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 16 April 2010

Vices in Speech and Structures of Symposiums- Ton and Elena

42. Elena - April 16, 2010 [Edit]
Part 1.

Hi Ton,

I would like to re-address some of the issues we are talking about:

Elena: Why should I be better than I am? What matters is not how good or bad I am but how good or wrong what I am saying is and that is what people in good faith are willing to address, improve, turn over and discuss for the sake of culture. That is what you are denying us and what was denied to us by my banning. It is exactly the same behavior Robert practices: NO DIALOGUE because no one is good enough. Here again you are saying I am not good enough for you to even address what is being said. The dictator is inside of each one of us Ton and if we’re not willing to address it life will continue to be in the power of people who practice fascism everyday of their lives. Why do you like that role?

Ton:
e: “Why should I be better than I am?”

you are absolutely right elena, you are “perfect” as you are.

In this example we can observe that there is simply a technique here, an unconscious one probably to take out of context what Elena is saying and address only what Ton wishes to point out.

Why should I be better than I am, should have been completed so that it wasn’t taken out of context. What I meant was, why should I be better than I am in the circumstances I am in. Why should I be better than I am to participate in a discussion? Why is the condition in which I am supposed to justify my banning when I did not insult or behave aggressively and limited myself to willingly try to satisfy what you were asking of me and at the end simply pointed out what you were doing: manipulating me in a game in which I had to do something for you to be able to receive your approval.

This is one aspect.
2nd.
Elena: Why should I be better than I am? What matters is not how good or bad I am but how good or wrong what I am saying is and that is what people in good faith are willing to address, improve, turn over and discuss for the sake of culture.

A. matters is not how good or bad I am in relation to how academically prepared I am to speak about what I am speaking and what I meant by why should I be better than I am was: given my conditions, after being in a cult for seventeen years, it is not surprising that I am not more academically prepared for what I am attempting to work on which is why I am asking for opinions on my work. Why should I be better than I am given my condition is what I meant.

B. What makes you think that because I have been extremely vulnerable and depressed after 17 years in a cult I should be banned again when I did not behave aggressively towards anyone. You were the one who was pursuing an attack that is clearly expressed in the way in which you were interrogating me, not dialoguing with me and I simply stopped it.
C. We, the people interested in understanding how language is used, need to start differentiating between three different spheres and how they interact. We can see them here:

Why should I be better than I am? Personal sphere

What matters is not how good or bad I am
In the personal sphere: how depressed or vulnerable
In the social-academic sphere: how knowledgeable

C1. And we must be able to see another sphere included in the above that is purely the individual sphere

D.

but how good or wrong what I am saying is

the objective reality of the discourse independent of the conditions of the speaker.

E. and that is what people in good faith are willing to address, improve, turn over and discuss for the sake of culture.

In point E. we see the reality of a discussion itself without even having to address the speaker or the participant, we enter into the third sphere of the dialogue.

What I am trying to work on here is how a dialogue in good faith is used and manipulated to detract what the speaker is stating to discredit her or him, which is what you Ton have been doing for the past two weeks. This is very serious because it had concrete negative consequences to me who was banned unjustly from a public blog with the approval of the participants still acting like people in cults.

The aim here is not only to point the conscious or unconscious technique used by Ton to manipulate Elena and put her against the wall with no possible way out but to establish clear guidance towards the ingredients that need to be present in a discussion so that a moderator can help the discussion move towards fruitful results and protect the integrity of the participants.44. Elena - April 16, 2010 [Edit]
Part 2 of
42. Elena – April 16, 2010 [Edit]

So we need to address what the ingredients of a fruitful discussion need to be.

The setting must be neutral and the moderator must be objectively professional beyond his convictions. There should in fact be two moderators who acknowledge their opposite convictions and actually take sides in their personal sphere but are so professional and knowledgeable about forums and symposiums, that they can help and protect the speakers in the social sphere.

In the conversation itself the moderator must be able to observe vices.

In the example in part one we can see the vices very clearly:

Elena: Why should I be better than I am? What matters is not how good or bad I am but how good or wrong what I am saying is and that is what people in good faith are willing to address, improve, turn over and discuss for the sake of culture. That is what you are denying us and what was denied to us by my banning. It is exactly the same behavior Robert practices: NO DIALOGUE because no one is good enough. Here again you are saying I am not good enough for you to even address what is being said. The dictator is inside of each one of us Ton and if we’re not willing to address it life will continue to be in the power of people who practice fascism everyday of their lives. Why do you like that role?

Ton:
e: “Why should I be better than I am?”

you are absolutely right elena, you are “perfect” as you are.

In this example Elena gives a statement in which she refers to the three spheres of personal, social, human behavior and Ton reduces the affirmation to only one sphere: the personal.

With this guidelines, all the conversations that took place in the fofblog that led to Elena’s banning can be better studied.

I’ve worked hard today and should take care of other things. Thank you for an ongoing freedom in dialogue. All this material needs to be complemented with what has already been done in this area by scholars, which I have little more than wikipedia knowledge of.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)