Sacredness, Freedom, and Truth

[onesteptwostep]

I think there are the three notions which a thinking person should understand and develop if they wish to participate fruitfully in the life of society.

Sacredness: there are things within human tradition that give pause and call for our introspection and reverence. Things like an orderly society, a person's morality, a sense of justice, attention to the weak and poor, and the immovable respect and reverence for life itself. These notions are taught through each of our cultures, mostly in an indirect manner by the actions we take and uphold. It is inherited through people around us, and history teaches us of this progression, its up and downs. It is in short our heritage, an aspect of our collective human past. The toil and death inform and help reform our thinking about what is truly important.

Freedom: Freedom is more about the present. I think Franklin D. Roosevelt elaborated this very well in his Four Freedoms State of the Union address. The four freedoms are: Freedom from Want, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Worship, and the Freedom from Fear. If we were to modernize the list, I think Freedom from Structure, could be a contender, though to manifest this freedom into reality is simply contradictory. Existence and plurality begets structure. But the want for such a freedom is there, nevertheless, which I think underscores a very important aspect of human nature. The war in Ukraine and a lot of president Zelensky's cause for liberty is a real, current life example of the burning want for freedom, a self-determination, which I guess can be categorized into a Freedom from Structure, to determine his or her own destiny without the constrains of a world order. Either way, freedom is something that is yearned for in the now.

Truth: Now most of you will know where I am going with this: if sacredness points to our past, and freedom to the present, then truth is something that guides us into the future. This is where most people who think dwell, though many forget the two, sacredness and freedom, beforehand. Many attempts at truth are materialized through political structures. We had fascists and the totalitarian figures who attempted such a vision. We've seen dictators curtail freedom in the name of national security, and even used forceful aggression, with the reason that they have no other choice. In the 18th century we had someone who rallied for freedom, but left behind what is sacred to accomplish his conquest. Napoleon, Hitler, General Tojo, and now Putin had tried their hand in achieving a version of truth that was very real for them.

So where am I going with this? I think history is basically a balancing act of sacredness and freedom. The humanist process is basically just this, and whenever one upends the other, it becomes a tragedy rather than something that has been true in the course of human progress. This is really easy to say, of course. And it is easier to criticize those who have failed. But nevertheless, if one thinks of himself as a citizen of the world and thinks of himself as a transcendent agent, not bound by the world but by principle, these three things: sacredness, freedom, and truth, should be the notions he or she must wrestle with.

 

[Cognisant]

Sanctity is a matter of belief, the truth is not, you can choose not to believe the truth but the truth is that which remains true regardless of your belief in it.

Does a human life not have value or importance unless you deem it so, or would you agree that truth is self evident?

I think the concept of sanctity is a tool used by those in power to suppress dissent and justify the unjustifiable, to make the truth a matter of belief, a matter of opinion.

You don't agree with the bombing of civilians? Well that's just, like, you're opinion man.

 

[Black Rose]

Sanctity is a matter of belief

That may be an oversimplification.

Generally, all the smart people gather together into the research groups concentrating intellectual power. Now they could use this power to eliminate scarcity but that would mean ruling the populous in a scientific dictatorship. Either it's not possible, inconvenient, or relinquished. It would be a fight between the stupid and the smart people. Mediocracy wins. PS eugenics failed because it's stupid.

 

[Cognisant]

"Sacred" is treated as synonymous with "virtuous" so if there exists anything of virtue therefore sanctity exists also, but this is false.

"Sacred" is not synonymous with "virtuous" as evidenced by the many things held sacred which were not virtuous, for example in some cultures cannibalism was sacred.

There is no inherent sanctity, no belief without the believer and doubt you'll find many evils that weren't the resul of someone's belief in a false definition of good.

The Nazies, the Communists, the Taliban, they all have their of beliefs in what is good and right, their ideology and it is this ideology, this falsification of the truth that lead them to committing their crimes against humanity.

Those who can make people believe absurdities can make them commit atrocities.

 

[Black Rose]

a newborn baby is sacred because it is precious and vulnerable.
We take care of it because it is important. why is it important?
maybe it is just evolution but a baby means something to us.
It takes more effort to raise a helpless creature than not.
And it grows up to become the most powerful adult.

If you do not have to take care of it generally it is not sacrad.

 

[scorpiomover]

"Sacred" is treated as synonymous with "virtuous" so if there exists anything of virtue therefore sanctity exists also, but this is false.

"Sacred" is not synonymous with "virtuous" as evidenced by the many things held sacred which were not virtuous, for example in some cultures cannibalism was sacred.

In the cultures where cannibalism was sacred, it was also virtuous.

In the cultures were cannibalism was seen as the opposite of virtuous, it was also seen as the opposite of sacred.

doubt you'll find many evils that weren't the resul of someone's belief in a false definition of good.

So everyone who had a true definition of good, would never do anything wrong?

The Nazies, the Communists, the Taliban, they all have their of beliefs in what is good and right, their ideology and it is this ideology, this falsification of the truth that lead them to committing their crimes against humanity.

It justified their crimes to the people they needed to support them: the majority of ethnic Germans, the majority of Russians, the majority of disaffected Afghan youths looking for direction and leadership.

Without those people being on their side, they just would not have had all those people on the lower rungs of power, to ensure they would be high up in the rungs of power.

Those who can make people believe absurdities can make them commit atrocities.

Anyone can make anyone believe an absurdity.

Even making someone believe a false absurdity isn't that hard. Plenty of such arguments around. You could probably read some on the internet and then tell them to other people.

The hard point, is the idea that if one chimp can eat a woman's face, then all chimps can eat a woman's face. If one human can commit an atrocity, and humans are all the same species, then all humans can commit an atrocity.

But most humans don't want to be suspected of being capable of committing atrocities, in case other people restrict their options to ensure they can't commit atroctities, because that might make their lives a little bit harder.

So a common response is to invent arguments that you're different to all those other humans who commit atrocities, and so should be given the opportunity to commit atrocities, because it would be physically and biologically impossible for you to do them.

That was the basis of the Commies' attacks on religion. If the evil ones are religious, and Stalin is not religious, the Stalin can't be one of the evil ones, then, right?

So then if Stalin kills 20 million people, it can't be because he was evil, and thus those deaths would have to be justified.

Then if Stalin kills 10 million people, you'll never try to remove Stalin so he doesn't kill 10 million more.

 

[scorpiomover]

I think there are the three notions which a thinking person should understand and develop if they wish to participate fruitfully in the life of society.

Sacredness: there are things within human tradition that give pause and call for our introspection and reverence. Things like an orderly society, a person's morality, a sense of justice, attention to the weak and poor, and the immovable respect and reverence for life itself. These notions are taught through each of our cultures, mostly in an indirect manner by the actions we take and uphold. It is inherited through people around us, and history teaches us of this progression, its up and downs. It is in short our heritage, an aspect of our collective human past. The toil and death inform and help reform our thinking about what is truly important.

The word "sacred" or "holy" as it appears in the Old Testament, is a Hebrew word, "Kodesh", that is often translated as meaning "separated" and "put aside for a special purpose".

Most terms of the use in the OT, talk about virtuous things. But a few uses of the word refer to non-virtuous things by OT morals, such as a prostitute, who is referred to as a "Kedeishah", or "sacred woman".

A nuclear reactor is "sacred", because you wouldn't let just anyone operate a nuclear reactor.

A priest is also "sacred", because he reserves himself to focus only on religious duties and social duties of his parish congregation, like visiting sick members of his flock.

Your cultural history can also be sacred, so long as you separate it and treat it differently than other things. Casting just as critical an eye on it, that you would cast on modern notions, would be treating your cultural history as if it's not separate and the same as everything else.

Freedom: Freedom is more about the present. I think Franklin D. Roosevelt elaborated this very well in his Four Freedoms State of the Union address. The four freedoms are: Freedom from Want, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Worship, and the Freedom from Fear.

I had not heard of the The Four Freedoms.

Nevertheless, Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Worship, are in the same vein, as both are things you want to do, and usually consider quite important to not have those things stopped.

Freedom from Want and Freedom from Fear, are also in the same vein, because in this case, the fear makes you do things, when you'd prefer to do something else.

If we were to modernize the list, I think Freedom from Structure, could be a contender, though to manifest this freedom into reality is simply contradictory. Existence and plurality begets structure. But the want for such a freedom is there, nevertheless, which I think underscores a very important aspect of human nature. The war in Ukraine and a lot of president Zelensky's cause for liberty is a real, current life example of the burning want for freedom, a self-determination, which I guess can be categorized into a Freedom from Structure, to determine his or her own destiny without the constrains of a world order. Either way, freedom is something that is yearned for in the now.

Freedom from Structures, would just be the same as Freedom to do as you want, which falls under Freedom of Worship and Freedom of Speech.

You can be completely free from all structures, having complete Freedom from Structures, and still starve to death due to lack of food. So Freedom from Structures does NOT mean Freedom from Want.

Freedom from Want, means all your wants are fulfilled.

Freedom from Fear, means that all the things that you fear, are prevented, so that you no longer have to fear them.

So the last 2 mean that everything is provided for you in such a way that you don't need to deal with things that you want/need not being there, or things that hinder you not being there.

Truth: Now most of you will know where I am going with this: if sacredness points to our past, and freedom to the present, then truth is something that guides us into the future.
This is where most people who think dwell, though many forget the two, sacredness and freedom, beforehand. Many attempts at truth are materialized through political structures. We had fascists and the totalitarian figures who attempted such a vision. We've seen dictators curtail freedom in the name of national security, and even used forceful aggression, with the reason that they have no other choice. In the 18th century we had someone who rallied for freedom, but left behind what is sacred to accomplish his conquest. Napoleon, Hitler, General Tojo, and now Putin had tried their hand in achieving a version of truth that was very real for them.

So where am I going with this? I think history is basically a balancing act of sacredness and freedom. The humanist process is basically just this, and whenever one upends the other, it becomes a tragedy rather than something that has been true in the course of human progress. This is really easy to say, of course. And it is easier to criticize those who have failed. But nevertheless, if one thinks of himself as a citizen of the world and thinks of himself as a transcendent agent, not bound by the world but by principle, these three things: sacredness, freedom, and truth, should be the notions he or she must wrestle with.

I agree that in mnay things, we are dealing with balancing dichotomies: that's the basis of Jungian typology, and much of modern psychology.

It's also the way we humans seem to function: we don't have one arm muscle that goes up and down. We have 2 arm muscles: one that goes up and one that goes down. When the arm goes up, one muscle contracts and the other muscle goes limp and relaxes. When the arm goes down, the other muscle contracts and the first muscle goes limp and relaxes.

That system gives us certain advantages and disadvantages. The disadvantage is that we need twice as many muscles.

The advantage is that we gain consistent fine motor control in a way that is very easy to compute. Each object is subject to multiple forces. At any one moment, those forces compute to a single force in one direction and a single force in another direction, which are constantly adjusting. Their total addition computes to a singular force in one direction. But because they are constantly adjusting, like when riding a bike, the cumulative singular forces can keep switching direction, which requires using the same muscle in a completely different way.

By having 2 muscles operating in different directions, each muscle can focus on mirroring the forces in one of the 2 directions, making it very easy to maintain homeostasis, and in the process, with a slight continual increase on one side, we can keep moving in the same direction while maintaining perfect balance with our environment.

In the same way, if we choose to look at the forces that pull us towards the past and the present, we can balance the forces that come to us from the past, and the forces that come to us from the present, to guide us towards the future that we want.

But equally, that means we need BALANCE, more than the thing itself.

That in turn means that if we are treating the forces of the past as un-sacred, and the forces of the present as sacred, or the forces of the past and the forces of the present as un-sacred, or the forces of the past and the forces of the present as sacred, our model won't work, and in order to maintain balance, we will need a different model.

So your point is a valid one in terms of balance.


But your analogy is only applicable in cases where you see the past as being treated as sacred and thus not subject to criticism and not subject to change, and and you see the present as being treated as a matter of freedom and the desire to do as you want.

If someone was raised religious, but now sees that he has more options to do what he would like to do, by being non-religious, and so see those two in conflict, then that might make some sense.

However, those people's children would then be raised non-religious, and some of the children of the non-religious feel their lives lack any sense of sacredness of the past, and so seek to establish sacredness in their lives in the present, so they are not just able to do what they want, but in a position to seek out the best path for themselves personally. So for them, sacredness is the present, and freedoms are in the past.

So I prefer to remove the redundant parts of your argument, and stick to the nugget of truth that it contains, that the world needs BALANCE.

 

[onesteptwostep]

I'm using the term 'sacredness' in its more secular nature rather than from the Christian usage. There could be an overlap, but I generally don't mean 'set apart', i.e. the Christian usage. I think CS Lewis touches on this well: he rounds up the traditions within many cultures to point to a general 'sacredness' that is espoused by many cultures (he terms it the "Tao" in his Abolition of Man). Principles like the Golden Rule, respect to elders, justice, protecting the weak, the virtues, and so on. These are things which were learnt by the experience of many generations of cultures. Confucianism is in there, and things like Greek hospitality (xenia). Perhaps terming it as secular is misleading, as in it can give the impression that it is against Christianity- maybe I should say in its pluralistic nature. I'm basically rounding up all the wealth of experience learnt by past generations and calling it something 'sacred'. It's not something that's determined by the youngest generation in the culture but the wisdom provided to them by the older, which the younger later affirms it to transcend generation or status.

On freedom, I'm simply saying that the human condition is one where it seeks the maximal amount of freedom for itself. It's a pronouncement on human nature. This nature of wanting freedom could lead to both noble ends or destructive ends. But the thirst for it is readily apparent, and I'm arguing that it's something of a given.

My meaning of 'truth' here is a bit more radical though. I'm not sure if anyone's read into it, but I'm claiming that there are events happening right now that manifests 'truth', and by this I mean chiefly through political progression. I'm basically affirming the Hegelian narrative that history is unfolding so that freedom is progressively being more manifested unto the world, though there are hiccups along the way. The event that's happening in Ukraine right now is a good example of this. Through this war the condition of humanity is bettered through the enlargement of freedom. The world is simply a theater where the human spirit marches on to become the freest version of itself.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I think that concludes this.....
..... anyway how do you> so?

 

[Hadoblado]

I don't disagree that thinking about these things will help you participate fruitfully in society.

I do suspect we disagree on a lot about these things, and I'm not sure I'd limit it to these three (e.g. I think power is important to understand especially if you don't pursue it).

My main concern would be sacredness. While I think it's important to understand sacredness as people see it, I don't think it's important to hold anything as sacred. I see it as a baselessly absolute evaluation which almost always leads to oversimplification.