Leftism and Spiritualism

reply to post by Pinke

There are different facets and takes to nihilism. Buddhism certainly doesn't follow moral nihilism as far as I'm concerned.

Buddhism is amoral i.e. it bases itself on a viewpoint that is beyond all dichotomy. This of course isn't to say that there aren't "moral" Buddhists in the traditional sense. There are many different Buddhist schools of thought. The 8 fold path is a paragon of traditional morality. However, not all Buddhists subscribe to that path. Simply look at the well know Buddhist celebrity Chogyam Trungpa (quoted from his wikipedia page):

Two former students of Trungpa, John Steinbeck IV and his wife, wrote a sharply critical memoir of their lives with him in which they claim that, in addition to alcohol, Trungpa used $40,000 a year worth of coc aine, and used Seconal to come down from the coc aine. The coc aine use, say the Steinbecks, was kept secret from the wider Vajradhatu community......

and again:

An incident that became a cause célèbre among some poets and artists was the Halloween party at the Snowmass Colorado Seminary in the fall of 1975, held during a 3-month period of intensive meditation and study of the Hinayana, Mahayana, and Vajrayana vehicles of Tibetan Buddhism. The poet W. S. Merwin had arrived that summer at the Naropa Institute and been told by Allen Ginsberg that he ought to visit the seminary. Although he had not gone through the several years' worth of study and preparatory mind training required, Merwin was insistent he attend, and Trungpa eventually granted his request – along with his girlfriend as well. At seminary the couple stayed to themselves. At the Halloween party, after many, including Trungpa himself, had taken off their clothes, Merwin was asked to join the event, but refused. On Trungpa's orders, his Vajra Guard forced entry into the poet's locked and barricaded room; brought him and his girlfriend, Dana Naone, against their will, to the party; and eventually stripped them of all their clothes, with onlookers ignoring Naone's pleas for help and for someone to call the police.[61] The next day Trungpa asked Merwin and Naone to remain at the Seminary as either students or guests. They agreed to stay for several more weeks to hear the Vajrayana teachings, with Trungpa's promise that "there would be no more incidents," and Merwin and Naone's assertion that "it would be with no guarantees of obedience, trust, or personal devotion to him."[6

Chogyam was a wild man whose predicate to living was not real-time situations, but some abstract "source" from which he drew his moral understanding. As such, he permitted himself to rape people if he felt it served some desired or "wise" end.

He also taught his followers (morons and a half) that a simple Buddhist mediation would kill the AIDS virus. His protégée and successor, Osel Tenszin, following his advice, ended up spreading the AIDS he contracted to those he slept with. I guess this is another naive proclivity of eastern thinkers: that their meditation, or "spiritual powers" can overcome a biological ailment the likes of AIDS.

No, I just clearly disagree with the logic that since one part of nihilism applies, the whole lot of it must therefore apply.

Care to elaborate?

Yet, I believe racial seperation is wrong.

Thank you for corroborating my argument. So while nature shows something, as you attest, despite natures separating species and, ultimately, evolving towards greater complexity, somehow, despite scientfiic evidence to the contrary, you deign to pronounce ethnic differences as "wrong"? Is it because you see ethnic differences as the source of conflict? Or simply because you would like everyone to look, think, talk, act in more or less the same ways?

The preservation of ethnic differences - and the ethnic nation state - is all bound up with a metaphysical viewpoint that sees multiplicity and difference as an essential counter pole in existence. This view is normal: it simply see's nature, and says to it "ah, what wisdom". It embraces nature. At the same time, this insight into natures working dynamics lends to a moral understanding: since God created the world with multiplicity as a counter pole to unity, then it would be good to tolerate and accept other peoples differences in order to arrive at the unity. Instead of abrogating differences - as the radical would - the conservative viewpoint realistically accepts the status quo of natures message, and works towards unifying nature by following a basic golden rule: to love others. This doesn't require the elimination of nation states, or the extirpation of capitalism. After all, both approaches, nation states and capitalism, acknowledge the disparity that exists in the natural order: there are small and great, rich and poor, portuguese and spanish.

I think this is the equivolent of taking a brick, placing it in your mouth, and then telling me you're not taking more than you can chew. Best stick to the conversation at hand.

This is completely central to the conversation at hand. My criticism is mainly of where they intend to direct society.

You have nothing to say about this?

As an example of cherry picking a weak argument to compare your conservative philosophy to. Pick something more robust next time.

That's nice. Two dismissals in a row. I think it's salient to the conversation. Since, so goes the radical argument, all things are "relative", and women aren't women at birth, but "become women" through acculturation; it's telling that a women's natural biology gives' such dogmatic assertions a bold slap in the face, when even as conscious radicals, communists, they couldn't suppress the natural drives of their biology which led them into typically-female activities.

Please indicate where myself, or Cordelia Fine completely dismiss psychological or behavioural differences. You won't be able to. Again, who are you arguing with? Without an opponent, your argument is void. Until you can take the time to understand other's positions you're just making things up as you go along.

You've implied as much. Ok. Lets make things easier (mainly for me). Do you agree that biology largely determines the idiosyncrasies of gender psychology, and thus, cultural norms?

If you acknowledge the connection between biology and psychology (as you seem to be implying by your remonstrations) then it follows that cultural norms (gender roles) have been conditioned by biologically ingrained psychological differences.

Now lets talk.

Of course, you're talking about this tiny tiny tiny tiny group of still un-named leftist psychopaths that believe women and men are exactly the same.

It is very outré to think men and women should act the same.

Barbies ... I believe we should treat people as people the best we can. I spent at least 10 of the most important years of my life carrying out inane gender mimicry and tasks that I should enjoy but I clearly got nothing from due to the types of advertising you're talking about.

And you represent those women in the minority, the 20% or so, with higher testosterone levels (which accounts for their male like interests). But since typing bases itself on "norms" i.e. majorities, what do you expect? If for example I live in a predominantly latino neighbourhood with an 80% majority, would it be right or wrong for the mayor of that neighbourhood to be white or latino? Given that latinos are the majority, the mayor and most of the council should be be made up of latinos, as it's representative of the norm.

I clearly got nothing from due to the types of advertising you're talking about. I spent even more years on the recieving end of sentences such as 'but you're a [gender] and you should be [activity]'.

Listen, you're talking to someone with a tomboy for a mother, and tom girl (if such a thing exists) for a father. With my parents, the gender roles were reversed: my mother introduced me to sports and was the discipliner in the home, while my father threw like a girl and taught me tolerance. My mother stereotyped my sister (as ironic as that sounds); although she liked hockey (as well as barbies) my mom neglected that interest of hers in order to cultivate it in me.

Despite this, I do not see the solution in ignoring basic facts of statistical differences betweens men and women. If the vast majority of boys prefer nerf guns to barbies, than logic dictates that boys be the target audience of nerf gun commercials. And if the majority of girls enjoy barbies to nerf guns, same thing.

Make me a thread with a proposed solution to that problem and you'll have my interest instead of contempt.

What you apparently refuse to understand is the opposing side of the equation: if allowance is made to accommodate the minority, what about the majority? If boys are being shown with barbies and girls with nerf guns, what message does that send to children? That gender distinction doesn't matter. That norms are arbitrary. From here its a slippery slope into cultural relativism. And this of course supports the liberal narrative: that all things are relative. But what about the conservative viewpoint, that some things are essential?

Pluralism (something you apparently oppose) requires tolerance, not diffident servility to the other side. A majority should respect and treat it's minority with respect and tolerance (as in the case of girls who like boy things and boys who like girl things), but the majority has no moral obligation to cast aside it's own interests in order to defend minority interests. That would be like filling the Canadian parliament with francophones because they are the minority in Canada. And the "righteous" thing (in your eyes) would be to ignore my own interests in favour of those in the minority.

Originally posted by dontreally
Sorry, the Libertarian socialist portal at wikipedia, in which a list of associated concepts is enumerated.

I wouldn't pay too much attention to that. This is a real LibSoc website...

Libertarian Socialism

However, if they intend to use the socialist architecture built into the governmental system to uproot peoples views on things, I absolutely, unequivocally oppose it, as it goes against basic a rule of human nature: mans rebelliousness.

What do you mean by "socialist architecture built into the governmental system"?

I could take a wild guess but your definition of socialism is so broad, and by the actual definition the statement just makes no sense.

Uproot what peoples views on things? Are you saying challenging peoples world-view is somehow wrong?

Rebelliousness is not just "rebellion" against God, as you'd probably assume.

Why would I assume that? First off I try not to assume but check facts before repeating them, and god is the last thing I would be thinking of in a political discussion.

Chomsky, Asimokopos, Mclaren, etc harbours this ambition: not just to change the outer constructs of society, but to assume control over peoples thinking and beliefs by reshaping public institutions.

Sorry but you're talking a load of nonsense. First off what public institutions are you talking about? I need specifics, not a riddle.

Of course the "outer constructs of society" are going to change. Is it just change you fear? Because you can't seriously tell me the system we have now is working perfectly fine and doesn't need changing?

As for the rest I'm not interested in debating Jews and Muslims, you are all over the place mate.

reply to post by dontreally


I'm making a new reply for this so maybe it won't get missed this time, because I keep asking this question and no one has tried to answer it...

How can anarchists be socialists by your definition of socialism?

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by Pinke

 

Buddhism is amoral i.e. it bases itself on a viewpoint that is beyond all dichotomy. This of course isn't to say that there aren't "moral" Buddhists in the traditional sense. [sic] However, not all Buddhists subscribe to that path (the 8-fold path). Simply look at...

Ted Haggard engaged in gay sex repeatedly. This doesn't mean the Evangelicals philosophy supports gay sex.

The Noble Eightfold Path is the fourth of the Four Noble Truths, it is not an 'optional' part of Buddhist understanding.

you deign to pronounce ethnic differences as "wrong"?

Was referring to Racial Segregation by law. I believe generally speaking you can treat people as individuals. That doesn't mean I subscribe to some idea that everyone is the same, though I'm not sure I go as black or white as you either. Humans can naturally treat difference with hostility. I don't believe nature provides us with answers to handling difference nor do I believe conservatism eagerly listens to nature's whisperings in practice.

You've implied as much. (that there is no debate regarding psychology and hormones etc)

I asked who are these people that claim that men and women are the same biologically (including psychologically was how it was meant). Doesn't matter, I imagine you get it now ...

Do you agree that biology largely determines the idiosyncrasies of gender psychology, and thus, cultural norms?

No, not as easily as that. I would say we largely do not know the extent of the relationship between all factors in forming gender roles and identities. To say otherwise I think is over confidence.

Recently we've been having a resurgence in male grooming (the metrosexual), pink used to be a boy's color, blue used to be a woman's, women have worked along side men at multiple moments in history ... Nowadays a strong woman athlete is thought to be a lesbian, but there used to be a legitimate concern that a woman athlete could unleash immoral heterosexual passions ...

I believe gender is more flexible than people think it is. I also believe people have a natural desire to fulfill gender norms. How else to we explain the large numbers of trees we cut down and print into glossy magazines just to discuss what color our babies should be dressed in? Or a child's reluctance to play netball when they find out it's a 'girl's game'? Children even keep each other in line by pointing out when one of their number wanders outside the chalk line.

Unfortunately your net is far too wide spread in this conversation, it's messy and without focus. We have religion on the table, leftist politics, gender identity, the belief that multiple religions are nihilistic, and the direction of where leftist politics intend to take to the institution of marriage ... I could write 100, 000 words on most of those topics ...

And you represent ... [sic] .... the 20% or so, with higher testosterone levels (which accounts for their male like interests). [sic] If for example I live in a predominantly latino neighbourhood with an 80% majority, would it be right or wrong for the mayor of that neighbourhood to be white or latino?

I wouldn't jump to conclusions about my hormone levels ... If I lived in a Latino neighborhood, I wouldn't expect other people to expect me to look and act Latino. I don't care who the mayor is! It's expectations on myself which matter, and people's flexibility in their expectations and acceptance of behaviors.

Despite this, I do not see the solution in ignoring basic facts of statistical differences betweens men and women.

Why such extremes?

We live in an online world where niche differences can be nurtured if so chosen. With further research and effort, said differences could be nurtured in schools and parenting, and culturally we could adapt over a long period of time to understand 'the others' who aren't the majority.

What you apparently refuse to understand is the opposing side of the equation: if allowance is made to accommodate the minority, what about the majority?

I don't have the word count to explain what I refuse to understand.

I asked a solution and to be understood, I didn't ask all advertizing to be altered. I believe I'm getting something back that (again) implies I have a roughly sea level IQ, and that I'm part of this 'liberal narrative' you keep referring to.

Anyway, can U2U me if actually desired, but unfortunately this is getting a little too messy/mean spirited to care to continue.

Take care.

reply to post by ANOK

I wouldn't pay too much attention to that. This is a real LibSoc website...

Why shouldn't I pay attention to it? Am I stupid? The concept off anarchism is a revolt against authority; ergo, any manifestation of authority is something to rebel against. The concept section covers every area of living; relationships, queer theory, etc; it's subjectivism taken to the utter extreme. The only "objective" that can be made out in such a system is the objective to make the utter subjectivism of their view point an objective reality.

It won't ever happen though. Human beings would surer kill each other before such a radical - frankly dystopian - society came into being.

reply to post by Pinke

Ted Haggard engaged in gay sex repeatedly. This doesn't mean the Evangelicals philosophy supports gay sex.

Are you #ing serious? I'm about exasperated talking with you. I can't tell if it's a sheer lack of respect for truth, or an absence of moral sensibility, but please listen: there is no equivalence between a haggardly Christian like Ted Haggard and a millennia old Buddhist tradition promoted by Chogyam Trungpa.

If you wanted to mention an antinomian current within Christianity, you could have went with the myriad gnostic movements from ancient time till now; but still, you aim for a "rightest" as if Ted Haggard meant anything to me.

I have serious problems with the lefts moral positions, and apparently, you are the worse possible person - the very definition of the radical leftist I have no respect for - to speak about this with.

Humans can naturally treat difference with hostility.

Here's how I see it. Nature can be looked at metaphysically - in terms of its basic patterns or literally, in terms of what "appears" to our sight. Those with conservative viewpoints by definition incline to the former viewpoint, while those with a liberal, or "leftist" viewpoint, incline to the latter. An example: I argue that left and right, rich and poor, good and evil, are basic properties of existence. They are integral to our experience of the world. Upon being born, our first experience of the world, as described by Jean Piaget, creates a subject-object dichotomy - a dichotomy that subsists throughout our lives. Now, I think it's important to acknowledge this dichotomy in order to live in "harmony" with nature - and since i see pattern as projecting meaning - with natures Creator. So, for example, the Hebrew Bible uses specifically two names for God: Elohim and YHWH; the former has a gematria (numerical value) equal with the Hebrew word Hateva - Nature (86). Every appearance of this name in the Hebrew scriptures is used to stylistically to convey a truncated, paganeqsue notion of deity; Elohim is the cumulative powers of nature - the very term, from the Canaanite "el" means 'powers'. Conversely, the term YHWH, is distinct; so distinct that it's attached to only one "special' people - the Israelites. YHWH is the God of Israel; he selects, he distinguishes. Of course, this is all just theology. But profound theology indeed! The Hebrews ensconced within this concept everything associated with feelings which arise with personhood: specialness, individuality, moral perception, and most prominent of all, a deep personal connection with God.

Again, this shows the nature of the world. We are part of a impersonal process called nature, natural selection, and various forces; but in front of this, we are persons, with ideas, beliefs, feelings, attitudes, likes and dislikes. This is the deepest dichotomy - the I verse the It.

Thus, in my political views, I am a pro pluralism. I have no interest to stymie the radical punk on the street with nose rings, tattoos etc; that's how he or she wants to be. At the same time, I have no problem with the ultra orthodox Jew clad from head to toe in traditional religious garb. Could a leftist say that? No. Unfortunately, the leftist (a generalization, bear with me) ethos is about "opening" people up, which translated means: opening themselves up to the concept of "openness", which implies a closing towards those who don't fit that neat myopic criteria.

I don't want to change people. I want people to let other people to "live and let live". This applies AS MUCH to leftist liberals as to conservatives. For instance, an idea which is utterly devoid of wisdom is continuous change. When a university professor says (as one of my professors said) the new generation revises the values of the old generation, that sounds absurd to me. There are some valuex which retain eternal validity; instead of being stifled and rankled by boredom, people such as that resort to concepts like "art" to revise the old, believing that each new generation should smash to pieces the ideas of the old. Wheres the morality here? There's none. The ideas can be stupid, harmful, destructive - as most of them are - but they do it for the sake of innovation, for satisfying their artistic urge for difference. There's a deep laceration between themselves and the world. Personally, I'm an artistic, beauty-loving guy, but I don't absolutely worship it. I'm more simple: simplicity has its beauty. Destroying morality is ugly, evil, and inflicts pain on innocent people. Viktor Frankl once said that the Statue of Liberty should be flanked by a a statue of responsibility on the west coast; HOW APT! It's the west, our impatient, incorrigible destructiveness, which needs to understand the value of responsibility.

I am pro balance, pro finding a middle-path, between biology and environment (and the nether zone called 'free will'), personal needs and the needs of others, quiet time and play time etc. I think people who cling to either extreme - radical leftists and fundamentalist religious people - are off kilter, intoxicated by their ego; the former in their lustful search for bliss and happiness - shutting out anything that interferes, and the latter with cold hard regimented religious norms and laws, squenching the human, and animal part.

To say otherwise I think is over confidence.

And I think that is wishful thinking, designed to stave off the inevitable fact that cultural norms are largely conditioned by biology and psychology.

biology -> psychology -> society

Unfortunately for you (and an utter travesty for reason-loving people)

politics -> everything else.

Your preference for "wanting" something to be a way actually leads you to completely illogical and unsound conclusions. I rounded out for you how biology influences psychology - via biochemicals. And the importance of biology in forming basic tasks - such as a woman's natural urge for parentings, nurturing - and thus, preferring academic fields which fulfill that biologically evolved need; still, for you, that doesn't suffice as evidence. There's still some "dark zone" which will be interminably pending, lest you have to sacrifice the golden calf of ridiculous beliefs in gender differences being more biology related, than environment related.

Recently we've been having a resurgence in male grooming (the metrosexual), pink used to be a boy's color, blue used to be a woman's, women have worked along side men at multiple moments in history ... Nowadays a strong woman athlete is thought to be a lesbian, but there used to be a legitimate concern that a woman athlete could unleash immoral heterosexual passions ...

Those views are all extremely; furthermore, they don't touch on any of the areas I brought up.

Furthermore, Pink probably is preferred by the majority of women compared to the majority of men (this is a generalization based on statistical patterns; i mention this for clarity) likewise, more men probably prefer blue than pink. Again, this is probably biology related; it may further be connected to that metaphysical, or ontological duality I've been mentioning. Thus, instead of these norms being "imposed' by a patriarchal system (as you probably imagine) it was most probably developed based on a discovery that men and women inclined in these different directions. And I'm not talking about pink and blue; The fact that women have historically been home with the children has been decried by feminists as elitist and sexist; indeed, woman should have the option to work or not work. But that doesn't change that naturally, they prefer the house, prefer to raise their children, prefer to tend to the things of the family. A woman looks far more natural, far more at ease doing this than a man does. Of course, that doesn't mean a man couldn't also do it. It's just the man is the equivalent of the women who prefer male things - they are an exception from the norm; a 20% which depart from the 80% majority.

Just to anticipate a possible objection you might have: no, I don't think it would be wise to destroy these norms, since they are so obviously rooted in our biologies. To strive against biology is akin to striving against gravity - you'll fall, hit the ground, and finito. There are laws that exist which we must acknowledge and pay deference to. This is one of them.

Unfortunately your net is far too wide spread in this conversation, it's messy and without focus. We have religion on the table, leftist politics, gender identity, the belief that multiple religions are nihilistic, and the direction of where leftist politics intend to take to the institution of marriage ... I could write 100, 000 words on most of those topics ...

I'd be happy to focus on just one topic. However, look at the title of thread: it deals with a very "general" subject matter that seeks to point out patterns. But, again, I will gladly focus on just one topic.

I lived in a Latino neighborhood, I wouldn't expect other people to expect me to look and act Latino. I don't care who the mayor is! It's expectations on myself which matter, and people's flexibility in their expectations and acceptance of behaviors.

I;m not asking for your personal opinion; or rather, I was hoping your opinion would be a reasonable one. Any person knows that a town council, or it's mayor, should reflect the towns demographics. If Canada always had a francophone prime minister, logically, and quite justifiably, English speaking Canadians could object and ask for an English speaking prime minister.

Why such extremes?

What extremes? Noting and incorporating evidence from scientific studies would be rational, not extreme. In this case, it simply means acknowledging the copious evidence showing that men and women are different - want different things, pursue different careers. It's no coincidence that men pretty much don't care about Female athletics (besides other females) or society in general cares to watch male models at the price is right. There are things which each sex naturally excels in: men are stronger, more athletic, and therefore more interesting to watch playing sports; women are more tender, supple, and elegant looking, and so more pleasurable to watch in fancy clothing, or a bikini. Why deny these facts or whitewash them as "cultural" conditioning when they are obviously facts of nature?

With further research and effort, said differences could be nurtured in schools and parenting, and culturally we could adapt over a long period of time to understand 'the others' who aren't the majority.

Again, I never said there wasn't a place for the minority groups. The internet makes room for such people; but why make an issue where one doesn't exist? What do you expect? For majorities to take an interest in minorities beyond their statistical presence? That's unnatural. Male sports will always be more interesting; only political correctness could coerce people to watch female sports and "appreciate" it in the sense that would satisfy feminists. But again, it would be FAKE - not desirable, not something emanating from the 'want' of the individual, but compelled by the idiocy of society.

reply to post by dontreally


I realise you can't find a radical leftist to have a debate with you, so it's convenient to attempt to paint me out to be one, but I clearly demonstrated my lack of interest in engaging with you on this disrespectful level:

Anyway, can U2U me if actually desired, but unfortunately this is getting a little too messy/mean spirited to care to continue.

Perhaps take some time understanding people instead of writing convoluted, over intelligent, offensively assumptive text based around thousands of years old books? No actual insult intended. Just saying it how it is. Half your references and tangents don't assist discussion, they make it a time consuming mess. People on ATS other than yourself are very strong well studied readers; they just write concise, focused posts so that others can follow and respond in a clear way.

I don't want to change people. I want people to let other people to "live and let live"

you are the worse possible person - the very definition of the radical leftist I have no respect for

To live and let live requires understanding/respect. Your understanding of myself, my opinions and situation is about as deep as a shallow wading pool occupied by a rotund child on a hot summers day after the apocalypse during a water shortage.

By all means have the last word, but please don't make it a 200 page essay for your own sake because unless it's a U2U opening with a sincere apology or friendly statement my eyes will never see it.