ThePresbyteers
New member
This message is deleted and closed.
Last edited:
toldailytopic: How do you feel about building a mosque at ground zero?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Hal is busy right now. He is tending to those with arrested intellectual capacities....
Perhaps it isn't a matter of turning off the Internet but rather learning how to think.
"We can never solve our significant problems from the same level of thinking we were at when we created the problems." - Albert Einstein
Is our level of thinking changed by more or less knowledge learned over the Internet or does this knowledge merely become an expression of the same level of thought regardless of the most wonderful platitudes?
"Human beings, by changing the inner attitudes of their minds, can change the outer aspects of their lives." -- William James
How do we change our inner attitudes if they are always changing? What sort of new attitude do we need that can reconcile the continually changing attitudes of our normal level of thinking?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
I doubt that's what Granite finds so infuriating Nick. If this were a boxing match the towel would have been thrown in from your corner a long time ago. Your 'arguments' rely on unsubstantiated soundbites/accusations (such as 'new age critical thinking') and general muddying the waters instead of clear and clarified positions. I suspect that Granite's infuriation with TH is why he actually bothers to continually engage with you as it's a pretty fruitless endeavour. On the one hand I can see where Granite is coming from. (If I have indeed read his infuriation correctly. Feel free to correct me if you pop back in here and I'm wrong Granite) On the other I have to admire TH's patience.
:e4e:
It isn't a matter of being half conscious but rather being conscious for only brief intervals. You think you are self aware but were you self aware when you entered the room you are in now and sat at the computer" Were you self aware or did it just happen.
Self awareness is an action where there is the self and that which is aware of it. We rarely are self aware or conscious of self. Man has the potential for consciousness and the experience of conscience but in Plato's cave, they are only our potential and occur for us in brief intervals.
ThePresbyteers
New member
This message is deleted and closed.
Last edited:
What could be more unsubstantiated than either the intent of Imam Rauf or the benefits of secular Interfaith in general?
By learning how to think, I'm referring to what is meant in the Bible by thinking in a new way. This means thinking in perspective. It means contemplating the trees from the perspective of the forest rather than associations between trees.
From the Platonic perspective, it means thinking from the point of view of freedom from the darkness of the cave. It means witnessing our habitual cave life and all its hypocrisy with the help of the "light" in puruit of freedom from this psychological slavery.
America was built on this idea. It sought a quality of life that could allow a person to pursue their spiritual potential. Jacob Needleman describes it as he is interviewed by Mitch Horowitz.
http://www.mitchhorowitz.com/jacob-needleman.html
In the book you depict America as part of a chain of great civilizations that throughout history have been influenced by the wisdom traditions. Does America have a greater, or a different kind, of claim to those traditions than other prosperous democratic nations in the world today?
Yes, I think so. There's something special about America, in that this country originated with men and women who were spiritually motivated, in part or in large measure. For many of them the motivation of spirituality was paramount in some respect, and even for our icons, the Washingtons, Madisons, Jeffersons, there was a spirituality in their motivation that existed along with the practical, economic, and political aspects of their motivations. These founders were deeply concerned in one way or another with questions of the heart, of the spiritual search, and this concern entered into the formation of their ideals, influenced in large measure by ideas which have their root in the spiritual traditions of humanity, in the perennial philosophy, in ancient wisdom. Their primary motivations were not just political expediency, economic necessity, and the need for people to have an equal share in the external goods of the society. The ideals of the Enlightenment were much more explicitly or strongly developed in the founding of America. At its root is a spiritual dimension echoing the great wisdom traditions. In that sense, America is the mother of all democracies, even when democracies take different forms. As the mother and father of these democracies, America still has the spiritual dimension as part of its nature, a dimension that isn't so strong in the other, newer democracies.
Other than material prosperity and political democracy, what conditions were the founders trying to create in this new society?
They were trying to create a condition of human life in which men and women are free to search for their own truth, for the truth of conscience, for a relationship to what is highest and best within themselves and under God. The founders were not connected to any particular sectarian religion, which they felt had degenerated into dogmatism and mental tyranny. They wanted people to be free to search for their own truth and to be able to associate with one another in a way that allowed that search to take place. They wanted conditions in which people were free to interpret God, not in any sectarian way, but in terms that reflect an inner divinity as well as an external God.
How do we honor the space within which people can serve this aim? Do we honor it by the attempt to make everyhing the same or through respecting differences and their space? Do we respect differences by telling people they are wrong to value the loss of life in their community through an attack or do we honor them by imposing politics onto hallowed ground?
I'm a great believer in prayer without ceasing, which has a fine illustration in Brother Lawrence's "Practice of the Presence of God" and prior to my conversion was a very strong proponent of being as present and mindful of the now as of any other relation. Both disciplines are concerned with being actively present and deliberate.
I'd say there's the body/action and the thought/will that promotes it. We may not be paying attention to what we're about, but it doesn't happen by osmosis.
Consider animal life in the jungle. There is no self awareness and yet the cycles of life continue. Is there any reason that it is not the same for Man? Just because we have a greater ability to draw associations, does that mean there is anything conscious in a society any more then there is in a jungle? Drawing associations doesn't require conscious self awareness any more then a computer needs self awarenes to draw associations
This what is meant by Plato's Beast. Animal life doesn't continue by osmosis nor does it continue by conscious intent. The Beast is a creature of reaction to habitual patterns in accordance with stimuli from cyclical conditions of the external world.
Individuality can be defined as the striving for consciousness (leaving the cave) as well as defined by reactions to secular standards (life in the cave). It is the same word but with two different meanings.
First, that's only partially true and entirely dependent on the degree of sentience found in particular species.
Certainly. It's his brain pan. Many, probably most animals are engines of a sort, operating as an active point of view but lacking the ability to conceptualize it and see themselves apart from that immediacy. Man can. Some primates and other animals appear to be able to as well, though not so philosophically...we hope.
I don't know what you mean by drawing associations, but I've answered you on self awareness.
Arguable, since instinct (a nearly mystical word we slap across the otherwise incomprehensible conduct of, say, bees) coupled with biological drives suits most animals form and function and conscious of what? That word is off center; stick with self awareness.
Shorthand: animals react to environment and from biological need.
Except its an over simplification or generalization with so many exceptions its value is questionable outside of theory and the most general sort of consideration.
You're wasting your time with the cave bit. I don't hold with Plato. It's a fanciful, but unnecessary bit of imaginative framework and it adds nothing to the objective conversation.
Now what this has to do with the mob attempting to shout down the Muslims who want to build a mosque...
TH
Your reaction is normal for the results of modern education. But I see it as the results of your education getting in the way of reality.
"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." - Albert Einstein
Einstein was willing to admit it which helped him to learn realistically. You are not yet willing to admit it.
It means that you do not appreciate the unique purpose of America as Jacob Needleman explained in my previously posted excerpts from an interview with Mitch Horowitz. It is respect for these ideals that inspire people to honor hallowed ground or sites that were part of a direct attack on America and worthy of respect as places of remembrance.
Hallowed ground remains the same regardless of what goes on around it. People could kill each other and sell body parts at the site on which the Crucifixion took place and it would still remain hallowed ground. The question is how America, as a nation, respects it as part of what is necessary to preserve the cause of freedom. The people seem to be aware of a greater reality than the educated elite.
People that do not appreciate what Prof. Needleman is saying feel free to impose themselves onto Hallowed ground.
I am an advocate of freedom through the recognition of the human condition and our mutual efforts to transcend it. You seem to be an advocate of social justice defined in Wiki as:
Social justice generally refers to the idea of creating an egalitarian society or institution that is based on the principles of equality and solidarity, that understands and values human rights, and that recognizes the dignity of every human being.
I support the respect for hallowed ground and you support its denial for the sake of social justice.
I see the Great Beast as the "mob" or better known as the "collective" with the potential to awaken and you define a mob as the group that opposes your temporal concepts of social justice.
The initial intent for America was for a country that furthered awakening, Now it is devolving into a ruling mindset that furthers social justice at the cost of the regard for principles that sustain the purpose of America and the individuality it can produce. These include intentionally avoiding imposing oneself on another as in the case of the mosque imposing itself onto hallowed ground.
Your reaction is normal for the results of modern education. But I see it as the results of your education getting in the way of reality.
"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." - Albert Einstein
Einstein was willing to admit it which helped him to learn realistically. You are not yet willing to admit it.
It means that you do not appreciate the unique purpose of America as Jacob Needleman explained in my previously posted excerpts from an interview with Mitch Horowitz. It is respect for these ideals that inspire people to honor hallowed ground or sites that were part of a direct attack on America and worthy of respect as places of remembrance.
Hallowed ground remains the same regardless of what goes on around it. People could kill each other and sell body parts at the site on which the Crucifixion took place and it would still remain hallowed ground. The question is how America, as a nation, respects it as part of what is necessary to preserve the cause of freedom. The people seem to be aware of a greater reality than the educated elite.
People that do not appreciate what Prof. Needleman is saying feel free to impose themselves onto Hallowed ground.
I am an advocate of freedom through the recognition of the human condition and our mutual efforts to transcend it. You seem to be an advocate of social justice defined in Wiki as:
Social justice generally refers to the idea of creating an egalitarian society or institution that is based on the principles of equality and solidarity, that understands and values human rights, and that recognizes the dignity of every human being.
I support the respect for hallowed ground and you support its denial for the sake of social justice.
I see the Great Beast as the "mob" or better known as the "collective" with the potential to awaken and you define a mob as the group that opposes your temporal concepts of social justice.
The initial intent for America was for a country that furthered awakening, Now it is devolving into a ruling mindset that furthers social justice at the cost of the regard for principles that sustain the purpose of America and the individuality it can produce. These include intentionally avoiding imposing oneself on another as in the case of the mosque imposing itself onto hallowed ground.
genuineoriginal
New member
A mosque at ground zero is a sign that the muslims are saying that Allah is greater than the American god of Mammon that was represented by the world trade center.
The muslims have claimed that Allah is greater than the god of the Bible by building a mosque on Temple Mount.
I could care less whether the mosque is built at ground zero because I think both Allah and Mammon are false gods.
I do care that there is still a mosque on Temple Mount in defiance of the One True God.
No. He's been argued since Aristotle and many find the notions palatable enough today (see: Traditio). So it varies, which you'd know if, well, you know. :chuckle:
Really? Demonstrate the forms. I'll bring popcorn while you fail to do more than describe ideas with more ideas.
You still don't really seem to understand that. If you take him literally then you have a problem with language itself.
lain:I really don't tend to read the Bartlett's sections. I have my own understanding of America, purposed in defense of the rights of man. I can appreciate differing opinions without sharing them.
Nope. Too selective. Again, you honor the death of SOME and argue for a curious "hallow by numbers" that takes a swipe at a house of worship and ignores dens of iniquity.
That's a basement level high ground.
lain:Then you have no reason bringing it into the discussion regarding a house of worship.
Look, you can't have it both ways. Either it matters what you find on that ground or it doesn't. If it does and you draw that ground as broadly as you have then you're a hypocrite. If it doesn't then you're making an objection that doesn't make sense, unless you're a hypocrite. :think: I'm sensing a theme.
I don't think anyone is acting or failing to act based on Needleman's opinion...except maybe Needleman.
How does recognizing the flawed foundation of humanity advocate freedom? It's just flowery nonsense. Transcend our nature? :sigh: Any act we are capable of is a part of or extension of that nature.
Simply not the case...Your notion of hallowed ground is curiously selective, as is your compassion and moral outrage. I've set out the term that describes them collectively prior.
Quote me. Never happened. The mob has no relation to actual justice. It's purpose is to sate a desire for one thing or another in defiance of justice. Mobs lynch, loot, destroy and demand without regard for the law or human dignity preserved by it.
Not really. It was a land of opportunity where men could be free of the weight of European aristocracy. When that weight began to find and oppress we removed it from our collective shoulders.
Nonsense from tip to tail. America is continuing along the path of self determination and the assertion of right. If we stumble here and there, well, we always have. Once only the wealthy, landed gentry could participate in a system that allowed for the ownership of human beings while touting the equality of man.
We've come a long way. We have a ways to go.
Again, these people impose on no one and have done nothing worthy of censure. You should feel ashamed of yourself for having the temerity to suggest the thing you defend is in any part virtuous. It is and will remain nothing more than the ignorant, arrogant growl of an animal, which is what men have to speak for themselves rid of dignity and the respect for right and justice.
Dear FOUAD AJAMI
I appreciated your article.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703743504575493711825224290.html
I just think this whole issue has reached the stage where those who don't get it either have a direct agenda or are just lost in politically correct la la land
I didn't know this. It is nice to learn that 58% of its readers are open to mutual respect.
So much for all this fear that Muslims are incapable of recognizing the act of an individual. It is good to read common sense.
All I can say is be veeerrry careful around Interfaith people. You are politically incorrect and you'll never hear the end of it.
We've learned that Imam Rauf doesn't know what hallowed ground is. The feelgooders have no conception of what it means to not impose oneself when there is reasonable doubt as to your intentions assuming of course that one does have good intentions.
We don't always assert all the "rights" that we can get away with. The faith is honored when the faith bends to necessity and discretion.
Throughout history there have always been those that understand and those that take the "in your face" approach and the demand for rights. The ultimate hypocrisy is when they do it in the cause of peace and love.
I see that you "get it." That brightens the day.
I appreciated your article.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703743504575493711825224290.html
I just think this whole issue has reached the stage where those who don't get it either have a direct agenda or are just lost in politically correct la la land
I didn't know this. It is nice to learn that 58% of its readers are open to mutual respect.
So much for all this fear that Muslims are incapable of recognizing the act of an individual. It is good to read common sense.
All I can say is be veeerrry careful around Interfaith people. You are politically incorrect and you'll never hear the end of it.
We've learned that Imam Rauf doesn't know what hallowed ground is. The feelgooders have no conception of what it means to not impose oneself when there is reasonable doubt as to your intentions assuming of course that one does have good intentions.
We don't always assert all the "rights" that we can get away with. The faith is honored when the faith bends to necessity and discretion.
Throughout history there have always been those that understand and those that take the "in your face" approach and the demand for rights. The ultimate hypocrisy is when they do it in the cause of peace and love.
I see that you "get it." That brightens the day.
"Is this mosque a sign of America's tolerance, or is it a sign of Muslim conquest? The past may hold answers..." Full text: Mosque of Conquest? by William J. Federer
"Is this mosque a sign of America's tolerance, or is it a sign of Muslim conquest? The past may hold answers..." Full text: Mosque of Conquest? by William J. Federer
It would be one thing if the goal were assimilation but that isn't the goal. You'll love this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vItJqpQ8U
WizardofOz
New member
Just aired tonight. Good report. The community board has approved the center 4+ times.
Great clip :up:
Pamela Geller is just another pundit making waves for personal fame (as have many politicians). It's pathetic.
| Good background info | |
Great clip :up:
| Pamela Geller is a paranoid loon | |
Pamela Geller is just another pundit making waves for personal fame (as have many politicians). It's pathetic.
Last edited:
- Status