4 of 5
4
What is really going on here?
Posted: 04 April 2011 07:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9284
Joined  2006-08-29

First, I don’t see anything about Indian music in your Wiki reference. Second, I’ll only use Wikipedia as a quick source of information. Sometimes additional research might be necessary. As I already pointed out in one of my previous posts, according to Daniel Levitin, one of the best known experts on the science of music:

“Nearly all this variation in context and sound comes from different ways of dividing up the octave and, in virtually every case we know of, dividing it up into no more than twelve tones.  Although it has been claimed that Indian and Arab-Persian music uses “microtuning”—scales with intervals much smaller than a semitone—close analysis reveals that their scales also rely on twelve or fewer tones and the others are simply expressive variations, glissandos (continuous sglides from one tone to another), and momentary passing tones, similar to the American blues tradition of sliding into a note for emotional purposes.”

A war of the quotes.  cool smirk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 April 2011 08:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26
George - 04 April 2011 07:27 PM

First, I don’t see anything about Indian music in your Wiki reference. Second, I’ll only use Wikipedia as a quick source of information. Sometimes additional research might be necessary. As I already pointed out in one of my previous posts, according to Daniel Levitin, one of the best known experts on the science of music:

“Nearly all this variation in context and sound comes from different ways of dividing up the octave and, in virtually every case we know of, dividing it up into no more than twelve tones.  Although it has been claimed that Indian and Arab-Persian music uses “microtuning”—scales with intervals much smaller than a semitone—close analysis reveals that their scales also rely on twelve or fewer tones and the others are simply expressive variations, glissandos (continuous sglides from one tone to another), and momentary passing tones, similar to the American blues tradition of sliding into a note for emotional purposes.”

A war of the quotes.  cool smirk

I don’t see anything in your quote about Arab Persian (and neighboring countries), that says they do not use quarter tones. All it says it is still based on a twelve note (as opposed to more) scale. But that does not address chordal progressions in which those “off tones” are used. The chordal progression may well contain a chord which includes a quarter tone for effect (thus expanding the limited number of normally played notes).
Charles Ives used quartertones in some of his compositions.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 April 2011 01:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  695
Joined  2007-10-14
PLaClair - 28 March 2011 07:48 PM

Where is the advantage?

`
It could eliminate a lot of confusion/miscommunication?

Because there are about as many different meanings for the word ‘God’ as there are people who use it, it would seem that it would be beneficial to use more clear and precise language to describe the multitude of very different meanings.

Wouldn’t better and more accurate communication be a good thing?

I’m really not getting what your vehement disagreement is with that very simple idea PLaCLair.

`

 Signature 

‘we are so fundamentally constituted of desire that we go on hearing music…...even though we know the band is gone and the stage is silent’

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 April 2011 01:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  695
Joined  2007-10-14
George - 04 April 2011 06:19 PM
Write4U - 04 April 2011 05:26 PM

In addition, I believe that Indian music also uses quarter tones, which are not used in western music.

It doesn’t.

`
“The Indian scale was richer than any other since it had quarter tones, that is intermediate notes between semitones, giving 22 quarter tones (shrutis) within one octave. Quartertones in Indian music are present mainly in ornaments of the melody.”

“It is the usage of quarter tones that play up the Indianness in Indian music…..The quarter tones celebrated in Indian music is not quite unknown to the western school…”

Quarter tones are not traditionally part of Western classical music. They can be heard in the blues, in Indonesian, Indian, and Japanese music…”

“Instead of the 12 tones and semi-tones of the European scale, the octave of Hindu music is divided into 22 quarter tones and thirds of a tone.”

“That part of musicology comprising the music system of the Arabs in third tones called Maquam, the East Indian music in quarter tones called sruti…..”


http://indialucia.com/indiaframe.php?s=india01
http://www.wfmt.info/Musictherapyworld/modules/mmmagazine/showarticle.php?articletoshow=190
http://www.de2.psu.edu/academics/faculty/greene/Music7_9/toolkit.htm
http://www.indiansingers.net/historyofindianmusic.htm
http://cjtm.icaap.org/content/4/v4art9.html

 Signature 

‘we are so fundamentally constituted of desire that we go on hearing music…...even though we know the band is gone and the stage is silent’

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 April 2011 02:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09
Axegrrl - 09 April 2011 01:29 PM
PLaClair - 28 March 2011 07:48 PM

Where is the advantage?

`
It could eliminate a lot of confusion/miscommunication?

Because there are about as many different meanings for the word ‘God’ as there are people who use it, it would seem that it would be beneficial to use more clear and precise language to describe the multitude of very different meanings.

Wouldn’t better and more accurate communication be a good thing?

I’m really not getting what your vehement disagreement is with that very simple idea PLaCLair.

`

My vehement disagreement is twofold.

1. Your claim is not true. You/we will not eliminate confusion by shunning a word. With words like these, two things are necessary predicates to effective communication: the speaker/writer must make the meaning clear and the listener/reader must receive the communication with an open mind and truly open ears. Without those elements, the clearest words in our language won’t bring about effective communication. Conversely, a word with multiple meanings can be clearly understood in the context of an effective communication. So you can make that claim, but where is the evidence to support it?

2. If what you were saying was true, we would also have to dispense with words like “religion,” “liberal,” “conservative,” “humanist,” “science” and “theory,” all of which are commonly misunderstood. If you look carefully at the double standard applied to the use of some words as opposed to others, you will recognize that a desire to eliminate or minimize confusion is not what is driving the aversion to these words, which is why I titled this topic “What is really going on here?” If it was, we would dispense with words from “atheist” to “love.”

The cost of striking words from our vocabulary is high, especially when those words are culturally and psychologically powerful. People who refuse to speak the culture’s language alienate themselves from the culture. We non-theists have high obstacles to overcome just because we do not believe in what most people in this culture call God. Creating additional obstacles for ourselves unnecessarily is self-defeating, and on this subject it serves no purpose.

That said, “God” is not a word I use often. That is because the opportunities to use it don’t often come up. But I am not about to strike the word from my vocabulary. I would use that word in discussions with people who were discussing the meaning of the concept of God. My aim would be to point out the many ways in which people conceptualize the idea, for the further purpose of inviting them to see things in ways outside the confines of their narrow religious conceptions, and also to point out that the idea of God is a human conception with its genesis in human desires. If I want to get that point across, the word “God” might be an important word to have in my vocabulary, depending on my audience. If I refuse to use it, I would only be denying myself a means of communication, which would be foolish and self-defeating.

I acknowledge that many people who claim not to believe in a traditional conception of god nevertheless use the word “God” in ways that strongly suggest that they have not let go of their theistic roots. But their misuse is not a good reason for me or anyone else not to use the word.

[ Edited: 12 April 2011 02:48 PM by PLaClair ]
 Signature 

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 April 2011 03:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26

Besides, how would we replace the exclamation “OMG” when making love…...... cheese

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 April 2011 03:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 52 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1805
Joined  2005-07-20

The point of speaking is to be understood by the listener, I choose my words based on the popular meanings.  Religion without the supernatural (theism) feature is philosophy, right?  Secular humanist was, I gather, coined to divorse Humanism from its somewhat supernatural past, drawing a clear line between the supernatural and natural, as I whole-heartedly think they should be.  I think this dividing line is very useful in court if, as has been necessary when the religious extremists try to argue that Humanism is a religion and therefore the secular scientific ideas don’t belong in school to protect church and state separation!?, we’d have to argue that Humanism is not a religion.  Many past religious people have forwarded one Humanist idea or another, and so there are some religious ideas in the history of Humanism mixed with the secular ones, so drawing a line is warranted for good communication of what the CFI and myself mean.

A definition of religion that is so broad that there is no-one in the whole world who is excluded from it…  religion is less popular than that, really.  What are the popularity limits of religion, as it is practiced today?  I use a definition of religion based on moderate religion, not extremist religion where every idea that humanity has had is credited to religion and the gods.

1) So what do we call the Humanists who want to make a clean break from the supernatural, if not Secular Humanists?  2) What do we call the philosophies which have no attachment to the supernatural, I doubt religious?  3) What do we call those who want to pursue sacrifice, worship, build sacred spaces, support clergy, and pursue rewards in the afterlife from gods, if not religious?  4) Try to put “religious” and “secular” in front of Humanist and explain to me how that is not an oxymoron?

Its a big set of threads, I’m curiously looking for some answers, trying to catch-up.  smile


Thread: Should the adjective “Secular” be removed from “Humanism”?

PLaClair - 09 March 2011 10:05 PM

It would consist of everything else: every longing, every aspiration, every dream, every bit of knowledge, all of it.

PLaClair - 09 March 2011 10:05 PM

Several things are at work, including: the desire to explain life, the world and everything else; the desire to make sense of things; the desire to orient oneself and to have a framework for living.

Whatever brings all of that together into a coherent whole for the individual is that person’s religion. Put another way, religion is the framework for addressing one’s central concerns. It needn’t include a god.

PLaClair - 09 March 2011 10:05 PM

Ethical Culture, much of Buddhism, Confucianism, at least one branch of Hinduism, and other religions are not theistic.

PLaClair - 09 March 2011 10:05 PM

Please read some of the leading works on the subject of non-theistic religion. I truly do not see how our movements and organizations can take an informed and successful position on religion without clearly understanding the difference between theism and religion.


Thread: What is really going on here?

PLaClair - 12 March 2011 04:09 AM

It’s as though you can’t be happy unless everything associated with religion is put into a garbage bag and neatly tied up for disposal. Don’t get me wrong: we can do that. But if we do, we damage the intellectual integrity of our argument (because then we are reacting instead of thinking) and make adversaries out of people who agree with us. As if we didn’t have enough adversaries already. I wish CFI would take this issue to some PR professionals because I don’t think this is a close question.

PLaClair - 12 March 2011 04:09 AM

Your analysis above is accurate in my view except that I am not at all arguing that religion and theism are separate categories. Theism is a subset of religion, just as you suggest. That is not to say there is no difference. There is a difference, and it matters to our critiques because (I hope) we don’t criticize everything about religion (communal singing, for example). That is precisely the problem I have with conflating the two: we muddy our message to such an extent that we marginalize and trivialize ourselves.

PLaClair - 16 March 2011 07:49 PM

... millions of US citizens think “American” means WASP. If you show them two photographs, one of John McCain and the other of Barack Obama and ask them which looks more like an American, they’ll say McCain does.

Play [the idea of food] to the lowest common denominator long enough and the four basic food groups are cheeseburgers, French fries, pizza and milkshakes.

... Indian classical music “That’s not music.” Indian classical is among the finest of all musical forms. See http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/nikhil-banerjee-bbc-performance/796b051f6fc4ef0e4e6d796b051f6fc4ef0e4e6d-527710814937?q=Nikhil+Banerjee&FROM=LKVR5&GT1=LKVR5&FORM=LKVR.

... a humanism that doesn’t challenge conventional limits reminds me of Plato’s observation via Socates about an unexamined life…

Whistful sitar music Paul, thanx for the link, I’ve never heard a sitar sound whistful.  smile


Thread: Should the adjective “Secular” be removed from “Humanism”?

PLaClair - 09 March 2011 10:33 AM

What you mean by “we,” kimo sabe? I am a secular humanist and a religious humanist.

PLaClair - 09 March 2011 10:05 PM

[Religion] would consist of everything else: every longing, every aspiration, every dream, every bit of knowledge, all of it.

I mean no disrespect but I truly believe that you are missing something essential.

Several things are at work, including: the desire to explain life, the world and everything else; the desire to make sense of things; the desire to orient oneself and to have a framework for living.

 Signature 

I saw a happy rainbow recently.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 April 2011 06:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 53 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1396
Joined  2010-04-22
PLaClair - 12 April 2011 02:43 PM
Axegrrl - 09 April 2011 01:29 PM
PLaClair - 28 March 2011 07:48 PM

Where is the advantage?

`
It could eliminate a lot of confusion/miscommunication?

Because there are about as many different meanings for the word ‘God’ as there are people who use it, it would seem that it would be beneficial to use more clear and precise language to describe the multitude of very different meanings.

Wouldn’t better and more accurate communication be a good thing?

I’m really not getting what your vehement disagreement is with that very simple idea PLaCLair.

`

My vehement disagreement is twofold.

1. Your claim is not true. You/we will not eliminate confusion by shunning a word. With words like these, two things are necessary predicates to effective communication: the speaker/writer must make the meaning clear and the listener/reader must receive the communication with an open mind and truly open ears. Without those elements, the clearest words in our language won’t bring about effective communication. Conversely, a word with multiple meanings can be clearly understood in the context of an effective communication. So you can make that claim, but where is the evidence to support it?

2. If what you were saying was true, we would also have to dispense with words like “religion,” “liberal,” “conservative,” “humanist,” “science” and “theory,” all of which are commonly misunderstood. If you look carefully at the double standard applied to the use of some words as opposed to others, you will recognize that a desire to eliminate or minimize confusion is not what is driving the aversion to these words, which is why I titled this topic “What is really going on here?” If it was, we would dispense with words from “atheist” to “love.”

The cost of striking words from our vocabulary is high, especially when those words are culturally and psychologically powerful. People who refuse to speak the culture’s language alienate themselves from the culture. We non-theists have high obstacles to overcome just because we do not believe in what most people in this culture call God. Creating additional obstacles for ourselves unnecessarily is self-defeating, and on this subject it serves no purpose.

That said, “God” is not a word I use often. That is because the opportunities to use it don’t often come up. But I am not about to strike the word from my vocabulary. I would use that word in discussions with people who were discussing the meaning of the concept of God. My aim would be to point out the many ways in which people conceptualize the idea, for the further purpose of inviting them to see things in ways outside the confines of their narrow religious conceptions, and also to point out that the idea of God is a human conception with its genesis in human desires. If I want to get that point across, the word “God” might be an important word to have in my vocabulary, depending on my audience. If I refuse to use it, I would only be denying myself a means of communication, which would be foolish and self-defeating.

I acknowledge that many people who claim not to believe in a traditional conception of god nevertheless use the word “God” in ways that strongly suggest that they have not let go of their theistic roots. But their misuse is not a good reason for me or anyone else not to use the word.

Geez, how did I miss this thread?

:/

You’re both wrong.

Classican Indian music isn’t based on Western ideas at all, and that includes quarter-tones, which is an extension of the 12-tone chromatic scale. Equal temperament can be described mathematically by the formula x=z*y^w/b, where x is the pitch you want (in Hertz), z is the fundamental tone or root (again, in Hertz), y is the definition of the octave(usually 2, where doubling of pitch is an octave), b is the division of the octave (how many divisions of the octave we want, usually 12), and w is the scale degree that we want. Indian scales are different: x=z*a/c, where x and z remain defined the same, but a/c is a fraction denoting the distance away from the root (whereas y^w/b was the distance in the previous formua.)

The net effect is that equal temperament, the European music standard nowadays, is a compromise based on the traditional piano keyboard layout which enables a fairly easy transition between keys without adding extra keys, whereas the Indian system focuses more on making sure that each note of the melodic scale is in tune with the fundamental, and doesn’t concern itself with key changes. In fact, this is the case with virtually all drone-based world music, not just Indian music. Bagpipes follow the same rules. By “in tune,” I mean that the tuning eliminates beats, where the difference in pitch doesn’t produce a pitch pattern that produces a frequency that is below the threshhold of human hearing. By eliminating this, Indian music can be more consonant and hypnotic, whereas European music can switch key centers much more easily, and be more exciting in a different way.

Now, it’s true that some performances of some musics from the Middle Easy do use quarter tones, but IMHO this is because they have adopted older traditions into a more “modern” European system that is more flexible in terms of being able to play in multiple keys. But, I haven’t done much research into this aspect.

[ Edited: 23 April 2011 01:27 AM by TromboneAndrew ]
 Signature 

“All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians.”

- Thelonious Monk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 April 2011 09:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 54 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09
jump_in_the_pit - 22 April 2011 03:44 PM

The point of speaking is to be understood by the listener, I choose my words based on the popular meanings. 

I doubt that you do. Do you use “theory” to mean an unproved assertion? Do you use “science” to mean something other than a method of inquiry? Do you use “humanist” to mean a person without values? The point of speaking is to express one’s point of view, not to abandon it.

jump_in_the_pit - 22 April 2011 03:44 PM

Religion without the supernatural (theism) feature is philosophy, right?  Secular humanist was, I gather, coined to divorse Humanism from its somewhat supernatural past, drawing a clear line between the supernatural and natural, as I whole-heartedly think they should be.

Religion without the supernatural is still religion. Religion with the supernatural is theism. “Secular humanist” is a redundancy coined by people who were so perplexed by theism that they allowed theism to get into their heads and color everything they did. It’s the worst possible strategy: letting your adversary get into your head and define you not only to others but to yourself.

jump_in_the_pit - 22 April 2011 03:44 PM

I think this dividing line is very useful in court if, as has been necessary when the religious extremists try to argue that Humanism is a religion and therefore the secular scientific ideas don’t belong in school to protect church and state separation!?, we’d have to argue that Humanism is not a religion. 

Exactly the opposite is the case. Ethical Culture has requested and won legal recognition as a religion. There’s a case on it, which I could look up if you can’t find it. As a religion, Humanism enjoys all the protections of religious freedom afforded to the other religions.

Science is not going to be pushed out of the schools without a tidal wave of goofiness, in which case the courts would find a way to justify nonsense, just as they do in allowing “In God We Trust” on our currency. If things get the goofy, the law won’t save us. I’m speaking as a lawyer, among other things.

jump_in_the_pit - 22 April 2011 03:44 PM

1) So what do we call the Humanists who want to make a clean break from the supernatural, if not Secular Humanists? 

Humanists. “Secular” is redundant.

jump_in_the_pit - 22 April 2011 03:44 PM

2) What do we call the philosophies which have no attachment to the supernatural, I doubt religious?

Philosophies. If that’s what they are, then that’s what they are.

jump_in_the_pit - 22 April 2011 03:44 PM

3) What do we call those who want to pursue sacrifice, worship, build sacred spaces, support clergy, and pursue rewards in the afterlife from gods, if not religious?

Theists. They are also religious. Hitler was a human being; that doesn’t mean I have to say I’m not a human being so as not to be associated with him.

jump_in_the_pit - 22 April 2011 03:44 PM

4) Try to put “religious” and “secular” in front of Humanist and explain to me how that is not an oxymoron?

Which do you claim is the oxymoron and why? You seem to assume that “religious” necessarily implies the supernatural. In fact, religion has its roots and origins in the thoroughly human, and desirable, quest to know and to live according to that knowledge. The theisms have turned religion on its head with their misconception of faith as a belief in things unseen. There’s an element of that in Faith but that’s not its creative essence. Similarly, with religion, the core is the human quest to make sense of things. We are not required to accept theistic bastardizations of religion and are foolish to do so.

You are making the rudimentary mistake that afflicts so many in our ranks. You’ve let the theists define your thinking for you. If you look carefully at every comment noted above, you will see that mistake in all of them. If you want to distance yourself from the theists, then stop letting them dictate how you speak.

 Signature 

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2011 10:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 55 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1805
Joined  2005-07-20

Secular and religious are antonyms, according to M-W, and I agree.  Good natured humor or merely a literal observation, an oxymoron is based on antonyms.

Communication is two-way, speaking without listening from both parties is just one-way.  smile  Paul, I promise I’m listening, and thank you for answering my four questions, that helped me to understand better.

PLaClair - 22 April 2011 09:13 PM

Religion without the supernatural is still religion. Religion with the supernatural is theism. “Secular humanist” is a redundancy coined by people who were so perplexed by theism that they allowed theism to get into their heads and color everything they did. It’s the worst possible strategy: letting your adversary get into your head and define you not only to others but to yourself.

Well technically yes, Secular Humanism is redundant, controversal yes.  The argument here is just the difference between theory and practice though, in theory Humanism is wholly focused on the natural, holding nothing as holy smile; but if one takes a merely cursory look at the history, then one could get the false impression that Humanism is more inspired by the divine, rather than deduced from humanity.  Secular Humanism is in response to the extremist religious right, yes, but it is an innocent attempt at clear communication… despite the redundancy.  smile

PLaClair - 22 April 2011 09:13 PM

Ethical Culture has requested and won legal recognition as a religion. There’s a case on it, which I could look up if you can’t find it. As a religion, Humanism enjoys all the protections of religious freedom afforded to the other religions.

Haven’t you gone to far, I agree partially Paul.  That case was in a lower court with limited effect, not at the Supreme Court level, and not a ruling that I agree with, personally speaking.  I had been thinking of a Supreme Court case, earlier.  Humanism does not have tax-exempt status as a church in the law, even if the CFI and others have non-profit 501(3)(c) status.

PLaClair - 22 April 2011 09:13 PM

Science is not going to be pushed out of the schools without a tidal wave of goofiness, in which case the courts would find a way to justify nonsense, just as they do in allowing “In God We Trust” on our currency.

That we have “In God We Trust” on the money by Executive Order is good proof of the goofiness in one branch, that the Ten Commandments has be monumentalized in some lower courts and on the facade of the Supreme Court is proof that the courts are not immune to goofiness!  But the courts have ruled that the Ten Commandments monuments are… goofy… and Judge Roy Moore was thrown from the bench.  grin  So don’t loose hope Paul!  And don’t forget the Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover School Area District case, with its most excellent ruling.  smile

That there is a ruling that recognized Humanism as a religion—and I don’t think that was the main focus of the ruling but merely a side-effect—shows that people can misunderstand that Humanism is secular and the redundancy of Secular Humanism is warranted.  Do link us to the ruling if you have it, Paul, I forget where I last saw it.

PLaClair - 22 April 2011 09:13 PM

In fact, religion has its roots and origins in the thoroughly human, and desirable, quest to know and to live according to that knowledge. The theisms have turned religion on its head with their misconception of faith as a belief in things unseen.

Well you have a good point there, that at the roots religion is a quest for knowledge, and if we look at the ancient cave paintings done by the Shamans of this or that tribe, or look at the ancient nomadic practices of a modern primitive tribes like the Mursi in Ethiopia, or the Ayoreo of Paraguay—they do their dances and decorate themselves for ceremonies that are practically meant to protect them from disease, cleanse them of past wrongs, marry them, protect them from enemies, give fertility to the coming wild crops.  These are all practical goals, however ineffective the technique.  (So I partially agree Paul.)  But these profane ritual practices are blended with spiritual ideas of contacting past ancestors, and sacrifices to appease the forces of nature, and the like.  These ancient ideas are not completely divorced from the supernatural, but are not worshiping something that we’d want to call a pagan god.  (You’ve really got to see ‘em people, it’s amazing stuff… they’re runnin’ around naked and hunting and gathering, still in the year 2011!  grin  It’s beautiful in a way, untouched and unspoiled by modernity, but so sad that they are penniless in today’s society.  And there’s some nasty violence going on in their tribes too.  downer  How can we help them to stay safe, but without the religious extremists destroying their ancient culture?)

But regardless of the surviving ancient practices, I am practical about it and base my use of the words “religion”, “theist”, “secular” on today’s people, culture, and politics.  Those ancient tribes aren’t significant in politics today, most people aren’t doing those hunter-gatherer ideas. 

5) Do you admire the primitive practices Paul, are you trying to promote some modern-primitive version of Humanism?  If not that then what form of Humanism are you promoting?

PLaClair - 22 April 2011 09:13 PM

If you want to distance yourself from the theists, then stop letting them dictate how you speak.

A false charge, I suffer no dictator.  What mistake, that religion requires the supernatural?  I see religion without the supernatural as: rituals for fun and binding with others (not for worship), meditation for the brain (not for worship and favors), dance for fun (not for worship and favor), clothing for fun (not as a tailsman), large gathering spaces for people (not ritual spaces), philosophy for life lessons (not a path to the afterlife), etc.

 Signature 

I saw a happy rainbow recently.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2011 04:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 56 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09
jump_in_the_pit - 23 April 2011 10:43 AM

Well technically yes, Secular Humanism is redundant, controversal yes.  The argument here is just the difference between theory and practice though, in theory Humanism is wholly focused on the natural, holding nothing as holy smile; but if one takes a merely cursory look at the history, then one could get the false impression that Humanism is more inspired by the divine, rather than deduced from humanity. Secular Humanism is in response to the extremist religious right, yes, but it is an innocent attempt at clear communication… despite the redundancy.

Depends what you mean by “holy.” To me, a child’s smile is holy. Attitude can be everything. I prefer the reverential attitude more often found in church over the often cold attitude expressed by the people I agree with on many other points. Please don’t ask me why I don’t just join a church because I just told you: I don’t agree with them. But why can’t Humanists approach life with a sense of reverence and the divine (the highest good)?

What harm do you think will come to us if some people think we believe in “the divine?” There’s very little chance that many will make that mistake. My mother maybe, because she wishes I hadn’t left “the Church” but virtually no one has any doubt about my non-theism. In stark contrast, the harm of being seen as holding nothing sacred is palpable. Where is the harm on your side of the argument?

jump_in_the_pit - 23 April 2011 10:43 AM

But these profane ritual practices are blended with spiritual ideas of contacting past ancestors, and sacrifices to appease the forces of nature, and the like. 

So what? We can do it our way, without the supernatural.

jump_in_the_pit - 23 April 2011 10:43 AM

5) Do you admire the primitive practices Paul, are you trying to promote some modern-primitive version of Humanism?  If not that then what form of Humanism are you promoting?

An enthusiastic, active and welcoming Humanism that recognizes the importance of the emotional life, including reverential (as an attitude) celebration in community. What’s the problem with that?

PLaClair - 22 April 2011 09:13 PM

If you want to distance yourself from the theists, then stop letting them dictate how you speak.

jump_in_the_pit - 23 April 2011 10:43 AM

A false charge, I suffer no dictator.

It’s not a false charge if you are adjusting your language according to how your adversaries (people you don’t agree with) speak. You’re letting them dictate your words, whether you feel that they are or not. If you’re doing it that way, then you are. And many in our ranks are doing exactly that.

jump_in_the_pit - 23 April 2011 10:43 AM

What mistake, that religion requires the supernatural?  I see religion without the supernatural as: rituals for fun and binding with others (not for worship), meditation for the brain (not for worship and favors), dance for fun (not for worship and favor), clothing for fun (not as a tailsman), large gathering spaces for people (not ritual spaces), philosophy for life lessons (not a path to the afterlife), etc.

No, the mistake is much bigger and more important than that: the mistake of not seeing Humanism as being about our central concerns and of making it seem as though the internal life is of secondary importance.

 Signature 

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2011 07:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 57 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1805
Joined  2005-07-20
PLaClair - 23 April 2011 04:05 PM

An enthusiastic, active and welcoming Humanism that recognizes the importance of the emotional life, including reverential (as an attitude) celebration in community. What’s the problem with that?

I’m not objecting, I was just defending my ideas and looking for you to tell us what you wanted out of humanism.  Is that it, thank you.  Humans have a left and right brain, if you want happiness then lets be happy, if you like reverence about it then be reverent.  smile  Is that what religious Humanism is?  Tell us some more about it.

 Signature 

I saw a happy rainbow recently.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2011 08:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 58 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09

Humanism is what we make it. There are no pre-set rules telling us what Humanism “is.” I’m offering a vision for what might be, and will be if we make it so. For me, religious Humanism means that Humanism addresses my central concerns and provides a framework for living.

 Signature 

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 April 2011 09:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 59 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1805
Joined  2005-07-20
PLaClair - 23 April 2011 08:24 PM

I’m offering a vision for what might be, and will be if we make it so. For me, religious Humanism means that Humanism addresses my central concerns and provides a framework for living.

Tell us more about the central concerns and the framework.  I don’t see what you mean yet.  Is it different that what you see the CFI doing now-a-days.  What else do you want?  I’m only curious, whatever you like is your choice.

 Signature 

I saw a happy rainbow recently.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 April 2011 11:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 60 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9284
Joined  2006-08-29
PLaClair - 23 April 2011 04:05 PM

Depends what you mean by “holy.” To me, a child’s smile is holy.

I guess. But it depends what you mean by child and smile. To me, a stone is a child of a mountain and a cracked stone is a smiling child.  cheese

Profile
 
 
   
4 of 5
4