Right Speech vs. Politically Correct Speech

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

A transcendent board has to begin with the idea that transcendence as a conscious continuance of human evolution exists.

have you given thought to creating such an online discussion forum? if not, why not? if so, is there an URL that we can visit? i'd be curious to see if your discussion forum would actually flow as you suggest.

metta,

~v

 

[Nick_A]

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.

Would you agree with this definition of Interfaith:

Interfaith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The terms interfaith or interfaith dialogue refer to cooperative and positive interaction between people of different religious traditions [1] (ie. "faiths") and spiritual or humanistic beliefs, at both the individual and institutional level with the aim of deriving a common ground in belief through a concentration on similarities between faiths, understanding of values, and commitment to the world.

If we agree to this definition, then we agree that commitment to the world is a primary motive. Secular Interfaith is concerned with societal life. However, transcendent interfaith is hated by the world as explained by Jesus and plato amongst others and its commitment is to development of conscious evolutionary potential. Its concern is for the objective quality of our inner life in relation to conscious human potential

You tell me, how many threads have you seen expanding on the vertical line of being and Man's position in it that connects higher consciousness to the depths of Creation? I'm not being critical but just aware that the primary interest is in secular modes of religious expression and fantasy.
I was curious if secular Interfaith and its politically correct speech could coexist with transcendent Interfaith which requires a degree of honesty best shared through Right Speech as suggested by the links to Christianity and Buddhism I posted. I've received my answer.

You wrote:

Good grief yes Chris. One particular thing I like about IO is not just what people say here but the way that they say it, whether it’s a ristretto from ciel or a banquet from AndrewX. Everyone has their own style of communicating; we aren’t automatons, software programs or dry academics discussing the minutiae of some arcane mathematical theory. (For reference to support my assertion: see every other post on this website).

Perhaps I read you wrong but I got the impression that the way people say things is at least as important as what they say which means at times it is more so. Again, I'm not being critical but it just indicates how much we are impressed by style rather than substance..

 

[Nick_A]

Namaste all,




have you given thought to creating such an online discussion forum? if not, why not? if so, is there an URL that we can visit? i'd be curious to see if your discussion forum would actually flow as you suggest.

[/size][/font]metta,

~v

Actually I have but coming into the holiday times I get busy and couldn't participate as I would like. The site is a part of a magazine which deals with the depth of meaning within all the ancient traditions. It is dead now but the reader's forum could be developed and the magazine is international. I know people on staff. It could provide the place to explore the deeper commonalities of say Christianity and Buddhism. If interested, I'll notify you next year if I do indeed want to make this effort to help the readers forum to grow as I believe it could.

They recently put out an issue onj the soul. Many deep conversations on what could be meant by a soul could be developed including the Buddhist perspective of no soul. The trick is to entice the deeper people that don't want to prostitute their beliefs in a hostile environment to post on a site where Right Speech would not allow for such prostitution and respect qualitative sharing.

 

[seattlegal]

Actually I have but coming into the holiday times I get busy and couldn't participate as I would like. The site is a part of a magazine which deals with the depth of meaning within all the ancient traditions. It is dead now but the reader's forum could be developed and the magazine is international. I know people on staff. It could provide the place to explore the deeper commonalities of say Christianity and Buddhism. If interested, I'll notify you next year if I do indeed want to make this effort to help the readers forum to grow as I believe it could.

They recently put out an issue onj the soul. Many deep conversations on what could be meant by a soul could be developed including the Buddhist perspective of no soul. The trick is to entice the deeper people that don't want to prostitute their beliefs in a hostile environment to post on a site where Right Speech would not allow for such prostitution and respect qualitative sharing.

"If you look for the Kingdom of Heaven in the seas, the fishes will proceed you. If you look for the Kingdom of Heaven in the whorehouse, the politicians will proceed you..."
~Flying Spaghetti Monsterism​

 

[juantoo3]

have you given thought to creating such an online discussion forum? if not, why not? if so, is there an URL that we can visit? i'd be curious to see if your discussion forum would actually flow as you suggest.

Good point! Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? Or in this case, why build a site when one can co-opt someone else's?

Something tells me that the milk, and the conversation, won't flow quite as well as predicted.

 

[Nick_A]

Good point! Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? Or in this case, why build a site when one can co-opt someone else's?

Something tells me that the milk, and the conversation, won't flow quite as well as predicted.

I believe that there is a need for people to discuss the commonalities of the great traditions not just from the secular perspective but from the esoteric transcendent perspective as well. I know that the world must hate it as previously described but still I'm curious if a connection could be developed from intent and respect for "Right Speech." I doubt it but it is still possible that transcendent Interfaith could become attractive provided that examples were given. Maybe the only way is when people are willing to share on published articles of quality thought that provide the model.

I think it is a good thing if people more aware of this level of quality and familiar with these authors would share and be an inspiration for those intuitively aware that human meaning and purpose does exist beyond secularism and flights of fantasy. They just have to be assured that it isn't prostituted as what has become normal for the internet in general Participating in such discussion and helping to develop them doesn't interfere with posting here on Obama's birth certificate for example which I've been doing if my esoteric interests are offensive.

 

[juantoo3]

You are certainly welcome at least from my point of view to begin a thread to explore the concept. But co-opting an entire board for such a novel idea seems very premature in my opinion. Of course, this isn't my place. Give it a shot, I would recommend on the Belief and Spirituality Board, and see what kind of response it receives.

 

[Nick_A]

You are certainly welcome at least from my point of view to begin a thread to explore the concept. But co-opting an entire board for such a novel idea seems very premature in my opinion. Of course, this isn't my place. Give it a shot, I would recommend on the Belief and Spirituality Board, and see what kind of response it receives.

Thanks but I've already learned the response it would recieve. It would invite the same type of mockery and silliness that has been posted on this thread. I'm sorry but the great traditions and their great ideas simply do not deserve it. We must be honest and admit that "Right Speech" is not respected and the esoteric insights into the human condition are politically incorrect. Taken together means there is no sense in it and it does more harm than good.

I'll send you a PM with the link to the magazine and the readers forum I am referring to. Keep it betwen us since I'd rather keep it unknown to lurkers of the "yo mamma sucks crowd." Look at previous issues as well as the current issue and you will see how it provides food for thought that can benefit those that care about these things. There is no reason that people from differing traditions cannot share on such ideas since it invites it. A secular site doesn't invite it but rather rejects it through mockery, and ridicule, etc.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Thanks but I've already learned the response it would recieve. It would invite the same type of mockery and silliness that has been posted on this thread. I'm sorry but the great traditions and their great ideas simply do not deserve it. We must be honest and admit that "Right Speech" is not respected and the esoteric insights into the human condition are politically incorrect. Taken together means there is no sense in it and it does more harm than good.

I'll send you a PM with the link to the magazine and the readers forum I am referring to. Keep it betwen us since I'd rather keep it unknown to lurkers of the "yo mamma sucks crowd." Look at previous issues as well as the current issue and you will see how it provides food for thought that can benefit those that care about these things. There is no reason that people from differing traditions cannot share on such ideas since it invites it. A secular site doesn't invite it but rather rejects it through mockery, and ridicule, etc.

Thanks for your earlier reply, Nick. I do understand what you're talking about. I've said before that I think intellectual elitism is inevitable. Advanced conversations are impossible at street level. It's too noisy here in the lobby. Here we start fresh every day, and every newbie and joiner can jump right in.

I have to say, frankly, that I don't think you've adequately laid the foundation for the kind of conversation you crave. I had a hard time trying to understand what the heck you're talking about, and I'm fairly smart. I will observe that you've provoked a very interesting discussion, so kudos for that even if it didn't turn out the way you might have wished.

Chris

 

[Victor]

Hi, I do not wish to quote anyone or anything but from your last post I think I can obtain an intellignt response to my question? What is 'socially' correct in responding to a 'mailing list' E-mail? I have literally caught hell today from two individuals who sent me a 'provacative' group E-mail to which I responded, 'reply to all'. Have the gods of the internet set forth any edict referring to this matters or are 'private' mailing lists, to which I am apparently a part, so private that one no longer maintains a modicum of free speech? I am bewildered to say the least. Apparently I am ignorant of any rules that state replying to a 'mailing list' e-mail is punishable by excommunication from society. Please, I am growing older by the minute and would appreciate being educated on this subject!

I am in your debt;
Victor G

 

[Snoopy]

Would you agree with this definition of Interfaith:
Interfaith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, but your subsequent extrapolation seems a little unfairly critical to individuals posting on a forum imo. And there is not, again in my opinion, and cannot be, total similarity across beliefs.

You wrote:

Perhaps I read you wrong but I got the impression that the way people say things is at least as important as what they say which means at times it is more so. Again, I'm not being critical but it just indicates how much we are impressed by style rather than substance..

I said just as important and I think that it is. A forum like this is a cruder but similar version to interpersonal communication. The "substance" (hard data) is only a percentage (minority?) of what is transmitted / communicated is it not? That does not make the "style" less important in communication terms. If someone tells me something that may in fact be "the truth", is not how I receive / accept this information affected by other factors (the "style" of the communication?) If their face is purple with rage and they are shouting and wagging their finger in my face I might be less inclined to take on board the truth that they are endeavouring to impart.

s.

 

[Snoopy]

Hi, I do not wish to quote anyone or anything but from your last post I think I can obtain an intellignt response to my question? What is 'socially' correct in responding to a 'mailing list' E-mail? I have literally caught hell today from two individuals who sent me a 'provacative' group E-mail to which I responded, 'reply to all'. Have the gods of the internet set forth any edict referring to this matters or are 'private' mailing lists, to which I am apparently a part, so private that one no longer maintains a modicum of free speech? I am bewildered to say the least. Apparently I am ignorant of any rules that state replying to a 'mailing list' e-mail is punishable by excommunication from society. Please, I am growing older by the minute and would appreciate being educated on this subject!

I am in your debt;
Victor G

I too am growing older by the minute but don't know if my reply is intelligent, Victor! Notions of what constitute social or political correctness seem to vary from individual to individual and (possibly) from country to country (I'm thinking of the US and UK, but I could be wrong). It sounds to me that you've reached that certain age eek where you're fed up of putting up with ****. So don't.

s.

 

[juantoo3]

Hi, I do not wish to quote anyone or anything but from your last post I think I can obtain an intellignt response to my question? What is 'socially' correct in responding to a 'mailing list' E-mail? I have literally caught hell today from two individuals who sent me a 'provacative' group E-mail to which I responded, 'reply to all'. Have the gods of the internet set forth any edict referring to this matters or are 'private' mailing lists, to which I am apparently a part, so private that one no longer maintains a modicum of free speech? I am bewildered to say the least. Apparently I am ignorant of any rules that state replying to a 'mailing list' e-mail is punishable by excommunication from society. Please, I am growing older by the minute and would appreciate being educated on this subject!

I am in your debt;
Victor G

Hello Victor!

It is always a pleasure to see you around here!

Internet ettiquette is still a bit of a mystery to me, I am still learning as I go. I understand the "reply to all" function responds to every address to which that message was sent...if the original was sent to 100 people, then a "reply to all" response will be sent out to those same 100 people. If you wanted your response more precisely targeted, then the reply button allows to to send the response back to the sender alone, or you can modify to send to whomever you wish.

Not knowing the message or the context, I hesitate to suggest as to appropriateness.

I do think that in matters of internet ettiquette, there is a lot of presumption on the part of people who *think* they know to afford the opportunity to cast disparaging judgment on those who don't...just another twist on the traditional snobbery. If certain people's noses get out of joint, I figure that is their problem, especially if they do not have the common decency to politely and civilly explain to me their preferences.

Daddy use to say..."the first time, you didn't know any better, that can be excused along with an explanation..." Seems to me you might be dealing with some rather rude presumptive snobs, whose manners are indeed far worse than what I know of you.

I would not take the affront to heart...consider the source, and chalk it up to experience.

Great to see you around! Please, don't be such a stranger. I put together I thread a little while back I would have really liked your input on. It is in the histroy section titled "Rome in transition." I think you will find it deals considerably with the history surrounding our previous discussions. I have always found our conversations a delight.

 

[Nick_A]

Thanks for your earlier reply, Nick. I do understand what you're talking about. I've said before that I think intellectual elitism is inevitable. Advanced conversations are impossible at street level. It's too noisy here in the lobby. Here we start fresh every day, and every newbie and joiner can jump right in.

I have to say, frankly, that I don't think you've adequately laid the foundation for the kind of conversation you crave. I had a hard time trying to understand what the heck you're talking about, and I'm fairly smart. I will observe that you've provoked a very interesting discussion, so kudos for that even if it didn't turn out the way you might have wished.

Chris

Chris

I have to say, frankly, that I don't think you've adequately laid the foundation for the kind of conversation you crave. I had a hard time trying to understand what the heck you're talking about, and I'm fairly smart. I will observe that you've provoked a very interesting discussion, so kudos for that even if it didn't turn out the way you might have wished.

The foundation to appreciate the collective value of Trancendent Interfaith is based on humility that is lacking in secular Interfaith since it already believes it has the answer to societal problems. Naturally it becomes intellectually elite that supports politically correct speech to further the common aims agreed upon by members of secular Interfaith.

Transcendent Interfaith is aware of the human condition itself and why these ideals become their opposite because of it. Consider this following diagram that connects the transcendent level of existence with the exoteric and how it is the esoteric level that connects them:

On The Transcendent Unity of Religions

Secular interfaith at the exoteric level seeks to express this unity. But since these different expressions are partial truths they become open to manipulation so that political correctness becomes a form of power that supports selected partial truths.

Transcendent Interfaith is an ideal that we do not possess but believed to exist within evolved humanity. It isn't a matter of what we DO, but psychologically what we ARE. A person through self knowledge becomes aware of their inner hypocrisy.

"Compassion directed toward oneself is humility". .. Simone Weil

Some people are willing to psychologically become open to verifying the esoteric or "inner" level that is verified through objective knowledge of our "being" without judgment. Right of wrong isn't the issue but become able to experience what we ARE and with help from above, gradually forgive it. This is the proper foundation that leads to the transcendent level since it isn't based on imaginary platitudes, denial, and self importance but real humility. Right Speech that both respects ones own inner condition and that of ones neighbor becomes natural rather then abhorrent as it is now because it questions our self importance and believed creative expression.

Sharing on what to do is natural for secular Interfaith while sharing about what we are in relation to human potential or our normal exoteric existence in comparison to potential transcendent awareness is normal for transcendent Interfaith.

It isn't a matter of working out right for me but just whether people having become conditioned to secular Interfaith and its political correctness that supports its ideals would support a branch of Interfaith that seeks to understand human psychology that explains why it is impossible and true unification, if it does exist, does so at the transcendent level. In this way, transcendent Interfaith respects differences that secular Interfaith would call politically incorrect.

But the bottom line is that this thread pretty much demonstrates why it would be impossible for them to coexist. Transcendent Interfaith allows one to be compassionate with oneself and acquire the humility necessary to admit the human condition within oneself that is suppressed in secular Interfaith by political correctness as an expression of selective morality. Of course selective morality goes just so far and then the battle starts and we are back to square on. But the humility natural for those having experienced the value of transcendent Interfaith allows one not to get caught up in the conflict even if it directly questions ones own self importance. Right speech is a natural expression of this acquired intelligent humility.

But again the bottom line is that apparently they cannot coexist and I believe Jesus and Plato have explained well that questioning the self importance of secularism is too insulting and cannot be tolerated. It would be naive to think it could turn out otherwise.

 

[seattlegal]

Nick, have you ever considered how you keep projecting 'duality' onto 'secularism' (first part of your opening post,) while constantly accentuating a duality between 'secularism' and 'transcendentalism,' and then blaming 'secularism' for this duality, creating a greater dualistic rift between the two thoughtforms in your own mind?

This is what is often termed by many 'secularists' as a self-fulfilling prophecy. (And yes, like many 'dualistic secular' terms, it has two applications of meaning.)

 

[Nick_A]

Nick, have you ever considered how you keep projecting 'duality' onto 'secularism' (first part of your opening post,) while constantly accentuating a duality between 'secularism' and 'transcendentalism,' and then blaming 'secularism' for this duality, creating a greater dualistic rift between the two thoughtforms in your own mind?

This is what is often termed by many 'secularists' as a self-fulfilling prophecy. (And yes, like many 'dualistic secular' terms, it has two applications of meaning.)

SG

Secularists can call it what they like which is natural since secularism is sustained by associative dual thought. It has lost conscious awareness of that which reconciles duality. The triangle is a symbol of this reconciliation. The horizontal line at the base represents duality such as hot and cold for example. The apex formed by the lines that connect to the apex is the point at which hot and cold exist as one. It is the point at which its duality is reconciled.


Secular life on earth is reconciled by the earthly laws natural for dual expression so provides no depth or conscious reconciliation. Conscious reconciliation of secular duality is the goal of transcendence and when provided from above and forms the triangle. It is the conscious realization of mechanical duality which is a part of human being. but can be reconciled through acquiring a conscious higher level of being Man has the evolutionary potential for.


The triangle facing upward represents yang. The triangle facing downward represents yin. Taken together as in the Seal of Solomon represents the vertical construction of the universe and the complimentary vertical flows of being or the involutionary and evolutionary flows of being that sustain it. Secularism may know of the symbol but the more one understands the three forces that create existence, the more one understands the symbol.


Duality doesn't really exist but because the force that reconciles it is in the laws of nature, we are not aware of it. Every thing is actually a "middle" and the law of the included middle where a thing is defined by what is directly above and below it on the scale of being. has gradually been forgotten as secularism became dominant. This is why because we are as we are, everything is as it is. The only thing that can change it is conscious objective awareness of the human condition which would be poison for secular dominance so it rejects it as explained by Jesus and Plato.


Secular existence is mechanical and its REACTIONS are dictated by both earthly and cosmic influences. Transcendent awareness known in all the great traditions initiating with a conscious source seeks to awaken man to consciousness which can lead to the ACTIONS that opens an individual to freedom from blind dualistic REACTION. It is the concern of Transcendent Interfaith which has come to appreciate the limitations of secular, exoteric, religious expression as furthered by secular Interfaith. It isn't that secular Interfaith is bad but just that it doesn't admit its own insufficiency described so well by simone Weil:

"Humanism was not wrong in thinking that truth, beauty, liberty, and equality are of infinite value, but in thinking that man can get them for himself without grace." Simone Weil

Grace allows for the conscious reconciliation of mechanical existence. Secularism though isn't aware that it is collectively a creature of reaction and nothing can be expected of it other then the cycles of life including between war an peace described in Ecclesiastes 3. Naturally then the world sustained through imagination hates the message which is conscious.


The difficulty for secular and transcendent Interfaith to coexist cannot be surprising nor is the tension between politically correct and Right Speech.

 

[earl]

Nick, in any form of speaking, clarity of thoughts communicated is important. But I'm kind of doubting most folks are understanding you clearly in this thread. Perhaps if you provided some examples of exactly what a "transcendant" type of speech pattern is vs. a "secular" one vs. a "politically correct" one is as opposed to merely discussing this with what I think to most seem like rather vague, amorphous terms, we might actually begin to get your drift. earl

 

[juantoo3]

I dunno.

I sense a disconnect, whether intentional or not I am not prepared to suggest.

The whole subject strikes me as trying to tailor the audience to the message...rather than tailoring the message to the audience.

Put another way; a horse can be led to water, but it cannot be forced to drink.

Like many of my acquaintance, I don't care for preachy guilt trips and elitist demagoguery. I have enough well-earned (bought and paid for) guilt of my own to carry without the added burden of carrying the load (of cr@p) that some self-referent clique builder wants to pile on top. I've got a pretty good idea what is right and what is wrong, and I do the best I know how with what I have been given to work with.

Simple question, what gets us to heaven?;

what and who we know?,

or what we do with what we know?

The way I see it, this is the crux of the matter. If it is what and who we know; then most of us haven't got a snowball's chance in hell to begin with to get to heaven (or whatever lies beyond the veil).

If it is what we do with what we know; then there is a chance at getting to heaven for everyone and G-d is righteous and just after all.

No offense, but the "knowledge barrier" is irrelevent. Some of the most joyous, righteous and pure souls I have ever had the pleasure of knowing had the lowest IQ's. I'll spend eternity with them, be it heaven or hell, before I would spend eternity with a bunch of self-absorbed intellectuals...and I am a self-absorbed intellectual.

What's in the head don't mean sh!t, it's what's in the heart that counts.

 

[earl]

I dunno.

I sense a disconnect, whether intentional or not I am not prepared to suggest.

The whole subject strikes me as trying to tailor the audience to the message...rather than tailoring the message to the audience.

Put another way; a horse can be led to water, but it cannot be forced to drink.

Like many of my acquaintance, I don't care for preachy guilt trips and elitist demagoguery. I have enough well-earned (bought and paid for) guilt of my own to carry without the added burden of carrying the load (of cr@p) that some self-referent clique builder wants to pile on top. I've got a pretty good idea what is right and what is wrong, and I do the best I know how with what I have been given to work with.

Simple question, what gets us to heaven?;

what and who we know?,

or what we do with what we know?

The way I see it, this is the crux of the matter. If it is what and who we know; then most of us haven't got a snowball's chance in hell to begin with to get to heaven (or whatever lies beyond the veil).

If it is what we do with what we know; then there is a chance at getting to heaven for everyone and G-d is righteous and just after all.

No offense, but the "knowledge barrier" is irrelevent. Some of the most joyous, righteous and pure souls I have ever had the pleasure of knowing had the lowest IQ's. I'll spend eternity with them, be it heaven or hell, before I would spend eternity with a bunch of self-absorbed intellectuals...and I am a self-absorbed intellectual.

What's in the head don't mean sh!t, it's what's in the heart that counts.

I agree that it's a matter of heart and that, too, would be reflected in the communication, Juan. earl

 

[Nick_A]

Nick, in any form of speaking, clarity of thoughts communicated is important. But I'm kind of doubting most folks are understanding you clearly in this thread. Perhaps if you provided some examples of exactly what a "transcendant" type of speech pattern is vs. a "secular" one vs. a "politically correct" one is as opposed to merely discussing this with what I think to most seem like rather vague, amorphous terms, we might actually begin to get your drift. earl

Trancendent speech has an aim. Its aim is to include transcendent awareness within it. This is why Right Speech is essential. As a whole,secularism has hardened us to the degree that we could not understand the Bible even though it includes transcendent speech.

Could you tell me what distinguishes unique Christian love from normal expressions of secular love? If you can you will understand the difference between secular and transcendent love. But how many in this day and age can do such a thing? The point is that secularism has become so dominant that it is only a minority that can sustain the transcendent tradition and it appears obvious that secular and transcendent Interfaith cannot exist unless where the "INTENT" is to become open to it. I've seen that the intent here is to deny it precisely as explained by Jesus and Plato.