The Rejection of All Restraint

[Guest guest]

This is the first of three essays by Bard Schmookler that is insightful and well worth reading. Suzanne

Rulers Who Inhabit an Amoral World-- Part I: The Rejection of All Restraint To understand what kind of world our present rulers inhabit, we are compelled --because they are consistently dishonest with us-- to discover the truth from the pattern of their conduct. That pattern reveals that theirs is an amoral world. The first of a three-part series, the installment posted today examines one pattern-- that of their consistent rejection of restraint by any structure of good order. In the next two days, the other two installments will be posted. The second part will be called "When Loyalty is Not a Moral Virtue." And Part III will be "The Cloak of False Righteousness." Part I can be seen at

www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=54If you want to help with the mission of NoneSoBlind.org, please consider sending this and other "blog-bite" messages out to others who might find the message, and the site in general, of interest. If you are not a subscriber to this "blog-bite" newsletter, but wish to sign up, that can be accomplished at

www.nonesoblind.org/newsletter/subscribe.php

NoneSoBlind.org

---------- If you no longer wish to receive this newsletter, you can unsubscribe here.

"To look w/the eyes n see w/the heart is the secret of the Philospher's stone" -Petrus Bonus

[Guest guest]

It seems to me that many of the same people who debunk religion then go on decry a lack of universal morality. Makes me laugh, that does. If religion (as in that old time religion, not "esoteric" religion or spirituality) is not the ground of any public morality, then what is? (Please don't respond with a boast about how "enlightened" you are, without explanation - rather, enlighten us if you can).

Hi Dan:

I don't think Bard Schmookler is debunking religion; perhaps just the tendency of some to think their religious/spiritual experience is correct and others are wrong. I don't claim to be particularly enlightened and I find a unity in the essence of all religions and am quite interested in the variety of ways that people experience the ineffable...Me, personally, I try to be kind, mindful of my surroundings, open to others and grateful for this gift of life...to me it is all God/Goddess... Morality in my opinion is born of these things and doesn't require any formal religious doctrine at all.

Dan said:

There are reasons for grave doubt about any universal government, and in the opinion of many of us, that is what world courts, Kyoto protocols, and even the UN tend toward (decent universal federation tomorrow, ruthless, hopeless, world-wide technological tyranny a week from Thursday). Yet the author does not even allude to the argument that there are big dangers inherent in the move toward world government.

* I don't think he is talking about world government; he is talking about the need for nations to cooperate; to have some international laws and agreements that are in everybody's best interest. We live in a world with a global economy, with both natural and man made disasters that don't necessarily stay within national borders...Certainly there is much that individual nations can cooperate on without losing their diversity or autonomy...I never did understand this fear of world government...I think the UN is our last best chance at learning to live cooperatively and sharing the limited resources on a shrinking planet...and I find the instinct to see oneself as a member of a global community and to cooperate woth others inherently decent and moral. Some of the wisest and most compassionate people I know work for NGO's and at the UN...

Dan wrote:Underneath this blog post I think I smell a sort of Rousseauist, noble savage, "people are born good and civilization (or perhaps child abuse) makes 'em bad" opinion that is, because so grossly unrealistic, extremely dangerous.

* Well, I'm sure you know Rousseau better than I do but I do believe that all people are born innately good and that our experience in the world certainly conditions our choices and behavior...I was profoundly moved by Bard Schmookler's book "Out of Weakness" when I was writing my dissertation on the psychological affects of the Holocaust on the second generation. He addresses the idea that people are violent and cruel to one another, even perpetrators of great evil, out of weakness not strength....seems to hold true for me. People who have achieved some degree of inner peace, who are content and appreciative of their lives have no need to be powerful or lord it over others. I try not to categorize people as bad or good but unhealed child abuse, or any personal experience of violence can certainly break your spirit and make it very hard to have compassion for yourself or others...So yes, without some opportunity to heal, if we are treated mean we will be mean to others...The effects of trauma and abuse are passed down from generation to generation unless it is somehow interrupted. I find that true in my work as a psychotherapist and in psychosocial peacebuilding...and I find some of Schmookler's work important and inspiring..that's why I shared it. To each his own I guess.

Best Regards,

Suzanne

[Guest guest]

Against my better judgment, I clicked on the link. I would have at

least these questions/comments:

If memory serves, Lincoln was taken to court, the Supreme Court ruled

against him, and he went ahead anyway. Have I got that wrong? The

Constitution is not a suicide pact.

It seems to me that many of the same people who debunk religion then go

on decry a lack of universal morality. Makes me laugh, that does. If

religion (as in that old time religion, not "esoteric" religion or

spirituality) is not the ground of any public morality, then what is?

(Please don't respond with a boast about how "enlightened" you are,

without explanation - rather, enlighten us if you can).

There are reasons for grave doubt about any universal government, and

in the opinion of many of us, that is what world courts, Kyoto

protocols, and even the UN tend toward (decent universal federation

tommorow, ruthless, hopeless, world-wide technological tyranny a week

from Thursday). Yet the author does not even allude to the argument

that there are big dangers inherent in the move toward world

government..

Are the Athenians wrong? If so, how? Was it not ever thus?

Underneath this blog post I think I smell a sort of Rousseauist, noble

savage, "people are born good and civilization (or perhaps child abuse)

makes 'em bad" opinion that is, because so grossly unrealistic,

extremely dangerous.

Best,

Dan

This

is the first of three essays by Bard Schmookler that is

insightful and well worth reading. Suzanne

Rulers Who Inhabit an Amoral World-- Part I: The

Rejection of All Restraint

To understand what kind of world our present rulers inhabit, we are

compelled --because they are consistently dishonest with us-- to

discover the truth from the pattern of their conduct. That pattern

reveals that theirs is an amoral world.

The first of a three-part series, the installment posted today examines

one pattern-- that of their consistent rejection of restraint by any

structure of good order.

In the next two days, the other two installments will be posted. The

second part will be called "When Loyalty is Not a Moral Virtue." And

Part III will be "The Cloak of False Righteousness."

Part I can be seen at

www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=54

If you want to help with the mission of NoneSoBlind.org, please

consider sending this and other "blog-bite" messages out to others who

might find the message, and the site in general, of interest. If you

are not a subscriber to this "blog-bite" newsletter, but wish to sign

up, that can be accomplished at

www.nonesoblind.org/newsletter/subscribe.php

NoneSoBlind.org

----------

If you no longer wish to receive this newsletter, you can unsubscribe here.

"To

look w/the eyes n see w/the heart is the secret of the Philospher's

stone" -

Petrus Bonus

[Guest guest]

At 03:08 AM 11/27/2005, you wrote:

>It seems to me that many of the same people who debunk religion then go on

>decry a lack of universal morality. Makes me laugh, that does. If religion

>(as in that old time religion, not " esoteric " religion or spirituality) is

>not the ground of any public morality, then what is? (Please don't respond

>with a boast about how " enlightened " you are, without explanation -

>rather, enlighten us if you can).

>

>There are reasons for grave doubt about any universal government, and in

>the opinion of many of us, that is what world courts, Kyoto protocols, and

>even the UN tend toward (decent universal federation tommorow, ruthless,

>hopeless, world-wide technological tyranny a week from Thursday).

And of course good ole time religion will lead us fearlessly into a new

world of peace, light and brotherhood? LOL.

But you will get your wish my . I hope you can live with it.

As for " public morality " - what you are talking about is that thin veneer

of civility people wear when they are all members of the one sect,

inclusive of that fear driven behaviour which is determined by whatever

laws are politically correct for the time. Whether the law is set down by a

religious regime, a democratic government or a tyranny makes no difference.

Good psychology is the understanding of human behaviour from all its

aspects. Such understanding reveals there is no blinding light on the road

to Damascus; that our culture remains locked to an archetypal process which

has existed for at least two thousand years. The core components of this

process are political and religious representations which remain unchanged,

and remain in opposition. Until this opposition is mediated and the

representations of its dynamics shifted to another image, the circle will

continue, endlessly repeating in different theatres of conflict the world

over.

This representation is now focusing at an individual level, focusing ideas

and behaviour, creating sides and opinion and splitting consciousness from

its broader roots. All that remains to be seen now is whether the

millennium of so called " western civilization " is to end with a bang or a

whimper. Ultimately the problem comes down to the social cost of energy,

both economic and material. Man follows his biology, and excess leads ever

to disaster.

regards,

[Guest guest]

Dan,

I don't believe restraint and morality are a product of religion. At best religion may be a collected works of the restraint of that cultural group. I have been touched by the sacred writings of different groups, but it is my connection to truth within myself that creates restraint, not the surrender of my person to the code of any religion. Surrender yes, but surrender to life.

Religion is the history of restraint. It is the past. Neruda wrote a poem of such.

Carl

Past - Pablo Neruda

We have to discard the past

and, as one builds

floor by floor, window by window,

and the building rises,

so do we go on throwing down

first, broken tiles,

then pompous doors,

until out of the past

dust rises

as if to crash

against the floor,

smoke rises

as if to catch fire,

and each new day

it gleams

like an empty

plate.

There is nothing, there is always nothing.

It has to be filled

with a new, fruitful

space,

then downward

tumbles yesterday

as in a well

falls yesterday's water,

into the cistern

of all still without voice or fire.

It is difficult to teach bones

to disappear,

to teach eyes

to close

but

we do it

unrealizing.

It was all alive,

alive, alive, alive

like a scarlet fish

but time

passed over its dark cloth

and the flash of the fish

drowned and disappeared.

Water water water

the past goes on falling

still a tangle

of bones

and of roots;

it has been, it has been, and now

memories mean nothing.

Now the heavy eyelid

covers the light of the eye

and what was once living

now no longer lives;

what we were, we are not.

And with words, although the letters

still have transparency and sound,

they change, and the mouth changes;

the same mouth is now another mouth;

they change, lips, skin, circulation;

another being has occupied our skeleton;

what once was in us now is not.

It has gone, but if the call, we reply;

"I am here," knowing we are not,

that what once was, was and is lost,

is lost in the past, and now will not return.

[Guest guest]

Neruda on Restraint - again, I can't see the religion in his words, only the

spirituality.

Keeping Quiet - Pablo Neruda

Now we will count to twelve

and we will all keep still.

This one time upon the earth,

let's not speak any language,

let's stop for one second,

and not move our arms so much.

It would be a delicious moment,

without hurry, without locomotives,

all of us would be together

in a sudden uneasiness.

The fishermen in the cold sea

would do no harm to the whales

and the peasant gathering salt

would look at his torn hands.

Those who prepare green wars,

wars of gas, wars of fire,

victories without survivors,

would put on clean clothing

and would walk alongside their brothers

in the shade, without doing a thing.

What I want shouldn't be confused

with final inactivity:

life alone is what matters,

I want nothing to do with death.

If we weren't unanimous

about keeping our lives so much in motion,

if we could do nothing for once,

perhaps a great silence would

interrupt this sadness,

this never understanding ourselves

and threatening ourselves with death,

perhaps the earth is teaching us

when everything seems to be dead

and then everything is alive.

Now I will count to twelve

and you keep quiet and I'll go.

[Guest guest]

Brita44@... wrote:

Dear Suzanne,

In

a message dated 11/26/2005 2:12:26 PM Eastern Standard Time,

dwatkins9@... writes:

It seems to me that many of the same people who debunk

religion then go on decry a lack of universal morality. Makes me laugh,

that does. If religion (as in that old time religion, not "esoteric"

religion or spirituality) is not the ground of any public morality,

then what is? (Please don't respond with a boast about how

"enlightened" you are, without explanation - rather, enlighten us if

you can).

Hi

Dan:

I

don't think Bard Schmookler is debunking religion; perhaps just

the tendency of some to think their religious/spiritual experience is

correct and others are wrong.

But to think that is precisely one of the things, at least, that makes

that old time religion that old time religion. Otherwise it's,

Whatever, dude. I'm OK and yer OK.

I don't claim to be particularly enlightened and I find a unity in

the essence of all religions and am quite interested in the variety of

ways that people experience the ineffable...Me, personally, I try to be

kind, mindful of my surroundings, open to others and grateful for this

gift of life...to me it is all God/Goddess... Morality in my opinion is

born of these things and doesn't require any formal religious doctrine

at all.

Dan

said:

There are reasons for grave doubt about any universal

government, and in the opinion of many of us, that is what world

courts, Kyoto protocols, and even the UN tend toward (decent universal

federation tomorrow, ruthless, hopeless, world-wide technological

tyranny a week from Thursday). Yet the author does not even allude to

the argument that there are big dangers inherent in the move toward

world government.

* I don't think he is talking about world government; he is

talking about the need for nations to cooperate; to have

some international laws and agreements that are in everybody's best

interest. We live in a world with a global economy, with both natural

and man made disasters that don't necessarily stay within national

borders...Certainly there is much that individual nations can cooperate

on without losing their diversity or autonomy...

Yes, all right - but to give over one's sovereignty to a "world court"?

In the case of Americans, to give it *back* to Europe? And not just to

Europe, but to the Dutch and the Belgians, if you please. Such a bitter

irony. I will never swallow it.

I never did understand this fear of world government...

Because you don't understand why it is fearsome, or because you don't

think it can happen?

I think the UN is our last best chance at learning to live

cooperatively

Why should I take for granted that one we should always "live

cooperatively"? Perhaps the human plant grows best under conditions of

particularity, and with enemies - or potential enemies - around . Could

I wave my wand and bring about permanent and universal peace,

prosperity, safety and entertainment, I would not do so - it would be

less damaging to start a nuclear war.

and sharing the limited resources on a shrinking planet...

I can't prove it, but I have an idea that the planet can take care of

herself - and can shrug off three or four billion of us any time that

it is needful. It takes some chutzpah to think that (1) we can "save"

the planet and (2) that it even needs saving by the likes of us.

and I find the instinct to see oneself as a member of a

global community

There is no such instinct. Our instincts are savage. The desire to be

"a member of a global community" (may all the gods spare me from such a

fate) is, I think, rather a result of religion - Christianity in some

cases, perhaps Buddhism in others - gone awry.

I become more and more convinced that Judaism is the most sensible of

the religions with which I am acquainted. Puritanical Christianity may

be a distant second.

and to cooperate woth others inherently decent and moral.

I don't know what "inherently" means here.

Some of the wisest and most compassionate

These two are separate. One can, to say the least, be compassionate

without being wise, and I shouldn't wonder if one can also be wise

without being compassionate. The wise are few. The compassionate many,

in my observation, do much more harm than good. What is more

troublesome than a do-gooder on the march?

people I know work for NGO's and at the UN...

Dan wrote:

Underneath this blog post I think I smell a sort of Rousseauist, noble

savage, "people are born good and civilization (or perhaps child abuse)

makes 'em bad" opinion that is, because so grossly unrealistic,

extremely dangerous.

* Well, I'm sure you know Rousseau better than I do but I do

believe that all people are born innately good and that our experience

in the world certainly conditions our choices and behavior...I was

profoundly moved by Bard Schmookler's book "Out of Weakness"

when I was writing my dissertation on the psychological affects of the

Holocaust on the second generation. He addresses the idea that

people are violent and cruel to one another, even perpetrators of great

evil, out of weakness not strength

Who said that human beings were born anything but weak? Strength is

acquired, weakness the default.

.....seems to hold true for me. People who have achieved some

degree of inner peace, who are content and appreciative of their lives

have no need to be powerful or lord it over others.

They may not need to lord it over others, but they certainly do need to

be powerful - unless they wish to lose their liberties and their

peaceful lives to others, to those who would conquer and enslave them.

For a nation or a people, is better to be feared than loved, if one

must choose. I think 'ole Nic was right about that.

I try not to categorize people as bad or good but unhealed

child abuse, or any personal experience of violence can certainly break

your spirit and make it very hard to have compassion for yourself or

others...So yes, without some opportunity to heal, if we are treated

mean we will be mean to others...The effects of trauma and abuse

are passed down from generation to generation unless it is somehow

interrupted. I find that true in my work as a psychotherapist and in

psychosocial peacebuilding...and I find some of Schmookler's work

important and inspiring..that's why I shared it. To each his own I

guess.

In its original sense, this last means something like "to each what is

fitting for him." But now it has, I think, come to mean something like,

"Whatever floats your boat."

Best,

Dan

"The wolf is always at the door."

The Eagles

Best Regards,

Suzanne

[Guest guest]

Heise wrote:

Dear Carl,

You claim, then, a mind of peculiar structure? It may be so. Who am I

to say?

Best,

Dan

Dan,

I don't believe restraint and

morality are a product of religion. At best religion may be a collected

works of the restraint of that cultural group. I have been touched by

the sacred writings of different groups, but it is my connection to

truth within myself that creates restraint, not the surrender of my

person to the code of any religion. Surrender yes, but surrender to

life.

Religion is the history of

restraint. It is the past. Neruda wrote a poem of such.

Carl

[Guest guest]

Heise wrote:

Dear Carl,

Neruda on Restraint - again, I can't see the religion in his words,

only the

spirituality.

Nor I - but who is he, and why should I accept him as an authority? I'm

suspicious of poets at the best of times.

Best,

Dan

[Guest guest]

Dan,

Correct.

Carl

From: JUNG-FIRE [mailto:JUNG-FIRE ] On Behalf Of Dan and WatkinsSent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 4:22 PMTo: JUNG-FIRE Subject: Re: Re: The Rejection of All Restraint

Heise wrote:Dear Carl,You claim, then, a mind of peculiar structure? It may be so. Who am I to say?Best,Dan

Dan,

I don't believe restraint and morality are a product of religion. At best religion may be a collected works of the restraint of that cultural group. I have been touched by the sacred writings of different groups, but it is my connection to truth within myself that creates restraint, not the surrender of my person to the code of any religion. Surrender yes, but surrender to life.

Religion is the history of restraint. It is the past. Neruda wrote a poem of such.

Carl

[Guest guest]

Dan,

You don't need to. I don't need you to. It is what it is. And now it is also in this place.

Your suspicion is of value to you, clearly, as you retain it. I don't need it to be otherwise, and don't expect you to care.

As to the value I see in poetry, I feel the great minds have always seen poetry in its place - see Plato et al.

Carl

From: JUNG-FIRE [mailto:JUNG-FIRE ] On Behalf Of Dan and WatkinsSent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 4:23 PMTo: JUNG-FIRE Subject: Re: Re: The Rejection of All Restraint

Heise wrote:Dear Carl,

Neruda on Restraint - again, I can't see the religion in his words, only thespirituality.Nor I - but who is he, and why should I accept him as an authority? I'm suspicious of poets at the best of times.Best,Dan

[Guest guest]

Heise wrote:

Dear Carl,

I thought - and still think - that Plato was suspicious of the poets as

enemies of philosophy (look at the job Aristophanes did on Socrates)

who might be insturmental in driving philosophy from the cities. Even

as he was, himself, a poet of sorts. Fighting fire with a somewhat

different kind of fire, i guess.

best,

Dan

Dan,

You don't need to. I don't need

you to. It is what it is. And now it is also in this place.

Your suspicion is of value to

you, clearly, as you retain it. I don't need it to be otherwise, and

don't expect you to care.

As to the value I see in poetry,

I feel the great minds have always seen poetry in its place - see Plato

et al.

Carl

From:

JUNG-FIRE [mailto:JUNG-FIRE ] On

Behalf Of Dan and Watkins

Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 4:23 PM

To: JUNG-FIRE

Subject: Re: Re: The Rejection of All Restraint

Heise wrote:

Dear Carl,

Neruda on Restraint - again, I can't see the religion

in his words, only the

spirituality.

Nor I - but who is he, and why should I accept him as an authority? I'm

suspicious of poets at the best of times.

Best,

Dan

[Guest guest]

Dear Dan,

Suspicion as a product of socratic questioning is to be admire I guess. I wonder, though, if there are some realities that must be experience before they can be understood, and even then may not be. I feel poetry can be one of these. There is truth I can't understand, but can still touch. That touch still has value.

Carl

From: JUNG-FIRE [mailto:JUNG-FIRE ] On Behalf Of Dan and WatkinsSent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 5:35 PMTo: JUNG-FIRE Subject: Re: Re: The Rejection of All Restraint

Heise wrote:Dear Carl,I thought - and still think - that Plato was suspicious of the poets as enemies of philosophy (look at the job Aristophanes did on Socrates) who might be insturmental in driving philosophy from the cities. Even as he was, himself, a poet of sorts. Fighting fire with a somewhat different kind of fire, i guess.best,Dan

[Guest guest]

There is truth I can't understand, but can still touch. That touch still has value.

Perhaps. But if one cannot understand something, can it be said to be certainly true?

Maybe poetry is the attempt to express something that can be touched/felt and even understood but that can't be expressed in a conventional manner. IMO, Truth is not always factual data.

Blissings,

Sam

If everyone is thinking alike, then someone isn't thinking. -- Denis WaitleyIt is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. -- AristotleThe goal of an argument should be progress, not victory. -- Author unknownAccept complete responsibility both for understanding and for being understood. --

[Guest guest]

If I don't understand it is it true?

Just because I believe something doesn't make it true. Just because I don't believe something doesn't make it untrue. *G* (quoting myself from my thesis)

Blissings,

Sam

Don't believe everything you think. ~ Bumper StickerMany of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view. ~ Obi-Wan Kenobi Choose your illusion carefully. ~ UnknownWho looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes. ~ C.G. Jung

[Guest guest]

Dear Carl,

Heise wrote:

Dear Dan,

Suspicion as a product of

socratic questioning is to be admire I guess. I wonder, though, if

there are some realities that must be experience before they can be

understood,

I think so. I think that was one of the things that Plato was trying to

teach through his own form of "poetry."

If by "suspicion" you mean skepticism, I agree.

and even then may not be. I

feel poetry can be one of these. There is truth I can't understand, but

can still touch. That touch still has value.

Perhaps. But if one cannot understand something, can it be said to be

certainly true?

Best,

Dan

Carl

From:

JUNG-FIRE [mailto:JUNG-FIRE ] On

Behalf Of Dan and Watkins

Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 5:35 PM

To: JUNG-FIRE

Subject: Re: Re: The Rejection of All Restraint

Heise wrote:

Dear Carl,

I thought - and still think - that Plato was suspicious of the poets as

enemies of philosophy (look at the job Aristophanes did on Socrates)

who might be insturmental in driving philosophy from the cities. Even

as he was, himself, a poet of sorts. Fighting fire with a somewhat

different kind of fire, i guess.

best,

Dan

[Guest guest]

Once again, right on! Dan. Are we going to start agreeing on things???? On the question of the latest subject and its correspondence I have the following personal understanding.

I question the statement:

" Religion is the history of restraint. It is the past.

The one thing in the history of the world, religion has not been is retrained. I hope I do not have to quote chapter or verse, but the Crusades? the Inquisition? the current Islamic terrorists for starters? That's a beginning on that refutation. And religion? in the past? Where? We are at present discussing evolution against "intelligent design" put forth by religionists. We salute the flag in a crisis of the words "under G-d" here in the US. We suffer from the product of the Islamic madrasas where they teach children to hate in the name of G-d and religion.And the Sunni vs Shiites?, Muslims against Hindus?....

And Carl, was it you? a question...what do you mean by "surrender to life?" How is that done? And is this a spiritual aim? a religious aim? or a moral aim? I guess we would all answer that differently, don't you think. How do you see it?

I have been accused of misunderstanding...so i am asking,OK? If you write to the list, is it not because you think something worth discussing? Suggesting that something "needs" to be so for someone who disagrees takes this to extremes. No one actually knows what "needs" to be so for someone else, as was suggested in the last post or am I wrong? "It is what is" is seen differently by different people, and cannot ipso facto be the same reality.

Anyway No, not in my reality is religion in the past. Myths die very slowly and hang around for centuries. They are alive and well today.

Someone else said:( Suzanne?)

" I don't claim to be particularly enlightened and I find a unity in the essence of all religions and am quite interested in the variety of ways that people experience the ineffable...Me, personally, I try to be kind, mindful of my surroundings, open to others and grateful for this gift of life...to me it is all God/Goddess... Morality in my opinion is born of these things and doesn't require any formal religious doctrine at all. "

People who are born into a Western culture are still surrounded by the traditional beliefs of that culture.. We were all educated in this culture and we drink in its values without even thought.. The Ineffable, has, i think nothing whatsoever to do with the religious constraints that time and custom have had on our society. We are talking "religion" not spirituality. Religion is thrust on us without any formal training or even dependence on doctrine. We osmos the general", be kind" and "be grateful" from our culture not from a specific doctrine of religion to which we must adhere.

One can be kind and grateful without any religious connection at all that is visible, but that does not mean that originally those values did not come from religious teaching. This civilization still speaks of the 10 commandments, the need for love, the rights of others...all that was originally religious belief.

I did not address this post to anyone person, because I had questions and opinions on the subject covered in general.

All these expressed ideas are my own thinking, I present them only as "my" opinion on the subject of the word "religion" I understand we all have different ways of interpreting that word. This is mine. It is interesting to compare views.

Toni

Re: Re: The Rejection of All Restraint

Heise wrote:Dear Carl,

Neruda on Restraint - again, I can't see the religion in his words, only thespirituality.Nor I - but who is he, and why should I accept him as an authority? I'm suspicious of poets at the best of times.Best,Dan

[Guest guest]

Surrender to life? G-d is life. G-d is not religion. Surrender to life.

Myths and religion are not the same. Living myths and living religions may be the same.

Carl

[Guest guest]

Dan,

If a tree falls in the forest...

If I don't understand it is it true?

Carl

[Guest guest]

Experience the 'True'...

Words can never convey the beauty of a tree; to 'understand' it, you must see it with your own eyes.

Language cannot capture the melody of a song; to 'understand' it, you must hear it with your own ears.

So it is with the 'Eternal Way': the only way to 'understand' it is to 'directly experience' it. The subtle 'truth of the universe' is 'unsayable' and 'unthinkable'

Therefore the highest teachings are 'wordless.' My own words are not the 'medicine', but a prescription;not the 'destination', but a map to help you 'reach' it.

When you 'get there' quiet your mind and close your mouth. Don't 'analyze' the 'Eternal Way' Strive instead to live it: silently, undividedly, with your whole harmonious being.

~ Hua Hu Ching 30 ~

[Guest guest]

Toni,

Two things.

1) Misunderstanding is a product of being alive. If you aren't misunderstanding something, you are not alive.

2) There is no "if you write, it must be for this reason" rule or code. Some here write to be heard, some write to discuss, some write to provoke, some write to disagree. I don't think we have ever agreed on the reasons a person must have to write. It is an interesting question though "Why do I write?" and deserves to be asked.

I agree with the point you make about how wrong it is to suggest to someone else that something needs be so. It would be a more valuable process, for me, if I asked Why do I need this to be so?

Carl

I have been accused of misunderstanding...so i am asking,OK? If you write to the list, is it not because you think something worth discussing? Suggesting that something "needs" to be so for someone who disagrees takes this to extremes. No one actually knows what "needs" to be so for someone else, as was suggested in the last post or am I wrong? "It is what is" is seen differently by different people, and cannot ipso facto be the same reality.

[Guest guest]

>I think that poetry typically *is* the voice of convention. I think that's one of the reasons the >philosophers look squiggly-eyed at it.

I'm not sure my poetry is, though I have to admit I haven't seen any squiggly-eyed philosophers giving it the once over.

Blissings,

Sam

He's a blockhead who wants a proof of what he can't perceive; And he's a fool who tries to make such a blockhead believe. -- BlakeIf everyone is thinking alike, then someone isn't thinking. -- Denis WaitleyIt is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. -- AristotleThe goal of an argument should be progress, not victory. -- Author unknownAccept complete responsibility both for understanding and for being understood. --

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/28/05 3:42:03 PM, JUNG-FIRE writes:

In a message dated 11/28/2005 11:17:24 A.M. Central Standard Time, 

dwatkins9@... writes:

>I  think that poetry typically *is* the voice of convention.  I think that's

one of the reasons the >philosophers look squiggly-eyed at  it.

Goodness, I don't know what poetry you're reading ... there are revolutions all over the place in poetry.

phoebe

*********************

www.phoebewray.net

*********************

[Guest guest]

I agree.

To whom are you addressing your patronising remark?

Carl

From: JUNG-FIRE [mailto:JUNG-FIRE ] On Behalf Of zozie@...Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 11:27 AMTo: JUNG-FIRE Subject: The Rejection of all Restraint

In a message dated 11/28/05 12:18:02 PM, JUNG-FIRE writes:

Dan,If a tree falls in the forest...If I don't understand it is it true?CarlAnd in the forest was an ego ...And thus only that which I understand is true. I don't think that's true at all. Because ... we are constantly learning things, and then understand that which we didn't understand before we learned this latest thing. I hope there is a Heaven and Jung is reading this list. The Old Man must be having a laugh or two.Smiling,phoebe*********************www.phoebewray.net*********************

[Guest guest]

Carl, I'm a lurker here and haven't had much chance to catch up with all the

threads - but I

just wanted to express my appreciation of the poetry you (and many others) post.

The

Neruda poems in particular ...

There is at least one philosopher who changed the course of his life to study

poetry or

rather the poetic image: Gaston Bachelard. I've just started reading him and

well, I think

he didn't recognize the poet in his own soul perhaps. Anyway thought this might

be of

interest from his last book (unfinished) _Fragments of a Poetics of Fire_:

" Existentialist philosophers seem to me too easily convinced of the permanence

of being in

all of its manifestations. Being for them encompasses even the billowing edges

of the

existential fog. Hardly out of the cradle, they exist; and the reality of the

world offers them

an immediate guarantee of their existence in that world. Beginning from premises

such as

these, spoken expression can be but an echo of the natural sounds of

existence--their

own existence. These existentialist philosophers discuss the world and

themselves in the

same terms, and always the existence of someone or something is the guarantee of

Language. But existence in Language is only one form of existence. Language is

never

truly autonomous. It is ever and always an instrument, at best a civilized

rendition of the

scream. Language in its essence always hints at an existence prior to its own

existence.

Language is expression, and expression is essentially a substitute for or

modality of the

speaking being.

In truth, inflamed speech, poetic imagery kindled at the hearth of language,

responds to

proponents of the theory of linguistic stability explosively, out of its own

inner dynamism.

If I am able to demonstrate here that in poetic imagery there burns an excess of

life, an

excess of language, I will be able to discover point by point the sense there is

in speaking

of the heat of language--that great hearth of undisciplined expression which,

afire with

existence, in the almost mad ambition to spark some existence beyond, something

beyond existence comes into being... "

aloha! L.

>

> Dear Sam,

>

> I think that poetry typically *is* the voice of convention. I think that's

> one of the reasons the philosophers look squiggly-eyed at it.

>

> Best,

>

> Dan

>

>

>

> In a message dated 11/27/2005 1:29:16 P.M. Central Standard Time,

> dwatkins9@c... writes:

>

>

>

> There is truth I can't understand, but can still touch. That touch still has

> value.

>

>

>

> Perhaps. But if one cannot understand something, can it be said to be

> certainly true?

>

>

>

>

> Maybe poetry is the attempt to express something that can be touched/felt

> and even understood but that can't be expressed in a conventional manner.

> IMO, Truth is not always factual data.

>

> Blissings,

> Sam

>

> If everyone is thinking alike, then someone isn't thinking. -- Denis Waitley

> It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without

> accepting it. -- Aristotle

> The goal of an argument should be progress, not victory. -- Author unknown

> Accept complete responsibility both for understanding and for being

> understood. --

>

>

>

>

>

> " Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means whereby beings

> may be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory experience and suffering. "

>

> H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama

>

>

>