Musical Taste and Ideological Predisposition

[Todd]

No legal charges were brought against Osho for the bioterror attack, and there is no documented evidence that he ordered or directly participated in it.

Cult members always obey and protect cult leaders.  The same applies to terrorists and their leaders.  Osho was both a terrorist and a cult leader. 

[AnotherSpin]

Cult members always obey and protect cult leaders.  The same applies to terrorists and their leaders.  Osho was both a terrorist and a cult leader. 

You may call Osho whatever you please and describe him however you wish. Your words may say something about you, and need not concern Osho in any way.

[Opus131]

Excuse me? I'm an Orthodox Christian and I would have none of it. But if you prefer living in a theocracy, there's Iran and Saudi Arabia. I volunteer to pay the price of your one-way ticket to Teheran or Riyadh.

This belief directly contradicts Orthodox Christianity.

I suppose it depends on how you want to define theocracy, but i think the example of the Byzantine empire shows exactly what the ideal form of goverment ought to be.


A system in which a finantial oligarchy rules over an heavily propagandized population where religion is "pushed" on the margins and is only seen as a "private" matter is not what the Orthodox Church ever had in mind. 

[Mandryka]

I suppose it depends on how you want to define theocracy, but i think the example of the Byzantine empire shows exactly what the ideal form of goverment ought to be.


A system in which a finantial oligarchy rules over an heavily propagandized population where religion is "pushed" on the margins and is only seen as a "private" matter is not what the Orthodox Church ever had in mind.

The reason why religion is pushed onto the margins is that it's based on unjustifiable ontological and ethical assertions.

[Todd]

You may call Osho whatever you please and describe him however you wish. Your words may say something about you, and need not concern Osho in any way.

My words, the words of the victims of his terrorism, and the words of law enforcement who had to address his terrorism.  Osho was, objectively, a terrorist and a cult leader, and he is not unique among terrorists and cult leaders in having followers who defend him and his actions. 

[Opus131]

The first European to lament "the collapse of the traditional world" was Hesiod, around 700 BC.

In 1324, Pope John XXII issued the bull Docta Sanctorum Patrum, in which he inveighed against polyphony in no uncertain terms. The paragraph is worth quoting in full:

But some disciples of a new school, while they apply themselves to measuring time, they attempt to invent their own melodies with new notes instead of choosing to sing the ancient ones, ecclesiastical canticles are sung in semibreves and minims, are riddled with grace notes. For they sunder the melodies with hockets, loosen them with descants, trample them sometimes with three-part polyphonies and motets in the vernacular to such a degree that, now and then, they despise the fundamentals of the Antiphonary and the Gradual, ignore the foundation upon which they are building, disregard the modes, which they do not reckon, but which rather they confuse, when, owing to the multitude of these very notes, the modest ascents and the moderate descents of plainchant, by which the modes themselves are distinguished from one another, are obfuscated. For they run, and they rest not; they fill their ears with impertinence, and they relieve them not; they imitate with gestures that which they have mustered, by which gestures devotion that is to be desired is contemned, and lasciviousness that is to be shunned is made manifest. Boethius himself certainly has not spoken in vain: A lascivious mind takes pleasure in the more lascivious modes or is often softened and moved upon hearing them.

The implication here seems to be that because this sentiment has appeared many times throughout history, it demonstrates how this attitude was always foolish, "old men yellow at clouds" appearinbg periodically through out an history which i guess is seen as constituting a single continuity or progression.

In reality, everything in the universe moves in cycles, and human cultures and civilizations are not excempt from this rule. That's why you can find many instances of people "bemoaning" the collapse and degradation of their respective culture, becuase that's exactly what it was happening and in my opinion most of the time they were correct in their assessment.

[AnotherSpin]

My words, the words of the victims of his terrorism, and the words of law enforcement who had to address his terrorism.  Osho was, objectively, a terrorist and a cult leader, and he is not unique among terrorists and cult leaders in having followers who defend him and his actions.

I daresay that if there had been even the slightest hint of evidence, Osho would have been taken to court in your country. Still, the fact remains that Osho was never accused of terrorism. Do stop spreading falsehoods and lies.

[Todd]

I daresay that if there had been even the slightest hint of evidence, Osho would have been taken to court in your country. Still, the fact remains that Osho was never accused of terrorism. Do stop spreading falsehoods and lies.

It is no lie.  Osho was a terrorist.  The very best that equivocating can achieve is this: Osho created a cult and the environment within that cult was such that a small group of people, within an already small group of people, concocted and executed an act of evil.  Osho created an environment rife with evil.  The only logical conclusion, based on the objective fact that he was a terrorist or the false construct that he was merely a cult leader, is that Osho was evil.

[Brian]

From Wikipedia: "He also gained public notoriety for amassing a large collection of Rolls-Royce cars, eventually numbering 93 vehicles."

However, I remember this conversation happening last year on another thread, and it is certainly no longer on the topic here.

[AnotherSpin]

It is no lie.  Osho was a terrorist.  The very best that equivocating can achieve is this: Osho created a cult and the environment within that cult was such that a small group of people, within an already small group of people, concocted and executed an act of evil.  Osho created an environment rife with evil.  The only logical conclusion, based on the objective fact that he was a terrorist or the false construct that he was merely a cult leader, is that Osho was evil.

If we follow the logic that Osho was a terrorist for creating an environment in which his followers committed a bioterrorist attack, then a similar argument could be applied to the United States. For instance, in the case of torture at Abu Ghraib, the CIA's extraordinary rendition programme, or the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, the American government may not have issued direct orders in each instance, but it fostered climates where evil became possible, even routinised.

Osho did not personally command the poisoning of salad bars, he cultivated a closed, ideologically charged atmosphere in which it occurred. If that makes him evil, then by the same reasoning, a state that enables systemic crimes becomes evil too.

Yet such a chain of reasoning, from environment to culpability and from culpability to moral condemnation, oversimplifies the complexity of human systems and leads to a totalitarian logic of collective guilt, where charisma or authority is equated with criminality regardless of direct involvement.

This was not the first time a spiritual figure has been branded a threat. Socrates was executed for corrupting the youth and disrespecting the gods. Jesus was crucified for inciting unrest under Roman rule. Giordano Bruno was burned for heresy. Gandhi, though a pacifist, was imprisoned for sedition by the British Empire.

History is littered with examples where power, feeling threatened by spiritual or philosophical dissent, resorts to the language of criminality to silence it. Nothing new.

[Todd]

If we follow the logic that Osho was a terrorist for creating an environment in which his followers committed a bioterrorist attack, then a similar argument could be applied to the United States.

True.  But the topic is Osho.  Osho was a terrorist and evil.

[AnotherSpin]

True.  But the topic is Osho.  Osho was a terrorist and evil.

As you wish. In your world, Osho is evil. In my world, he is a beautiful human being.

[Todd]

As you wish. In your world, Osho is evil. In my world, he is a beautiful human being.

That explains everything, actually.

[Brian]

If we follow the logic that Osho was a terrorist for creating an environment in which his followers committed a bioterrorist attack, then a similar argument could be applied to the United States. For instance, in the case of torture at Abu Ghraib, the CIA's extraordinary rendition programme, or the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, the American government may not have issued direct orders in each instance, but it fostered climates where evil became possible, even routinised.

Yes, almost all American leftists would agree with this (along with other groups on the fringes of the American political scene).

[Florestan]

the example of the Byzantine empire shows exactly what the ideal form of goverment ought to be.

Ah, yes, the ideal Byzantine government, the marvelous symphony of Church and State, emperors blinding their own sons and viceversa, bishops and metropolitans being deposed and blinded by emperors or giving their blessing to the deposing and blinding of emperors, mob rule making or unmaking emperors, religious civil wars and persecutions waging for more than a century! Indeed, mankind has never known a better, more Christian, intelligent, benevolent and effective system of government. Its return is to be heartily desired and vigorously pursued.

[Florestan]

Like all liberations the splitting of the unity of faith, culture, art (that was the norm not only in European christendom but in most cultures in history) in early modernity and the liberation of the arts made great things possible that were rare or nonexistent before but it also liberated us towards all kinds of bad things.
As we live at the time we live there is very little we can do about such things that seem to have been changed irreversibly 250, probably already 500 years ago.

I have two comments.

1. The much vaunted unity of faith, culture and art in Christendom was wishful thinking rather than reality.

2. Every society is imperfect, every society has its shortcomings and bad things. The modern world is no different than the traditional one in this respect. The latter, though, is gone forever, whereas we live in the former. Don't you find anything worthwhile or at least tolerable about it?

[Florestan]

you can find many instances of people "bemoaning" the collapse and degradation of their respective culture, becuase that's exactly what it was happening and in my opinion most of the time they were correct in their assessment.

So Pope John XXII was correct in his assessment of polyphony as representing the collapse and degradation of sacred music.

[hopefullytrusting]

As a black living in the USA, I've yet to see this great culture in all of my years alive - 42 thus far, and I will die, almost assuredly, without being recognized as a full human by a significant portion of the population of the USA, so I suspect I will never see this great culture.

[steve ridgway]

The evolution of the universe in expressing through the human mind has produced many varied ideas, philosophies, religions, works of art, music and associated rules. In looking for a world view, and soundtrack, compatible with one's experience it makes sense to consider history in its entirety, not just the currently dominant phenomena. Careful selection and filtering may well enable one to create a comfortable niche of one's own.

[Opus131]

Ah, yes, the ideal Byzantine government, the marvelous symphony of Church and State, emperors blinding their own sons and viceversa, bishops and metropolitans being deposed and blinded by emperors or giving their blessing to the deposing and blinding of emperors, mob rule making or unmaking emperors, religious civil wars and persecutions waging for more than a century! Indeed, mankind has never known a better, more Christian, intelligent, benevolent and effective system of government. Its return is to be heartily desired and vigorously pursued.

You can make any civilization look terrible if you just cherry pick all the bad parts. In fact, much of what we know of history is essentially just a collection of events that were considered to be important enough to write down, which would include a lot of terrible things since those tend to stand out. If they were as "common place" as you seem to suggest here, they wouldn't even be recorded at all. A lot of history is essentially "black chronicle" in this sense. Peace usually doesn't make it to the annals of history, and so it goes unrecorded, giving in the impression nothing at all happened in the past except terrible things. This is all the more true when it comes to Byzantium since this is a civilization that lasted over a thousand years, which is a LOT of history.

I mean, consider what one could write about the history of America starting from the turn of the 20th century up to today. Just look at all the wars they have engaged in. What would people say about things like the invasion of Iraq, which was launched under a false pretext and lead to the death of over a million people? An outline of the "major" historical events punctuating American history from 1900 to today would probably paint a far more bleak picture than what anybody who has lived in America during this century probably experienced, and even so i'm not sure all the wars and destruction wrought in the world by the American goverment would necessarely be an indictment of its system of goverment and civil structure (a civil structure which does not eschew the idea of a central authority. When it is said that the "law" is king, that's not an euphemism or mere turn of phrase), since bad "actors" can appear under any system.

To me, what justifies traditional civilizations like Byzantium and its social system is not the "absence" of abuses (which is just a consequence of our fallen human nature), but the fact such civilizations tended to model themselves after sacred and divine principles. Essentially, traditional civilizations were "good" in principle, though not always so in fact, while modern society is evil in principle, though it does have a few advantages and good things in practice. That's an important distinction. Under Byzantium, Christianity was able to unfold itself out of the "catacombs" to flower into a full blown sacred tradition that penetrated the whole of the society, and the emperors had a decisive role in this, starting with Saint Constantine. It was under Byzantium that the ecumentical councils convened. It was under Byzantium that the canon of scripture and all the finer theological points of Christianity were decided.

Meanwhile, i can't think of a single culture that has succeded into turning a majority of people AWAY from God than modern secular civilization, with their supposedly "free" systems of goverments which however are clearly under the iron boot of a finantial oligarchy, which is just autocracy under a different name.