Have we lost the ability to say “No?”

It seems that our culture is losing its ability to say “no.” By this I mean that we are slowly losing the ability to recognize differences and tension between various social elements. On the surface I see things like our blurring of the distinction between race and sex. We mutter the mantra of equality ceaselessly to the degree that I think we are forgetting that there are differences between the races and sexes. To think otherwise is to deny the difference between the cultures of Zimbabwe and Norway. “They are equal” we have been taught, but is this not a half truth?

I will point the finger at “either/or” logic that structures our thought. People can be equal or unequal, you have to choose which by the law of non-contradiction and excluded middle. To some, “both equal and unequal” is not a logically sound statement and definitely not one that is politically correct. The monolithic orientation to correctness seems to have blinded us to some very simple facts of our reality.

The implication of this thinking that has been bothering me is the pervasive untouchable status of religion in our culture. By this I mean “god” has taken on the attributes of always being good and that which is opposed to it is bad. The problem here is that this idea is not just contained within the community of the faithful as it seems to have spread archetypal or unconsciously through our entire society. This has given the concept of “god” taboo status. By extension, this protects religion from criticism.

Why, oh why is it inappropriate to discuss religion in non-flattering terms, as if flattery and obsequiousness are the only ways to approach religion for all. Isn’t this a demented perspective of reality? This isn’t optimism, this is an artificially induced mis-alignment of our perspective of reality. Something should not be questioned or confronted because by its very definition is should not be questioned or confronted? How absurd!

How can we add a little bit of balance back to our world? How can we return to a realistic perspective of reality where light and dark are seen as correlative pairs? When will we be able to ask honest questions and otherwise be critical of the world around us without censure? When will religion and secularism find common ground?

My current curiosities are in memetics and the viral nature of information. It seems that tautological beliefs are a pre-requisite to the propagation of memes. I hope that we can figure something out about this sooner than later as I grow weary of the social ills that follow unquestionable, absolutist authority. As it stands, when someone believes A because A is A, we are not allowed to call them out on it. Can anyone see a meaningful way to do away with this thinking? I’m hoping that the field of memetics will function much like Feuerbach’s The Essence of Christianity and clearly demonstrate how non-religious religion is. We’ll see where this goes.

I stressed this a few times in other topics: nothing is either completely black or completely white. People often think that assigning concepts and ideas a polar opposition is the only way to form a sound critique. How unsound! You can perfectly well criticize the bad sides of something and point to the good sides at the same time. One need not be dismissive of everything a system of ideas has to offer, but rather be dismissive of some ideas while applauding the others.

The implication of this thinking that has been bothering me is the pervasive untouchable status of religion in our culture. By this I mean “god” has taken on the attributes of always being good and that which is opposed to it is bad. The problem here is that this idea is not just contained within the community of the faithful as it seems to have spread archetypal or unconsciously through our entire society. This has given the concept of “god” taboo status. By extension, this protects religion from criticism.

I won't get into religious apologetics in this topic since I do not think it is the point. Rather I'll state that I see the same to be true of the so called New Atheism. The idea that the old logical arguments for God (which have their contemporary forms as well) have all been completely refuted and as such would be completely irrelevant to point out in a debate and render the one a "dunce" is quite an overstatement. Similarly, this is not something that New atheists only regard within their own movement rather they label anyone who is curious to research theology a "dimwit" while they call themselves "brights" (notice the light/dark dichotomy xD?). It is quite a taboo if you are a young inquiring student who is part of a class where many people have an atheist world-view to even want to ask "Why do you think there is no God? " since immediately you are labeled "a dunce, not enlightened, laughable".

Related to memetics I see this growing outlook of "us brights intelligent vs them dim non-intelligent" quite a viral emergence among young people. There is really no us vs them in this world it's just US the humans us the living beings etc.

When will religion and secularism find common ground?

That really is no need to even ask that question! Religion and secularism have much common ground! I often hear both sides wanting to somehow define the founding fathers of USA as either completely religious or completely secular in their world view. Both are fundamentally wrong. If there is a case in history where people with opposing world-views learned how to work together for the betterment of their country and fellow human beings then that is the case of the founding fathers. Jefferson as an atheist? Franklin as a Presbyterian? Those are such unreasonable statements. It is almost like the people who made those claims have never read a thing of what they have written.

The first rule of literary criticism applies in here: do not judge the book based on what the critics have to say, but rather what it has to say. Likewise, if Sam Harris tells you that Jefferson was a pure secularist do not trust him. Trust Jefferson. If a bishop of a presbyterian church tells you that Franklin was presbyterian do not trust the bishop. Trust Franklin.

If people keep operating with 2nd information I definitely see a whole lot of purposeless intellectual wars emerging in even greater amount than today.

My current curiosities are in memetics and the viral nature of information

Umberto Ecco's work in semiotics has much more to give in regards of growth of ideas within a culture, throughout history and their acceptance in a certain time frame. I see memetics as a very simplified form of semiotics which is given a Darwinian dimension and yet deals away with some very potent ideas about culture (micro-histories would be one). In biological terms memetics gives a model for ontogenetic emergence of ideas and no phylogenetic dimension whatsoever.

As it stands, when someone believes A because A is A, we are not allowed to call them out on it

If you want PM me which religious ideas you think have that form and who says you can't contest it and I'll show you that they are wrong. No theologist goes so far as to say that his ideas are A true because A has to be true. That's probably the pseudo-philosophy of youtubers.

Can anyone see a meaningful way to do away with this thinking?

Teach eastern philosophies in western schools as part of philosophy classes. My Philosophy professor at college had an interesting remark at the end of course:

" In India, Japan, China your peers are studying Western philosophy as an important part of their Philosophy courses, yet in the West we have a very small number of institutions providing you with the same position in respect of eastern philosophy. One has to wonder, who then has a more complete view of the World, its History and thought?"

people will never get over it without altering people through technology

"Not I," said the duck.

Originally Posted by EmotionallyTonedGeometry

To think otherwise is to deny the difference between the cultures of Zimbabwe and Norway. “They are equal” we have been taught, but is this not a half truth?

It depends on how you define "equal".
For further insight into this issue, read the short story Harrison Bergeron.

I will point the finger at “either/or” logic that structures our thought.

You keep saying this, but I have yet to see it.

People can be equal or unequal, you have to choose which by the law of non-contradiction and excluded middle.

Yes.

To some, “both equal and unequal” is not a logically sound statement and definitely not one that is politically correct. The monolithic orientation to correctness seems to have blinded us to some very simple facts of our reality.

The word "equal" has many definitions and implications. Each one of those definitions is a separate meaning. If you confuse one meaning for another, you commit the fallacy of amphiboly.

The implication of this thinking that has been bothering me is the pervasive untouchable status of religion in our culture. By this I mean “god” has taken on the attributes of always being good and that which is opposed to it is bad.

This is not a problem for pantheists or deists.

The problem here is that this idea is not just contained within the community of the faithful as it seems to have spread archetypal or unconsciously through our entire society. This has given the concept of “god” taboo status. By extension, this protects religion from criticism.

Religion has been criticized since 5 BCE, but religionists do not seem to care.

Why, oh why is it inappropriate to discuss religion in non-flattering terms, as if flattery and obsequiousness are the only ways to approach religion for all. Isn’t this a demented perspective of reality? This isn’t optimism, this is an artificially induced mis-alignment of our perspective of reality. Something should not be questioned or confronted because by its very definition is should not be questioned or confronted? How absurd!

Plenty of people have, and continue to, criticize religion. Despite this, it remains popular.

How can we add a little bit of balance back to our world? How can we return to a realistic perspective of reality where light and dark are seen as correlative pairs?

What do you mean by "correlative pairs"?

When will we be able to ask honest questions and otherwise be critical of the world around us without censure? When will religion and secularism find common ground?

In most forms of ethics, I think they have some commonality.

criticizing religion is far from taboo today. it just isn't polite to do so in mixed company. that's because the purpose of such interactions is to find common ground to establish relationships. this is why the axiom "never talk about religeon or politics on a frist date" holds.

to your central point (and pardon if i miss state it); i think the issue depends on the meaning of equal. i think men and women, and races and culture should be equal in terms of opportunity. one can't say that women shouldn't be physicists or that asians shouldn't be race car drivers. if a woman wants to do so she should be able to compete for a possition and not be hindered by her sex.

this isn't to say that men and women are the same physically or biologically. this isn't to say tha budhists and muslims are the same culturally. in a just world, all should have equal opportunity to compete.

Related to memetics I see this growing outlook of "us brights intelligent vs them dim non-intelligent" quite a viral emergence among young people. There is really no us vs them in this world it's just US the humans us the living beings etc.”

For example, I see Buddhism as a way to use memetics to turn memes against themselves and then seeing how the mind operates. On a similar note, I think that religion has a lot to offer about how one should navigate consciousness, but the mythology and authority muddles things up. Can we find ways to talk about this without resorting to these things? If so, how? Emergence theory and memetics seem to be a good start.

Umberto Ecco's work in semiotics has much more to give in regards of growth of ideas within a culture, throughout history and their acceptance in a certain time frame.

Do you have a good source (book) for this? I’d like to learn more.

If you want PM me which religious ideas you think have that form and who says you can't contest it and I'll show you that they are wrong. No theologist goes so far as to say that his ideas are A true because A has to be true. That's probably the pseudo-philosophy of youtubers.

Christ is king because Christ is king. Mohammad is the last prophet of God because Mohammad is the last prophet of God. Brama, Vishnu and Shiva maintain the world because Brama, Vishnu and Shiva maintain the world. There are no real arguments for these, they cannot be emperically verified and if you do not accept them, you cannot consider yourself counted amoungst the faithful. These seem to be the seeds that allow for either personal growth or unspeakable atrocities.

The word "equal" has many definitions and implications. Each one of those definitions is a separate meaning. If you confuse one meaning for another, you commit the fallacy of amphiboly.

I should be careful to keep my categories straight. I think the issue is that very few people are capable of remaining so objective and open minded as to recognize when there is too much information to use a simple “yes or no” answer. For example, if there are a yellow triangle and a yellow circle, if asked if they were the same or different, how would most people answer? “Same color, different shape” seems to be the best answer, but to people actually think that way? “Equal rights as human beings but different cultures” seems to be a good approach to race, but it doesn’t seem to pan out that way. This may very well be a human problem and more of an abuse of logic. Most people, I think, are looking for a simple either/or, thumbs up or down sort of answer or perspective. Perhaps it is again human limitations that also seek stagnation and continuity which cements our mind in one position so we lose sight of the perspectival shifts required to see things as they are. If a simple mind remains fixed, then it will surely see the world in black and white.

What do you mean by "correlative pairs"?

I tend to use this term in the Daoist sense where opposites cannot exist in isolation. Instead they derive their meaning (essence?) from their other. The yang/yin symbol visually expresses this idea. I see it as a way to undermine absolutism as correlative dualism is the opposite of either/or thinking. There can be no either/or, always both. Gestalt foreground/background thinking expresses this idea too.

Originally Posted by EmotionallyTonedGeometry

Can we find ways to talk about this without resorting to these things?

As a language professor I see the problem in used language lol. Usually communication between two individuals abounds in default assigned value, difference in meaning attributed to used words, variety of sentence structure which often results in different connotation etc. and that is even if the two have already learned to talk without labeling, stereotyping and giving each other the evil look. In a way this can be resolved by reducing the language to its most basic form (semantic primes + some basic words, simple grammar in sentences, speech devoid of unnecessary word stress). However, I can't help but think this would make one appear as no different than a robot lol. In the end it is up to you how much you're willing to reduce your individuality of expression in order to reach an understanding.

Same can be said of gestures. A psychologist probably knows how to reduce his gestures in order to achieve "neutrality" of body posture when it won't be irritating or pleasing to the one he's communicating with.

Self-awareness, Self-control, self-inquiry, self-understanding... It pretty much comes down to that. Every level or form of communication should first be done on an individual plane. Easier way would be for someone to throw a spell and poof! Global Enlightenment.

Christ is king because Christ is king. Mohammad is the last prophet of God because Mohammad is the last prophet of God. Brama, Vishnu and Shiva maintain the world because Brama, Vishnu and Shiva maintain the world. There are no real arguments for these, they cannot be emperically verified and if you do not accept them, you cannot consider yourself counted amoungst the faithful. These seem to be the seeds that allow for either personal growth or unspeakable atrocities.


Ah a system axiom no? One idea around which the whole system is built upon. The ones you mention would be cultural axioms in the sense that they are ideas which are most easily understood by the majority of followers.

Normally you can not contest them because those followers can not go beyond the cultural dogma. but you can contest the logic behind them, however not many people that understand the logic behind those statements. The logical axioms would be (e.g. Shiva vishnu Brahma):

Creation(All begins being) and Destruction(All begins to nothing) - Balance (All is)

The names given are simply different levels of understanding. Someone can not go beyond the visual image of a 9 handed guy throwing balls of fire or holding the Earth on his back. Purpose of religion for those people isn't knowledge, but comfort and connection. It is not surprising that sone will want to keep being comfortable. So, you need not challenge everyone to explain their faith with logic or even with words. Hardly anyone delves deeper in faith than: a personal experience, a soothing story before bedtime, family gathering to strengthen the bond etc.

More importantly not everyone can be sure of what you're contesting. If you say to sone "How can you be sure that Islam is true?" he may connect the question to the love he has for his family since Islam is an important part of that. "How the hell can the love I feel be untrue?" and that's where the conflict starts. lol Context is important. Make sure you know what is the underlying purpose of religion in the persons life. Not everyone lives their life for "knowledge". Some people are fine with spending their life just working in the field, praying with their children and having a nice family meeting for Christmas. No one will allow that to be part of intellectual scrutiny or doubt (for the reasons mentioned).

i think those are called useful idiots