Tradition betrayed

[71 dB]

See? You have yourself made a very good distinction: you are of course entitled to your opinions but please don't pretend they are thoughts, i. e. the result of a thinking process. Once again: thinking about a subject requires first and foremost relevant information (which you do not possess, and willingly so because of your stubborn refusal to read).

What stubborn refusal to read? Should I have read Kuhn's book ONE DAMN DAY after it was recommended to me? I don't know if I can even get that book anywhere!

How on earth can you pretend that we take seriously your pronouncements on sociology of religion and philosophy of science when it is obvious that you are unfamiliar with both, lacking the very basics that would enable you to tackle such enormously difficult topics?

I am not completely unfamiliar because I have read some books about these issues. If you are an expert yourself then good for you. Very few people are and I am sure most members of this forum (classical music, not philosophy or religion) don't have much higher knowledge I have.

Frankly, with all the education we have in school nowadays, only common sense is needed to see the naivety of God belief. At least in Finland that is. 

How would you react if I'd begin to lecture you about engineering accoustics without having read a single relevant textbook?

Depends on what you would write. I don't care how many books you have read. What you understand is what counts.

[Karl Henning]

Frankly, with all the education we have in school nowadays, only common sense is needed to see the naivety of God belief.

To see you opining about naïveté! Thanks for the chuckle.

[jowcol]

How would you react if I'd begin to lecture you about engineering accoustics without having read a single relevant textbook?

It would depend on the context.  If I paid tuition to a university, and you were the professor they hired to teach me , I'd be mad as hell.

If it was on an open forum, I'd either ignore the lecture, or look for comic material in it. 

[Karl Henning]

It would depend on the context.  If I paid tuition to a university, and you were the professor they hired to teach me , I'd be mad as hell.

If it was on an open forum, I'd either ignore the lecture, or look for comic material in it. 

QFT

[Florestan]

What stubborn refusal to read? Should I have read Kuhn's book ONE DAMN DAY after it was recommended to me?

Of course not, but you dismissed the very possibility of you reading it even in the future.

I don't know if I can even get that book anywhere!

A good public library would be the best place to look for it.

Very few people are and I am sure most members of this forum (classical music, not philosophy or religion) don't have much higher knowledge I have.

Maybe, but at least they don't start pontificating about religion or philosophy. Are you not in the least troubled by the fact that you are the only person on this forum who has constantly made uninformed pronouncements about them and has been constantly rebuked?

Frankly, with all the education we have in school nowadays, only common sense is needed to see the naivety of God belief. At least in Finland that is. 

What Karl said.

Depends on what you would write. I don't care how many books you have read. What you understand is what counts.

I have read none on engineering accoustics, therefore you'll never see me writing about it, much less in a peremptory manner.

[71 dB]

Of course not, but you dismissed the very possibility of you reading it even in the future.

Just because I didn't promise to read it doesn't mean I won't....... 

Anyway, according to what I read about that book in Wikipedia, the claims of that book don't seem that dramatic to me since I am aware science is not a painless clean linear process. I have done scientific reasearch myself. The book doesn't seem to address religion, just science.

A good public library would be the best place to look for it.

You are a genius.

[Bulldog]

You are a genius.

Seems that you've been reduced to pathetic come-backs.

I have some advice for you:

1.  Stick to your beliefs about religion and God.

2.  Stop talking about your beliefs.

In other words, SHUT UP.

[71 dB]

1.  Stick to your beliefs about religion and God.

That's not a problem.

2.  Stop talking about your beliefs.

In other words, SHUT UP.

Not a problem either since I have already said pretty much all.

You others can continue from here since you are so damn well-informed about the subject. Have fun!

[jowcol]

Seems that you've been reduced to pathetic come-backs.

I have some advice for you:

1.  Stick to your beliefs about religion and God.

2.  Stop talking about your beliefs.

In other words, SHUT UP.

There are three primary types of irony.  Verbal irony is when the speaker says one thing, but means another. Dramatic irony is a character's perception of the situation differs from that of that audience.  Situational irony is when the situation itself is counter to audience's expectation.   These forms are not exclusive-- sometimes they can occur simultaneously.     See example 1 above.

[Karl Henning]

Hey, I brought more chips.

[Grazioso]

We all are limited in that way and only have competence on narrow fields. That's why it is so important to be able to think to compensate the lack of knowledge.

But we all have the power to educate ourselves in other fields. Certainly, we should do so if we need that information to make informed decisions about our worldviews and conduct.

Does thinking truly compensate for lack of knowledge? If the objects of your thoughts are not factual data, then are they not "merely" supposition, opinion, personal taste, uneducated guesses? Are those fair grounds for dismissing something, such as religion?

It's one thing to not like religion, another to make claims about it. No one can really argue with you for not liking, say, Wagner, but if you start to say, "Wagner's music is crap because of all the aleatory electronics in that concerto about the dwarves. Only a naive person would like it," then everyone within earshot will rightly say, "WTF?"

Just curious: what should I say about religions with my (lack of) competence in order to not be self-delusional? Nothing? Sorry, but I have the right to express myself and have my thoughts about religion. I NEED those opinions in order to define myself, to know I am an atheist.

Why do you need to define yourself? Like a Zen master asked, "What are you before you think?" Why define yourself with opinions and then proffer them as facts? Is it more important to label yourself "atheist" than to treat these matters with objectivity, respect, and a spirit of open inquiry? Certainly a scientist would try to take the latter course.

[kishnevi]

According to Guénon, pure intellect is the very base for all traditional thought. So it seems that you are in disagreement with the perennial traditional school on this point.

Having not read Guenon,  I don't know if he (and therefore you) are using intellect in a way that doesn't correspond to the usual meaning of the word (in the English language, that is).  If he means the entire human mind by "intellect", then I don't disagree with him.  If he means the usual meaning of the word--that is, one of the faculties of the human mind, then he's in disagreement with me, and with the tradition he claimed to represent, for that matter.

I would suggest, instead of Guenon (or at least after him), read some of Guenon's sources.  Meister Eckhart, the Chuang Tzu, the Bhagavad Gita, the Sutra of the Sixth Zen Patriarch, and the writing of Pseudo Dionysius (the Corpus Aeropagiticum) are places I would suggest as starting points.

[Herman]

Quite a sensible attitude, since metaphysics is generally the domain of men par excellence.

It looks like this new 'spiritual' or 'traditionalist' thing is just a bunch of new labels; the attitude remains the same. You have this intense need for validation systems for your own superiority towards women, black people, we know the drill.

[Florestan]

But we all have the power to educate ourselves in other fields. Certainly, we should do so if we need that information to make informed decisions about our worldviews and conduct.

Does thinking truly compensate for lack of knowledge? If the objects of your thoughts are not factual data, then are they not "merely" supposition, opinion, personal taste, uneducated guesses? Are those fair grounds for dismissing something, such as religion?

It's one thing to not like religion, another to make claims about it. No one can really argue with you for not liking, say, Wagner, but if you start to say, "Wagner's music is crap because of all the aleatory electronics in that concerto about the dwarves. Only a naive person would like it," then everyone within earshot will rightly say, "WTF?"

Why do you need to define yourself? Like a Zen master asked, "What are you before you think?" Why define yourself with opinions and then proffer them as facts? Is it more important to label yourself "atheist" than to treat these matters with objectivity, respect, and a spirit of open inquiry? Certainly a scientist would try to take the latter course.

Wisdom.

[Josquin des Prez]

I would suggest, instead of Guenon (or at least after him), read some of Guenon's sources.  Meister Eckhart, the Chuang Tzu, the Bhagavad Gita, the Sutra of the Sixth Zen Patriarch, and the writing of Pseudo Dionysius (the Corpus Aeropagiticum) are places I would suggest as starting points.

I currently doing just that. I'm actually starting with Tao Te Ching, since i found a library that carried a version of the book with commentary written by Evola, so i can see how the philosophy relates to perennial thought as understood by some of those western intellectuals.

[Josquin des Prez]

It looks like this new 'spiritual' or 'traditionalist' thing is just a bunch of new labels; the attitude remains the same.

That's because the attitude reflects reality. Indeed, right off the bat, seems that the duality of the Tao reflects some of the things i've always said regarding the relationship between the sexes. Yin (the feminine), complementing the Yang (the masculine). One represents the heaven (where the masculine I resides), the other, the hearth (which is the feminine ego). The masculine points towards transcendence, and has a vertical understanding of the world. The domain of the feminine is the material world, which is horizontal.

Ironically, this understanding seems to be missing among some of the modern perennialists i've heard speak. It seems Guénon himself couldn't understand why the west pointed towards materialism to such unprecedented proportions. The answer is simple. Western civilization in this past several centuries has been a feminine civilization.

[Grazioso]

I currently doing just that. I'm actually starting with Tao Te Ching, since i found a library that carried a version of the book with commentary written by Evola, so i can see how the philosophy relates to perennial thought as understood by some of those western intellectuals.

Of which, two illuminating books relevant to this thread:





For the Tao Te Ching, of all the translations I've read, the one by Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English stands out



The one by Henricks with commentary is interesting because it translates different versions of the text than you usually see.

[Herman]

The answer is simple. Western civilization in this past several centuries has been a feminine civilization.

Obviously there's not a shred of evidence for this, unless you're thinking of Q Elizabeth II

[Josquin des Prez]

Having not read Guenon,  I don't know if he (and therefore you) are using intellect in a way that doesn't correspond to the usual meaning of the word (in the English language, that is).  If he means the entire human mind by "intellect", then I don't disagree with him.  If he means the usual meaning of the word--that is, one of the faculties of the human mind, then he's in disagreement with me, and with the tradition he claimed to represent, for that matter.

It seems that the corresponding meaning for intellect today is nothing more then reason. Pure intellect, if i understood the traditionalist point of view, is a way or arriving at absolute principles not by reason, but by the purest form of abstract internalization. With pure understanding comes pure certitude. My first experience with this type of intellectual "revelation", so to speak, because this is what it feels like, is my understanding of genius, for which i have absolute certitude. Likewise for my recent realization for the existence of God, which is not something i feel, once again, it is a question of intellectual certitude. Indeed, from the frame of mind i find myself at the moment, the typical atheist argument against the existence of God, which until recently i shared with only a minor agnostic reservation, just seems plain childish and silly.

This is not to say this might not be the case for you as well, but when you frame your argument in emotional rather then intellectual grounds, then it loses some of its power.

[Grazioso]

That's because the attitude reflects reality. Indeed, right off the bat, seems that the duality of the Tao reflects some of the things i've always said regarding the relationship between the sexes. Yin (the feminine), complementing the Yang (the masculine). One represents the heaven (where the masculine I resides), the other, the hearth (which is the feminine ego). The masculine points towards transcendence, and has a vertical understanding of the world. The domain of the feminine is the material world, which is horizontal.

Ironically, this understanding seems to be missing among some of the modern perennialists i've heard speak. It seems Guénon himself couldn't understand why the west pointed towards materialism to such unprecedented proportions. The answer is simple. Western civilization in this past several centuries has been a feminine civilization.

In its tendency towards active domination and intervention, of forcing things to fit its whims, of aggressive logic over intuition, Western civilization would actually best be characterized as "masculine" where the Tao Te Ching is concerned. Yet Yin does not by any stretch simply mean "woman" or "feminine," but rather refers to the pliable, the receptive, the soft, the yielding, the dark, the mysterious. Western civilization would not know wu-wei if it bit it on the ass

Opening and closing the gates of heaven,
Can you play the role of woman?
Understanding and being open to all things,
Are you able to do nothing?
Giving birth and nourishing,
Bearing yet not possessing,
Working yet not taking credit,
Leading yet not dominating,
This is the Primal Virtue.

Yours is a radical misinterpretation of the Tao Te Ching by any standard I've ever encountered, as well as my own readings of it. I'd highly recommend studying it and related literature (e.g., the Chuang Tzu) and commentaries for a few years at least before leaping to conclusions like this. A good introduction from the perspective of Western thought is The Way of Zen by Alan Watts.