Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [existlist] Re: Beware the new religion

Expand Messages
  • Bhanu Padmo
    Correction : Please read *self-threat* for *self-thread* in the following text (addressed to William). ... From: Bhanu Padmo Subject:
    Message 1 of 12 , Mar 12 11:15 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Correction : Please read *self-threat* for *self-thread* in the following text (addressed to William).

      --- On Tue, 3/12/13, Bhanu Padmo <greenbhanu@...> wrote:

      From: Bhanu Padmo <greenbhanu@...>
      Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: Beware the new religion
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com, greenlogic@yahoogroups.com, esotericismspirituality@yahoogroups.com, Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com, TheRampaPath@yahoogroups.com, seerseeker@yahoogroups.com, TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2013, 8:06 AM




      William! 
      (Notion of
      Individualistic Collectivism)

       

      It
      depends on how one defines *individualism* and *collectivism*.

       

      These
      two notions are ascribable to two different levels viz. elementary and
      composite levels of personal existence. The first level is rather *theoretical*
      when the entity may wistfully deem itself as *solitary*. The second level is
      rather *real* when the entity is, contrary to its wistfulness, a part of an
      integrated/ whole system of constituents.

       

      Both
      notions, viz. individualism and collectivism, are simultaneously applicable to
      self-existence. How? We may have to refer to the Magnate-Analogy for this.

       

      Take
      an individual as one of innumerable magnetic iron-particles that compose a
      bar-magnet. Effects of personal polarities of these individuals add up to give
      rise to integral/ systemic polarity. Not the vice versa. That is to say, the
      conjured-up ghost of integral/ systemic polarity doesn*t create an individual
      polarity.

       

      The
      collective effect is the sum total of the common inherent property taken over
      all constituent individuals. The objective of such summation of consenting and
      convergent common inherence is *escalated* individual prowess and benefits.

       

      Collectivism
      is understanding and execution of collectivistic amelioration of
      individualistic existence, when individualism is unhindered self-appraisal and
      execution of own inherence and potentiality.

       

      Clearly,
      collectivism has two components viz. (i) collectivistic amelioration of own
      existence through personal collation (own blending with the collective at the
      interface) and (ii) collectivistic amelioration of own existence through
      integral/ hierarchical collation (own blending with the collective in latter*s
      hierarchical womb).

       

      The
      benefits of collectivism accrues in an arithmetic/ geometric progression
      because of the first component and in an exponential progression because of the
      second component.

       

      Collectivistic
      amelioration of the collective (as the sum total of the double-edged individual
      amelioration taken over all constituents) is the *by-product*, not the *primary
      objective*.

       

      The
      morbid misplaced/ disproportionate personal apprehension of being *pruned* by
      the collectivistic machinery when one is being actually *preened* is due to
      mistaking the aforesaid *by-product* for *primary objective*.

       

      So,
      wouldn*t you like to have your individualistic existence ameliorated through
      the two-pronged benignant collectivism without the self-thread of being *sacrificed
      indiscriminately* for the collective? Yes, we suppose.

       

      Let*s
      call this notion of collectivism the *individualistic collectivism*.




      (Bhanu Padmo)

      http://www.bhanupadmo.com


      You
      may reply this thread upon http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/greenlogic/%c2%a0
      as well

      or consign a copy to greenlogic@...   for extended discussions.





      --- On Fri, 3/1/13, William <vize9938@...> wrote:

      From: William <vize9938@...>
      Subject: [existlist] Re: Beware the new religion
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Friday, March 1, 2013, 10:50 PM
















       













      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" wrote:

      >

      > Bill,

      >

      > I support causes I agree with but not by joining organizations or by giving money. I do so at the risk of my individualism but for the sake of my authenticity. I petition, vote, and speak out wherever allowed. I'm ecstatic the House passed the expanded VAWA, and I don't feel this kind of activism violates my existentialist perspective. I let my representatives know who and what they need to represent; some need to be prevented from regaining office.

      >

      > Mary

      > Mary, I wrote a long reply to this but it went into the vapor. Bill

      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" wrote:

      > >

      > >

      > >

      > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" wrote:

      > > >

      > > > Bill, Jim, h...

      > > >

      > > > I think another characteristic which also fits the conspiracy believer is that strange combination of cynicism, incredulity, and naivete. Also perhaps the need to belong to something greater than themselves alone. It's a blend of thinking governments and the wealthiest control history and that no one person or small group can plan such tragedies, so there has to be some eternal plot to ruin everyone else. I'm not saying there are no conspiracies, because obviously there are. Here again it's another way of an individual seeking a large group to avoid controlling their own destiny by making decisions without that kind of certainty, a way to avoid action. Many conspiracy buffs are apathetic towards creating change but very active in their new 'religion'.

      > > >

      > > > Mary

      > > > Mary, I have often written about the difference between individualists and collectivists. Some people are joiners and some are loners. I think existentialists are much more apt to be loners. I know I am an individualist. I am happy to say I just dumped three of my long time associations. I will not mention their names as I do not want to give them the publicity.

      > > I tried " for cause" organisations such as the NRA and ACLU. I have quit all of them as I see them become single minded and obsessed. The collectivists continually find causes to band togeather . When ever someons pulls out Roberts Rules of Order,I quit, I leave. I think such joiners are cheap power troopers. They do not want any skin in the game but they want their egos stroked.

      > > I learned these things from inside organisations that I was forced to join. I will not list them but I belong to none of them now. I still like many people and respect my friends . Joining up for single issues often morphs into horror shows. Just look at AARP. Bill

      > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" wrote:

      > > > >

      > > > >

      > > > >

      > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" wrote:

      > > > > >

      > > > > > I've enjoyed reading the recent exchange between Bill, Mary and h on the question of what existentialism is and what its significance is in the twenty-first century.

      > > > > >

      > > > > > I agree with Mary that an existentialist must have some sort of connection with at least one of the main existentialist writers – Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre and Camus – or with some of the ideas which have been passed on by or from these great writers.

      > > > > >

      > > > > > For me what distinguishes existentialism from other philosophical movements is its emphasis on the fact that the individual is fundamentally alone in the world and is responsible for her actions and commitments and what she makes of her life. There is a distance between each of us as we are all different, with different thoughts, feelings, values and commitments.

      > > > > >

      > > > > > As Bill emphasizes existentialism is opposed to group-think such as organised religion or other forms of indoctrination from above.

      > > > > >

      > > > > > I attended a very interesting talk on Monday by someone called Jovan Byford who was talking about the question of the difference between real conspiracies and the sorts of conspiracy theories which are false.

      > > > > >

      > > > > > He gave what he thought were examples of real conspiracies – Watergate, the FBI infiltration of the Us Civil Rights Movement, and the Goldman Sachs conspiracy to disadvantage small investors in the interests of large investors. His main example of a false conspiracy theory was the theory that 9-11 was an inside job by the US Government.

      > > > > >

      > > > > > He said a mark of a genuine conspiracy was that it was localised in time and reach with a small number of conspirators, whereas the false conspiracy theories tended to be grand-scale linking various events over time and location. In fact conspiracy theorists tended to believe that a grand conspiracy run by a powerful secret elite has been running the world for centuries. The elite are often portrayed as of Jewish origin, although the more extreme theories may involve some type of alien life.

      > > > > >

      > > > > > Conspiracy theories emerged in Europe – the first concerning a secret elite that orchestrated the French Revolution of 1789 – although today most conspiracy theories emerge in the US where there is a general distrust of the US Government and most US conspiracy theorists think the US Government is run or manipulated by the secret elite.

      > > > > >

      > > > > > Why do I write all this?

      > > > > >

      > > > > > Well because it struck me after listening to the talk that the growing belief in conspiracy theories was a new sort of religion, with the mind-set of the `believers' very similar to the mind-set of religious believers. The faithful have gained access to a new truth whilst the non-believers are to be pitied for their naivety in believing the official stories. Further everything that happens can be fitted into their belief system such that once a person succumbs to conspiracy theory they rarely give up their conspiracy beliefs.

      > > > > >

      > > > > > In my view conspiracy theory is the new religion of the twenty-first century. Hopefully existentialists have the critical faculties and individual strength to resist this new form of religious belief.

      > > > > >

      > > > > > Jim

      > > > > >

      > > > > Jim, I too have been listening to discussions of conspiracy theorys. I write this because of the threat I see emerging to individual thought. The cop who wants to cook and eat women is the center of this circus and he is being accused of thought crime. Now I think he is quite deranged but he made no overt acts toward anyone and is being prosecuted for his conversations with others. This kind of witch hunt goes beyond the normal prosecutorial bounds and I hope it is squelched post haste.

      > > > > I have read so many conspiricy theories and find time is often the cure. Keeping an open mind during the often prolonged span of questioning is the key. I find most are not concluded and avoiding belief becomes the proper course. In so many cases there are not sufficent facts available so the theories go in the unsolved bin. As soon as you accept belief you risk religion. It is just bad thinking that is often accompanied by bigotry or greed.

      > > > > Good to hear from you. Bill

      > > > >

      > > >

      > >

      >



























      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.