Traditional man and country

[KanadaHye]

Re: Traditional man and country

I don't bother to discuss religion much. I consider it hard to convince a theist to disbelieve his or her religion because they are too indoctrinated in it. I do support religious tolerance and freedom of expression however and get upset or angry when theists don't return the favour to atheists. Atheism is tolerated here in NZ like it is a religion...I wish that the US and other parts of the world would follow suit.

That's the whole point..... to discuss different ideas and different views. I prefer a world with different views and different cultures than a world with one view and one culture.

[hipeter924]

Re: Traditional man and country

I don't bother to discuss religion much. I consider it hard to convince a theist to disbelieve his or her religion because they are too indoctrinated in it. I do support religious tolerance and freedom of expression however and get upset or angry when theists don't return the favour to atheists. Atheism is tolerated here in NZ like it is a religion...I wish that the US and other parts of the world would follow suit.

[Barshimnia]

Re: Traditional man and country

What good does the average modern schmuck, who fears any level of existence that could mean his life in service to something noble for the sake of OTHERS (and not himself), have to offer by participating in the decision for what kind of leader should rule his country?

What makes "democracy" heretical by traditional standards is not so much it's technicalities, but more so its ideology of reducing every man that participates in it to the same common denominator... an egalitarian blob rather than a hierarchically structured tower or pyramid. In this egalitarian blob, all the same privileges are offered to the entire population, without discrimination, by an abstract decree of law, not by personal merit. To illustrate an example of this ideology functioning in an extra-political level, look no further than the idea of Heaven in Christianity. Everyone, no matter how valiant or cowardly, no matter how selfless in their acts of loyalty or egotistical and power hungry, no matter how active or idle they are in their respective functions for their people, has entry to heaven.

You can even rape a child and get into heaven if you do proper repentance. What is this? What is going on here? Christianity speaks of hell, but you can't go to hell if you believe in Christ, our lord and savior... What does this mean? This is religion, taking advantage of an immaterial concept of salvation that once was reserved for the noble and self-realized towards their divine nature, but now democratized for the masses. You turned heaven (who's place in the skies was chosen specifically to distinguish itself from the Earth and from the people who's loyalties are towards the ground and not the sky), into a w'hore who's spread her legs open to receive precisely its antagonist, the masses who cannot lead a noble existence.

This is why Christianity is so lovey-dovey, so much about hope for fortune... because the masses are chaotic in their spirit, they listen to and think with emotions, this is why such chaotic ideologies, functioning as religions, are so popular amongst the masses and by contrast, are such a threat to any population who seeks to model itself after the ideal of looking up to the celestial as an inspiration to live for noble conquest and mastery of thyself. Enlightenment and spiritual order vs emotional fantasy and spiritual chaos. Hierarchy vs Democracy.

Now, compare my explanation of this important social effect of Christianity (vulgarization of heaven for the masses) to Obama's movement of "hope and change". Now look carefully at the political apparatus behind democracy... It has no soul of its own, no structure, it is just the electoral realization of a society that looks like a shapeless blob (in terms of merit or virtue... the disparities in physical wealth are not important in this analysis), designed to host, in an official, institutionalized way, the people who can be swayed by Obama, Bush, McCain, Hitler.... you name it. It is a stage show where you, the participant, can m'asturbate for your favorite candidate based on how pretty or soft spoken he is, or how much money he's going to give you, how many promises he delivers for you... It is all emotional. None of what is going on has to be real, because at the end of the day, you're a fool who's just going back to work whether he likes it or not. Unless you're a kook, you will not try to hold the candidates you elected accountable for all the xxxx they did in office, and if you try... well they have their way of keeping you from interfering with their affairs anyway.

The traditional way of picking a leader was not so bureaucratic, nor was it so much of a charade... Often you had a show of arms between the different candidates who vied for the same position, and that settled it. The serfs (masses) played no active part in the process, the Pandora's box of democracy had not been opened yet for their civilization, they were not yet belonging to a society definable as classless blob of mediocrity.

I do not believe in religion and religious people may perceive me as an atheist, yet I consider myself a follower of Christ. I do not believe in our medical system given medical profession was created to capitalize on the discovery of drugs and to create an elite society. I may be perceived as a witch yet I consider myself as a student of old home remedies. I do not believe in our legal system, given it was created to protect the medical profession and the elite society. I may be perceived as an opportunist yet the very core of my existence is based on social justice. I do not believe in our education system and I may be perceived as a lazy person yet I have been a student one form or another all my life and on and on...

I do believe that religion, medical and legal profession, education and military systems, the very foundation of our democratic society are all means of discipline and punishment for the modern society to control the masses (modern slavery). Now this is not exactly my theory but that of (Michel Foucault) which I am in agreement with. Therefore you can see my dilemma in going about my daily life within a system that I do not believe in, just a fool going about her day; a Hypocrite?? Sure

A Hierarchical system however also has its many flaws in reality, as idealistic as it may sound in theory (but so does the Democratic system). How would you propose for a Hierarchical system to protect those who are vulnerable? After all we will always have the elderlies, the victims of domestic violence and incest, the developmentally disabled and etc. Are those to become at the mercy of the strong? Who will determine the definition of noble? Who will set forth the criteria for enlightenment and spiritual order? Whose truth will we live?

[Sako]

Re: Traditional man and country

Are you sure that was India and not college living arrangements in America?

One or the other, bro, one or the other ! But really, I'm serious. This was somewhere down in Kerala if I remember correctly. When I first saw this, I couldn't help but laugh, lol.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Traditional man and country

I know a household in India that is comprised of four people … three men and one women who is the wife of all three. Whenever one man wants to spend some time with his “wife”, he places a stick next to the door to let the other two men know that he’s inside. The women lives with all these men and they live their lives in an unusual, not cool, way. No one seemed very happy. Now, should I base my research or my views on this one household and tell the world that one women should have more then one husband? Should I start posting that THAT is the HUMAN way of life?

Are you sure that was India and not college living arrangements in America?

[Sako]

Re: Traditional man and country

Saco i understand your perspective and it is probably shared by many but you really do not disprove or even make valid arguments against the points i made.I also very much disagree with your conclusion that "man must never have too much independence".

I don’t see why! I asked you simple questions in two threads and you haven’t answered them so I’d appreciate it if you did.

I very much believe that finding your true self and being who you really are is better then living in a unnatural state dictated by economics or religion or.... It would sure be hard to be your natural self in todays society and hardly anyone is but knowing what that state is,is like finding yourself.

What are you suggesting, that I haven’t found myself or that all the people in the world who don’t go around blowing each other when they feel like it haven’t found themselves? I'm sorry but you have no idea what "finding your true self" really means or even feels like. I've been through that myself and have seen many people that really have found their true selves and their nothing like the people you described. You misunderstand what I’m saying and I don’t blame you, I blame your research. The town I’m talking about was not on Discovery channel. My family was there and everyone was living in the same world we live in. They weren’t cutoff from everyone. They still interacted with money and had everything they needed to live happy lives NOT because everyone was rich as hell but because of the way the town worked. Your “research” is wrong, my friend. Economics and everything don’t dictate everything.

The town you mentioned broke down because it was already unstable so money and the evils of this world easily broke it down. The town I’M talking about … WAS PREPARED … mentally, physically, and most importantly … spiritually and morally. Their foundation was strong. They lived like real human beings and I couldn’t believe what I saw with the two eyes in my head.

Your research doesn’t allow you to see a lot of things, yekhpayr. Start living more…
And like I said, freedom comes from knowledge, not just when you have all the xxxxx and money in the world! Try to go deeper into what I’m saying, don’t look at it all in a primitive way. I have also done research.

Understanding humans and humanity for what it really is has been a liberating experience in many ways it also makes you very hard to lose most arguments because you are not hiding behind some artificial wall like religion or economicly based norms.

Ignoring all that already means your hiding away from everything. I think you have a problem with religion, traditions, and economy, not freedom itself, and that's why you will never be free. Your arguments aren’t really based on cold hard facts, to tell you the truth.

It is not easy to shed what your parents, society, church....have been pounding into your head about how you should be and i can hardly claim to have succeeded but if you can look at things objectively the whole world will look a lot clearer to you.

I love my family. They have thought me how to be a good human being, how life works, and how to live in any society. I very much disapprove how you place such less importance on your family and everything else other then your views. I have seen families that were SO poor, they couldn’t afford a proper meal but you know how happy they were? In my life, I have sat down with all kinds of people starting from the very rich to the very poor and the very poor were happier then the very rich. Explain this, won’t you? I can, let’s see how you do it!

You can't escape religion, you are bounded by laws.
You can't escape society, you are dependent on it.
You can't escape economy, its how you get shelter, food.

True, but what we need to understand is that we don’t need to escape. We need to always remember that we aren’t in this world to be independent. We aren’t here to enjoy. Even if we aren’t bounded to the laws mentioned above, we are STILL bounded to some laws and we always will be until we get out of this damn world.

I’d like to talk about that town again I mentioned. AGAIN and AGAIN. They also went through economic issues and everything we go through but they lived prosperous lives. WHY? What is the difference between where we live and where they live? Why are they different? Let’s see if your research will give you the right answer Haykakan (no pun intended).

Excellent point. Money is a measure of the value we put on material objects and services. The more rare things are, the higher value we put on them. There is an ABUNDANCE of diamonds on the planet.... yet we pay an absurd amount for them... why? Are they rare? In essence, no.... but because you can't find one in your backyard, you pay the price. Why do we value a shiny rock? Somebody convinced society it was rare and ever since, we've been blindly using it for cultural reasons. Is it really a measure of "love". Of course not, but try convincing society it isn't.

Very true but again, I ask this very seriously. How does the town I mentioned exist peacefully with the worlds evils in their midst? A simple question.

My ideas are not in any way based on Marx or any other thinker, they are my own.I base my theories on facts and observation gathered by valid scientific research.The south merican tribe I mentioned was living proof that people have not always been materialistic.That same example also showed you how money completely transformed that society once it was introduced,Did you not read my post?

It transformed it because their foundation was unstable in every way. Being able to do whatever you want … in itself … is already completely materialistic. My town didn’t. Why Haykakan? Why?

This is absolutly not what i am saying, i am saying that we as humans have a natural way of living and existing and that money, possesions, religion..alter this natural state of humanity.

Cite examples in history please. Give me names of nations, kingdoms, towns, or villages (other then your interesting tribe) that practiced serial monogamy for years, without any problems. There’s a reason why people didn’t live this way and it’s not only because couples needed possessions!

Haykakan, in your scientific research, how do you approach the belief systems and rituals of the people being studied in your research? Could you elaborate a bit on how the South American tribe you brought up interpreted the world they lived in, how they understood the balance of nature, what kind of gods they had, etc... How does your science interpret their mythology and rituals?

I’m sure they didn’t have any Gods because serial monogamy is against most religions. Plus, Haykakan only saw it all in Discovery channel so I suggest he doesn’t place too much emphasis on it. I still don’t clearly imagine what that tribe was like.

The sexual freedom for both sexes was also very interesting and refreshing to witness.

That kinda depends on the viewer!

Religion is a set of believes that help people explain the unexplained(especially what happens after life) and in some cases these believes also dictate how one should live his mortal life as well. I prefer to use science and rational thinking to explain the unexplained and i use my own set of values (not based on religion) to guide me through life.

Could you please describe your values in detail? I really want to know, Haykakan jan.

The acceptance of all the childeren by the men of that society was also cool to witness.

It’s actually rather strange then cool, I’ll be frank. And you don’t need to practices serial monogamy to experience this kind of respect.

I’m sorry, yekhpayr, but I think your basing too much of your research on just one little tribe. I know a household in India that is comprised of four people … three men and one women who is the wife of all three. Whenever one man wants to spend some time with his “wife”, he places a stick next to the door to let the other two men know that he’s inside. The women lives with all these men and they live their lives in an unusual, not cool, way. No one seemed very happy. Now, should I base my research or my views on this one household and tell the world that one women should have more then one husband? Should I start posting that THAT is the HUMAN way of life?

[KanadaHye]

Re: Traditional man and country

I dont know much about scientology but i dont think it is in line with my own beliefes. I think those guys don't allow the use of drugs to cure diseases or some crazy stuff like that and that is not at all what i believe.No it would be a book about my life experiences and my thoughts about life.Many people write such books and non are mistaken for religion.

What if democracy fell, kingdoms rose to power.... and say the King took that book after you died and called it "Haykakan's Bible" and mass distributed it to the population?

[Yeznik]

Re: Traditional man and country

Religion is a set of believes that help people explain the unexplained(especially what happens after life) and in some cases these believes also dictate how one should live his mortal life as well. I prefer to use science and rational thinking to explain the unexplained and i use my own set of values (not based on religion) to guide me through life.As for the afterlife if there is one we will know about it soon enoughf.If you really want to press the issue and say that science is then my religion then so be it, i have no problem with that.

Your statement is a bit faulty, there are people who use science and rational thinking and also believe in God.

[Haykakan]

Re: Traditional man and country

Would that make you a scientologist? I think you caught my drift. So once you have created these set of values based on your rational thinking and your time tested life..... and say like when you're 70 or 80 years old, you write your findings in a book.... would that be a "religion"?

I dont know much about scientology but i dont think it is in line with my own beliefes. I think those guys don't allow the use of drugs to cure diseases or some crazy stuff like that and that is not at all what i believe.No it would be a book about my life experiences and my thoughts about life.Many people write such books and non are mistaken for religion.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Traditional man and country

Religion is a set of believes that help people explain the unexplained(especially what happens after life) and in some cases these believes also dictate how one should live his mortal life as well. I prefer to use science and rational thinking to explain the unexplained and i use my own set of values (not based on religion) to guide me through life.As for the afterlife if there is one we will know about it soon enoughf.If you really want to press the issue and say that science is then my religion then so be it, i have no problem with that.

Would that make you a scientologist? I think you caught my drift. So once you have created these set of values based on your rational thinking and your time tested life..... and say like when you're 70 or 80 years old, you write your findings in a book.... would that be a "religion"?