice as something external "an accomplishment, an importation, or a convention, they have, none of them carried it into the soul or considered it in the place of its habitation." Plato prove that justice does not depend upon a chance, convention or upon external force. It is the right condition of the human soul by the very nature of man when seen in the fullness of his environment. It is in this way that Plato condemned the position taken by Glaucon that justice is something which is external. According to Plato, it is internal as it resides in the human soul. "It is now regarded as an inward grace and its understanding is shown to involve a study of the inner man." It is, therefore, natural and no artificial. It is therefore, not born of fear of the weak but of the longing of the human soul to do a duty according to its nature.

Cephalus, Thrasymachus and Glaucon, describe external morality and Plato observes that inner morality is our more natural condition but we've grown out of balance so have come to rely instead on external morality.


yet i don't live in this manner nor do i consider my morals to be selective though they certainly are subjective. my moral view arises from my world view inasmuch as every other beings does.
This is how we've become. Our conditioned world view creates our morality. Plato asserts in contrast that real morality is inner morality and something we can awaken to.

i'm not really sure what "selective" morality even means nor why it's only method of expression is political correctness. heck, i'm not even sure what you mean by political correctness.

Selective morality is a conditioned world view and political correctness is a means of conditioning to make it a dominant one.

i personally think that equality arises from the application of reason rather than moral values.

But as the "wretched man" we reason one thing and do another. Three women can be having lunch and exchanging platitudes about equality but then show up at a party in the evening with the same dress. So much for the joy of equality.

We don't want to admit that as we are we are governed by power and force under the banner or "prestige." Equality denies prestige which is why as we are, it only exists in platitudes.

wait.. are you arguing against subjective morality or selective morality? i'm well aware of subjective morality, it's what we all have, but i don't know what selective morality is unless you mean to say that a being is well aware of all the moral choices before them and proceeds to choose one option over the others but then that seems to be how everyone operates anyways.

I am not arguing against either selective or subjective morality. It has become normal for the human condition and I am just pointing this out.
Since we've lost the ability for objective morality we are limited to conditioned subjective morality which naturally promotes selective morality justifying inequality that corresponds with current conditioning. We no longer as a whole have the ability to do what Simone recommends that opens us to objective inner morality:

There Comes

If you do not fight it---if you look, just
look, steadily,
upon it,

there comes
a moment when you cannot do it,
if it is evil;

if good, a moment
when you cannot
not.
 
Namaste Nick,

thank you for the post.

Hi Vaj

I see I've confused you with all this so let me approach it from another direction for clarification.


well.. that's fine.. it also would be acceptable to clarify the terms and let me proceed from there :)

Cephalus, Thrasymachus and Glaucon, describe external morality and Plato observes that inner morality is our more natural condition but we've grown out of balance so have come to rely instead on external morality.

perhaps Plato is speaking for himself and beings like him for it certainly is not applicable on an individual level. on an individual level a moral being manifests morality through a variety of methods with an origin that can be external or internal. of course external morals may well be laws which govern the behavior of a being and i wouldn't consider those to be morals per se.

This is how we've become. Our conditioned world view creates our morality. Plato asserts in contrast that real morality is inner morality and something we can awaken to.

i'll take it that you are speaking for yourself and other beings that you know. morality can arise from a world view but that is not the only source for a sense of morality to arise. more to the point, perhaps, is that world view is an internal aspect and as such is part of the inner morality.

Selective morality is a conditioned world view and political correctness is a means of conditioning to make it a dominant one.


can you give me an example of a non conditioned world view?


But as the "wretched man" we reason one thing and do another. Three women can be having lunch and exchanging platitudes about equality but then show up at a party in the evening with the same dress. So much for the joy of equality.


i find it hard to believe that you would use sexism as your example here. through many of your posts there is a clear disdain for hypocrisy yet when i've asked why it's a problem you've not explained your view. why do you think that hypocrisy is a problem?

We don't want to admit that as we are we are governed by power and force under the banner or "prestige." Equality denies prestige which is why as we are, it only exists in platitudes.


actually equality does exist in real situations not just verbal formulations. of course, like most things, each individual being expresses there realizations of equality in their own manner, some not at all and some throughout all aspects. i don't find broad generalizations to be all that accurate nor relevant when dialogging with individual beings.

I am not arguing against either selective or subjective morality. It has become normal for the human condition and I am just pointing this out.

which one has become the norm, selective or subjective?

Since we've lost the ability for objective morality we are limited to conditioned subjective morality which naturally promotes selective morality justifying inequality that corresponds with current conditioning.

humans have never had the ability to be objective about anything let alone morals.

let me ask you, are you labouring under the current conditioning like the rest of the sentient beings you are speaking about?

We no longer as a whole have the ability to do what Simone recommends that opens us to objective inner morality:

there is no objective morality either external or internal irrespective of how much a being may wish it to be.

but since you are simply pointing out that subjective morality exists, as near as i can tell, it seems so obvious that it doesn't even require saying, so i'm thinking that you had some other reason for discussing subjective morality.

metta,

~v
 
Hi Val

i'll take it that you are speaking for yourself and other beings that you know. morality can arise from a world view but that is not the only source for a sense of morality to arise. more to the point, perhaps, is that world view is an internal aspect and as such is part of the inner morality.

I'm speaking from my verification that I am the "wretched man" and suffer the moral contradiction associated with this condition.

can you give me an example of a non conditioned world view?

Awakening! That which comes from the direct conscious experience from efforts to "Know Thyself" It allows one to experience a conscious perspective and consciousness by definition cannot be conditioned but only replaced by imagination.

i find it hard to believe that you would use sexism as your example here. through many of your posts there is a clear disdain for hypocrisy yet when i've asked why it's a problem you've not explained your view. why do you think that hypocrisy is a problem?


You only call it sexism because it is politically correct to think that. Actually it just recognition of the classic female sin in contrast to the classic male sin.


Where the classic male sin is pride or self importance, the classic female sin is vanity. Of course in most they exist as a mixture.

Hypocrisy is a problem when it is not understood as in modern times when it is impolite to be aware of these things. Acceptance of hypocrisy gives people the false hope that secularism can accomplish its goals from its own initiative. We mistakenly think something can grow from platitudes. Our acceptance of hypocrisy doesn't allow us to see that we are just following cycles and progress is just a favorable part of the cycle. The acceptance of hypocrisy denies people the ability to appreciate the depth of what Simone wrote:

"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

Grace can allow for outgrowing the acquired need for hypocrisy.

actually equality does exist in real situations not just verbal formulations. of course, like most things, each individual being expresses there realizations of equality in their own manner, some not at all and some throughout all aspects. i don't find broad generalizations to be all that accurate nor relevant when dialogging with individual beings.

I accept Simone's definition of equality. What's yours?

which one has become the norm, selective or subjective?

Both.

Selective morality is only possible through the acceptance of subjective morality. Then as is said in New Age philosophy, we create our own reality.

humans have never had the ability to be objective about anything let alone morals.

Not that we know of but it is possible that certain ancient cultures we've lost track of like Atlantis, were based on objective morality.

let me ask you, are you labouring under the current conditioning like the rest of the sentient beings you are speaking about?

Yes, I am the "Wretched Man." I'm just willing to admit it.

there is no objective morality either external or internal irrespective of how much a being may wish it to be.

Some Buddhists believe as you do. I agree with the ones that don't

Buddhism
Bhikkhu Bodhi, an American Buddhist monk, wrote:
“By assigning value and spiritual ideals to private subjectivity, the materialistic world view, threatens to undermine any secure objective foundation for morality. The result is the widespread moral degeneration that we witness today. To counter this tendency, mere moral exhortation is insufficient. If morality is to function as an efficient guide to conduct, it cannot be propounded as a self-justifying scheme but must be embedded in a more comprehensive spiritual system which grounds morality in a transpersonal order. Religion must affirm, in the clearest terms, that morality and ethical values are not mere decorative frills of personal opinion, not subjective superstructure, but intrinsic laws of the cosmos built into the heart of reality.”[4]
It raises the whole question of "justice" karma and the "laws of the cosmos built into the heart of reality." Perhaps objective morality could make for an interesting discussion.

but since you are simply pointing out that subjective morality exists, as near as i can tell, it seems so obvious that it doesn't even require saying, so i'm thinking that you had some other reason for discussing subjective morality.

Yes, I am pointing out that we are governed by imagination as a whole including an acceptance of subjective morality being substituted for our loss of the ability to be in touch with inner morality. As a result, secular hypocrisy allows us to so easily accept the horrors it is capable of from being separated from higher consciousness. The acceptance of hypocrisy prevents us from learning by experience.
 
Namaste Nick,

thank you for the post.

Nick_A said:
I'm speaking from my verification that I am the "wretched man" and suffer the moral contradiction associated with this condition.


oh, the terms which you've been using seem to be indicative of more than just yourself. you seem to be applying the term to all human beings. it is, however, a theological construct which doesn't seem to be supported by any intersubjective evidence.

Awakening!


that's not a world view. that is a direct experience.

are you suggesting that the only view that a human can have which is not deluded is one which comes about after they are Awake?

That which comes from the direct conscious experience from efforts to "Know Thyself" It allows one to experience a conscious perspective and consciousness by definition cannot be conditioned but only replaced by imagination.

consciousness can be conditioned, it is typically referred to as discursive intellect. humans are animals and, like all animals, we can be conditioned, even our very consciousness.


You only call it sexism because it is politically correct to think that. Actually it just recognition of the classic female sin in contrast to the classic male sin.


no, i call it sexism because you choose a facile social example of female envy to make your point. you could have chosen many other examples which had no connotations of gender or ethnicity. how you've concluded that not wanting to wear the same dress to a party as another woman is "the classic female sin" i'll never know and, to be frank, don't care to know. i don't operate with a sin based world view.

Hypocrisy is a problem when it is not understood as in modern times when it is impolite to be aware of these things.


ok.. so we're getting to the meat of it... so, hypocrisy is problem with it is not understood. if it is understood then there is no problem with hypocrisy, correct? i don't seem to notice people being polite in the manner that you are describing. most of them have problems with hypocrisy, as you seem to, and i suspect they would tell someone. you may know many parents that have had their children bring up this very thing to them.

Acceptance of hypocrisy gives people the false hope that secularism can accomplish its goals from its own initiative.

what?

i don't have any idea what you are going on about here. you seem to think that secularism, whatever it is that you mean by this term, is some monolithic whole which has an agenda to accomplish, is frustrated in this and so on.

i asked you, previously, if you would discount someone that was a hypocrite and you said that you would not. here, however, you equate the idea of being hypocritical and the acceptance thereof as part of some cabal seeking global hegemony.

We mistakenly think something can grow from platitudes. Our acceptance of hypocrisy doesn't allow us to see that we are just following cycles and progress is just a favorable part of the cycle. The acceptance of hypocrisy denies people the ability to appreciate the depth of what Simone wrote

perhaps that is something which you believe, most beings i know don't feel that platitudes are productive. i don't think that your being very consistent with your position regarding hypocrisy. you've just explained that hypocrisy is only wrong when it is not understood the implication is that understanding it renders it ok but that doesn't even explain what the problem is.

this paragraph finally explains what your problem with hypocrisy and, i'm guessing, secularism actually is. other beings won't listen to Mrs. Weil. blimey. it's clear that you've found her writing to be compelling and paradigm shifting but it is strange to hear you offering her arguments, summarized in your own words, rather than your own arguments.

honestly, if i wanted to talk with Simone Weil i'd talk with her... but... i'm talking with you. do all of your thoughts now match hers so completely that i can simply read her works and discern your views?

I accept Simone's definition of equality. What's yours?

it depends on what we are talking about.

with regards to sentient beings, equality is recognition of the inherent Buddha nature of all beings (not just humans), cultivating the proper attitude to foster and develop it.

on a practical level it simply means treating all sentient beings the same to the degree that we are able.

Not that we know of but it is possible that certain ancient cultures we've lost track of like Atlantis, were based on objective morality.


it's possible that aliens from Mars will land in London tomorrow, it just isn't probable. within the context of the universe *everything* is possible so making the claim that something is possible doesn't really help much. more to the point, however, is that we don't exist in ancient cultures, we exist currently and it is demonstrable that morality is subjective... indeed, the subjective aspect is built right into the definition of the term.

Yes, I am the "Wretched Man." I'm just willing to admit it.

it's not a matter of admitting it, it's a matter of believing it and it's not a belief which i share.

Yes, I am pointing out that we are governed by imagination as a whole including an acceptance of subjective morality being substituted for our loss of the ability to be in touch with inner morality. As a result, secular hypocrisy allows us to so easily accept the horrors it is capable of from being separated from higher consciousness. The acceptance of hypocrisy prevents us from learning by experience.

no it doesn't. you can disregard the smokers admonition that smoking is harmful, that it can produce throat cancer. you can smoke and findout for yourself if such is true.

it's seems clear that you've got definite ideas about these terms, secular and hypocrisy, which are vastly different than how i understand these terms. indeed, you rail against them as if these were independently existing schools of philosophical thought. subjective morality is inner morality and there is no other morality than this. you've cited many people in your discussion to support your views but then nobody says that you can't hold the views that you hold and others acceptance of those views yet does not compel me to hold them. i, personally, find the argument from authority to be fairly unconvincing if i don't already accept the person as an authority and i find this the case for most beings that i interact with.

metta,

~v
 
Hi Vaj

oh, the terms which you've been using seem to be indicative of more than just yourself. you seem to be applying the term to all human beings. it is, however, a theological construct which doesn't seem to be supported by any intersubjective evidence.

In Buddhism this would be recognition of the first Noble Truth that life is suffering and the second that we continue it through attachments justified through imagination. Expressions of unpopular Attachments is protected by hypocrisy. We say one thing and do another.

Are you saying that the four noble truths do not reflect the human condition?

are you suggesting that the only view that a human can have which is not deluded is one which comes about after they are Awake?

Yes in the pure sense. It is the experiential understanding of the dharma defined as:

Hinduism & Buddhism.
  1. The principle or law that orders the universe.
  2. Individual conduct in conformity with this principle.
  3. The essential function or nature of a thing.
The experience of the processes of universal laws is a conscious experience. Normally we just react to results of their interactions.

Naturally there are many degrees of awakening and the closer to pure consciousness the less imagination associated with it.

consciousness can be conditioned, it is typically referred to as discursive intellect. humans are animals and, like all animals, we can be conditioned, even our very consciousness.


Consciousness cannot be conditioned because the associative mind or discursive mind is just reactive mind which isn't conscious. If you read these excerpted by amazon.com you'll see what I mean by mind. The author divides it into the reactive mind and the creative mind. I prefer the conscious mind and reactive mind but that is just semantics. The creative mind as described by the author cannot be conditioned as the reactive min normally is.

Buddha Mind - Google Book Search

ok.. so we're getting to the meat of it... so, hypocrisy is problem with it is not understood. if it is understood then there is no problem with hypocrisy, correct? i don't seem to notice people being polite in the manner that you are describing. most of them have problems with hypocrisy, as you seem to, and i suspect they would tell someone. you may know many parents that have had their children bring up this very thing to them.
Hypocrisy is still a problem when we see it is part of our nature but the gradual efforts to outgrow our need for it is beneficial for our being

People are always polite as they are being a hypocrite. John Edwards was now caught in an affair. Of course he initially denied it and when he was running for president, he spoke on the value of family and gave the most polite and wonderful speeches.in favor of family values.

So when his wife has cancer, he is out there screwing the photographer. He is being a very polite hypocrite. He was saying one thing and did another with the most wonderful smile.

Kids aren't stupid. they know when their parents are hypocrites and see it as the way it is so become hypocrites as well.

i don't have any idea what you are going on about here. you seem to think that secularism, whatever it is that you mean by this term, is some monolithic whole which has an agenda to accomplish, is frustrated in this and so on.

Secularism, is just mechanical existence where the collective replaces the normal drive for conscious self awareness. It doesn't have an agenda but they are created as worldly conditions change.. Plato called it the Beast and simone Weil adopted it and defined the beast as:

"The Great Beast is introduced in Book VI of The Republic. It represents the prejudices and passions of the masses. To please the Great Beast you call what it delights in Good, and what it dislikes Evil. In America this is called politics."

i asked you, previously, if you would discount someone that was a hypocrite and you said that you would not. here, however, you equate the idea of being hypocritical and the acceptance thereof as part of some cabal seeking global hegemony.

Hypocrisy is just a natural expression of the plurality of our being. There is no ulterior motive but the only way we can psychologically tolerate hypocrisy is by becoming dulled to it.

this paragraph finally explains what your problem with hypocrisy and, i'm guessing, secularism actually is. other beings won't listen to Mrs. Weil. blimey. it's clear that you've found her writing to be compelling and paradigm shifting but it is strange to hear you offering her arguments, summarized in your own words, rather than your own arguments.


The argument is the same. Becoming content as parts of the collective beast, many have shut down on the inside and have lost the natural urge towards conscious individuality and the needs of the soul allowing imagination to take its place.

with regards to sentient beings, equality is recognition of the inherent Buddha nature of all beings (not just humans), cultivating the proper attitude to foster and develop it.

on a practical level it simply means treating all sentient beings the same to the degree that we are able.

But living as an aggregate the Buddha mind is hidden behind the aggregates. So though we are equal in Buddha mind, we are also equal in our lack of comprehension of it because we are aggregates. So what we are able to do often ends in hypocrisy. Sound familiar. The question becomes if it is better to defend it or admit it.

At least Simone has the good sense to hold equality as a secular value rather then selective morality which has taken the place of equality.

we exist currently and it is demonstrable that morality is subjective... indeed, the subjective aspect is built right into the definition of the term.
That is how we are now. We blindly accept morality as subjective and changes with cycles of impermanence. It is why hypocrisy is a subjective norm. However if the objective good does exist and manifest as the dharma concerning the interaction of universal laws .then objective morality is the inner recognition of the dharma. Of course as we are, we are incapable of this inner objective recognition.

it's not a matter of admitting it, it's a matter of believing it and it's not a belief which i share.

Lucky man! No more samsara.
 
Hi All



At first glance this seems like a quite reasonable ideal. However, when reality sets in we see the difficulty.

Secular society lives by selective morality expressed as political correctness in one form or another to further its own aims. By definition, selective morality makes equality impossible.

It is often thought that selective morality leads to equality which is impossible since the acceptance of selective morality encourages the struggle to be the favored ones.

Simone Weil gives a too accurate description of equality since when contemplating it, we see how we are incapable of it because of the dominance of selective morality and what it subjectively supports.

Any thoughts?


Secularism and political correctness, are two different concepts, wherein secularism allows for the individual to live as they see fit, unfettered by an imposing structured refrain by society or the government who's collective will may or may not agree with individual's manner of living.
Political correctness, is a religion all its own that those mentioned above do attempt to impose on the individual, in order to enforce compliance/conformity with the will of the collective.

In secualrism, there is equality, where in political correctness (selective morality), there is none.

The weakness in secularism is the balancing act it has to undergo, in order to maintain that equality (it requires the vigilence of the people to keep it from being usurped by a tipping force, such as selective morality). Nazi Germany is a good example. The US today, is another good example.
 
OK, but when was "One Nation Under God" anything but a slogan? I agree about the prevalence of socially acceptable hypocrisy, but how is immaterial idealism ever going to be a practical a solution? And what are you suggesting as a pragmatic alternative? Theocracy? Kumbaya-ism?

Chris
It was a slogan until the 1950s. And Nick can not speak for all with a blanket statement that "we" have lost the ability to appreciate it.

A practical solution to what? Selective morality does not work, secularism does. The solution is right in front of us.
 
Namaste Nick,

thank you for the post.

Nick_A said:
In Buddhism this would be recognition of the first Noble Truth


you aren't speaking of Buddha Dharma, you are speaking from within your own paradigm which entails a theological basis which i do not share. the idea of the wretched man arises from such a view and is not analogous to the First Noble Truth.

that life is suffering and the second that we continue it through attachments justified through imagination. Expressions of unpopular Attachments is protected by hypocrisy. We say one thing and do another.

it's an unfortunate fact of transliteration that the term suffering has been used for the term Dukkha but then Dukkha is a very broad term and it would make the concise list a bit cumbersome. in any event, the First Noble Truth can be understood as sentient beings experience Dukkha. Dukkha arises from Ignorance is the Second Noble Truth, it has nothing to do with imagination.

i am cognizant of the meaning of hypocrisy ;)

Yes in the pure sense. It is the experiential understanding of the dharma defined as:

Hinduism & Buddhism.
  1. The principle or law that orders the universe.
  2. Individual conduct in conformity with this principle.
  3. The essential function or nature of a thing.
The experience of the processes of universal laws is a conscious experience. Normally we just react to results of their interactions.

the term Dharma has actually more meanings that this:

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]dharma–derived from the Sanskrit root dhr meaning to hold up, to carry, to bear, to sustain.

The word dharma refers to that which upholds or sustains the universe. Human society, for example, is sustained and upheld by the dharma performed by its members. For example, parents protecting and maintaining children, children being obedient to parents, the king protecting the citizens, are acts of dharma that uphold and sustain society. In this context dharma has the meaning of duty.

Dharma also employs the meaning of law, religion, virtue, and ethics. These things uphold and sustain the proper functioning of human society.

In philosophy dharma refers to the defining quality of an object. For instance, liquidity is one of the essential dharmas of water; coldness is a dharma of ice. In this case we can think that the existence of an object is sustained or defined by its essential attributes, dharmas.
[/FONT]

Consciousness cannot be conditioned because the associative mind or discursive mind is just reactive mind which isn't conscious. If you read these excerpted by amazon.com you'll see what I mean by mind. The author divides it into the reactive mind and the creative mind. I prefer the conscious mind and reactive mind but that is just semantics. The creative mind as described by the author cannot be conditioned as the reactive min normally is.

Buddha Mind - Google Book Search

i don't ascribe to that school of Buddhist philosophy and thus my conclusions are different than yours and his.

But living as an aggregate the Buddha mind is hidden behind the aggregates. So though we are equal in Buddha mind, we are also equal in our lack of comprehension of it because we are aggregates.


i didn't mention Buddha mind in my explanation of equality, i mentioned Buddha nature and whilst they may appear to be the same they actually are not. individual sentient beings have varying capacities and are not all the same. beings have varying degrees of awareness of Buddhanature.

So what we are able to do often ends in hypocrisy. Sound familiar. The question becomes if it is better to defend it or admit it.

far better to admit it, i mean what's the harm anyways?

Lucky man! No more samsara.

eventually.

metta,

~v
 
Dukkha arises from Ignorance is the Second Noble
I agree up to a point. But......

Second Noble Truth - Suffering's Origin (Samudaya):
"The origin of suffering, as a noble truth, is this: It is the craving that produces renewal of being accompanied by enjoyment and lust, and enjoying this and that; in other words, craving for sensual desires, craving for being, craving for non-being.

"Cessation of suffering, as a noble truth, is this: It is remainderless fading and ceasing, giving up, relinquishing, letting go and rejecting, of that same craving.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.nymo.html
Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta — Setting in Motion the Wheel of Dhamma


Truth, it has nothing to do with imagination.
I think desire has a lot to do with imagination. Part of why experiences are never totally satisfying is that our expectations are flawed, convoluted, unrealistic, etc.
 
Secularism and political correctness, are two different concepts, wherein secularism allows for the individual to live as they see fit, unfettered by an imposing structured refrain by society or the government who's collective will may or may not agree with individual's manner of living.
Political correctness, is a religion all its own that those mentioned above do attempt to impose on the individual, in order to enforce compliance/conformity with the will of the collective.

In secualrism, there is equality, where in political correctness (selective morality), there is none.

The weakness in secularism is the balancing act it has to undergo, in order to maintain that equality (it requires the vigilence of the people to keep it from being usurped by a tipping force, such as selective morality). Nazi Germany is a good example. The US today, is another good example.

Maybe in secularism there is equality in theory but surely not in practice. Secularism is built on wishful thinking. It doesn't want to admit that the driving human motive is prestige and prestige by definition is based on inequality.

A commune based on secular values doesn't last because it is against human nature. This is the profundity of Simone's remark in which she describes the only context where equality is possible as a societal goal. Secular equality in contrast will get better or worse depending upon external circumstances.
 
I agree up to a point. But......



Second Noble Truth - Suffering's Origin (Samudaya):
"The origin of suffering, as a noble truth, is this: It is the craving that produces renewal of being accompanied by enjoyment and lust, and enjoying this and that; in other words, craving for sensual desires, craving for being, craving for non-being.

"Cessation of suffering, as a noble truth, is this: It is remainderless fading and ceasing, giving up, relinquishing, letting go and rejecting, of that same craving.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.nymo.html
Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta — Setting in Motion the Wheel of Dhamma



I think desire has a lot to do with imagination. Part of why experiences are never totally satisfying is that our expectations are flawed, convoluted, unrealistic, etc.

I tend to agree with you here. It seems that Western Buddhism has gone the way of Christendom where people create their own realities and believe what feels good and justifies us.
 
Vaj


The word dharma refers to that which upholds or sustains the universe. Human society, for example, is sustained and upheld by the dharma performed by its members. For example, parents protecting and maintaining children, children being obedient to parents, the king protecting the citizens, are acts of dharma that uphold and sustain society. In this context dharma has the meaning of duty.

Dharma also employs the meaning of law, religion, virtue, and ethics. These things uphold and sustain the proper functioning of human society.

In theory this is true but have you ever wondered why it isn't the way of society even though people know the societal dharma?
 
Back
Top