Who is the biggest fanatic?

[trainedobserver]

It's very good.

We're talking about looking for what human beings are attracted to as opposed to what repels them.

Where did you get that definition of beauty? Was it scientifically determined? If so, in response to what question?

Human beings decide what is good and what is beautiful based on standards they inherit or derive on their own. It's a combination of emotional context and intelligent decision making.

We both know what science is and what it isn't. What are you trying to get at?

Editor is whacked. I can't fix this quote business.

 

[smcder]

Editor is whacked. I can't fix this quote business.

We both know what science is and what it isn't. What are you trying to get at?

Who the h-ll knows at this point! ;-) . . . I think the main thing was to clear this bit up:

I believe the best way to safely navigate this universe is through the use of science and not fanatical or religious belief . . .

From there it may have devolved into some kind of semantics/talking past one another - I'm still not very good at this forum thing . . . but I'm also aware of others who will come along later and read all this and so I try to be clear -

The point being science is a method, not a position - so the idea of the good/beautiful has to be there before you can apply science to it . . . science won't tell you what to do, what to pursue, it's indifferent as to the ends and can be used to pursue any agenda . . .

This may sound nit-picky but I think it's important to have it out b/c people who seem to embrace Scientism aren't always aware of the difference . . . I wasn't sure from your responses - and it took me a bit to clarify all this in my own head too.

Human beings decide what is good and what is beautiful based on standards they inherit or derive on their own. It's a combination of emotional context and intelligent decision making.

I can live with that - in fact, I like that, there's a lot of room in that statement - it's not a pronouncement that closes the conversation down.

Thanks for being patient.

 

[trainedobserver]

I can live with that - in fact, I like that, there's a lot of room in that statement - it's not a pronouncement that closes the conversation down.
Thanks for being patient.

Like I said earlier, my purveyor of purple prose writing style sometimes comes across like I'm taking myself a little too seriously, but it's all in fun.

Thank you for your patience and willingness to engage.

It's very good.

Thanks. Your heavy-lifting avatar is cool, but here's hoping it isn't a photo of a new tattoo! My favorite avatar of yours has to be the one where you have the axe ready to bifurcate your skull. It had me mystified for a while.

Freaking editor is throwing two end quotes down and won't let me delete them.

 

[smcder]

Like I said earlier, my purveyor of purple prose writing style sometimes comes across like I'm taking myself a little too seriously, but it's all in fun.

Thank you for your patience and willingness to engage.

just a doodle i decided to take a picture of . . .

the axe picture is a kind of strongman event - except you normally "leverage" a sledgehammer not an axe - so in the picture I have the other end of the handle and am slowly lowering it to my head . . . a very modest feat considering what has been accomplished in this kind of lifting:

Slim "The Hammerman" Farman was a student of the Mighty Atom (Joseph Greenstein)

The Mighty Atom - Ed Spielman

and a contemporary strong man in the olde tyme tradition who specializes in leverage lifting:

NaturalStrength.com - Slim "The Hammerman" Farman - The last of the legends

Leverage feats can be deceptive. After all, 20 or 25 pounds doesn't sound like much but when you have to lift it at the end of a 31 inch handle, the weights add up pretty quickly. A 20 pound sledge hammer will stop most strong men cold but Slim can move it from his nose and back as if it is an empty stick. In front of 21,000 fans at Madison Square Garden in the mid 1970s, Slim leveraged a world-record lift with a pair of hammers- 56 pounds each on 31 inch shafts, for a total amount of 1,736 inch pounds on his wrists. Simply unbelievable.

I don't know if he is still active - but he continued to perform well into his 70s.

 

[Burnt State]

You made me start thinking about Thomas Aquinas who a friend who was entering the priesthood introduced me to years ago. He explained to me that his God did not want a blind believer but someone who knew implicitly, with all the possible reason mustered from one's own critical faculties why God did exist. I was fascinated by this type of conversation - was it possible to use reason to become a spiritual and devout Catholic? This was unheard of for the most part in my RC upbringing.

Were you able to follow up on this?

Well a few interesting things came of this as I suddenly had seen the proverbial light. I gave up smoking for God. It seemed like the logical thing to do at the time. Then I started reading Aquinas and the rest of my friend's theological library. I also returned to deep contemplation of entering the monastic life again.

This mode of thinking persisted for the next half a year when I suddenly found myself living with a bunch of artistic denizens, which launched more of an experimental & socio-cultural phase of my life. This led to a new theory on the consciousness of inanimate objects and concluded with a series of lectures and experiments in time travel.

It remains a long search, this spirituality thing. I'm still confused by the later decisions of people like T. S. Eliot.

 

[Burnt State]

Poll Results: The People Have Spoken

The results of the poll speak for themselves religion and conspiracists are the most fanatical. But what's celebrated over the skeptical debunker is the paranormalist. It's not a surprise as the skeptic can be an unfriendly lot. Ironically the skeptic routinely claims that Bigfoot believers are toxic miscreants on forums. But I personally favour the creative mind of the paranormalist whose imaginative mind enjoys considering the impossible and seeks the magical. After all, what's more entertaining - telling people what to believe or discovering some slight possibility of imagining hidden realms and mysterious beings, even if for just this brief moment?

On the Instruction of Purple Prose

Below is a summary of ideas from who, IMHO, are three of the finest writers on the forum and your thinking on this topic was instructive for me and so thank you very much.

From Boomerang:
The underlying psychology of the true believer and the utterly closed minded is much the same. Both are systems based on defending an inner conviction regardless of evidence. This is why the polar opposite of iron clad religious faith is not atheism. It is more closely agnosticism (whether the questions are religious or otherwise). True belief and abiding disbelief are often mirror images of the same world view.

From smcder:
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.

So, what does it say of those who make every conceivable effort to be understood and to bring every thought in line with some over-arching set of principles so that the motions of their minds (and therefore the world around them) is predictable?

From trainedobserver:
All that said, I do believe that the universe is not bound by the confines of human experience and that strange things exist that neither our senses or our minds can comprehend in any real sense. I believe the best way to safely navigate this universe is through the use of science and not fanatical or religious belief although I have been guilty of both and I know I am entirely too gullible for my own good.

I really think this is entire post is a strong summation of what this whole forum is about, The nature of the personal quest, and the resolutions that are arrived at, are found here. For after seeking long and wandering in the desert, after journeying to the mountaintop we all eventually make peace with a framework. It is guided by some set of principles, that may or may not be in flux, and from this vantage the pursuit continues. You can read the whole post here:Who is the biggest fanatic?

As for me I'm still seeking: a little more doubtful, but still very intrigued.

The Unfolding of Science and Beauty

smcder said:
I agree - scientists can be no more (and no less) passionate than artists, lovers, mystics, philosophers . . .

Science is a set of methods for organizing knowledge in a form that can lead to testable explanations and predictions about the universe and as such it cannot tell us what is good and what is beautiful until we define those terms.

Trained:
You are telling me that a scientific study of what is naturally ascetically pleasing to human beings cannot (or better yet, has not already been) be made many times over? You're a hopeless romantic my friend. We are machines operating in a mechanical system, set in motion by primordial natural law. The complexity of interaction occurring within the system gives rise to all we interpret as independent action, free-will, and autonomy. This neither detracts from the beauty, or the wonder, rather it opens vistas undreamt of by superstition and supernaturalism. It is the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner mind to The Outer Limits...or something like that.

Choice comments about religion and debunking and the paranormalist are throughout this thread. Thanks everyone else for sustaining this discussion.

A Climax and Resolution

The highlight convo between TO and smcder:

The point being science is a method, not a position - so the idea of the good/beautiful has to be there before you can apply science to it . . . science won't tell you what to do, what to pursue, it's indifferent as to the ends and can be used to pursue any agenda . . .

This may sound nit-picky but I think it's important to have it out b/c people who seem to embrace Scientism aren't always aware of the difference . . . I wasn't sure from your responses - and it took me a bit to clarify all this in my own head too.

Human beings decide what is good and what is beautiful based on standards they inherit or derive on their own. It's a combination of emotional context and intelligent decision making.

I can live with that - in fact, I like that, there's a lot of room in that statement - it's not a pronouncement that closes the conversation down.

The Epilogue: A Prologue to Zeteticsm

And so the dialogue closed with two of my favourite writers currently scribbling out here, working to define the aesthetics of what we see and what is pleasing, as they were trained to do or discovered -- a kind of left brain right brain embrace of humanity as seen through generations of seeking.

We are human, and as seen in the accidental dust up that started this thread, we make mistakes and can learn to move on. As far as fanaticism goes I think that emotion and intellect are what's at stake. When emotion is used creatively in tandem with intellect the true paranormal seeker emerges. That really does lead to Truzzi and Zeteticism which I hope someone starts a thread on as he's been cropping up more frequently on the forum threads. That mode of inquiry, in it's original inception, would be a great next serious step to redefine pursuits like Ufology or Bigfoot research.

 

[smcder]

Poll Results: The People Have Spoken

The results of the poll speak for themselves religion and conspiracists are the most fanatical. But what's celebrated over the skeptical debunker is the paranormalist. It's not a surprise as the skeptic can be an unfriendly lot. Ironically the skeptic routinely claims that Bigfoot believers are toxic miscreants on forums. But I personally favour the creative mind of the paranormalist whose imaginative mind enjoys considering the impossible and seeks the magical. After all, what's more entertaining - telling people what to believe or discovering some slight possibility of imagining hidden realms and mysterious beings, even if for just this brief moment?

On the Instruction of Purple Prose

Below is a summary of ideas from who, IMHO, are three of the finest writers on the forum and your thinking on this topic was instructive for me and so thank you very much.

From Boomerang:
The underlying psychology of the true believer and the utterly closed minded is much the same. Both are systems based on defending an inner conviction regardless of evidence. This is why the polar opposite of iron clad religious faith is not atheism. It is more closely agnosticism (whether the questions are religious or otherwise). True belief and abiding disbelief are often mirror images of the same world view.

From smcder:
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.

So, what does it say of those who make every conceivable effort to be understood and to bring every thought in line with some over-arching set of principles so that the motions of their minds (and therefore the world around them) is predictable?

From trainedobserver:
All that said, I do believe that the universe is not bound by the confines of human experience and that strange things exist that neither our senses or our minds can comprehend in any real sense. I believe the best way to safely navigate this universe is through the use of science and not fanatical or religious belief although I have been guilty of both and I know I am entirely too gullible for my own good.

I really think this is entire post is a strong summation of what this whole forum is about, The nature of the personal quest, and the resolutions that are arrived at, are found here. For after seeking long and wandering in the desert, after journeying to the mountaintop we all eventually make peace with a framework. It is guided by some set of principles, that may or may not be in flux, and from this vantage the pursuit continues. You can read the whole post here:Who is the biggest fanatic?

As for me I'm still seeking: a little more doubtful, but still very intrigued.

The Unfolding of Science and Beauty

smcder said:
I agree - scientists can be no more (and no less) passionate than artists, lovers, mystics, philosophers . . .

Science is a set of methods for organizing knowledge in a form that can lead to testable explanations and predictions about the universe and as such it cannot tell us what is good and what is beautiful until we define those terms.

Trained:
You are telling me that a scientific study of what is naturally ascetically pleasing to human beings cannot (or better yet, has not already been) be made many times over? You're a hopeless romantic my friend. We are machines operating in a mechanical system, set in motion by primordial natural law. The complexity of interaction occurring within the system gives rise to all we interpret as independent action, free-will, and autonomy. This neither detracts from the beauty, or the wonder, rather it opens vistas undreamt of by superstition and supernaturalism. It is the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner mind to The Outer Limits...or something like that.

Choice comments about religion and debunking and the paranormalist are throughout this thread. Thanks everyone else for sustaining this discussion.

A Climax and Resolution

The highlight convo between TO and smcder:

The point being science is a method, not a position - so the idea of the good/beautiful has to be there before you can apply science to it . . . science won't tell you what to do, what to pursue, it's indifferent as to the ends and can be used to pursue any agenda . . .

This may sound nit-picky but I think it's important to have it out b/c people who seem to embrace Scientism aren't always aware of the difference . . . I wasn't sure from your responses - and it took me a bit to clarify all this in my own head too.

Human beings decide what is good and what is beautiful based on standards they inherit or derive on their own. It's a combination of emotional context and intelligent decision making.

I can live with that - in fact, I like that, there's a lot of room in that statement - it's not a pronouncement that closes the conversation down.

The Epilogue: A Prologue to Zeteticsm

And so the dialogue closed with two of my favourite writers currently scribbling out here, working to define the aesthetics of what we see and what is pleasing, as they were trained to do or discovered -- a kind of left brain right brain embrace of humanity as seen through generations of seeking.

We are human, and as seen in the accidental dust up that started this thread, we make mistakes and can learn to move on. As far as fanaticism goes I think that emotion and intellect are what's at stake. When emotion is used creatively in tandem with intellect the true paranormal seeker emerges. That really does lead to Truzzi and Zeteticism which I hope someone starts a thread on as he's been cropping up more frequently on the forum threads. That mode of inquiry, in it's original inception, would be a great next serious step to redefine pursuits like Ufology or Bigfoot research.

I've never seen a thread summation - very nice!

NOTE:

From smcder:
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.

- That first part is from Emerson's essay Self-Reliance, I didn't write it!

 

[smcder]

Well a few interesting things came of this as I suddenly had seen the proverbial light. I gave up smoking for God. It seemed like the logical thing to do at the time. Then I started reading Aquinas and the rest of my friend's theological library. I also returned to deep contemplation of entering the monastic life again.

This mode of thinking persisted for the next half a year when I suddenly found myself living with a bunch of artistic denizens, which launched more of an experimental & socio-cultural phase of my life. This led to a new theory on the consciousness of inanimate objects and concluded with a series of lectures and experiments in time travel.

It remains a long search, this spirituality thing. I'm still confused by the later decisions of people like T. S. Eliot.

I gave up smoking for God. It seemed like the logical thing to do at the time.

In the Thomas Moore podcast (Expanding Minds) he talks about how the most soulful people he knows are extremely unhealthy in some ways . . . I thought that was interesting. I think of smoking as a sacrament of the American religion - enshrined on-screen, one we are losing (films are now labelled: "contains historical smoking" - I wonder when we will see a Richard Gere film labelled as organic?) I gave it up (if I have given it up) because I couldn't walk up a flight of stairs. Traditional use of nicotania rustica is as a visionary plant.

I also returned to deep contemplation of entering the monastic life again.

I have thought of that many times myself, both in a formal and informal way - in the informal way I have gone some way toward achieving it. Perhaps hermetic is a better description.

This mode of thinking persisted for the next half a year when I suddenly found myself living with a bunch of artistic denizens, which launched more of an experimental & socio-cultural phase of my life. This led to a new theory on the consciousness of inanimate objects and concluded with a series of lectures and experiments in time travel.

Uh-oh!!

It remains a long search, this spirituality thing. I'm still confused by the later decisions of people like T. S. Eliot.

Which decisions?

 

[manxman]

ive always viewed priesthood as an easy way out, for gay men, social misfits, and perverts.
sure there are good hearted people amonst them trying to do good things, but for 2 of the above its a way of garnering un-earnt respect, by adorning a uniform of sorts, and for gay men a way to escape the prejudice of society, a prejudice that is being educated out of society now overall.

 

[smcder]

ive always viewed priesthood as an easy way out, for gay men, social misfits, and perverts.
sure there are good hearted people amonst them trying to do good things, but for the above its a way of garnering un-earnt respect, by adorning a uniform of sorts.

ive always viewed priesthood as an easy way out, for gay men, social misfits, and perverts.

What makes you say that and specifically in response to the posts above? And why classify gay men with social misfits and perverts?

but for the above its a way of garnering un-earnt respect, by adorning a uniform of sorts.

I imagine people enter many organizations for the same reasons or for the purposes of cloaking predation.

Note: the priesthood is different from monastic vocations and among monastic vocations there are several types.

 

[manxman]

i was interupted during my add-on smcder, my niece's called at the door.

the priesthood was a predators charter, although now also that is being tackled, instead of hidden/buried, they should never have gone un-punished.

the priesthood provides a home and an income, a support network and just about anything else needed to get by in life, also the social respect of the uniform/dog collar.
its an easy life for some people who frankly would not achieve any social status, or similar standard of living.

as was the priesthood a place where gay men were amongst other gay men, and could have discrete relationships without the prejudice of the outside world, that doesnt mean i dont think that gay men have not got the compassion to be good priest's, they have their place in society as does any good social worker.

finished, that was my last edit.

 

[smcder]

i was interupted during my add-on smcder.

It's clearer now what you mean.

I still think this applies to many organizations - and in fact, maybe now that the Catholic priesthood has drawn so much attention over the child abuse scandals - those who are predatory may be hiding elsewhere these days.

My interest in the monastic orders was contemplative (Trappist among the Catholics - and also various Buddhist orders, Zen, etc) - these orders were organized around contemplation - they traditionally supported themselves through physical labor and worked in silence or with minimal communication. Members lived largely in isolation, however they followed a highly organized model - among Catholic monasteries this was The Rule of Benedict which is a model of social organization. Buddhist and Zen monasteries followed similar rules. Particularly well-developed are the methods for negotiating conflict peacefully. Of course you have a contained, homogenous society with all the members highly devoted.

I've heard persons who have spent a career in the millitary talking about similar qualities that attracted and retained them.

 

[manxman]

the catholic church is different, money and power/influence have for centuaries been a big part of Catholicism.

 

[smcder]

i was interupted during my add-on smcder, my niece's called at the door.

the priesthood was a predators charter, although now also that is being tackled, instead of hidden/buried, they should never have gone un-punished.

the priesthood provides a home and an income, a support network and just about anything else needed to get by in life, also the social respect of the uniform/dog collar.
its an easy life for some people who frankly would not achieve any social status, or similar standard of living.

as was the priesthood a place where gay men were amongst other gay men, and could have discrete relationships without the prejudice of the outside world, that doesnt mean i dont think that gay men have not got the compassion to be good priest's, they have their place in society as does any good social worker.

finished, that was my last edit.

I visited a monastic order in Missouri a few times, they have a guest house that is open to all.

Assumption Abbey

It's a beautiful, secluded and very quiet place to get away. The monks initially supported themselves with some type of stone work - I think they had a quarry and cut stone. As they aged - this became too physically demanding (in addition to which they eat a very modest and almost entirely vegetarian diet - older monks and monks who are ill are permitted some meat) and they turned to making fruitcakes which they still sell and which are delicious and which contain a small amount of brandy.

This labor is still time consuming and demanding, in accord with traditional ideas of self-support and labor being good for mind and body. As a contemplative order, the monks have few outside connections to the world and live largely without contact even with immediate family members. They own nothing and live in small cells where they spend most of their time. Needless to say the process of vocation is long - as only a very few people can live this way.

The Abbot, Father Mark is extremely learned and he and my father got into a discussion about physics and mathematics last time we visited. I remember Brother Francis telling us that he came over from another order - Dominican or Jesuit, I think - a teaching order that was very involved with the world - and after five years in the order, he found himself running a tractor and screaming and cursing God . . . today though he is quiet genial and seems at peace with himself.

 

[smcder]

the catholic church is different, money and power/influence have for centuaries been a big part of Catholicism.

no doubt about it

 

[manxman]

those i respect, those kind of people are finding themselves not god, and they are not shearing their flock, they are deep thinkers like you and burnt state, thats anything but catholocism, imo.

 

[Burnt State]

I've never seen a thread summation - very nice!

I like to try to complete a summary of some sort if I've created a thread with a poll, even if just to respond to the poll results, but I got the idea of the summary from your initial summation in the consciousness thread. This thread seemed to have said what it needed to and now has branches off into spirituality/contemplation which is a nice touchstone to stand opposite fanatical belief systems that avoid truth. These contemplative spaces are about truths that are deeply personal and transcendent, though I suspect TO might have some critcisms of that.

NOTE:

From smcder:
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.

- That first part is from Emerson's essay Self-Reliance, I didn't write it!

I know, but I just wanted to highlight what I thought were some significant ideas that imho carried some strong thought across the thread.

I gave up smoking for God. It seemed like the logical thing to do at the time.

In the Thomas Moore podcast (Expanding Minds) he talks about how the most soulful people he knows are extremely unhealthy in some ways . . . I thought that was interesting. I think of smoking as a sacrament of the American religion - enshrined on-screen, one we are losing (films are now labelled: "contains historical smoking" - I wonder when we will see a Richard Gere film labelled as organic?) I gave it up (if I have given it up) because I couldn't walk up a flight of stairs. Traditional use of nicotania rustica is as a visionary plant.

Well tobacco is in fact one of the sacred herbs on the medicine wheel for Aboriginal peoples here in North America, but as far as a mass produced, promoted, legalized drug it has done us in. I grew up under the transition from cigarettes appearing on the family smoking party tray to becoming cancer sticks. Getting healthy spiritually for god was inextricably linked to being healthy for myself at the time. Fast forward two decades and two children later I feel bad that I lost that sense of care for myself. I do like the idea of how we label in society - the organic film! But as for men and our health, it usually requires a big event (heart attack) before we work on getting our shit together.

I also returned to deep contemplation of entering the monastic life again.

I have thought of that many times myself, both in a formal and informal way - in the informal way I have gone some way toward achieving it. Perhaps hermetic is a better description.

The monastery has a great attraction, as you highlighted, a means to check out of having to think about the plastic crap of life in a consumer culture - talk about living in purgatory. As a northerner I have always identified with isolationism. I tend to work deeply in my work community, but am mostly invisible (aside from coaching my son's soccer team) in the community I live in - though I do tend to support a lot of my wife's iniatives around her work with new immigrants, but whatever work I do, I prefer to keep it anonymous, or if I can, work initiatives through other people. Here is a safe space to expose identity while maintaining anonymity for the most part. I really like that.

The idea of being a hermit has vast appeal; hermits and troglodytes don't have to interact with people. Ironically, being a parent, a partner and a teacher compel me to do things every day that go against my nature. I'd rather just hang out with trees. But it seems to make others happy, so I'll go with that for now. Besides, my dog would be really sad if I wasn't around (yet another unintentional attachment to the material world).

This mode of thinking persisted for the next half a year when I suddenly found myself living with a bunch of artistic denizens, which launched more of an experimental & socio-cultural phase of my life. This led to a new theory on the consciousness of inanimate objects and concluded with a series of lectures and experiments in time travel.

Uh-oh!!

It was there I first encountered madness up close and personal, but the new ideas were very exciting. Our time travel society eventually disbanded, which was probably for the best.

It remains a long search, this spirituality thing. I'm still confused by the later decisions of people like T. S. Eliot.

Which decisions?

He became a devout Catholic of course. His wife, if I remember correctly ended her days in an aslyum, well after he exited his, and she died and he found God. You can see it in some of his more mystical writing, Four Quartets, specifically. I suppose the appeal of ritual magic (i.e. transubstantiation) was just too compelling for him and his own long search, that and the fact that there was an answer to Hamlet's existentialism to be found in a better ethereal final resting place, where you will be welcomed, as opposed to grunting under the fardels and pain of human interaction.

 

[smcder]

I like to try to complete a summary of some sort if I've created a thread with a poll, even if just to respond to the poll results, but I got the idea of the summary from your initial summation in the consciousness thread. This thread seemed to have said what it needed to and now has branches off into spirituality/contemplation which is a nice touchstone to stand opposite fanatical belief systems that avoid truth. These contemplative spaces are about truths that are deeply personal and transcendent, though I suspect TO might have some critcisms of that.


I know, but I just wanted to highlight what I thought were some significant ideas that imho carried some strong thought across the thread.

Well tobacco is in fact one of the sacred herbs on the medicine wheel for Aboriginal peoples here in North America, but as far as a mass produced, promoted, legalized drug it has done us in. I grew up under the transition from cigarettes appearing on the family smoking party tray to becoming cancer sticks. Getting healthy spiritually for god was inextricably linked to being healthy for myself at the time. Fast forward two decades and two children later I feel bad that I lost that sense of care for myself. I do like the idea of how we label in society - the organic film! But as for men and our health, it usually requires a big event (heart attack) before we work on getting our shit together.


The monastery has a great attraction, as you highlighted, a means to check out of having to think about the plastic crap of life in a consumer culture - talk about living in purgatory. As a northerner I have always identified with isolationism. I tend to work deeply in my work community, but am mostly invisible (aside from coaching my son's soccer team) in the community I live in - though I do tend to support a lot of my wife's iniatives around her work with new immigrants, but whatever work I do, I prefer to keep it anonymous, or if I can, work initiatives through other people. Here is a safe space to expose identity while maintaining anonymity for the most part. I really like that.

The idea of being a hermit has vast appeal; hermits and troglodytes don't have to interact with people. Ironically, being a parent, a partner and a teacher compel me to do things every day that go against my nature. I'd rather just hang out with trees. But it seems to make others happy, so I'll go with that for now. Besides, my dog would be really sad if I wasn't around (yet another unintentional attachment to the material world).


It was there I first encountered madness up close and personal, but the new ideas were very exciting. Our time travel society eventually disbanded, which was probably for the best.


He became a devout Catholic of course. His wife, if I remember correctly ended her days in an aslyum, well after he exited his, and she died and he found God. You can see it in some of his more mystical writing, Four Quartets, specifically. I suppose the appeal of ritual magic (i.e. transubstantiation) was just too compelling for him and his own long search, that and the fact that there was an answer to Hamlet's existentialism to be found in a better ethereal final resting place, where you will be welcomed, as opposed to grunting under the fardels and pain of human interaction.

That is one massive thread I was trying to summarize - I want to get back to the summation when I have time, at least pull out all the links - so much good stuff to follow up on that deserves to be read in-depth but it gets lost in the postings.

I've been thinking about opening a thread where we pick one thing to read from and do that in depth - bringing the discussion back to that text.

This thread seemed to have said what it needed to and now has branches off into spirituality/contemplation which is a nice touchstone to stand opposite fanatical belief systems that avoid truth. These contemplative spaces are about truths that are deeply personal and transcendent, though I suspect TO might have some critcisms of that.

I like Underhill's book on Mysticism - the opening section that I posted alone could spawn an entire thread - but not sure it fits on the Paracast forum.

Nah, TO is just a big teddy bear . . . ;-)

The monastery has a great attraction, as you highlighted, a means to check out of having to think about the plastic crap of life in a consumer culture - talk about living in purgatory. As a northerner I have always identified with isolationism. I tend to work deeply in my work community, but am mostly invisible (aside from coaching my son's soccer team) in the community I live in - though I do tend to support a lot of my wife's iniatives around her work with new immigrants, but whatever work I do, I prefer to keep it anonymous, or if I can, work initiatives through other people.

I got out of non-profit work and a lot of the informal stuff I was doing nearly a year ago - one of the most harrowing things I have done is un-busy my life and provide room for anxiety as a basic psychic force - I have an inkling that this is what Heidegger talks about when he says angst is a Grundstimmung - a basic mood. From this you can come to see how anxiety acts as a social force - in our culture I think it is generally considered erosive and treated with medication or media. But it's just a basic force that you can learn to use.

The idea of being a hermit has vast appeal; hermits and troglodytes don't have to interact with people. Ironically, being a parent, a partner and a teacher compel me to do things every day that go against my nature. I'd rather just hang out with trees. But it seems to make others happy, so I'll go with that for now. Besides, my dog would be really sad if I wasn't around (yet another unintentional attachment to the material world).

M. Scott Peck said that people enter monasteries for the same reason they enter marriage -for the friction. I think few of us have the core to withstand not having outside demands made upon us. Dogs may well offer the best cost:benefit ratio for this.

For the (religious) hermit of course it's a relation to a defined sense of the ultimate that provides the friction . . . not sure about the trogolodyte - I think of Caliban for some reason?

 

[trainedobserver]

These contemplative spaces are about truths that are deeply personal and transcendent, though I suspect TO might have some critcisms of that.

No, not at all. I guess this is the place where I confess that I too once considered a monastic lifestyle. Thank goodness that was one bullet I dodged.

 

[Burnt State]

M. Scott Peck said that people enter monasteries for the same reason they enter marriage -for the friction. I think few of us have the core to withstand not having outside demands made upon us. Dogs may well offer the best cost:benefit ratio for this.

Ok, I need to be clear about this, in case some point in the future my partner decides she wants to collect my scribbles, but i spend every day happily in conversation with her, friction and all. These hours are indeed the ties that bind. She has always been my most astute conversationalist.

But the thing about the dog is - no words, ever. We are always just being. It's a kind of unspoken selfishness on my part, the taming of the dog. His demands are easy and good for me as well. It's an uncomplicated kind of love.

Yet without those other complications that family provides & inspires, I fear I would be only a shell of myself.