Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by BO XIAN
What makes YOUR cosmology "MORE 'righteous, allowable, kosher, inoffensive, suitable, sane . . . with more privileges'?"
Not all 'cosmologies' are equal.
The ones deemed infallible are not open to reason and scrutiny like other 'cosmologies'. Those ones are not very conducive to discussion and debate.
In fact the only debate therein is on 'proper' interpretation of the infallible texts. That can be tedious to say the least..
For a discussion forum the better cosmology is one that is open to being wrong.
Note, I"m spring boarding off your post . . . not necessarily assigning you a specific role or identity in the following narrative.
How . . . uhhhhhh
. . . 'egalitarian' . . .
It appears that YOUR COSMOLOGY includes the
. . . merely the notion . . .
that ONLY cosmologies
which deserve a "better" or perhaps . . . discussable rating
are those which admit being flawed or wrong.
That might be grand . . . IF . . . there
was no cosmology that was, in fact, true.
To DECREE ?arbitrarily? that such a cosmology or such a claimed cosmology is not suitably discussable
is . . . in itself . . . a component of . . . a cosmology with its own biases . . . and limitations.
It is a BELIEF (A) . . . asserting that a different BELIEF (B) is by . . . decree . . . beneath one's BELIEF (A).
Personally, believing in the Judeo/Christian cosmology as ultimate TRUTH AND REALITY is plenty discussable.
Again . . . labeling it . . . tedius to discuss . . . like so many things . . . is in the eye of the beholder.
are in the eye of the beholder.
For some of us . . . like one man's garbage is another man's treasure
one man's tedium is another man's joy.
There are many rationalizations for saying that
XYZ cluster of individuals with their beliefs and cosmology (A) decrees from their biases that cosmology (B) is beneath beyond their tolerance for
tedium and therefore, by THEIR DECREE should win the day.
While a WVU cluster of individuals with their cosmology (B) believe the opposite.
A Truly egalitarian, objective, fair playing field recognizes the absurdity--based on "logic"--in relegating on an 'egalitarian playing field' one
cosmology to be elevated at the expense of another.
[color=6699FF]What is so "impossible" about recognizing that we all express our personal cosmologies virtually in everything we say
. . . and that on ATS there are forums for focused, emphasized, deliberate discussions of more or less each cluster of cosmologies.
AND in the rest of the forums, cosmological facets of the writer's individual reality will VIRTUALLY ALWAYS be evident. Most NON-Attachment Disordered
adults can HANDLE THAT fairly maturely most of the time.
Many of those who are still working through their childhood generated insecurities will continue to have significant emotional problems letting those
other "realities" be . . . sometimes evidently without hyperventilating.
As usual, there's a broad range . . . from extremely immature reactions to extremely mature ones.
It's more than a little humorous to me that folks who normally seem to pride themselves and glory in their
those cosmologies that most affront THEIR PERSONAL sensibilities.
So much for the integrity of some folks' egalitarianism.
edit on 24/8/2012 by BO XIAN because: an addition