Right Speech vs. Politically Correct Speech

juantoo3 said:
With all due respect...authentic? By whose standards? Conscious source? Whose consciousness? Realization? Whose? This is the fraught"ness" I am attempting to expose.

Saying, or even agreeing, that one is "open-minded" does not make it so. In practice, it really means being open to those in agreement...which necessarily means being closed-minded to those who disagree.

Genuine open-mindedness is not only being receptive to thoughts that agree, but being receptive even to those thoughts that disagree. Being receptive does not mean being in agreement, it means allowing for that expression to exist and seeing it in its rightful context.
Click to expand...

A transcendent board has to begin with the idea that transcendence as a conscious continuance of human evolution exists. Otherwise why bother. Its existence is argued on secular boards. If we are connected to higher consciousness that seeks to help in awakening mankind, it exists in the sacred traditions since conscious awareness does not arise from the earth but descends from above. It isn't a matter of arguing about which ones since as we are we cannot know, but just to admit that it does exist. if not, then our position is hopeless without help from above.

So rather than the usual secular approach of arguing what is authentic, the transcendent approach asserts it exists but our chicken status doesn't allow us to differentiate. So rather then arguing about it the question becomes how to awaken sufficiently to develop any sort of objective discrimination.

Open mindedness is a quality that isn't conditioned. Closed minded people can be very open minded and receptive in their imagination. This is meaningless. If we are conditioned creatures of reaction, open mindedness truly begins when one is less conditioned so the process of becoming open minded begins when we can admit to how much are conditioning creates our mindset.

What do you mean by "rightful context?" Is this a secular conditioned context or a transcendent context that exists in us as a human potential?
 
Nick_A said:
This sounds good but is not experiential. It is nice to express as part of secular Interfaith but is it your experience?
Click to expand...
Nick, the mask also serves as a filter of which experiences we become conscious of, and which ones we ignore.

It is not a matter of a mask but what we've become. Try and take it off and you will see that it sticks like glue. We are our personality or as you say "mask."
Click to expand...
I disagree. We are much more than what we are only consciously aware of.
We have the potential to do it but as of now the mask rules us.
Click to expand...
Speak for yourself, and not for the rest of us, please.
Transcendent Interfaith seeks to experientially verify the truth of ourselves rather than create acceptable imagination normal for politically correct secular expression. This is why it requires Right Speech as opposed to the consolations of politically correct speech that furthers the dominance of the mask.
Click to expand...
Your definition of what constitutes "right speech" is only another form of political correctness. Sarcasm and satire certainly have their places within the context of "right speech." Deleting them from the realm of "right speech" is analogous to the phenomenon of the Newspeak Dictionary containing fewer and fewer words with each new edition. [sarcasm] Good job, Big Brother. :p [/sarcasm]
 
Last edited:
SG

Nick, the mask also serves as a filter of which experiences we become conscious of, and which ones we ignore.

Yes and this filter creates the imagination that keeps humanity in the barnyard as chickens

I disagree. We are much more than what we are only consciously aware of.

For those that have made the conscious effort to impartially "Know Thyself" it is clear that we are what we do. This means that objectively, all we to is transform substances through our life processes in the same way the rest of organic life on earth does.

Speak for yourself, and not for the rest of us, please.

This is why transcendent Interfaith cannot be mixed with secular Interfaith. It is too insulting.

Your definition of what constitutes "right speech" is only another form of political correctness. Sarcasm and satire certainly have their places within the context of "right speech." Deleting them the realm of "right speech" is analogous to the phenomenon of the Newspeak Dictionary containing fewer and fewer words with each new edition. [sarcasm] Good job, Big Brother. :p [/sarcasm]

Right Speech to flatter a secular gathering can be politically correct since it is right to flatter the image in Caesar's domain. However for those willing to risk the psychological experience of real hell at the expense of an imaginary paradise in pursuit of the "pearl of great price," then the brutal sincerity of right speech is essential to share so that we can expose what we are so as to let it go and become our potential.
 
Nick_A said:
SG
For those that have made the conscious effort to impartially "Know Thyself" it is clear that we are what we do. This means that objectively, all we to is transform substances through our life processes in the same way the rest of organic life on earth does.
Click to expand...
ROFLMAO!

Speak for yourself, and not for the rest of us, please.
Click to expand...
This is why transcendent Interfaith cannot be mixed with secular Interfaith. It is too insulting.
Click to expand...
To the secularists or to the 'transcendentalists?'

Your definition of what constitutes "right speech" is only another form of political correctness. Sarcasm and satire certainly have their places within the context of "right speech." Deleting them the realm of "right speech" is analogous to the phenomenon of the Newspeak Dictionary containing fewer and fewer words with each new edition. [sarcasm] Good job, Big Brother. :p [/sarcasm]
Click to expand...
Right Speech to flatter a secular gathering can be politically correct since it is right to flatter the image in Caesar's domain. However for those willing to risk the psychological experience of real hell at the expense of an imaginary paradise in pursuit of the "pearl of great price," then the brutal sincerity of right speech is essential to share so that we can expose what we are so as to let it go and become our potential.
Click to expand...
Oh, well now you say sarcasm can be part of 'right speech?'
{Is that because you have experienced it, as opposed to just adhering to (pun referencing the earlier remark about glue intended) what you have been told?}
 
juantoo3 said:
Why does a lemming do what a lemming does? And is that right...or just politically correct?
Click to expand...

It just means that the lemming like the Lily has an advantage over man. The lemming like the lily exists in a manner where its external reactions are an expression of its evolved being.

Matt 6

28"And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. 29Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. 30If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? 31So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' 32For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. 33But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. 34Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.
Click to expand...

"May the outward and inward man be at one." Socrates
Click to expand...


The subtle point being made here is that instead of being expressions of what we ARE or as actualized human potential, humanity has become the expression of what Plato calls a "beast."

The Lemming is not politically correct but rather its "isness is reflected in its actions. For humanity in this odd state of continuing evolution, it is neither one thing or the other so has brecome like an eagle acting like a chicken.

All of transcendent Interfaith is involved with trying to actualize what Socrates offers us to ponder regardless of what a person calls themselves. How can the outer man and inner man become as One? This question is irrelevant for secularism that assumes we already are as one.
 
juantoo3 said:
Luv ya, Seattlegal! Have some nice dark chocolate...num num numm, good stuff. ;)
Click to expand...
Yum!
seattlegal-albums-emoticons-picture102-hungergirl.gif

Nick_A said:
But to further the glorified imagination normal for secular dominance, I suggest good scotch as the way to go.
Click to expand...
Chocolate goes better with PMS than liquor does. ;)
 
Nick_A said:
It just means that the lemming like the Lily has an advantage over man. The lemming like the lily exists in a manner where its external reactions are an expression of its evolved being.
Click to expand...

I see.

So it is an act of transcendent evolution to commit suicide by falling onto rocks a hundred feet below?

Nick_A said:
The Lemming is not politically correct but rather its "isness is reflected in its actions.
Click to expand...

Dunno, after the fact I think it is more like "was"-ness is reflected in its actions. ;)

Nick_A said:
For humanity in this odd state of continuing evolution, it is neither one thing or the other so has brecome like an eagle acting like a chicken.
Click to expand...

Ah! The ongoing discussion over the appropriateness of pulling a scientific term into a philosophical discussion in an effort to impart some sense of validity, continues...

Nick_A said:
How can the outer man and inner man become as One? This question is irrelevant for secularism that assumes we already are as one.
Click to expand...

I don't know. From where I sit, there seems to be plenty of assumption all around... :D
 
juantoo3 said:
I see.

So it is an act of transcendent evolution to commit suicide by falling onto rocks a hundred feet below?



Dunno, after the fact I think it is more like "was"-ness is reflected in its actions. ;)



Ah! The ongoing discussion over the appropriateness of pulling a scientific term into a philosophical discussion in an effort to impart some sense of validity, continues...



I don't know. From where I sit, there seems to be plenty of assumption all around... :D
Click to expand...

Juantoo

So it is an act of transcendent evolution to commit suicide by falling onto rocks a hundred feet below?

No. Transcendent is conscious evolution which begins when mechanical evolution stops.. The lemming is part of a living machine we call organic life on earth. As you know in this arrangement everything eats everything else and it is continued through reproduction. It functions for the purpose of transforming substances. There is no conscious self awarness in this arrangement. Everything thing just manifests in accordance with universal laws and on earth we call it "nature's way."

Ah! The ongoing discussion over the appropriateness of pulling a scientific term into a philosophical discussion in an effort to impart some sense of validity, continues...
Click to expand...

You deny from a secular perspective which is OK. But from the vertical transcendent perspective that necessitates the line of being as described before, both evolution and involution exist including the transition between mechanical and conscious evolution.

Secularism is unconcerned with inner empiricism. Yet people concerned with human conscious potential could have an interesting discussion on it if Right Speech upheld maeningful communication.

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Needleman_93.html



As it happens, I believe there is a growing number of younger philosophers who are interested in getting to the heart of the matter--about what we mean by "reality" and the central role of experience. What draws them, and what originally drew me, to the whole area of philosophy is a quest for meaning. I discovered that the mind by itself cannot complete the philosophic quest. As Kant decisively argued, the mind can ask questions the mind alone cannot answer. For me, this is where the juice of real philosophical investigation begins to flow. I believe it is precisely where intellect hits its limits that the important questions of philosophy start to come alive. Mainstream academic philosophy has for a long time tried to answer these fundamental questions with that part of the mind we call intellect. Frequently the difficulties encountered were so great, the logical tangles so confusing, that many philosophers decided such questions were meaningless, and some even began to ridicule anyone who dared ask "What is reality?" "What is the meaning of life?" "Is there life after death?" "What is the soul?" "Does God exist?" Yet these are the questions of the heart. These are the questions that matter most to people--not whether the syntax and deep structures of our language can ever truly represent real knowledge. The meaningful questions, these " questions of the heart", rise up in human beings because of something intrinsic to our nature, an innate striving which Plato called Eros.
Click to expand...
Prof Needleman is referring to what we are in relation to human potential from the perspective of human "being." This verticality is uselessm to mthe secular mindset concerned only with what we do defined and upheld by selective morality and political correctness.


I don't know. From where I sit, there seems to be plenty of assumption all around...
Click to expand...
Quite true. So for the person with a growing concern for human meaning and purpose the question becomes how to verify. Plato said to impartially "Know Thyself." .Secularism advises to imagine yourself. You must choose your way.

Can you begin to see that questioning the validity of the vertical direction that is the basis of transcendent Interfaith from the linear direction of secular interfaith cannot lead to anything unless a certain priority on Right speech served to support qualitative communication. otherwise you just get the usual.
 
Nick_A said:
But to further the glorified imagination normal for secular dominance, I suggest good scotch as the way to go.
Click to expand...

The drive for dominion is not limited to the secular. The drive for dominion typically transcends such artificially imposed boundaries.

I would guess the preferred psychological anesthetic of those seeking transcendent dominance would most likely be LSD, "magic" mushrooms, peyote or some related psychoactive substance. And hide that tendency by calling such substance "entheogenic." But that is just a guess. :cool: :p
 
juantoo3 said:
From the sound of it, putting an eagle mask on a chicken accomplishes the same thing...
Click to expand...

Yes this happens all the time and especially in matters of religion. Chickens are walking around with eagle masks and people believe them to be so. In modern times we call them "experts."
 
juantoo3 said:
The drive for dominion is not limited to the secular. The drive for dominion typically transcends such artificially imposed boundaries.

I would guess the preferred psychological anesthetic of those seeking transcendent dominance would most likely be LSD, "magic" mushrooms, peyote or some related psychoactive substance. And hide that tendency by calling such substance "entheogenic." But that is just a guess. :cool: :p
Click to expand...

It is curious that you would use the imagination normal and proper for the secular world including its escapism and associate it with the transcendent perspective that by definition is conscious and free of imagination that for us takes the place of consciousness.
 
Nick_A said:
You are enjoying a secular Interfaith site which is fine.
Click to expand...

I don't know if I would neccesarily describe this site as "secular"...?

For you, how people say something is more important then what they say. On a transcendent board the intent would be to reveal sincere substance even if the style is not so exciting. Right speech then would be more important then impressive politically correct speech.
Click to expand...
No, I didn't say style was more important than substance. Personally I find this can be a site where people do attempt to reveal sincere substance.

s.
 
Nick_A said:
It is curious that you would use the imagination normal and proper for the secular world including its escapism and associate it with the transcendent perspective that by definition is conscious and free of imagination that for us takes the place of consciousness.
Click to expand...

Considering the manner in which you set yourself up in opposition, what seems even more curious to me is that you would be surprised...
 
Snoopy said:
I don't know if I would neccesarily describe this site as "secular"...?

No, I didn't say style was more important than substance. Personally I find this can be a site where people do attempt to reveal sincere substance.

s.
Click to expand...

That's so PC and non transcendent.

Chris
 
Nick_A said:
Yes this happens all the time and especially in matters of religion. Chickens are walking around with eagle masks and people believe them to be so. In modern times we call them "experts."
Click to expand...

Indeed. In modern times they also call themselves "prophets."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top