Chittan, you said
If we are talking about netiquette, then personally I do find your posts extremely long-winded, if you don't mind me saying so. This has improved a little of late through your suffering attacks, unpleasant as I'm sure that is, that you had to respond to. If you are going to write so much, it will give the impression that you don't have much interest in what other people have to say.
Given most posts are based upon assertions with little to substantiate about issues that I consider should be backed up, my responses will address the many assertions and get backed up. That means long responses. My alternative is filling posts with unsubstantiated and emotional assertions.
Your main point seems to be that cult and culture are intertwined. OK, fine. But that doesn't prove that all forms of cult-ure are morally equal, and should just be accepted. I believe that is what is called a counsel of despair.
You miss the point. Cults are just human institutions and reflect the way people are. Some are more extreme than others, but vary in degree rather than kind. Morals are relative, cannibal societies have considered it wrong not to eat your relatives. Recognising something does not mean we accept it and not oppose it with our own subjective morality. Likewise the fact that we tend to see morals as absolute explains many of the issues humans have, and thats also part of the human landscape. Cant speak for your counsel of despair, I think that our state of mind is largely personal. We are all debating the SES here and most of us appeared to decide we were no longer prepared to associate with them, but our reactions still vary widely. I am not suggesting we have a lot of choice in how we react, but any despair we feel about the SES is personal.
Shantananda spoke about idealism and practicality going hand in hand, which means that we need to make our idealism work in the real world, no matter how hard it seems.
Seems reasonable but not sure what it has to do with my posts?
Shatananda Saraswathi also based his ideal on the existence of the Atman, reincarnation and varios metaphysical phenomena, noe of which have stood rational debate. What is the point of living pragmatically around an ideal that has no basis in reality? Its quite possible that the vision of Samadhi exists just as a way to assuage our existential fears. I would rather practice the meditation and yoga, getting the physical benefits and if this is all it provides then I will not be disappointed. If you start with the basis that karma and reincarnation are you ideal, perhaps there is no way to live practically with something thats just a social construct. Personally, my fear of oblivion would be less if I thought there were a higher being than me, so I will leave myself open to the possibility, but I cannot see much evidence for it.
I think you are getting people's backs up by the creeping sense that you use a lot of reasonable-sounding words to smuggle in some unreasonable thoughts and emotions that you don't want to own up to.
If that were the case then I am sure people could have identified these and provided logical, evidence based counters. If you think this is the case why not articulate what my unreasonable thoughts and emotions are and see if they stand some rational debate?
Even, perhaps, to yourself?
No doubt this is correct, just as it is with all of us, however my posts are certainly more direct and specific than those I have been posting with. You appear to have more direct style, but your assertions still lack backing.
Like that there is something OK about treating women as lower than men.
Where did I say this? The mental trap here is imagining that because women occupy less formal positions of authority than men they are disadvantaged. Any criteria of value in life men score lower than women even in the developed world. 905 of prison populating is male, 80% homeless, 4x suicide rate in many countries, 5-10% lower longevity – what the issue with men being held accountable in more formal positions than women – holding these is unlikely to improve the quality of your life. What about this profile makes you imagine that women are treated lower than men?
Note that I am not raising these facts as issues to be addressed, just noting they do exist, and suggesting that gender equity debates should consider the whole picture and look at the real issues.
It's a strange world where that could be thought fair or right. But it's not an inevitable world - as you seem to believe.
When did I say it was inevitable? Perhaps you are mistaking inevitable with the moralistic fallacy, this is where during the process of dictating how the world “ought” to be, they mistake it for being the way it “is”. I would prefer to understand reality without the imposed cloaks of subjective morality, than living in Disneyland. Seeing some of the grim reality does not mean we have to be miserable about it.
Sometimes, as we say here in the UK, the Rupert Murdochs of the world do get their comeuppance.
This is a joke. Why do you imagine that the media circus with Murdoch will get the exact comeuppance they deserve?. The stuff that comes to light in any power based process is just the tip of the iceberg, for every inequity that comes to light, another 100 are hidden, and will never be balanced. This idealistic view is a social opiate to keep the masses numb and dumb. Blind justice is just a slogan. If you don’t believe me, just watch the powerplay with News of the World, you can be certain it will not be an eye for an eye in administered justice, leave alone the fact that one can never truly recompense the past actions. All the statements about being unable to remember, never knowing etc might well be true, but just imagine all the conscious actions that must have been taken to build this empire. Do you imagine these omelettes were made without breaking any eggs?
I understand Bluemoon's point to be that the SES view of women was never an overt version of prejudices existing in society (as you claim), but was actually covert. It only became overt around the fireplace with port and cigars once the ladies had 'retired'. And the liberals, of course
There are two sides to this. On the first I agree with you. SES did not advertise on their London Underground posters that “women could find their true place in society, not alongside, but behind the men. True realisation works better on males, but women can also get there”.
However once in the school this position was not hidden, but you did need to be a certain level where it became overt, just as the classes also became split along gender lines. I ended up in a males only group, and the ladies had a ladies own group.
On the second aspect, I cannot think of anyone who is not sexist in any form, although I know plenty who claim to be so, when you unravel their position, most dont really have any idea just what sexism means and that some of their behavior is sexism. Once again, I am not raising this as an issue, just pointing out it exists. As with any of my post, I am prepared to back my assertions with logic and evidence. Can you do the same?