system, There are folks running around operating (or with a view
from) each of these energy centers. What Campbell does is associate a
psychology with the chakras that speak to those levels. The root
chakra, with all of our survival based function, operates at the
behaviorist level and this is how people react to life. The next one
up the kundalini is the base chakra, which organizes form and brings
us to group affiliation. Adler's psychology speaks at this level.
The next, the solar plexus, is freud. and the chakra of integration
(because eventually it becomes the source of all chakra integration)
is the heart, and Jungian psychology is associated here.
Campbell is saying that humans are at diverse levels of development,
all reacting or responding to the same consensus experience
differently, according to their center of operation and ability.
Perhaps we can see something greater than the group religious
experience because we are fortunate enough to have moved beyond it in
our journey. An integration at the heart chakra brings with it
compassion and an understanding that all is in perfect order, each
according to their highest potential and individual journey.
On Dec 20, 5:18 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And there are plenty of people around 'literate' on the issues as in
> OccupyX - the rest of us seem almost inured to religious-style beliefs
> in the face of overwhelming evidence. What is the mechanism of this?
>
> On Dec 20, 10:05 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I think too that Molly's transcendence is important in this. It's
> > just too easy to state. I want that state in which there is little
> > like this to argue about because it has ceased to matter in practice.
> > The key is not to argue for individual victory - something of a
> > complex in-itself and something that requires work many just can't
> > do. We once thought education could do this, but have to think now it
> > is generally part of the problem.
>
> > On Dec 19, 6:05 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I could not disagree with that Molly - though something of the
> > > "invisible hand" spooks me in all argument. I'm as sure as Thomas
> > > Moore that we lack soul, but want something that differentiates mad
> > > people like Ayn Rand and reason.
>
> > > On Dec 19, 11:31 am, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Morals and ethics that are entrenched in right and wrong and exclude
> > > > or separate are human indeed, but have not yet seen the light of
> > > > spirit. Much of religion, the "religion" mentioned in this discussion
> > > > is of this. The individual journey of the heart to the non dual
> > > > experience reaps the knowing that spirit includes and is revealed
> > > > between the opposites, uniting them. Once this becomes the individual
> > > > view, the world of the non dual and all who share it is revealed.
> > > > Words can only point the way and always fall short if the reader
> > > > cannot connect the opposites with spirit. It takes a transcendence
> > > > that can then forever be remembered. It makes time and space and
> > > > opposition poignant and irrelevant. They don't disappear, but are not
> > > > important (or more automatic to be precise). A different ethics, one
> > > > that is innate but forgotten, emerges. One that is not concerned with
> > > > right and wrong as it has been unified in spirit, aspects of the same
> > > > element. One that unites, and sees conflict for what it is, the realm
> > > > of death (that is integral to life.) All of this is already present
> > > > everywhere. It is the view that changes our experience, relationship
> > > > and dynamic of it.
>
> > > > On Dec 19, 2:45 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > There's a tedium in academic writing we don't have to suffer here.
> > > > > Rigsy is right that most words are hidden behind, though I'm not sure
> > > > > the smell is sweet! Academe seems to have entirely failed in
> > > > > providing us with some general way of reliable interpretation of how
> > > > > the world works and how we can control this in a reasonable way. I
> > > > > broadly agree with Hitchins on religion - dated stories with too much
> > > > > current influence when we could do better etc. I suspect, though,
> > > > > this neglects something of religion as a challenge to much bad in
> > > > > feudalism and debt peonage - and, of course, there is something wrong
> > > > > with assuming the spiritual means believing in talking snakes and the
> > > > > rest of the fables. A book by David Graeber (Debt: the first 5000
> > > > > years)touches on this several times and surprised me in that many
> > > > > religious words and freedom words stem from 'debt freedom'.
> > > > > I don't know about a happy medium rigsy (perhaps Molly is one - LOL -
> > > > > no I know that's not true) - but something happier is indeed
> > > > > required. The moral aspect worries me because moralising so easily
> > > > > closes to totalism - yet economics so often looks like the most
> > > > > dreadful examples of cults that will do anything for what they claim
> > > > > is a greater good. "Austerity" is clearly a nonsense with sucker
> > > > > appeal and is full of moral urging.
> > > > > It all looks like a can of worms at the moment.
>
> > > > > On Dec 18, 2:52 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Consider Steve Jobs and the stories that have surfaced about his
> > > > > > "conflict" resolution style versus his contribution to technology. And
> > > > > > I could add many names from history/economic development that
> > > > > > discarded drawing room manners for sheer autocracy-
> > > > > > belligerance,included. Religion has been concerned with an alternative
> > > > > > to real life that the masses could cling to. There is a happy medium.
>
> > > > > > On Dec 17, 4:00 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > We have rules on ad hominem and such in here. It's only one example
> > > > > > > of an "ad" and in general such stuff is regarded as fallacy. More
> > > > > > > recent work on argument tends to say we need to recognise what kind of
> > > > > > > argument we are in as the rules vary in different forms. One form of
> > > > > > > argument is called eristic and its aim is to reveal deep divisions. Ad
> > > > > > > hom may be allowable in that. I'm writing a paper for a conference
> > > > > > > based on the notion that religion has a deep and generally malevolent
> > > > > > > influence in human behaviour - which has an implicit ad hom - that
> > > > > > > general religious stuff is the province of a kind of cowardice (there
> > > > > > > are lots of examples from the other side of course - such as atheists
> > > > > > > being immoral).
> > > > > > > The main book I've been reading is by Walton (below) and a digest
> > > > > > > might be as follows:
>
> > > > > > > Dialogue types:
> > > > > > > Dialogue Type Initial Situation Participant's Goal Goal of Dialogue
> > > > > > > Persuasion Conflict of Opinion Persuade Other Party Resolve Issue
> > > > > > > Inquiry Need to Have Proof Verify Evidence Prove Hypothesis
> > > > > > > Discovery Need for Explanation Find a Hypothesis Support Hypothesis
> > > > > > > Negotiation Conflict of Interests Secure Interests Settle Issue
> > > > > > > Information Need Information Acquire Information Exchange Information
> > > > > > > Deliberation Practical Choice Fit Goals and Actions Decide What to Do
> > > > > > > Eristic Personal Conflict Attack an Opponent Reveal Deep Conflict
>
> > > > > > > What informal logic is seeking to explain and use:
> > > > > > > 1.an account of the principles of communication which argumentative
> > > > > > > exchange depends upon;
> > > > > > > 2. a distinction between different kinds of dialogue in which argument
> > > > > > > may occur, and the ways in which they determine 3.appropriate and
> > > > > > > inappropriate moves in argumentation (e.g. the difference between
> > > > > > > scientific discussion and negotiation);
> > > > > > > 4. an account of logical consequence, which explains when it can be
> > > > > > > said (and what it means to say) that some claim (or attitude) is a
> > > > > > > logical consequence of another;
> > > > > > > 5. a typology of argument which provides a framework of argument and
> > > > > > > analysis by indentifying the basic types of argument that need to be
> > > > > > > distinguished (deductivism is monistic, hence one of the simplest
> > > > > > > typologies; others will distinguish between fundamentally different
> > > > > > > kinds of argument);
> > > > > > > 6. an account of good argument which specifies general criteria for
> > > > > > > deductive, inductive, and conductive arguments;
> > > > > > > definitions of positive argument schema which define good patterns of
> > > > > > > reasoning (reasonable appeals to authority, reasonable attacks against
> > > > > > > the person; etc.);
> > > > > > > 7. some theoretical account of fallacies and the role they can (and
> > > > > > > cannot) play in understanding and assessing informal arguments;
> > > > > > > 8. an account of the role that audience (pathos) and ethos and other
> > > > > > > rhetorical notions should play in analysing and assessing argument;
> > > > > > > 9. an explanation of the dialectical obligations that attach to
> > > > > > > arguments in particular kinds of contexts.
>
> > > > > > > Walton, Douglas N., 2007. Dialog Theory for Critical Argumentation,
> > > > > > > Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
>
> > > > > > > What I'm seeking to establish is that economics and economic behaviour
> > > > > > > as we have it is a form of religious madness and uses religious
> > > > > > > coercion to get us to play its games. I actually believe this but
> > > > > > > want to do more than just assert the position. I'm not concerned to
> > > > > > > dismiss religion but rather demonstrate the dangerous madness of
> > > > > > > "economics" as a religious practice and threat to democracy
>
> > > > > > > In a crude sense one must bow to religious madness to take part in its
> > > > > > > fellowship. My contention is that economics works in the same way -
> > > > > > > under the maths belief in talking snakes is implied. The driving
> > > > > > > question is what a scientific economics might be and how this might be
> > > > > > > a moral matter because truth dialogue in science is not value-free but
> > > > > > > moral. In the context of history, religion has often been concerned
> > > > > > > with economics and particularly freedom from debt. What I'm searching
> > > > > > > for is something that breaks religion and politics from the dominance
> > > > > > > of power-interests and perhaps rediscovers more reasonable
> > > > > > > spirituality.
>
> > > > > > > It would help if I could build a truth-pattern analyser! Comments
> > > > > > > appreciated. Judging on the current draft I don't know what I'm
> > > > > > > talking about yet!
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário