The Separation between State and Religion

In time we will realize that Democracy is the entitlement of individuals to every right that was in its times alloted to kings. The right to speak and decide, to be treated with decency, to serve and be served by people in a State of “love” that is, to serve with one’s work for the development of ‘life’. To belong to the Kingdom of Human Beings without racial, national, social or academic separations. To love and be loved. To die at the service of the whole and be honored in one’s death, for one’s life and work was legitimately valued. To be graceful and grateful. To have the pride and the humility of being One with the Universe, One with every realm of Existence, One with every living and deceased soul. To treat with dignity and be treated with dignity for One is dignified together with All others and Life itself. To walk the path of compassion, not in the sorrow of guilt but in the pride of being. To take responsability for one’s mistakes and sufferings and stand up again and again like a hero and a heroine and face the struggle that is put at one’s feet and in one’s hands. Millions of people, millions and millions of people might take many generations to realize the consciousness of our humaneness but there is no other dignified path for the human being.

The “work” as I conceive it is psychological and political. Psychology is the connection between the different dimensions within one’s self and Politics is the actualization of that consciousness in our practical lives. Religion is the ceremony that binds the connectedness between the individual and the Universe. The separation between religion, politics and science, the arts and sports is, in the sphere of the social, the reflection of the schizophrenia within the individual and the masses. The dialogue between individuality and the "human" belongs to consciousness. The tendency to develop cults resides in the shortcomings we’are finding in life as it is structured today. “Life” has become the private property of a few priviledged who cannot profit from it because as soon as it is appropriated it stops to be “life” or “life-giving”.

We are all the victims of our own invention and each one is called upon to find solutions. The only problem is believing our selves incapable of finding them. We are now free to use all Systems of knowledge objectively, sharing them without imposing our will on each other. To become objective about our lives means to understand that the institutions that govern its experience are critically important. That we are one with the governments, one with the religious activities that mark its pace, that the arena’s in which we move our bodies and the laboratories in which we explore our possibilities are ALL part and parcel of our own personal responsibility. That WE ARE ONE WITH EACH OTHER AND EVERYTHING AROUND US and acknowledge for ourselves a bond of love in conscious responsibility. That we human beings know ourselves part of each other and are willing and able to act on our behalf for the benefit of each and every individual. That we no longer allow governments, industries, universities or any other institution to run along unchecked by the objective principles of humaneness. That we do not allow gurus to abuse their power or governors to steal the taxes and use them to their personal advantage in detriment of the whole. That we do not allow abuse from anyone anywhere because life is too beautiful to do so and that we are willing to stop the rampant crime with the necessary compassion Conscious knowledge is every individual's right. Conscious action is every individual's duty.

Blog Archive

Friday 2 April 2010

Social conditioning of inner conditioning - Elias

Elena: This connection between social conditioning and inner individual conditioning is important. Understanding that will help us understand why and how people are brainwashed also through behavior, not just theory as in "brainwashing".



Elias traces long- 
term shifts in the structure and character of the emotional lives of specific groups of 
people, notably members of the secular upper classes, with a focus in particular on 
transitions from the late Middle Ages to the Early Modern period.  From this ana- 
                                                 
48 
 C. Wouters, ‚The sociology of emotions and flight attendants: Hochschild’s Managed Heart,‛ 
Theory Culture & Society, 6 (1) (1989). 
49 
 N. Elias, ‚On human beings and their emotions: a process sociological essay,‛ Theory Culture & 
Society, 4 (1987), 356. 
50 
 N. Elias, What is Sociology? (London: Hutchinson, 1978), 119. [Translated from the original 
German publication in 1970]. 
Foucault Studies, No. 8, pp. 28-52 
42 

lysis, he elucidates a shift involving an advancing threshold of shame and repugnance in 
relation to bodily functions, both of the self and of others, and an increasing social 
restraint towards self-restraint.  If we were to contrast, say, the table manners of people 
eating together in the manner customary of the Middle Ages, we might observe 
behaviours that to present day sensibilities would be regarded as distasteful, vulgar, 
perhaps embarrassing — eating from a common dish, with unwashed hands, bel- 
ching and farting at the table, etc.  In this previous era, people’s emotions were 
conditioned in a different way.  What had not yet been developed to the extent that 
it is now — and what may be at play in our reactions to their behaviours — is an 
‚invisible wall of affects‛ that seemingly rises at the approach of something that has 
entered the mouth of another person, at the sight or even mention of certain bodily 
functions, or as a feeling of shame or embarrassment when our own functions are 
exposed to others.51  

This ‚invisible wall‛ that seems to interject itself between one body and another, 
repelling and separating, is central to the self-experience of Homo clausus.  Put simp- 
ly, the conception of a split between the private and public domains of life is itself 
something that develops over time (both biographically and historically).  Thus, gro- 
wing demands for emotion management cannot simply be reduced to the actions of 
capitalist enterprises; these are rooted in much broader and longer-term processes of 
social change. Even from the few examples provided above — and Elias provides 
many more — we can also observe how seemingly private, individual, and personal 
experiences of ourselves, plus our feelings and approaches toward others, are part of 
our historically emergent social habitus.  One can also observe how the search for 
authenticity may in turn be related to the connected experience of a deeply hidden 
true, essential me and the longing to uncover it. 

No comments:

Post a Comment