WHO AM I ?

Thanks Robert for your observation.

Jenna wrote: "I agree: it depends on how you look at those words. However, I don't worship anyone or anything because to me it means holding something higher than myself. I use the word "admiration"; it is softer, and it is contingent. Worship is a word that has almost destroyed me."

Yes, if you worship anything higher then your id it becomes abdication (I wouldn’t use the word worship in that case) and you abort your soul in the process. The context I use on those grand concepts is in service my soul. And they are words that name my passion. You seem to now be taking a safer and more mild route and, it seems, fearful if anything were too monumental and full. I am probably the only person here to call you tame. ;)

And that is the aim of religions, they get to keep all of mankind’s glorious authentic concepts in the service of their perverted goals and as long as humankind rejects the highest and most exalted states in relationship to humans and human creations they have won and are safe.

Lindsay understands this but his manner is wrong in that he believes that there are certain art works you are required to love or you’re a piece of shit, which contradicts the sacredness of an individual’s response to art. Aeschylus believes, in the conclusion of The Oresteia, that to change the hearts and minds of people you must rely on persuasion.

The simple thing is that when your id is secure there is absolutely no threat in the creation of the grandest things possible to you; only good things come about.

Michael

Post 41

Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 6:31pm

Yes - in line with that, I just remove the words from Handel's "Halleliah " chorus and revel in the music, as stirring a piece as any written..... if ye will, a paen to myself....;)

Post 42

Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 9:59pm

Michael,

=============
Ed,

Yes. Yep. For example you equate adulation with flattery–That is a perfect theme for an ex-Christian’s conflict with powerful emotions.
=============

C'mon man, gimme' a break! ...

=============
Main Entry: ad·u·late

Pronunciation: 'a-j&-"lAt, 'a-dy&-; 'a-d^&l-"At
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -lat·ed; -lat·ing
Etymology: back-formation from adulation, from Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin adulation-, adulatio, from adulari to fawn on (of dogs), flatter
: to flatter or admire excessively or slavishly
=============
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/adulation

So, let me get this straight ... even though the word has its very historical root in the concept of flattery -- I'M EQUATING??? Talk about dime-store psychologization (please, don't quit your day job)!

But I remember this theme before with you, it is YOU who have the "trouble" with flattery. The real issue on flattery is whether it is earned, or not. Not whether it is flattery, or not. Flattery (explicit admiration) is not -- necessarily -- a bad thing. I know this, but you don't act like you know this.

I think you think less of man than I -- and this leads you to caste a negative connotation on the concept of flattery. Nice try though, on trying to tie in a stipulation that formerly-religious folks can't escape a pigeon-hole of the soul. A pigeon-hole that you think you can describe, but could not ever point to, or reason out in any objective manner (which is just how the mystics operate; with their anti-concept of "original sin").

Is THAT "crystal-clear"?

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 4/15, 10:00pm)

Post 43

Sunday, April 16, 2006 - 6:28am

Ed,

Yeah. You got me. One point for you! :)

I had always thought that adulation was worship, without a negative connotation--so I used it wrong.

"Nice try though, on trying to tie in a stipulation that formerly-religious folks can't escape a pigeon-hole of the soul. A pigeon-hole that you think you can describe, but could not ever point to, or reason out in any objective manner (which is just how the mystics operate; with their anti-concept of "original sin")."

Just here and now, Jenna confirmed the experience of certain concepts associated with deep religious beliefs–and kicking out the beliefs means kicking out the other concepts as well–the baby with the bath water.

In life we have our talents and contexts with good or bad parents, teachers, finances, country of origin, customs, etc. In Greece they force children, 7,8,9 to kiss dead relatives–that is not an experience that one could recover easily, especially if the child had absolutely no wish to do so. That is simply one of many ploys a Church may use to permanently attach young human souls to them. What is the Jesuit saying? Give us a child and we will have them for life.

Kant does the same thing by all his anti-concepts: like equating sublime with masochistic psychosis, i.e. that it "does violence to the imagination."

In any case, there is a lot crap that can influence our emotional wiring–and the idea is to get it all cleaned up so that one can experience unbridled love for existence.

About "any objective" manner, issues about the human is much like issues about art–artists, directors, architects, writers, composers, etc. know a great deal about communicating the human spirit–and that takes a knowledgeable audience as well.

Michael

Post 44

Sunday, April 16, 2006 - 10:20am

Michael,

=============
Just here and now, Jenna confirmed the experience of certain concepts associated with deep religious beliefs–and kicking out the beliefs means kicking out the other concepts as well–the baby with the bath water.
=============

We're all proacting for (and reacting against) a different mixture of environmental cues, Michael. On top of this we're all growing (except for the seldom, and thoroughly, evil folks -- like that guy on the news, who had planned to eat that little girl, whom he had kidnapped, raped, and killed).

We're growing within this dynamic mix of cues. It may be quite right for her, at this time, in this manner, to this extent, etc., etc. -- for Jenna to interact with the concepts in the way she described (avoiding them). That is not for me (or you) to say. You can talk about what folks' end goals should be -- but you can't ever tell them what their very next step should be in getting there (because you don't share their unique, intentional awareness).

So when you paint the formerly-religious with your broad brush (get yer' mind out of the gutter, Michael!), so when you paint us with this broad brush -- you do a disservice to folks in a manner eerily similar to that disservice often done to folks in rehabilitation programs. You're teaching helplessness and permanent scarring -- and I will have no truck with that.

Sure, everyone has their breaking-point, and I couldn't grow beyond certain, imaginable, psychological catastrophies -- but don't you dare try to set up an arbitrary psychological hurdle which I'm not ever supposed to be able to overcome. Don't you DARE build a cage meant for my winged-soul.

Ed
[and I believe that's 2 points, now? ;-)]

Post 45

Sunday, April 16, 2006 - 10:41am

Greedy, aren't you Ed.

Did I say what one should do?

I rarely do that and only in very limited contexts.

So no point for you!

Someone with a rough life marred by scaring may or may not work their way through it to have untarnished emotional freedom. One cannot simply make it so because they desire it, or think it, and some may never tap their potential for it. Observing that is no crime, indeed, it is very helpful to see things for what they are.

Lets say you want to be a great artist but you have weaknesses in composition and color but you draw very well. Then to be great you have to master those things, no mystery there. Maybe no matter how hard you work it at it the skill never comes then you have to reassess your goal to become great. You are much better off knowing the truth then deluding yourself. And within that set of new limitations one can find their happiness.

Same thing goes for emotional states. If one wants to live daily with passionate happiness but one has problems, weaknesses, issues, that they do not want to see or to resolve–it won’t happen. What is non-objective about that?!

Michael

Post 46

Sunday, April 16, 2006 - 12:59pm

I actually wrote about it because I wanted to understand myself better. I know why I avoid it. I don't think avoiding a potentially destructive concept is a bad thing; I've physically, emotionally, socially, psychologically seen it; and it is for me, and me only. For someone else to have the freedom to use worship is fine for me, but I draw the line absolutely for them to tell me how I should use words.

/---start essay----/

Iâ€™ve been thinking about the word â€œworshipâ€ lately. Hereâ€™s the dictionary.com definition:

v. worÂ·shiped, or worÂ·shipped worÂ·shipÂ·ing, or worÂ·shipÂ·ping worÂ·ships or worÂ·ships
1. To honor and love as a deity.
2. To regard with ardent or adoring esteem or devotion.

Itâ€™s the only verb [under the 'worship' defnition] that doesnâ€™t use the word itself in the definition (I hate that), but it fits nicely with how Iâ€™ve experienced it and thought of it throughout my life.

And it is one of the words that I hate the most, that I internally flinch at the most, because it means the most pain Iâ€™ve ever felt in my life. It means the most destruction of self Iâ€™ve ever experienced. I wish I could see this word in a positive light. Psychologically, I doubt that I ever will; my self-preservation and self-interest rigidly prevents me from seeing that word in any other light than negative. And this view, I think, protects me.

In the cult, worship was 24/7. It was drilled into your head, day in and day out, sleepless hour after sleepless hour, that your own self was the lowest of the low. It mean to be a total succombing of individual thought, the wretched state of zombiehood. Worship had put everyone else in that cult above my self; it was that one word that gave them impetus to deny me privacy, individuality, thought, dissent, or free will. Worship was the word that allowed a Borg-like mentality to intrude into my life; I do not delude myself: I say that my entire being sees this word as wholly negative.

Can I help it? Could I possibly see this word as positive? I think some better questions are: Do I want to see this word as positive? Do I want to ardently idolize something (deity) or someone (person)? Do I want to love and honor something or someone as a deity?

The answer is a big resounding NO. First, to me there is no deityship. Iâ€™m an atheist, and no humans are deities. The whole point of being an individual, to me, is that I put no one else above me. The best esteem I can give to someone is to put them on equal grounds; I give others the same choice. But my esteem is not hinged in any way upon whether others must or do agree with me or not, it is actually hinged upon how much of an individual they are.

I donâ€™t use the word worship; it means to me to give up myself, to allow myself no choices of my own. It means submitting myself to something or someone, to give power to something or someone else. It means to me that I cannot make up my own mind. If Iâ€™m to live as I do now, I do not worship. Instead, I can choose to admire:

adÂ·miÂ·raÂ·tion
n.
1. A feeling of pleasure, wonder, and approval.
2. An object of wonder and esteem; a marvel.

/-----end essay------/

Post 47

Sunday, April 16, 2006 - 8:39pm

Michael,

==========
Greedy, aren't you Ed.
==========

Not for more than is earned.

==========
Did I say what one should do?
==========

No, but you said what one should (actually 'would') be -- and that's disconcerting, given the human dynamics that I outlined.

==========
So no point for you!
==========

Or, as the Seinfeld restaurant owner says: "You will get nothing ... and like it!"

==========
Someone with a rough life marred by scaring may ... Observing that is no crime ...
==========

Hold on, pal-o-mine. You were treating the statistics (how many, once afflicted, fully recover?) as an absolute. The brush that you were painting with -- according to your wording -- spanned across ALL ex-religioso's. You linked past-religiocism with inevitable psychological limitations. So don't start in with me about how you're telling it like it is. You're lumping folks into a collective -- and you have no epistemological "right" to do that. It doesn't matter if the average person doesn't recover fully -- I'm not an average person.

Tell me the likely hurdles that I'll need to overcome -- but don't tell me that there'll be hurdles that I won't be able to overcome, okay? That's for me to find out -- by testing the resilience of my own spirit. It's not for you to pre-judge from the sidelines.

==========
You are much better off knowing the truth then deluding yourself.
==========

True, but irrelevant (see above).

Ed

Post 48

Monday, April 17, 2006 - 10:35am

Ed: "You linked past-religiocism with inevitable psychological limitations."

Yep.

Michael

Post 49

Monday, April 17, 2006 - 1:11pm

Hey Jenna,

Nice post. I enjoyed your points and I admire your expression.
I don’t think I have any truck with you. And, yet, I cannot help think that you and Ed don’t comprehend my point very well. If one is comfortable and committed to life on earth and if mystical or spiritual abdication has no significance, then all of the terms that religious use for the highest of human states, such as worship, being a god, etc. take on great significance. Also not using them implies a watered down view of passion.

This also causes problems with definitions...but then rules are made to be broken.

Anyway, I have enjoyed the discussion.

Cheers,

Michael

(Edited by Newberry on 4/17, 1:12pm)

Post 50

Monday, April 17, 2006 - 9:10pm

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh!

Ed
[how's THAT for 'passion'?]

Post 51

Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 4:45am

I have enjoyed listening in on those who were able to enter into the playfulness of this little activity; and share some of their true selves.

Your couragious thinking out loud was most helpful in opening up this conversation, Jenna. Your sincerity, your captivating way of expressing yourself, your prodigious intellect and depth of learning has been most instructive. We listen to you with respect; and without realizing it set ourselves up to learn something, or to see a new relationship. But first, it's necessary to listen. I think people listen to you, Jenna, with empathy. Thank you for sharing that talent so generously, here.

Your understanding of essence Michael Newberry was instumental in guiding the direction of this conversation in an essential directionl. I am going to be applying that notion more robustly, to my problem-solving. Your exchange with Ed was helpful in clarifying an idea that was not as lucid for me, as it is now. You are your own highest authority; as I am mine, as we all are to ourselves. Something to brand on our foreheads. Thank you for reminding us Michael

Ed, you shameless Objectivist/Performance Artist. Thanks for being the straight man. You haven't forgotten how to play. You are a gifted teacher, too; getting your ideas out in the words of others; before you even realize that they are your own ideas. BTW could I introduce you to a nice young woman? I think that you may have a lot in common.

Thanks all
Sharon

Post 52

Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 8:18am

Sharon,

============
Ed, you shameless [straight thinking, humorous, kind, gentle, honest, all-around-wonderful guy] ... BTW could I introduce you to a nice young woman?
============

Well, I suppose you could. I mean, what's the harm in an introduction, right? And, BTW, thanks for the explicit and implicit compliments!

Ed
[my own highest authority]

Post 53

Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 1:58pm

Sharon,

You're a queer bird. You're spot on with Jenna and Ed. And you appear fearless to explore ideas, even those "sacrilegious" ones on the dissent thread!

Michael

Post 54

Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 6:04pm

Michael

Thanks for the compliment. Free thinkers are rarely appreciated; surprisingly, even among the thinking. Fear of the unknown is a powerful force.

I've never known; so I'm never afraid of ideas. Never had a status quo.

Now jungles, are another thing.

Sharon, the loose cannon.

Post 55

Sunday, April 23, 2006 - 7:24am

Hi Sharon,

I've never known; so I'm never afraid of ideas. Never had a status quo.

You say you have never known. Do you mean that nothing that you rely on is certain with absolute certainty but rather contextual certainty and probability? Please explain yourself to me here,

Thank you

Tok.

Post 56

Sunday, April 23, 2006 - 7:59pm

Michael,

=============
You're spot on with Jenna and Ed.
=============

This is belated, but thank you for that (implicit) compliment.

:-)

Ed
[better late, than never]

Post 57

Monday, April 24, 2006 - 6:40am

Hi Tok

What can I tell you in a few words?

I look on ideas, in the way a critic looks on actors. They are only as good as their last performances. My ideas are only as good as their last argument. The human mind, I think, is capable of infinite growth. Its stock in trade is ideas.

As Tibor Machan has stated in this morning's essay, we must put aside our prejudices and not yield to magical thinking. We must rather seek objective truths.

The thinking mind has no lasting laurels on which to sit. { As an interesting aside, laurel wreaths desiccate and lose their fragrance over time; but from a distance, they look fresh and vital. When one goes up close, it becomes obvious that they are from a previous day's race. A race, won by a higher achieving victor.} Later, one may look fondly on a previous held concept. Ah yes, I once thought like that.

Some minds are fit for memory only. They do not create new ideas. They have to wait for a new idea to be injected into them. It is a sad state of affairs. As I write to you, I am thinking that some of these individuals, are among those who can ignore science; and believe that the Earth was created in seven days.

Thanks Tok, for the opportunity to explore this notion. I hope you, too, have discovered something new. What do you say?

Sharon

Post 58

Monday, April 24, 2006 - 5:11pm

I've been scarce-- I took the MCAT on Saturday, celebrated that night via a friend's birthday party, still hungover today (Monday).

MN: The abdication of mysticism is significant to me because I was psychologically and emotionally abused for 9 months, with an aftermath of a year of healing. Because of this connection, there is contextual background to certain words that elicit responses in me due to hard won values. One of these responses is the word "worship". To me, in my particular life, it is not a limitation because it impacts me with a lot of knowledge of what I experienced, who I am, and where I stand. I do not think that I must use that word, to do so would sound (to me) too much like negating my own history. Instead, I've chosen another word that is more useful to me, one that I find apt due to its use in my own life. However, you might not believe this, but I do understand what you're saying. Whether I use that word is my choice; there are plenty of words I don't use because I have not found a positive use for them yet.

Sharon: Thank you for your compliment. What's strange is that last semester I "figured out" that I should work on having more compassion, in a solid, grounded sense. Well, I didn't actually work on this specifically, but via my education I found that knowing something and deeply understanding it does lead to compassion; yet this also allows me to be able to judge, at the same time. Now, instead of one judgement, I make many parallel and contingent judgements-- all centered upon my self as the standard.

Sometimes I think there is a lot of argument on methodology even though the starting and ending points are very similar; but I've found that in all the people I've met who have made an effort to prosper, all have taken differing paths from Point A to Point B. Because humans are, by nature, unique beings and not robots, it would make sense that humans take unique paths.

My path with the word "worship" is my own, and since it has changed in the past (pre-cult, I never ascribed evil to it), it is entirely possible for me to change it in the future.

Fear of the unknown is a powerful force.

Fear of the known is a powerful force as well. But that's what happens when fear rules a life--- and fear can go deeper than people realize. The cult I was in called itself "courageous" and "radical" and "fearless warriors for Christ"; it was an elaborate game of self-deception. The entire ideological structure was rooted in ignored fears of many shapes, hues, and sizes; thus the whole shebang, seen from the outside, is one big feedbacked fear factory. Its proponents were so afraid of the "church" (the ideas, we had no actual physical church building) crumbling-- that is also FEAR. Denying fear inside of a thought structure does not deal with the fear inherent in the structure, nor outside of it.

Fear can trap you in a cage, and it can be what the cage is made up of. For me, locking myself inside a cage made of and in response to fear, and saying "I'm not afraid", is still fear.

And this ruled them even as they denied it.

fear of ideas

... is a sad thing. Fear of reality-based ideas is an even sadder thing. Discussion of ideas is simply that. I really have no concept of dissent other than dissent from reality.

Post 59

Monday, April 24, 2006 - 7:31pm