tmnt and religio-spirituality

[GreenWillow]

~Well. now that I'm thinking about it it seems like I think Taoism's more exoteric stuff-- which is a lot like sympathetic magic, with lots of dieties-- could be thought of as the "fundamentalism" aspect of the religion. And what HT had spoken of a few pages (?) back on this thread-- the Buddhist practice that is very centered on prayer beads and it's whole pantheon of dieties, might represent that more literal approach.
It might be safe to say that all religions have their exoteric (or fundamentalist) aspects, and also their more esoteric aspects. One part is the literal interpretation that focusses on dogma and ritual and folklore, while the esoteric beliefs have more to do with spirituality. And I think of spirituality as a person's direct relationship with Spirit, and how that manifests in one's life; how we deal with others or with life in general.
So you could have a very religous person, who was not very spiritual, or a very spiritual person who is not at all religious.

~GW

[HorseTechie]

Ooo.. very well said. That's even stated in the bible too... *shuts up*

[heretic888]

Well. now that I'm thinking about it it seems like I think Taoism's more exoteric stuff-- which is a lot like sympathetic magic, with lots of dieties-- could be thought of as the "fundamentalism" aspect of the religion. And what HT had spoken of a few pages (?) back on this thread-- the Buddhist practice that is very centered on prayer beads and it's whole pantheon of dieties, might represent that more literal approach.

That is true, but you will never find a Buddhist roshi or guru saying the highest Way is to pray to Buddha or anything like that. That's the difference between the Eastern traditions and the monotheistic big three. A Taoist sage understands that the 'gods' in Taoist thought dont actually exist and are archetypes. Whereas a Christian priest thinks there actually was a Jesus Christ.

Taoist and Buddhist teachers are aware that the 'exoteric' aspects of their religion exist to placate the more ignorant masses, and know that the REAL essence of their religion is bodhi and enlightenment. The Jews, Christians, and Muslims actually think the exoteric part of their religion IS the essence. Of course, this is not suprising considering that any teacher that actually understood the esoteric of religion would be crucified in the West. The unfortunate consequence is that virtually all spiritual wisdom in the West (with notable exceptions of Kabbalah and Sufism) has been destroyed by ignorant violent paranoids.

[GreenWillow]

~Ok, I have a question for everyone who's following this. According to Leonard Shlain (The Alphabet versus the Goddess) prior to the birth of Islam and Judaism, there were no wars fought over religion-- that is, no wars fought over *ideas* of what God is. There were hundreds of gods, one basically for each township or tribe throughout the prehistoric world and when you went to a different place, you sort of adapted and worshipped whoever the reigning diety was in that region. There were wars fought over power and wealth and land, but not over beliefs.
The House of Abraham (from whence came Islam, Judaism, and later Christianity) began this strange new kind of war --"Holy Wars" which were fought to convert one population to the religious beliefs of another.
Now I think I know what Riane Eisler, author of The Chalice and the Blade, would say, but what do you all think?
Heretic, are there any parallels in the Eastern religions? Any Holy Wars fought only for the purpose of converting one group of people to another religion? I can't think of when it might have happened in Asia, but I haven't studied Asian history enough.

~GW

[HorseTechie]

hrmm.. *decides to leave this one for Heretic* Seeing as how I sometimes skew the facts on Far Eastern religions a bit.

The only upheaval I'm aware of is when the Catholic missionaries came to over to Japan. They were willing to trade with the westerners, but the Japanese were not going to let their religion be 'replaced' so easily.

[GreenWillow]

~Yeah-- but that was with the introduction of Christianity -- again, one of those three monotheistic religions that were derived from the same root. I'm looking for something that might refute Shlain's premise-- that before the Judeo/Christian/Islamic religions, there were no "holy wars".
Shlain writes that there is a connection between the introduction of the alphabet (rather than pictographs) which alters the human brain and the way we think, that favors patriarchal male-dominated religions and cultures.

~GW

[heretic888]

~Ok, I have a question for everyone who's following this. According to Leonard Shlain (The Alphabet versus the Goddess) prior to the birth of Islam and Judaism, there were no wars fought over religion-- that is, no wars fought over *ideas* of what God is. There were hundreds of gods, one basically for each township or tribe throughout the prehistoric world and when you went to a different place, you sort of adapted and worshipped whoever the reigning diety was in that region. There were wars fought over power and wealth and land, but not over beliefs.
The House of Abraham (from whence came Islam, Judaism, and later Christianity) began this strange new kind of war --"Holy Wars" which were fought to convert one population to the religious beliefs of another.
Now I think I know what Riane Eisler, author of The Chalice and the Blade, would say, but what do you all think?

Heh, that's a load of ******** if I ever heard one. So-called 'religious wars' have been around for a very, very long time and can be traced back to most horticultural societies. Besides, its not like there is a clear disctinction between wars over religion and wars for power, if you know what i mean.

It sounds to me that this author is trying to glorify some time when 'the goddess' reigned and all was sweetness and light and gummy bears. Then the mean ol' male chauvanist god came and ****ed up eveything up, right? not quite. The goddess-dominated horticultural societies were the first ones to implement religo-ethnic wars and had the highest degree of human slavery and human sacrifice of any cultural type. I'm not saying patriarchal is better than matriarchal or the other way around, only that both were primitive prerational religious patternings that didnt comprehend the true value of human life.

Heretic, are there any parallels in the Eastern religions? Any Holy Wars fought only for the purpose of converting one group of people to another religion? I can't think of when it might have happened in Asia, but I haven't studied Asian history enough.

Not to my knowledge. Perhaps with Confucianism or some forms of primitive Hinduism. But most certainly not with most forms of Buddhism, Taoism, Vedanta, Tantra, or Shinto. There were some wars in ancient Japan over what would be the state religion, Shinto or Buddhism, but that was relatively short-lived. Most of the wars in the East have been about amassing land and so-on, but could be seen as religiously linked...... but there never was any overt attempt to 'convert' the world.

The only upheaval I'm aware of is when the Catholic missionaries came to over to Japan. They were willing to trade with the westerners, but the Japanese were not going to let their religion be 'replaced' so easily.

As far as I know, Japan accepted Christianity with open arms.... probably because they desired Spanish and Dutch goods. The Jesuits had a big presence in Japan.

Shlain writes that there is a connection between the introduction of the alphabet (rather than pictographs) which alters the human brain and the way we think, that favors patriarchal male-dominated religions and cultures.

Another big load of ********. The development of letters and so on is the sign of developing higher abstract thought, as opposed to simplistic concrete-operational patterning. It is not masculine or feminine. The division of male and female brains like that is also largely erroneous. If anything, male brains are more associated with spatial (as opposed to verbal and written) patternings, due to a greater right hemispheric-dominance.

Honestly, writers like this try and portray that the history of humanity is of women values gettin squashed on by the mean ol' men values and, that originally, men and women lived in harmony under a matriarchy and eveything was heaven. That is so wrong i dont even know where to begin. Human history is a history of the gradual evolution of consciousness.... with things like compassion and reason and freedom coming more to the forefront as the millenia unfold. It isnt coincidence that slavery was almost universally banned across the globe within a century time period.

[GreenWillow]

~Pushed some buttons with that one I guess. That's ok. Ten years ago I was writing a paper in grad school dealing with religion and consciousness and I was struck by the paradigm shift that took place with the advent of written language. I wrote a thesis paper, Leonard Shlain wrote a book. (He prolly made more money off the same premise than me.... )
A very well-researched text on the topic (which does manage to avoid that reductionist "bad" male vrs "good" female model) is The Origins of Consciousness and the Breakdown of the Bi-Cameral Mind by Julian Hayes.

No, I don't think that there were any gummie bears running around those pre-literate agrarian societies. None of these authors, nor myself, would argue that everything was all egalitarian sunshine and light. But a fundamental paradigm shift -- a brain function shift -- appears to have occured with the introduction of the written word. We gained much as a species, but possibly at a cost.

~GW


"If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to treat everything like a nail."
Abraham Maslow

[heretic888]

actually, we evolved.

the so-called 'patriarchal' societies you speak of were a result of a higher level of evolutionary consciousness. In modern psychological terms, it was the development of what is now called concrete-operational thinking. The so-called matriarchal cultures beforehand were primarily pre-operatonal.

with the advent of the Age of Reason and democracy, our species developed into formal-operational thinking and perspectival rationalism. a further paradigm shift occured around the baby boomer years, when network-logic and aperspectival pluralism first merged (the level of thinking beyond formal operational).

this really has nothing to do with patriarchy or matriarchy. it has to do with the evolutionary development of consciousness and awareness. remember though, that every stage of development also has its inquisition (for the concrete-operational stage of the male-dominated agrarian societies it actually WAS the Inquisition!!)

[GreenWillow]

Originally Posted by heretic888

actually, we evolved.

~No argument here. What I'm refering to is a shift in how our brains began functioning. We gained the gift of "rational", "logical" (ie formal operations) but in giving up the non-rational "magical" thinking, we lost what could be called a direct connection to Spirit. We began to learn from books, rather than direct experience, or from oral tradition. Oral tradition favors "right brain" activity. Reading alphabetic language calls for the more focused "left brain" to come into play. I'm not saying the introduction of reading was a *bad* thing-- but there was a sacrifice made in the service of our evolution. Shlain cites some wonderful evidence to support his thesis-- no room for it all here.

Originally Posted by heretic888

with the advent of the Age of Reason and democracy, our species developed into formal-operational thinking and perspectival rationalism. a further paradigm shift occured around the baby boomer years, when network-logic and aperspectival pluralism first merged (the level of thinking beyond formal operational).

~I think a fundamental part of that paradigm shift arose out of the reintegration of "right brain" function into what had for centuries been patterns of predominately "left brain" ideals. The 60's was really one big explosion of right-brain activity. The peace movement, the civil rights movement, the womens' movement, (lotta movements...) the shift in business from hierarchies to networking, the discovery of the extent of the interdpendence of organisms in an ecosystem (a term which didn't even exist until the mid 60's) -- all these things reflect a shift to more global universal thinking ("aperspectival pluralism") and inclusion, rather than exclusion.

Originally Posted by heretic888

this really has nothing to do with patriarchy or matriarchy. it has to do with the evolutionary development of consciousness and awareness.

~Well, yes and no. There have been paradigm shifts throughout time-- all heralded by some revolutionary breakthrough in humankind's knowledge that shakes people's belief systems to the core. Sometimes the balance of power shifts to favor "patriarchal" values, sometimes more "matriarchal". We hope (and I see Heretic you are prolly one of those who does perceive the history of humanity as being synonymous with the history of consciousness) that all this leap-frogging has a forward direction-- and that we are evolving. (Personally, I'd like to get there (wherever that is) before we self-destruct the whole damn planet .....)

Originally Posted by heretic888

remember though, that every stage of development also has its inquisition (for the concrete-operational stage of the male-dominated agrarian societies it actually WAS the Inquisition!!)

~Yup....So would the destruction of the Native American culture in the US, the Holocaust of Nazi Germany, and the McCarthyism in the 50's in the US for example be the "Inquisitions" of the formal-operational stage of our evolving human consciousness?
Gee...can't wait to see what us highly evolved aperspective pluralists come up with.......

~GW

[heretic888]

What I'm refering to is a shift in how our brains began functioning. We gained the gift of "rational", "logical" (ie formal operations) but in giving up the non-rational "magical" thinking, we lost what could be called a direct connection to Spirit. We began to learn from books, rather than direct experience, or from oral tradition. Oral tradition favors "right brain" activity. Reading alphabetic language calls for the more focused "left brain" to come into play. I'm not saying the introduction of reading was a *bad* thing-- but there was a sacrifice made in the service of our evolution.

Actually, that is a HUGE misconception among New Age circles.

First off, we really didn't develop formal rational (or perspectival reason) thought as a whole during that point in time, but rather what developmental psychologists as concrete-operational thinking. This stage precedes the formal-operational thinking of true reason (which only truly emerged during the Renaissance and Age of Reason).

Secondly, we did not lose any 'direct contact with Spirit'. This may deeply suprise you, but an atheistic scientist is in fact MORE SPIRITUAL than most of the 'magical' persons you speak of, in that the scientist has a higher level of consciousness that is closer to what Spirit symbolizes. The magical-animistic stage you speak of us is not highly developed or spiritual at all. It aligns with what developmental psychologists call pre-operational thinking; it is a result of the inability to yet fully differentiate subject and object.... and thus, there is a sort of animism in which the individual 'projects' his or her egoic intention on inanimate objects (thus imbuing with them with a so-called 'spirit'). This is very similar to modern-day infants (which is not suprising considering our species was still in its 'infancy' at the time). This stage is marked by narcissistic ego projectionism, not a spiritual ego-less self-transcendence. Remember not all non-rational forms of thought are 'spiritual'. (However, there are exceptions at every stage of growth. I am not saying EVERYBODY at this era was magical-animistic, some were indeed very spiritual, but the vast majority was typified by naricissism not transcendence).

Thirdly, the author seems to have this entire paradigm of growth very confused. We did NOT go from 'left' to 'right'... nor did we go from 'spiritual' to 'rational'. Rather, we went from what could be called 'lower' to 'higher'. Oral tradition is not necessarily more right brained, nor is language more left brained. You must remember that there is an equal manifestation of right and left, male and female, at ALL stages of growth. Nonrational is not any more 'left-brained' than rational. With concrete-operational thinking and written language we in fact became MORE spiritual, not less.

I think a fundamental part of that paradigm shift arose out of the reintegration of "right brain" function into what had for centuries been patterns of predominately "left brain" ideals. The 60's was really one big explosion of right-brain activity. The peace movement, the civil rights movement, the womens' movement, (lotta movements...) the shift in business from hierarchies to networking, the discovery of the extent of the interdpendence of organisms in an ecosystem (a term which didn't even exist until the mid 60's) -- all these things reflect a shift to more global universal thinking ("aperspectival pluralism") and inclusion, rather than exclusion.

Incorrect. As I stated previously, left and right equally manifest throughout all stages of growth. The stages themselves occur down the center, you might say. Yes, i agree that the boomer age marked the first real beginning of aperspectival pluralism and truly universal care, but it was also marked by sever regressions into narcissism (which Ken Wilber has termed as 'boomeritis'). Among the baby boom, there was BOTH: high minded liberalism and network-thinking; and narcisstic drops resulting in the term the 'me generation'. It was a somewhat paradoxal time.

Back to the left and right. I think what you need to understand is that left and right first truly differentiate at the concrete-operational level. However, upon that separation, there is a continued process of REINTEGRATION. Look at the growth in cells, they differentiate and recombine in the process of growth. That is how a seed becomes a tree. Same with us. Yes, in the pre-operational level left and right were more or less 'united'.... but it was a simplistic, non-distinctive 'unity' and not a TRUE 'unity in diversity'.

Look at it this way. With the complete self-absorption of prehumans, there is basically NO disctinction between subject and object, left and right. With pre-operational thinking at the magical-animistic level, they begin to differentiate. With concrete-operational thinking of the patriarchal agrarians, they fully separate. With formal-operational thought, this separation reaches its zenith and they have begun to reintegrate. With network-logic, the reintegration is fully underway. Future paradigms will be marked by even greater 'unity in diversity' (some of which are already occuring). It is not that left or right, male or female, is more 'dominant' at any given level.... only that the differences between the two are acknowledged and later reunited in a higher form (like seed's molecules separating and recombining to later form a tree).

There have been paradigm shifts throughout time-- all heralded by some revolutionary breakthrough in humankind's knowledge that shakes people's belief systems to the core. Sometimes the balance of power shifts to favor "patriarchal" values, sometimes more "matriarchal".

Yes, but the balance of patriarchy and matriarchy has more to do with environmental and technological conditions rather than awareness or conscousness. Matriarchy was present among the horticulutral pre-operational magica-animists. Patriarchy was present among the agrarian concrete-operational conservative-fundamentalists. Neither were really dominant among the later stages because neither male nor female biological differences had an advantage (although we still feel the 'legacy' of the old patriarchy. old habits die hard).

We hope (and I see Heretic you are prolly one of those who does perceive the history of humanity as being synonymous with the history of consciousness) that all this leap-frogging has a forward direction-- and that we are evolving. (Personally, I'd like to get there (wherever that is) before we self-destruct the whole damn planet .....)

Actually, the history of the UNIVERSE is the history of the evolution of consciousness. This has been going on since the Big Bang (although involution preceded the Big Bang, but that's another story). Humanity is just the zenith of that evolution as of now. basically though..... we are going forward. But, evolution is like the stock market..... there are occasional dips and rises... but on the whole the whole thing is slowly inching higher. Don't worry about us blowing up the planet. Humanity has a destiny you might say, to fully manifest consciousness. If not.... well, the universe will just have to wait ANOTHER 5 billion years to reach this point.

~Yup....So would the destruction of the Native American culture in the US, the Holocaust of Nazi Germany, and the McCarthyism in the 50's in the US for example be the "Inquisitions" of the formal-operational stage of our evolving human consciousness?

Hmmm.... this is kinda hard because there are occasional regressions into lower speheres. Okay. The inquisition of pre-operational matriarchy was ethnic-religous wars, cannibalism, and human sacrifices. The inquisition of concrete-operational patriarchy was the Inquisition, Crusades, and so on, as well as Stalin's big for a 'communist revolution'. The inquisition of formal-operational reason was the American-Russian Cold War and self-fixated capitalist greed (which is not to say capitalism is bad, only forms of capitalist greed)--- by the way, most of the world is at this stage. The inquistion of the network-logical boomers is our ever-so-happy political correctness ******** and thought police, as well as naricisstic drops into lower spheres ( a direct example of this is the recent 'culture of victims').

The destruction of the Native American culture was a combination of imperialistic fedualism (a stage which lies between pre-operational and concrete-operational) and conrete-operational fundamentalism. The Holocaust was a narcissistic re-emergence of the pre-operational tribalism of the lower spheres. And, like I said previously, the McCarthy Cold War was a negative manifestation of the formal-operational thoughtline.

Every stage has its light and its shadow. The higher the stage,however, the less..... DEADLY the shadow seems to be (thought police are just VERY annoying, not life-threatening).

[heretic888]

where'd the discussion go?????

[Kameko]

Good bloody gawd that's a long post, Heretic!!!

Sorry, but I didn't see it before.

And I don't know what happened to the discussion.

[heretic888]

Good bloody gawd that's a long post, Heretic!!

heh. thanks i try.

[Kameko]

[HorseTechie]

His long post must have choked us. \

But anyway... a new seed of thought was posted on the NTML (by non-other than Kya)...

It was assumed that older generations in Japan (and the rest of Far and SouthEast Asia) did not observe such holidays as Christmas, since Christams was originally a religious holiday (or pseudo religious - in the sense it was invented by the Roman Catholics with the borrowing of the greek mythos and the pagan celebration of lights) for the western cultures.

So it was also wondered if the TMNT really did celebrate Christmas, assuming that if Splinter prolly did not care much about it.

My Kroean husband and many other Asian friends I knew in college, told me otherwise. The newer generations that are more fascinated with western culture now also celebrate the spirit of Christmas, by the ritual of giving gifts and whatnot.

But what is your view on this too, would you think the TMNT (or more specifically, Splinter) would be big fans of Christmas, Heretic?

[heretic888]

i dont think they would have a problem with it. they would probably see it as a chance to have a little fun and come together as a family.

like most japanese, the religious side of christmas probably means nothing to them.