Right Speech vs. Politically Correct Speech

[Nick_A]

One thing I've learned during my experience with Internet sites is that those that speak of tolerance are the most intolerant, This is primarily because of the modern fixation with political correctness having taken the place of a sense of inner morality. The result is that such people say what they believe they are supposed to say rather than anything honest. Politically correct speech praises its goal and is nasty to the point of absurdity to that which is not politically correct.

The reason for this is that having your beliefs become politically correct is a form of power. It is no wonder that people become vicious to have their beliefs labeled as politically correct.

This is normal for secularism. Secularism is linear. It is basic duality where there is right and wrong and the battle is always between societal right and wrong. Secular Interfaith seeks to define the commonalities of right and wrong between religions.

The essence of religion not having become secularized provides an additional vertical dimension to the linear dimension of right and wrong. It provides a point at which the duality of secularism is reconciled and conceptions of linear "right and wrong" are seen as part of a higher whole. This is of course insulting and someone saying it on the street could be quickly boiled in oil.

The point here is that transcendent awareness features a quality of speech that that is different from the goal of politically correct speech. Right speech asserts that the process is more important than the goal. Where political correctness has a goal, right speech asserts that the process is more important than the goal.

Although it is known by a few in all the great traditions including Christianity and Buddhism, the overwhelming majority are concerned with enforcing politically correct speech rather than being open to right speech.

Here are two men that are typical of the minority that understand these things

http://www.hinduwebsite.com/buddhism/essays/rightspeech.htm

For many of us, the most difficult part of practicing right speech lies in how we express our sense of humor. Especially here in America, we're used to getting laughs with exaggeration, sarcasm, group stereotypes, and pure silliness -- all classic examples of wrong speech. If people get used to these sorts of careless humor, they stop listening carefully to what we say. In this way, we cheapen our own discourse. Actually, there's enough irony in the state of the world that we don't need to exaggerate or be sarcastic. The greatest humorists are the ones who simply make us look directly at the way things are.

While normal for the politically correct efforts to condemn that which is not politically correct, the author doesn't speak of the goal but rather the process itself. This is nothing but an annoyance to a politically correct agenda but a person has to impartially ask themselves if they feel any value in this caution.

Christian Speech

The Lord Jesus indicated clearly the tremendous significance of a man's words: "Either make the tree good, and its fruit good; or make the tree corrupt, and its fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by its fruit. Ye offspring of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. The good man out of his good treasure bringeth forth good things: and the evil man out of his evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. And I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned" (Matt. 12:33-37; cf. Luke 6:43-45). If Christians could grasp the significance of the words of Jesus Christ, there would be no question about the character of their speech. Nevertheless the Bible does warn even born-again Christians of the necessity of being careful of their language. In writing to the church at Colosse the Apostle Paul tells them to eliminate "shameful speaking" (Col. 3:8). The word which is here translated "shameful" has reference to obscenity. The rendering "filth" as found in the King James version brings out well the true significance of this word. To the church at Ephesus the apostle writes, "Let no corrupt speech proceed out of your mouth, but such as is good for edifying as the need may be, that it may give grace to them that hear" (Eph. 4:29). The Prophet Isaiah stated exactly the same truth regarding the relationship of a man's heart to his speech: "For the fool will speak folly, and his heart will work iniquity, to practice profaneness, and to utter error against Jehovah, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and to cause the drink of the thirsty to fail" (Isa. 32:6). The telling of impure stories, or enjoying hearing others tell them, and the making of witty remarks with a double meaning, one innocent and the other unchaste, are therefore completely out of the question for the true child of God (Eph. 5:4.***) Rather one's attitude should be that of righteous Lot who was "sore distressed by the lascivious life of the wicked: for that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their lawless deeds" (II Pet. 2:8). The Apostle Peter, however, after giving this beautiful testimony to Lot's character, immediately added, "The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptation." (II Pet. 2:9). That is, the grace of God is sufficient to keep the child of God, regardless of how filthy or wicked his environment may be.

The goal here is not politically correct manipulation but the expression of a "process" occurring within ones own being.
Part of me thinks that it would be a good idea to further a board based on transcendent Interfaith which would have right speech as a requirement. Another part believes it would take a while to build such a board since it would be boring to the majority that enjoy and prefer the hostile speech that seeks to proclaim their values as "right" or politically correct.

So dear reader let me ask you: would it be possible to develop a board furthering the mindset of transcendent Interfaith through the intentional use of right speech in contrast to the normal secular Interfaith where manipulation and condemnation in speech to further ones goals is the norm? Would there be enough of an interest to do so or is the attraction of self justification too strong for anything greater in value?

 

[Tao_Equus]

lmao... so says the Professor of self righteous self justification!!

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

would it be possible to develop a board furthering the mindset of transcendent Interfaith through the intentional use of right speech in contrast to the normal secular Interfaith where manipulation and condemnation in speech to further ones goals is the norm?

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.

2c

Chris

 

[Netti-Netti]

One thing I've learned during my experience with Internet sites is that those that speak of tolerance are the most intolerant..... The result is that such people say what they believe they are supposed to say rather than anything honest.

I've actually seen very little of that around here.

The essence of religion not having become secularized provides an additional vertical dimension to the linear dimension of right and wrong. It provides a point at which the duality of secularism is reconciled and conceptions of linear "right and wrong" are seen as part of a higher whole.

More often it's not a matter of linear "right and wrong." It's more likely to be evasiveness when asked for detail, obfuscation by means of irrelevancies, overall lack of clarity, and poorly developed arguments that bespeak a tendency to want to establish a propaganda state that reflects one's own preferences (which btw are often unarticulated or advanced by means of insinuation or silent premises).

Right speech asserts that the process is more important than the goal.

See my above comment.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

More often it's not a matter of linear "right and wrong." It's more likely to be evasiveness when asked for detail, obfuscation by means of irrelevancies, overall lack of clarity, and poorly developed arguments that bespeak a tendency to want to establish a propaganda state that reflects one's own preferences (which btw are often unarticulated or advanced by means of insinuation or silent premises).

Well said.

Chris

 

[Nick_A]

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.

2c

Chris

It depends ones aim. If you want a hot bath you cannot mix cold water into it. The ideas within transcendent are hard to grasp and extremely beautiful but hard to retain. They requie a great deal of humility to receive what they are capable of giving. When you multi task, on such a board, all you do is kill the ideas. This isn't to say one cannot multi task on the secular boards if they enjoy it. It just means that it takes a certain agreed upon attitude to make it work on the board I am suggesting.

An Internet site is not like a Buddhist Sangha that creates an atmosphere. All that exists on a site is the written word. It isn't a matter of providing an example but having the maturity to realize what is necessary when dealing with such a quality of ideas.

I know the attraction of multi tasking that maintains the diversity of secular expression. I am curious if any appreciate the importance of maintaining a level of discourse that is above the usual secular expression the links are concerned with.

 

[Nick_A]

I've actually seen very little of that around here.

More often it's not a matter of linear "right and wrong." It's more likely to be evasiveness when asked for detail, obfuscation by means of irrelevancies, overall lack of clarity, and poorly developed arguments that bespeak a tendency to want to establish a propaganda state that reflects one's own preferences (which btw are often unarticulated or advanced by means of insinuation or silent premises).


See my above comment.

I read you saying that these people that write these things are responsible for being wrong. Both Jersus and Plato explained why secularism must hate transcendent awareness. This is why secular Interfaith must react as it does. I'm curious if a board furthered by people aware of the value of "Right Speech" could dedicate themselves to maintaining it for the depth and sincerity it can allow in pursuit of transcendent awareness.

 

[Netti-Netti]

I read you saying that these people that write these things are responsible for being wrong. Both Jersus and Plato explained why secularism must hate transcendent awareness. This is why secular Interfaith must react as it does.

My previous list was:

More often it's not a matter of linear "right and wrong." It's more likely to be evasiveness when asked for detail, obfuscation by means of irrelevancies, overall lack of clarity, and poorly developed arguments that bespeak a tendency to want to establish a propaganda state that reflects one's own preferences ...
​

I'd like to add these to the list: inattention to factual sufficiency and criteria for truth, lack of specificity, failure to provide examples, failure to cite authorities referenced, excessive abstraction, and a need to control the flow of information.

And no, it has nothing to do with being right or wrong. It has to do with effective communication.

An Internet site is not like a Buddhist Sangha that creates an atmosphere. All that exists on a site is the written word.

The written word can create ambience.

I'm curious if a board furthered by people aware of the value of "Right Speech" could dedicate themselves to maintaining it for the depth and sincerity it can allow in pursuit of transcendent awareness.

What makes you think they are not already aware of the value of "Right Speech" ? Is it possible you are offering a solution for a nonexistent problem?

 

[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.

My previous list was:

More often it's not a matter of linear "right and wrong." It's more likely to be evasiveness when asked for detail, obfuscation by means of irrelevancies, overall lack of clarity, and poorly developed arguments that bespeak a tendency to want to establish a propaganda state that reflects one's own preferences ...
​

I'd like to add these to the list: inattention to factual sufficiency and criteria for truth, lack of specificity, failure to provide examples, failure to cite authorities referenced, excessive abstraction, and a need to control the flow of information.

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

 

[Netti-Netti]

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.

Example?

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.}

Example?

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

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

 

[Netti-Netti]

One thing I've learned during my experience with Internet sites is that those that speak of tolerance are the most intolerant, This is primarily because of the modern fixation with political correctness having taken the place of a sense of inner morality.

Who has documented this fixation? I notice that PC is a subject of continued interest in some conservative sectors. The irony, of course, is that their way of being "politically incorrect" is actually a very routine and predictable form of enforcing their own cherished, special brand of political correctness.

such people say what they believe they are supposed to say rather than anything honest.

That would be hard to show.

Politically correct speech praises its goal and is nasty to the point of absurdity to that which is not politically correct.

Certainly some liberal activists might demonstrate their commitments this way. But I'd say that conservatives who are intent on communicating their way of being "politically incorrect" are an example of what you are talking about as well. It's ego cherishing the political correctness of being political incorrect.

The reason for this is that having your beliefs become politically correct is a form of power. It is no wonder that people become vicious to have their beliefs labeled as politically correct.

Example?

Where political correctness has a goal, right speech asserts that the process is more important than the goal.

Quite often the process and the goal are pretty much the same.

Although it is known by a few in all the great traditions including Christianity and Buddhism, the overwhelming majority are concerned with enforcing politically correct speech rather than being open to right speech.

Who did the survey establishing an overwhelming majority ?

 

[Nick_A]

Netti

More often it's not a matter of linear "right and wrong." It's more likely to be evasiveness when asked for detail, obfuscation by means of irrelevancies, overall lack of clarity, and poorly developed arguments that bespeak a tendency to want to establish a propaganda state that reflects one's own preferences ...
​

I'd like to add these to the list: inattention to factual sufficiency and criteria for truth, lack of specificity, failure to provide examples, failure to cite authorities referenced, excessive abstraction, and a need to control the flow of information.

You provide some useful insights into secular communication but what do you think is necessary to communicate higher understanding?

And no, it has nothing to do with being right or wrong. It has to do with effective communication.


What is effective communication? Secularism asserts that it is the ability to get another to agree with you or the opposite sex in the sack? Is that all it is? It is only through beginning to digest higher ideas that the relativity of effective communication becomes evident. Discussing effective communication on a transcendent board would be completely different than on a secular board.

The written word can create ambience.

Ambience refers to atmosphere or mood. It can either inspire politically correct BS normal for a secular board or admitting the human condition within ourselves natural for a transcendent board.. In respect to the truth a transcendent board must sacrifice hiding behind artificial ambience. This can only be done by intent from admitting the value of doing so. Of course BS can be written any time.

What makes you think they are not already aware of the value of "Right Speech" ? Is it possible you are offering a solution for a nonexistent problem?


I will say that before discovering my path I didn't realize how far I or those around me were from respecting right speech for the sake of discovering truth. I suspect you've never been fortunate to experience how far you are from it as well. But I am curious if any here are willing to sacrifice the attack and defense modes normal for secularism and the joys of the speech the links refer to for the purpose of a greater transcendent understanding

 

[Netti-Netti]

You provide some useful insights into secular communication but what do you think is necessary to communicate higher understanding?

Emotional expression through poetry, music, art, and such.

 

[Nick_A]

[/size][/font]
Emotional expression through poetry, music, art, and such.

Agreed. Do you also agree that the discussion of art would be different on a transcendent board than a secular board. Where the secular board would discusses subjective impressions of art, a transcendent board seeks to share on the experience of the higher quality of emotion normal for transcendence. Can you also agree that by their very nature and their origin, they cannot be mixed for any greater gain.

 

[Netti-Netti]

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

Humans use language define and assert identity. It is done linguistically (with literal or quasi-literal meanings) and by using signs/signals, all of which invoke the shared meanings that constitute "common knowledge."

Language can be rightfully considered an aspect of the minimal level of cooperation needed to have functional and rewarding relationships.

It is possible to define one's identity in a way that deviates from the "common knowledge." The risks are considerable in terms of losing opportunties for a payoff that requires collaboration. The Jester, the Holy Fool, and even the Moral Entrepreneur often must create their own rewards.

 

[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.

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.}

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.}

Example?

My post that you just quoted.

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1. Right Understanding[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]To understand the Law of Cause and Effect and the Four Noble Truths.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]2. Right Attitude[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Not harbouring thoughts of greed and anger.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]3. Right Speech[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Avoid lying, gossip, harsh speech and tale-telling.[/FONT]

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.