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

Monday 17 May 2010

Part 4- Manipulation through "authorities"


Part 4

Elena obviously falls into Ton’s trap and tries to look at the “doctrines” he presents to continue being a good sport!!! She naively states and asks Ton:

65. Elena - April 8, 2010
Thanks Ton for your observation, I will carefully meditate on it.

67. Elena - April 8, 2010
Ton: “anthropocentric humanism is at the root of the problem, from your current perspective you may not see it but inherent in this doctrine you’re preaching is human egotism writ large. there are alternatives to ‘ego’ based biases…. as a philosopher, scholar and ‘author’ you might want to do more research — for example, for a critique of the ‘ego-logical’ perspective see: rozak, naess, fisher, metzner, mckenna, et al, and see whitehead’s process-relational theory.
“What Humanist theories do not allow for is the fact that a system of ethics formulated from a human perspective may not be entirely accurate; humans are not the centre of reality. Spinoza argued that we tend to assess things wrongly in terms of their usefulness to us. Spinoza reasoned that if we were to look at things objectively we would discover that everything in the universe has a unique value…. a human-centred or anthropocentric ethic is not an accurate depiction of reality, there is a bigger picture….””
Sounds great Ton, would you share what you understand as the bigger picture? and what you’ve understood about what I am saying just to make sure that we’re on the same platform?

68. Elena - April 8, 2010
Ton, just to clarify, I am asking because what I am saying is so new to me that I hadn’t realized it was all that structured for you to come with this observation so it would be very helpful if you tell me what it is that you are understanding since it seems to be so clear to you.

NOTE:
By this time Elena was beginning to realize that the discussion wasn’t even and that no matter what she said was taken and  turned against her but kept trying to participate. She should have obviously stopped as soon as the ridiculing began but she so strongly wanted to participate that she didn’t, she tried to keep being a “good sport”.

What Elena is asking Ton is to be concrete about what he understands she is saying, what his bigger picture is and to see if they are actually on the same platform to dialogue not to agree but he answers:

Note by Elena: when I look at this Ton it is really very sad. Of course you’ll just say I am playing self pity and keep denigrating my condition as you like but the more you deny to look at it for what it is the more you’ll separate your selves into denial of what actually happened. You think I am doing this analysis to attack you but I am actually doing it to defend myself from your attacks for I should have been defended by everyone present, but no one did. At least I can defend myself. It’s very helpful for my well being.


69. ton - April 8, 2010
elena,
i think we’re definitely not “on the same platform” — but that’s ok. no need to be sarcastic, clarity is an ongoing lifelong process, we both know that, and no need for disingenuousness,

NOTE:
Negation of being on the same platform or having any chance for it!

And then the “no need to be sarcastic” although he’s been sarcastic all along!

But doesn’t answer the question and moves on to the following:


if you truly meant what you said, and were to “carefully meditate on it” then there would be no reason for me to elaborate

NOTE: Can you see how he again adopts the position of superiority in which it is Elena who is inferior in not having meditated long enough? He again attacks Elena personally and denies to answer the question and continues:


(a hint: when you “carefully meditate” too quickly, you miss the point).
NOTE: again accentuating that Elena has missed something, that she’s not meditated long enough on the doctrines he is supposed to present but is in fact not presenting.
By this time the whole conversation has centered around Elena not being good enough to understand Ton who is way superior to Elena and has presented her with a number of authors that Elena supposedly should read because Ton is in no way willing to present his own understanding openly and frankly.

The manipulation couldn’t be more obvious: it circles precisely around images of authority. Ton pretends to undermine Elena by presenting her with names of “authorities” that Elena doesn’t know and because she doesn’t know, she simply is not good enough to affirm what she’s saying that Ton is unwilling to discuss.

It is a vicious circle aimed at dis-acknowledging Elena and everything Elena says without actually addressing anything of what Elena has said or Elena herself.
*
Posted by at
Labels:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)