Tolerance is a new name for "Self Repression". The more you do it, the more you demand that "others" do it (repress you) for you . Others repressing and installing external/ social roles and prohibitions into you saves you all that "mental (surplus) energy" in the form of "anxiety" (thinking of violating the rules/ laws) that it would take for you to mentally repress yourself. You then adhere more closely to the other's rules/ laws/ prohibitions and identify more closely with your oppressing rule-maker (Stockholm Syndrome) Eventually you even stop thinking of it entirely (the prohibition has repressed all thoughts of rule violation) and even forget its' external source.
External repression eventually "frees" you from all internal thought, and so makes you feel "liberated" (so long as you continue following the rules/ laws/ prohibitions). But violate those rules/ laws, and the mental anguish of guilt from breaking the rule/ law/ prohibition returns and will replace the mental Angst/ Anxiety of merely thinking about not following them (External Erinyes/ Furies become internalized Eumenides/ Kindly Ones). Even better, you can redeem the Guilt of 'others' and then take Pride in NOT ever being Guilty of violating the prohibition, and so feel even better about your rule-following obedience and innate tolerance! Liberal tolerance is an oxymoron that often results in mental depression (desires incapable of ever being realized/ satisfied) and the rise of State totalitarianism.
from Google AI:
Eumenides (Εὐμενίδες) is a Greek word meaning "the kindly ones" or "well-meaning ones" and serves as a euphemism for the Erinyes (the Furies), a group of Greek goddesses of vengeance. The term's etymology comes from the Greek prefix eu- meaning "well" or "good," and menos (mind, spirit, passion). Erinyes itself is believed to mean "the angry ones" or "Furies" in Latin.
"Repression of Desire Necessarily Turns into Desire for Repression"
---
"Think OUR way, and you won't have to think! Communicate in the "Politically Correct" Manner so as to Signal to the Outside that You've Incorporated the Cordyceps/ Training so and that we can stop Mentally repressing (re-training) you on this matter and move onto something else! Linguistically demonstrate that you've become "tolerant" to our subject training matter!"
Che Vuoi? Faithful Obedience to the Master!
51 comments:
Tolerance is allowing "others" to be who they are without allowing their behaviors or beliefs to affect you. They get to be them and you remain you. Free and unencumbered by the BS, ignorance, or delusions of the "others".
Yes, but its' a secular term now derived from religious practice
It's now externally forcing you to "tolerate" the other's beliefs AND does not come INTERNALLY from a religious "Love thy Neighbor" attitude (today's religious "tolerance"). Tolerance is Caesar's new word and has secular force placed behind the formerly merely religious "Love thy Neighbor" Divine injunction
Etymology:
The word "tolerance" has two primary meanings, each with its own historical timeline: it refers to the ability to endure or accept differences in others (first used in the Middle French and Early Modern English in the 14th and 15th centuries, respectively), or to the allowable amount of variation from a standard, as in manufacturing (attested from 1868).
Meaning 1: Acceptance and Respect for Others
Etymology: The word comes from the Latin tolerare, meaning "to bear or endure".
Timeline:
14th Century: The word first appeared in Middle French.
Early 15th Century: It was introduced into Early Modern English.
1765: The sense of "tendency to be free from bigotry" and "act of tolerating" emerged.
1995: UNESCO adopted the Declaration of Principles on Tolerance, defining it as respect and appreciation for diversity and human rights.
Meaning 2: Allowable Variation or Deviation
Context: This sense is common in engineering, mathematics, and physics.
Timeline:
1868: The meaning of "allowable amount of variation" emerged, initially in the context of minting weights.
Examples
Acceptance: A community's commitment to accepting different religious beliefs and cultural practices exemplifies tolerance.
Variation: In manufacturing, a part is made to certain tolerances (e.g., +/- 0.001 inch) to ensure it functions correctly within an assembly.
Us Marylanders kinda invented it back when we were the only "Catholic" Colony is a sea of Puritans, Protestants, Quakers, etc..... (before the 1st Amendment prohibiting State establishment of religion)
"Act of Toleration" refers to historical laws granting religious freedom, most notably the English Toleration Act of 1689, which allowed Protestant Dissenters to worship freely, and the earlier Maryland Toleration Act of 1649, which protected Christian denominations in that colony. These acts were significant milestones in the long struggle for religious freedom and established a legal basis for the free exercise of religion in both England and America.
The English Toleration Act of 1689
Purpose: This act granted religious freedom to Protestant Dissenters in England, allowing them to worship in licensed meeting houses.
Conditions: Dissenters had to take an oath of loyalty to the Crown and subscribe to a profession of Christian belief.
Significance: It was considered a "Great Charter of religious liberty" for its time, though it excluded Catholics and other non-Protestant groups.
The Maryland Toleration Act of 1649
Purpose: Passed by the Maryland colonial assembly, this act protected religious freedoms for Christians of different denominations, ensuring the colony was a desirable location for immigration.
Context: The act was partly a response to religious conflicts and a promise made to a group of Puritans who were induced to settle in Maryland by guaranteeing their freedom of worship.
Significance: It was the first law in the Thirteen Colonies to offer legal protection for religious freedom and contained language that foreshadowed the "free exercise" of religion mentioned in the U.S. First Amendment.
I tolerate but do not accept. If everyone thought the same, stayed with tradition etc. the planet would still be worshipping the sun, believe the earth is flat, and the sun orbits the earth.
Wisdom and compassion is responsible for tolerance. Not a mythological god or religion that supports the mythology.
Tolerate while working truthfully and honorably to effect change. Change through democratic principles and practice. Which is exactly what liberals will do working to undo the authoritarian fascism supported by tRump and his fascist party.
It was an idea born of the Reformation, before Liberals began trying to liberate themselves from reality in an ever-broadening scope of the concept ;)
The voluntary made mandatory @@
Yeah, you're right about the reformation. It reformed nothing but did muddy the waters.
You owe your modern "secular" capitalist vision entirely to it.
Works/ Deeds as the path to worldly redemption instead of Faith Alone for redemption in "another Heavenly World".
aka - Republican vs Democrats ideologies.
Democrats marching relentlessly forwards towards "The Undiscovered Country" (Progress/ Future) instead of Heaven.
...while Republicans tend to the Gardens in their own backyards (ie - or Europe as a Garden requiring undocumented gardeners)
Materialism (R)(yes you can, look what you've achieved) vs Ideological Evangelism (D)(your failure is someone else's fault, so keep the faith). What is your purpose?
...you derive your "meaning" from Buddhism. Christians from their religions. And mine from "psychology" (although I'm currently pursuing an anti-psychology and anti-philosophy collective intelligence and multiplicity tack)
International Holocaust Remembrance Day, is designated to be January 27, by the United Nations General Assembly. It’s a day for the international community and men and women of good will everywhere to call to mind the six million Jews and all the other victims killed by Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich. The specific event it commemorates is the liberation of the Auschwitz death camp by the Red Army in 1945.
It’s a day for all of you Progressive, Democratic, Communist, Socialist to take a good look in the Mirror.
To remember is to be human. And to remember the Holocaust is to stand in solidarity with the victims. The very act of calling the Holocaust to mind is, in a sense, a victory for humanity. If Hitler had succeeded in his genocidal plan, no one would be remembering it today. Indeed, as we read in the memoirs of those who suffered in Auschwitz and the other camps, their main fear was that, even if they survived to tell the tale, no one would believe them. Their Nazi tormentors told them as much. One prisoner at Auschwitz, Primo Levi, never forgot the cruel taunting by the guards—“No one will believe you or remember,” they told him, laughing in his face. It was a sadistic and dehumanizing act, an attempt to render the victims helpless and alone. Levi would remain haunted by that fear his entire life.
Thankfully, the Nazis failed in their quest, and on this day, the world remembers. We today are more fortunate than those living in the immediate postwar era. Then, the trauma was too fresh, too raw, and few survivors wished to testify to their ordeal. Indeed, the language didn’t even exist. The word “Holocaust” wouldn’t become common usage until some time had passed. A few voices eventually broke the silence, however: Anne Frank’s The Diary of a Young Girl appeared in the United States in 1952, followed by Elie Wiesel’s Night, and Primo Levi’s Survival in Auschwitz, still an astonishing book for its power, its brutal realism, and its humanity.
So in closing let me sat to those who stll feel the need to call the Republicans Nazis, I say to them LOOK IN THE MIRROR, and take a good look at Yourselves.
I do not any longer put even a smidgen of acceptance to the present modern USA mixed economy of greedy power capitalism and tea weak socialism.
My choice for government is Democratic Socialism functioning within our now dieing republic.
And my faith choice is my own and it certainly is non of the Abrahamic religions. For they are all misguided and misdirected today. Not that there was ever much truth to them anyway. But they're nice stories I guess. If you enjoy reading about a genocidal god who killed children and babies.
As for Christianity, well, the RCC and Roman Emperor Constantine in 325 CE bastardized the actual teachings of Jesus to serve the Empire and the Church Hierarchy.
Don't know a lot about Islam other than I know enough to disbelieve EVERYTHING Zionism and Zionist Christianity says about it.
BTW, I am not now a democratic nor have I ever registered democrat. I was a registered republican for years, until GWB. I am now an independent and still vote republican occasionally because in MA republicans still know how to govern quite effectively. Unlike the majority of the nation's Republicans. Especiall from the south.
Who Gives a Shit? Not Anyone Here!
NO one Here Gives.a Shit!
Sounds like Scapegoating Les. It's the "evil core" at the heart of every Us vs Them-ism.
I'm a lifetime Independent myself, Les. Party's are the obscene Super Ego's of all governments, and source of all corruption.
Even the DSA. :P
And I am a LIFE TIME MAGA
and Trump Supporter. And proud of it
Agreed. We're left with researching credible sources, making decisions in line with our ethics, and ignoring the incessant noises bent on distracting us from truth and who we really are. That apples to theocratic monotheistic religions in spades as well. IMNHO.
So you're 10 years old?
So we have to hate and scream at all of them, call them names? iDGAF about them.
They're not adrift. They HAVE their Philosopher's stones. They're not pushing 12 year old into demanding life denying genital mutilation surgeries.
No, that is tRump's method, as he admitted at C. Kirk's memorial.
Hate breeds hate. Violence breeds more violence. The only response to prevent more hate and violence is compassion and love. Anything else simply perpetuates hate and or violence.
That's why your here, to spread Trump Love and Compassion... @@
...any other reason would simply perpetuate hate and or violence.
The one person in tRump's Amerika grossly undeserving of respect or love is the horrifically evil tRump himself. If there were any such being as the Anti Christ it certainly would be tRump.
So he's the "exception" to your rule which transfers "sovereignty" (power) upon you. @@
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlsxcDDTwxU -- My free treat for you today. Enjoy the wisdom!
Just starting (1st aggregate) (Ship of Theseus) - So why do you go along with "trans"? Let my form be thus, let my form NOT be thus... Shouldn't you be counseling them against vain attempts at "form" alteration?
The two truths... Zizek's "Parallax View"... living in transcendent Space between is where the (absent) "truth" lies... ;_
"Cogito is thus not a substantial entity, but a pure structural function, an empty place—as such, it can only emerge in the interstices of substantial communal systems" - Slavoj Zizek
Slavoj Zizek, "THE PARALLAX VIEW: TOWARDS A NEW READING OF KANT" (Excerpt)
Consider Kant’s confrontation with the epistemological antinomy that characterized his epoch: empiricism versus rationalism. Kant’s solution is neither to choose one of the terms nor to enact a higher “synthesis” that would “sublate” the two as partial moments of a global truth (and, of course, nor does he withdraw to pure skepticism). The stake of his “transcendental turn” is precisely to avoid the need to formulate one’s own “positive” solution. What Kant does is change the very terms of the debate; his solution—the transcendental turn—is unique in that it, first, rejects any ontological closure: it recognizes a fundamental and irreducible limitation (”finitude”) of the human condition, which is why the two poles—rational and sensual, active and passive—cannot ever be fully mediated or reconciled. The “synthesis” of these two dimensions (i.e., the fact that our Reason seems to fit the structure of external reality that affects us) always relies on a certain salto mortale or “leap of faith.” Far from designating a “synthesis” of the two dimensions, the Kantian “transcendental” stands for their irreducible gap as such: the “transcendental” points to something in this gap—a new dimension that cannot be reduced to any of the two positive terms between which the gap is gaping.
Perhaps the best way to describe the Kantian break toward this new dimension is by means of the changed status of the notion of the “inhuman.” Kant introduced a key distinction between negative and indefinite judgment: the positive judgment “the soul is mortal” can be negated in two ways, when a predicate is denied to the subject (”the soul is not mortal”), and when a non-predicate is affirmed (”the soul is non-mortal”)—the difference is exactly the same as the one known to every reader of Stephen King between “he is not dead” and “he is undead.” The indefinite judgment opens up a third domain that undermines the underlying distinction: the “undead” are neither alive nor dead, they are precisely the monstrous “living dead.”³ The same goes for “inhuman”: “he is not human” is not the same as “he is inhuman”—”he is not human” simply means he is external to humanity, animal or divine, while “he is inhuman” means something thoroughly different, namely the fact that he is neither strictly human nor strictly inhuman, but marked by a terrifying excess which, although it negates what we understand as “humanity,” is inherent to being human. Perhaps one should risk the hypothesis that this is what changes with the Kantian revolution: in the pre-Kantian universe, humans were simply humans—beings of reason, fighting the excesses of animal lusts and divine madness—while only with Kant and German Idealism does the excess to be fought become absolutely immanent, the very core of subjectivity itself (which is why, in German Idealism, the metaphor for the core of subjectivity is Night, “Night of the World,” in contrast to the Enlightenment notion of the Light of Reason fighting the darkness around). So when, in the pre-Kantian universe, a hero goes mad, it means he is deprived of his humanity, i.e., animal passions or divine madness have taken over, while with Kant, madness signals the unconstrained explosion of the very core of a human being.
(cont)
Which, then, is this new dimension that emerges in the gap itself? It is that of the transcendental “I” itself, of its “spontaneity”: the ultimate parallax, the third space between phenomena and noumenon itself, is the subject’s freedom/spontaneity, which—although, of course, it is not the property of a phenomenal entity, so it cannot be dismissed as a false appearance concealing the noumenal fact that we are totally caught in an inaccessible necessity—is also not simply noumenal. In a mysterious subchapter of his Critique of Practical Reason entitled “Of the Wise Adaptation of Man’s Cognitive Faculties to His Practical Vocation,” Kant endeavors to answer the question of what would happen if we were to gain access to the noumenal domain, to the Ding an sich:
“... instead of the conflict which now the moral disposition has to wage with inclinations and in which, after some defeats, moral strength of mind may be gradually won, God and eternity in their awful majesty would stand unceasingly before our eyes. [...] Thus most actions conforming to the law would be done from fear, few would be done from hope, none from duty. The moral worth of actions, on which alone the worth of the person and even of the world depends in the eyes of supreme wisdom, would not exist at all. The conduct of man, so long as his nature remained as it is now, would be changed into mere mechanism, where, as in a puppet show, everything would gesticulate well but no life would be found in the figures.”⁴
(Cont)
In short, direct access to the noumenal domain would deprive us of the very “spontaneity” which forms the kernel of transcendental freedom; it would turn us into lifeless automata, or, to put it in today’s terms, into “thinking machines.” The implication of this passage is much more radical and paradoxical than it may appear. If we discard its inconsistency (how could fear and lifeless gesticulation coexist?), the conclusion it imposes is that, at the level of phenomena as well as at the noumenal level, we—humans—are a “mere mechanism” with no autonomy and freedom; as phenomena, we are not free—we are part of nature, a “mere mechanism,” totally subject to causal links, part of the nexus of causes and effects—and as noumena, we again are not free, but reduced to a “mere mechanism.” (Is what Kant describes as a person who directly knows the noumenal domain not strictly homologous to the utilitarian subject whose acts are fully determined by the calculus of pleasures and pains?) Our freedom persists only in the space IN BETWEEN the phenomenal and the noumenal. It is not that Kant merely limited causality to the phenomenal domain to be able to assert that, at the noumenal level, we are free autonomous agents; we are only free insofar as our horizon is that of the phenomenal, insofar as the noumenal domain remains inaccessible to us. Is the way out of this predicament to assert that we are free insofar as we ARE noumenally autonomous, BUT our cognitive perspective remains constrained to the phenomenal level? In this case, we are “really free” at the noumenal level, but our freedom would be meaningless if we were also to have cognitive insight into the noumenal domain, since that insight would always determine our choices—who WOULD choose evil, when confronted with the fact that the price of doing evil will be divine punishment? However, does this imagined case not provide us with the only consequent answer to the question “what would a truly free act be,” a free act for a noumenal entity, an act of true noumenal freedom? It would be to KNOW all the inexorable, horrible consequences of choosing evil, and nonetheless to choose it. This would be a truly “non-pathological” act—an act in which one acts with no regard for one’s pathological interests. Kant’s own formulations are misleading here, since he often identifies the transcendental subject with the noumenal “I,” whose phenomenal appearance is the empirical “person,” thus shirking his radical insight into how the transcendental subject is a pure formal-structural function beyond the opposition of noumenal and phenomenal.
(cont)
Crucial is thus the shift of the place of freedom from the noumenal beyond to the gap between phenomenal and noumenal; and this brings us to the complex relationship between Kant and Hegel. Is this shift not precisely the shift from Kant to Hegel, from the tension between immanence and transcendence to the minimal difference/gap in immanence itself? Hegel is thus not external to Kant: the problem with Kant was that he produced the shift but was not able, for structural reasons, to formulate it explicitly—he “knew” that the place of freedom is effectively not noumenal, but the gap between phenomenal and noumenal, but could not put it so explicitly, since, if he were to do so, his transcendental edifice would have collapsed. However, WITHOUT this implicit “knowledge,” there would also have been no transcendental dimension, so one is forced to conclude that, far from being a stable consistent position, the dimension of the Kantian “transcendental” can only sustain itself in a fragile balance between the said and the unsaid, through producing something the full consequences of which we refuse to articulate or “posit as such.” (The same goes, say, for the fact that, in the Kantian dialectic of the Sublime, there is no positive Beyond whose phenomenal representation fails: there is nothing “beyond”—the “Beyond” is only the void of the impossibility/failure of its own representation; or, as Hegel put it at the end of the chapter on consciousness in his Phenomenology of Spirit, beyond the veil of the phenomena, consciousness only finds what it itself has put there. Again, Kant “knew it” without being able to consistently formulate it.)
Absolute reality and relative reality exist simultaneously. The challenge is in recognizing (a felt sense) of the absolute while being fully functional in the relative.
It isn't a one or the other type of thing. It's more like opposite sides of the same coin. When experiencing suffering or dissatisfaction tap into the absolute. When things are settled the relative. Think of the absolute as refuge. Where one reconnect with things as they really are.
Good convo. Although I find your guy a challenge to struggle through. But no biggie. Took me a few years to get Nagarjuna as well. It's what keeps life interesting. The search of the seeker. The only state to be in IMO. Afterall, everything is empty.
Rosanne is one fine example of blind reification of beliefs. As circumstances and conditions are constantly changing, always in a state of flux, everything BUT the immediate present moment is unknowable.
Yes, the truth lies in between the illusions...especially if some of the "aggregate" inputs are missing (2d vs 3d visuals... mono vs stereo audios)
Good video, Les. Thanks for sharing.
"Our intelligence cannot wall itself up alive, like a pupa in a chrysalis. It must at any cost keep on speaking terms with the universe that engendered it" - William James
Hence - thought. The "silent" audio track.
You are NOT your thoughts.
If there is no "I"... there is no "you" that has thoughts (aggregations). There is also no meaning to them. As in Ecclesiastes 3, "All is vanity".
...and mirrors in which to view it.
"Cogito is thus not a substantial entity, but a pure structural function, an empty place—as such, it can only emerge in the interstices of substantial communal systems"
Cogito ergo sum?
or In medias res?
...cells exchanging ions through ion channels.
I and you are merely human constructs to delineate two human forms.
Because everything is empty everything is possible...
Post a Comment