The reason I find much of what you say repugnant is because it seems to be hopelessly mired in politics. The result is that you come across to me as being more of a politician than a philosopher. I am not a liberal as you seem to think; in fact I have no interest in politics; I think the desire to leave one's mark on the world is the problem, not the solution.

But, hey, I don't wish you ill, or anything like that; I just don't have any inclination to engage further in the kinds of slanging matches that our 'conversations' always seem to degenerate into.

Good luck.

Dali; now there's a connection I never would have thought of!

A surrealist way ahead of his time.

I don't mind questioning for example whether tradition is important or not. Certainly you never brought the question up. I don't mind discussing the importance of authority in religion or in society - but again you never brought that up. You take your liberal principles as a priori truth, and aren't even willing to discuss them, much less question them. You consider them holy truth, and disgusting to even dare to question them! In fact principles which are different are emotionally repugnant to you. But hey - each to their own! — Agustino

OK, having said that I don't want to indulge in slanging matches; I'll try to address what you write here, without doing that. It's true that I have characterized some of what you have written as "prozelytization" and "self-righteousness", and that's because that's just what I perceive when someone speaks about "making adultery illegal" and such like. If someone produces self-righteous prozelytizing statements then they are, by virtue of that and to that degree at least, self-righteous prozelytizers. Beyond that I have not indulged, as far as I can remember, in ad hominen characterizations of your personality, as the part I underlined above certainly shows you to be doing in regard to what you purport to be my personality.

You don't merely declare that I am a "liberal", which in itself is not correct, since it is you and not I, (I who am not much concerned with politics at all), who have repeatedly tried to bring politics into the discussion, and you who have declared that I am an unquestioning liberal, to boot, as if you could know, merely on the grounds that I disagree with you, apparently, that I have not questioned my political beliefs (and assuming that I actually had any)! This appears to show me that you cannot imagine, or at least accept, that your interlocutor does not share your concerns with political trajectories and aims in philosophical discussion, such as determining by dictation (as opposed to merely influencing by example and education) the moral direction and future structure of society. Just to anticipate an objection, I do acknowledge that politics is inherent in all philosophy, but from that it does not follow that I must be explicitly concerned with political questions, For example, for someone to be concerned with being as good a person as possible, is certainly in an sense a political concern, insofar as her actions and discourse will undoubtedly impact upon and influence others, but the person need not be directly concerned with the politics of influencing others, and much less would she need to be concerned with the politics of determining exactly what others are to think and do in regards to particular issues.

Also it seems to me that you don't want to admit that there is a mystical tradition at the very heart of Orthodoxy, which isn't against Orthodoxy, but is Orthodox itself. I don't see why not. You just want to monopolise mysticism for some progressive-liberal politics, but if you look at history this isn't the case in many actual cases. — Agustino

I have never denied that there has always been an esoteric tradition that existed and exists alongside the exoteric traditions of the different churches (traditions that, by the way have always to greater or lesser degrees disagreed with and condemned one another as being heretical). Among those traditions, at least the tradition of Roman Catholicism has been particularly punitive, up until the last couple hundred years or so, against anything that even smelled of heresy. (I am not familiar enough with the histories of other traditions to make a similar claim about them). This has meant that mystics that adhered (at least outwardly) to the Roman Catholic tradition, had to be very careful about what they said. This has obviously also been the case with men of science and Giordano Bruno (who was both a hermetic mystic and a man of science) is a striking case in point.

So, my point was never that those in the mystic tradition were against orthodoxy (although considering the constraints on what they could say publicly, they may well have been), but that orthodoxy was, or at least would have been, against what mystics wrote or said if the orthodoxy were both aware of the writings or sayings, and if there was even a sniff of heresy about them.

Also, I want to add that I do not say that tradition has no value. Without tradition there would be no preservation of culture. But traditions are there to be creatively used by individuals for self-education, development and inspiration; individuals are not there for traditions to use or dictate to, in the name, and for the interests, of authorities or powers, or to repress and subjugate under the aegis of orthodox totalitarian ideologies.

And again, underlined here is another example of a presumptuous and unwarranted characterization of my philosophical stance and personal aims; which it seems is based on the fact, that given your own preoccupation with politics, you seem to automatically assume that others must be (or at least should be?) motivated in like manner.

But traditions are there to be creatively used by individuals for self-education, development and inspiration; individuals are not there for traditions to use or dictate to, in the name, and for the interests, of authorities or powers, or to repress and subjugate under the aegis of orthodox totalitarian ideologies. — John

Yes, indeed. This is almost everything, really. The past exists for us, not us for the past. The desire to freeze time is the desire for "undeath" or "unlife."

Yes, the fossilization of the arch-conservatives! 8-)

That's the genius of the Incarnation, it seems. That great, distant authority (whom it was death to look upon) became a living, particular man in time. Incidentally, I picked up The Concept of Time (Heidegger). Apparently it was written a little before B&T (sort of a sketch of it), but it's significantly more readable and condensed. Also did research on Kojeve. Well, it's clear that "man is time" is mostly from Heidegger, and that was one of the most profound things in Kojeve. (Geist ist Zeit).
Then we can throw in Sartre and describe idolatry as that futile passion that man is to become "spatial" or "present."

That great, distant authority (whom it was death to look upon) became a living, particular man in time. — Hoo

Yes, via the incarnation He was transformed from a great distant authority, or a broker of covenants, into the loving father who manifested the spiritual companionship of the unconditionally loving brother.

I read The Concept of Time ( I think, or was it History of the Concept of Time) quite a few years ago now; and my memory of it is that it is indeed easier reading than Being and Time. I never really got into Sartre, but I agree that Heidegger worked against the privileging of the present (the present which can be understood as bare immediate spatial actuality) over the phenomenological historicity and being-towards which are the past and future respectively.

Agustino understands that to be the liberal dogma of the modern West. For him tradition is meant to instructive and dictatorial. It's meant to be the becon of imagine which defines what we aspire to. The "liberal dogma" isn't any particular action or behaviour per se. It's the degradation and rejection of tradtion as an understanding of human identity. We are no longer understand ourselves to be destined for anything. Marriage is no longer forever. Family is understood to be breakable (to pick one of Agustino's favourites). The vision of the necessarily perfect life has been lost. It's no longer there to define the lives of some and act as the fiction which hides when we are less than perfect.

Sinners are no longer damned. Sin might be wrong, but it gives no destiny. A sinner has just as much of a right to exist and be loved as the perfectly virtuous. There is no threat or retribution within the shame of sin. It's only guilt for what has been done. Sin has no future consequence for the integrity of one's worth. No longer can it be used as an excuse to scapegoat, take revenge or destroy the imperfect.

Liberalism amounts to accepting or even celebrating living imperfections. Their lives becone just as important as anyone with perfect virtue. Sin might be preferable to avoid, but it doesn't render anyone unworthy of life (or to use Christian terms, God). In liberalism, the ability to call for the destruction of those who sin is lost. It's this which Agustino despises most. Philosophy is unable to form a culture which veiws sin and worth as mutually exclusive.

Well then I cannot be a liberal, because I do not say that the evil person's life is worth the same as the good person's. I also do not say, tout court, that traditional values must be discarded.

I am only concerned that values and beliefs not be imposed upon people beyond some bare minimum that may be considered to be necessary or inevitable.

As to such things as the breakdown of the family: I am not sure the nuclear family is necessarily the best model; but I do think that it is natural that people form close bonds with those with whom they share affinities, and that they will naturally favour those who are close over those who are more distant.

Generally, people are only capable of actively, in the sense of viscerally, caring for and about a certain number of others. If one viscerally cared about everyone on the planet, one would probably go insane. I think there is room for variation as to how people are to live with their intimates so I'm not supportive of ideas that contribute to any rigid crystallization of social structures.

Sin can never annihilate worth altogether, but it can certainly diminish it.

This, form Valentin Tomberg, is an intersting summation of the difference between mystical and scientific, as well as theological, knowledge:

"For those who experience it, this form of knowledge (the mystical)* counts as the highest because it is experienced ... as the result of the most profound contemplation and the greatest concentration, in comparison with which that of intellectual consideration and the practical knowledge gained by way of observation appears superficial. However, it does not count in the slightest way as knowledge (let alone as the highest form of knowledge) for the scientific disciplines—which, as such, lay claim to being of general validity. For the scientific approach is not to strive simply for the truth, but rather to strive for that brand of truth which is of general validity, i.e. that which can be comprehended fundamentally by everyone bestowed with healthy understanding and faculties of perception, and which should thus be concurred with. A scientific discipline—whether a spiritual-scientific or a natural-scientific discipline—does not want to, and is not able to, address itself only to those people who are capable of the concentration and inner deepening necessary for intuition. Were it to do so, it would then not be scientific, i.e. generally comprehensible and provable. Rather, it would be “esoteric”, i.e. a matter for an elite group of special people. In this sense theology is also “science” since, assuming the authority of Scripture and the Church are acknowledged, it can be comprehended and tested by all believers".

* Brackets mine

A sinner has just as much of a right to exist and be loved as the perfectly virtuous. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Not that this is directed at me, but I think "right" is functioning here in the realm of politics or the Law. We are all endlessly guilty before the infinite law. "Finite" personality is just endless accusation and guilt. To accuse finite personality for this is just--- more finite personality, more word grinding. That too. That especially. By "infinite" personality, I just mean the negation of this game as the ideal mode. We "fall" into liberalism or conservatism or some other righteous role. Even here, I clash with you, enter the game of essences in order to point at it. Life is funny.

Very nice!

Sin can never annihilate worth altogether, but it can certainly diminish it. — John

Indeed, it's really the only kind of "sin" I can make sense of. My Jesus strides on an ocean of blood. Empathy and generosity are beautiful, but altruism as a duty is (to me) more or less an abomination, a weapon in the hands of those who think they are pacifists.

Always, in the sense that anyone arguing a postion as wisdom or ethics is concerned with politics. They want to make the world into something, even if they are only concerned with speaking their own voice

The negation of the game, however, is not defined by the absence of concern for the finite. Ethics are ultimately the significance of a present, not merely a politcal postion enforced on the world. Good and evil are significance of action, not a mere assertion of how the world must be. One may say "X was wrong" without asserting any particular obligation for the world to be otherwise.

In themselves, rights are an infinite.They ought to be, but the world is never obligated to recognise them. "Liberalism" and "Conservativism" are about a little more than politics. Taken on their own terms, they are various expression of meaning of a functioning society. The finite is expressing an infinte.

Here you do not merely enter a game of politcal essences. You also assert something about the meaning of the world which manifests regardless of our politcal machinations. If we are liberals in the sense I talked about, we reject the idea people need to saved by an eternal tradition. We are not simply making a political point against traditions we don't like. We are also describing our meaning (an infinte).

Our differences pivot around this point. You view the "transcendent" as our meaningful escape from the squabbling politics of the world. Whether the transcendent Christian, mystical, atheistic or someonewith else, you view them all equal which saves from the ignomy of conflict, duty and demands of others. Everyone is saved by their ability to the meaning of the world and any conflict it might contain.

For me this is an unnecessary. Since I hold meaning to be an expression of the finite, no-one needs saving, no matter their politics or conflicts.

Even the those burdened with a conflict mutal genocide still have meaning. The world is not obligated to be otherwise, even if it ought to be. Any "saving" will only be done in the world-- the end of the conflict which saves lives of millions on both sides. A rescue of the world rather than one of an immortal soul which has nothing to do with what occurs in the world.

The pragmatisist is found to be ignoring the world in favour of the fiction which produces a lesser degree of conflict or hides its presence. You often see pragmatism expressed as the phrase "we only need what works." How exactly is anything going to work though? For that to function, the world must have significance in-itself, else there would be no measure of what was working. Conflict and significance must be expressed by the world. It cannot be just a question of politics.

As I see it, no one is ever saved by transcendence per se, that would be incoherent, but we might say they are saved by transcending their present mode of experience and/or degree of knowledge; but this would be a 'transcendence' which just consists in gaining a new degree of knowledge and a new mode of experience, and so this kind of 'transcendence" must always be immanent to knowledge and experience; however enlarged they may become; and all the more so on account of that very enlargement.

I don't see the relevance of politics in mysticism other than in its absence, apart from ecological concerns. Surely any mystic would be a member of the Green Party, as I am. If ever I am political it is always over the concerns of climate change, biodiversity, protection of habitat and the avoidance of pollution. Each one just as important as the big political issues we repeatedly see splashed across the headlines.

Is it not the desired aim, or the destiny of humanity in the mind of a mystic, to become a custodian of the biosphere of the planet. Along with seeking sociopolitical strategies which will aid in bringing this about and making it work.

I don't see us any way near this trajectory at the moment, but at least there are a minority of people concerned with this, so that potentially we have the intellectual knowledge and technology to follow this course. There are serious issues and problems pressing on humanity at the moment*, the most of which is blindly ignored or dismissed by our leaders and the majority. It's looking as though it will require some catastrophic crises of some sort, resulting in a dramatic culling of population, which is going to be very painful before we even find ourselves in a position to follow this course. The balance of probability though is a fall of civilisation and a return to a dark age, something which has happened many times before and is the default state of humanity, between cultural flowerings.


*The problems we face are manifold, but near the top of the list would be population, some kind of stable global politics, some means of successfully educating the populous to, ln a phrase, "love thy neighbour and the planet"and sociocultural structures which add stability and longevity to such projects.

Big ambitions indeed, and who is raising them, seeking to implement them?

Always, in the sense that anyone arguing a postion as wisdom or ethics is concerned with politics. They want to make the world into something, even if they are only concerned with speaking their own voice — TheWillowOfDarkness

As we enter the game of discourse, yes, we are impinging on the world. In a minimal sense, you can call this politics. But in that sense Keats was a politician. Even Lewis Carroll was therefore a politician --in that minimal sense. But this isn't about "politics is bad" or "politics is good" but a pointing toward that which transcends political assertions or political focus. It's about being able to laugh from one perspective at our earnest investment from another perspective. Are we good people? Good liberals? Good conservatives? Good whatever? Is that the whole story? Or is that a crust on the top of our consciousness? A construction of "oughts" and "truths"?

You view the "transcendent" as our meaningful escape from the squabbling politics of the world. Whether the transcendent Christian, mystical, atheistic or someonewith else, you view them all equal which saves from the ignomy of conflict, duty and demands of others. Everyone is saved by their ability to the meaning of the world and any conflict it might contain. — TheWillowOfDarkness

This is partially true, except that I still think you are understanding in political terms, as if I am "politically" asserting an anti-politics. Thou shalt not take politics seriously! But that is just more (generalized) politics and law bringing. I'm not trying to say that X is bad. Nor do I assert that my ideas are even compatible with just anyone's personality. We can use the "escape" metaphor, but it's misleading, for it already frames such an "escape" in terms of some violated duty. Thou shalt advance the cause of humanism/progressivism! You're right that the attitude I'm hinting at reframes all of this duty and perceives the narcissism/escapism within this "duty." It's hard to meet someone who doesn't think that his duty is also your duty. His abstract "gods" or causes are also yours, if you ask him. But look around: there is no consensus. There are positions that depend on thier anti-positions for an inferior or "fallen" out-group. Be it condescending pity or outright hatred, the group identification is something to melt in to.

The pragmatisist is found to be ignoring the world in favour of the fiction which produces a lesser degree of conflict or hides its presence. You often see pragmatism expressed as the phrase "we only need what works." How exactly is anything going to work though? For that to function, the world must have significance in-itself, else there would be no measure of what was working. Conflict and significance must be expressed by the world. It cannot be just a question of politics. — TheWillowOfDarkness

That's an odd perspective on pragmatism, of all movements, which is just sophisticated anti-intellectualism with a dash of anarchy. This talk of "fiction" is pre-pragmatic. Inquiry is driven by doubt, malfunction, pain when not by curiosity. A "hidden" conflict is the absence of a conflict. Conflict is disclosed by pain. It is pain. Indeed, we do only need what works. That what "works" means. And of course the world has significance "in itself." We are embodied, fragile, social. We are always already invested, threatened, promised. The question is adaptation, adjustment --largely by means of strings of marks and noises. Much of our life is work, politics. There's no escape from that on the practical level. It's about (in my view) learning to love this practical level. The "mystic" hints or post-law iconoclasm I've been singing is not by any means some replacement for work or politics. That's the point. It doesn't deny or replace them. It enlarges the space around them. Call it a string of marks and noises that polishes or lubricates the machine of everyday life. It's far more poetic than that, but there's no piety involved. But neither is there guilt or duty at the (possible) "apex" of a personality.

But I was "wired" this way. I've always loved fire.

someone produces self-righteous prozelytizing — John

Why is thinking that adultery should be legally punished in some form "self-righteous prozelytizing" and something like thinking that a husband beating his wife should be punished legally is NOT "self-righteous prozelytizing"? Do you have some special love for adultery, or what is it, when it comes to sexual harm, that you treat it so differently from other forms of harm? Really... people are rightfully outraged if say a husband beats his wife. All good in that. But if the same husband were to commit adultery on his wife - suddenly no one is outraged - people even find it funny and interesting to hear, and if someone were to be outraged then he is an ultra-conservative fundamentalist. What is it about sexual sins that makes them different from other sins which harm other people - if not for the selfish liberal propaganda that you can do whatever you want with your body? Look this is all propaganda - this has nothing to do with ethics or morality - it's in fact the contrary of ethics and morality - the care of self and of other.

but the person need not be directly concerned with the politics of influencing others, and much less would she need to be concerned with the politics of determining exactly what others are to think and do in regards to particular issues. — John

Man is a social animal. Being a social animal entails that one's happiness depends, at least in part, on other people. It would be foolish not to be interested or concerned with what others do - given that your own well-being also depends on it - because you are not an atom. This is exactly the point that Plato and Aristotle made so long ago - which is why they devoted their lives to teaching other people, and encouraging them towards virtue, because they realised that virtue is the requirement that leads to both individual and social fulfilment. If social harmony doesn't exist, then the individual will be frustrated in his aims, and neither will be happy. Our duties to one another are more important than our rights from one another - and this is the conservative point. That's why obedience is, as per Roger Scruton, the prime political virtue. Other people matter - you're not the only one who matters. It's not all about your desires and what you want - it's first of all about not hurting others.

This has meant that mystics that adhered (at least outwardly) to the Roman Catholic tradition, had to be very careful about what they said. This has obviously also been the case with men of science and Giordano Bruno (who was both a hermetic mystic and a man of science) is a striking case in point. — John

This is only partly true - not all mystics were condemned as heretical. Pseudo-Dionysius is one of the most important mystics - he was the first author St. Thomas Aquinas studied as a monk - how do you think this was possible? Clearly because the Church appreciated the mystical teaching. Furthermore, the Eastern Orthodox tradition has accepted mystics from the very beginning - starting from the Desert Fathers.

But traditions are there to be creatively used by individuals for self-education, development and inspiration; individuals are not there for traditions to use or dictate to, in the name, and for the interests, of authorities or powers, or to repress and subjugate under the aegis of orthodox totalitarian ideologies. — John

Individuals don't exist. No one is born an individual. You get your individuality from a tradition. Tradition forms and shapes you into who you are. The sense of self is emergent, and it depends on your community, by which it is created and sustained. Individuals are not atoms flying all alone, who live in society just for ensuring their survival. We are social animals - we depend on society.

orthodox totalitarian ideologies. — John

Orthodoxism isn't totalitarian. ISIS is totalitarian. There's a big difference between what ISIS does, and what the Catholic Church does.

And again, underlined here is another example of a presumptuous and unwarranted characterization of my philosophical stance and personal aims; which it seems is based on the fact, that given your own preoccupation with politics, you seem to automatically assume that others must be (or at least should be?) motivated in like manner. — John

My apologies, but it does seem to me, even now, that there is some liberal bias in your thinking, which you have picked up from society. I may be wrong, but that's the impression I get. But indeed, you are not a liberal in the traditional sense of the term, so my apologies for that.

The past exists for us, not us for the past. The desire to freeze time is the desire for "undeath" or "unlife." — Hoo

The idea that we don't have a duty to the past is wrong I think. If it wasn't for the past, we wouldn't exist as we exist. Therefore we owe it to the past, which entails that we have a duty towards it. The past is not there for us to use however we see fit. Society is a contract between the past, the present and the future, as per Burke. There is no dictatorship of the present.

arch-conservatives — John

You can remove "arch" because it is simply conservative. No arch needed.

For him tradition is meant to instructive and dictatorial — TheWillowOfDarkness

Cut out dictatorial. There's a difference between it being instructive and respected, and it being dictatorial. You don't seem to be able to see that.

It's meant to be the becon of imagine which defines what we aspire to — TheWillowOfDarkness

This is true.

We are no longer understand ourselves to be destined for anything. Marriage is no longer forever. Family is understood to be breakable (to pick one of Agustino's favourites). The vision of the necessarily perfect life has been lost. It's no longer there to define the lives of some and act as the fiction which hides when we are less than perfect. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Let me re-edit this. "We no longer understand the perennial aspects of reality and of ourselves. Marriage is no longer forever. Family is understood to br breakable. The vision of the perfect life has been lost. It's no longer there to help define our lives and guide them when they are less than perfect". Now I agree :D

Sin has no future consequence for the integrity of one's worth. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes it does.

Liberalism amounts to accepting or even celebrating living imperfections — TheWillowOfDarkness

Moral laxity is no different from immorality.

In liberalism, the ability to call for the destruction of those who sin is lost. It's this which Agustino despises most. Philosophy is unable to form a culture which veiws sin and worth as mutually exclusive. — TheWillowOfDarkness

This is false. It's not about calling for their destruction, as for calling for the destruction of such behaviour and the reform of people who commit it. That's what moral education is.

In themselves, rights are an infinite — TheWillowOfDarkness

Given by who?? Rights don't exist out there flying in the sky!

A paragraph from Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition which captures many important ideas in mysticism:

Enlightenment, for the authors of the Hermetica and for Hegel, is not just an intellectual event; it is expected to change the life of the enlightened one. Philosophy, for Hegel, is about living. In brief, the man who achieves Selbstbewusstsein [literally 'self-confidence' but more like 'self-realisaton'] is the man who becomes selbstbewusst: confident, self-actualized, no longer an ordinary human being (cf Abraham Maslow, 'hierarchy of needs' and the self-actualized human.)

Klaus Vondung writes that “The Hermeticist does not need to escape from the world in order to save himself, he wants to gain knowledge of the world in order to expand his own self, and utilize this knowledge to penetrate into the self of God. Hermeticism is a positive Gnosis, as it were, devoted to the world. To know everything is to in some sense have control over everything. This is what I term the ideal of man as magus, and it is unique to the Hermetica. See, for example, Corpus Hermeticum 4: “All those who heeded the proclamation and immersed themselves in mind [nous] participated in knowledge and became perfect [or “complete,” teleioi] people because they received mind [an expression also characteristic of Chinese Buddhism].

But those who missed the point of the proclamation are people of reason [or “speech,” logikon] because they did not receive [the gift of] mind as well and do not know the purpose or the agents of their coming to nous [i.e. trapped by mere discursiveness]. In other words, the men of complete self-understanding who know even the “purpose or the agents of their coming to be” are perfect human beings. If Hegel did not believe that man could literally become God, he certainly believed that the wise man is daimonic: a more-than-merely-human participant in the divine life.

(Y)

Bolds and come comments added.

source

Nice post, pointing out the primary goal of what I would label "Western mysticism". This self actualised being is I expect the mystic who "becomes one with God", or who "becomes God". What could be described as the science of mysticism( within faith schools, or channelled through mediums), or esoteric teachings, layout systems of treading this path.

From my perspective the aspirant will at some point find their own level in treading this path. A level dictated by the evolutionary state of their being and only a very few would reach the stage of becoming one with God at any one time in the development of humanity(although I would expect it to be an organic progression through the development of the species). While the majority of aspirants would fall short in some way and would reconcile themselves with playing a constructive part in the whole and performing service of some kind( or at least to be a constructive person).

Esoterically one could view this process as a loose network of individuals following the will of God and collectively forming metaphorically the hand of God in the world.

It is an approach that would be quite compatible with today's 'integral spirituality'.

Yes, I am not familiar with "intergral spirituality" are you using it to describe spirituality in general?

Anyway I agree with the emphasis on the transfiguration of the person of the seeker as the primary goal, while living an ordinary life. The transformation being internal with a consequent expression externally, which would take the form of a kind and constructive member of the community. One could be living next door and you wouldn't know.

Why is thinking that adultery should be legally punished in some form "self-righteous prozelytizing" and something like thinking that a husband beating his wife should be punished legally is NOT "self-righteous prozelytizing"? — Agustino

Beating someone up is an act of aggression pure and simple, it is in no way analogous to adultery, as you are suggesting it is. The committing of adultery could be as a result of a whole range of diversely variant circumstances. Perhaps the relationship is not good, they are not really attracted to one another physically, perhaps the one who commits adultery (does that consist in 'being an adult', by the way? ;) ) has difficulty controlling sexual desires, perhaps s/he has fallen in love with the person s/he commits it with, perhaps husband and wife share an agreement to live in an 'open' relationship. Will you punish people in all these very different circumstances? The way you frame the whole question is very male-centric, by the way. It wouldn't surprise me if you believe that men are naturally superior to women and that they should, in line with your beloved traditional values, rule the household.

Individuals don't exist. No one is born an individual. You get your individuality from a tradition. Tradition forms and shapes you into who you are. The sense of self is emergent, and it depends on your community, by which it is created and sustained. Individuals are not atoms flying all alone, who live in society just for ensuring their survival. We are social animals - we depend on society. — Agustino

Of course individuals exist; and each individual is responsible for their acts, both morally and before the law. If there were no individuality or individual freedom then logically there could be no personal responsibility, either. It's true that traditions that you are brought up within to a certain degree "form and shape...who you are" but they certainly do not totally determine it; again, to say that is to abolish the notion of personal moral responsibility. To the degree that we are merely shaped by our traditions, then what we become is not the result of reason and the kind of personal growth that results from real conscious spiritual work.

I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that a traditional religious upbringing (was it Eastern Orthodoxy?) is, more or less, determinative of your rejection of an earlier phase of somewhat rebellious radical philosophical thinking to return to the conservative orthodoxy you are now valorizing. Don't get me wrong; I think you are fully entitled to do that; I respect the absolute right of all individuals to determine their own moral and religious beliefs, or even to refuse to think for themselves and allow their beliefs to be fully determined by their upbringing, if that is all they can do, or that is all they want to do.. And of course they probably will, and should be, held to account for any acts, which sufficiently transgress the law or what is morally acceptable in their own culture, that their moral ,religious or philosophical beliefs may lead them to commit.

'Integral spirituality' is Ken Wilber's terminology. Not that I'm a Wilber acolyte, but it's an indicator of a genre.

Beating someone up is an act of aggression pure and simple, it is in no way analogous to adultery, as you are suggesting it is — John

It's an act which harms someone. Same with adultery, the only difference is that one is physical harm and the other emotional/spiritual. You seem to ignore that very important commonality.

Perhaps the relationship is not good, they are not really attracted to one another physically, perhaps the one who commits adultery (does that consist in 'being an adult', by the way? ;) ) has difficulty controlling sexual desires, perhaps s/he has fallen in love with the person s/he commits it with, perhaps husband and wife share an agreement to live in an 'open' relationship. — John

Leaving aside the open marriage situation, these reasons you provide - are they justifications for harming someone? If those reasons are the case there exists divorce. Certainly not adultery.

The way you frame the whole question is very male-centric, by the way. It wouldn't surprise me if you believe that men are naturally superior to women and that they should, in line with your beloved traditional values, rule the household. — John

Funny - statistically men cheat more often than women. Also statistically women are harmed by infidelity more frequently than men. This is exactly the liberal bias you have that Im talking about. You think sexual morality is a male invented tool to control women. That's exactly the liberal progressive propaganda. While the facts are quite possibly the other way around, as statistics widely illustrate.

Of course individuals exist; and each individual is responsible for their acts, both morally and before the law. If there were no individuality or individual freedom then logically there could be no personal responsibility, either. It's true that traditions that you are brought up within to a certain degree "form and shape...who you are" but they certainly do not totally determine it; again, to say that is to abolish the notion of personal moral responsibility. To the degree that we are merely shaped by our traditions, then what we become is not the result of reason and the kind of personal growth that results from real conscious spiritual work. — John

I only meant that individuality is not primary - community is. Out of community arises individuality.

And of course they probably will, and should be, held to account for any acts, which sufficiently transgress the law or what is morally acceptable in their own culture, that their moral ,religious or philosophical beliefs may lead them to commit. — John

Please clarify what you're implying here.

Same with adultery, the only difference is that one is physical harm and the other emotional/spiritual. — Agustino

There are other significant differences, For instance one does not need to know anything about a relationship to know that one party physically attacking the other causes them suffering. However, one needs to know quite a lot about a relationship to know that adultery causes suffering to the other party.

Another difference is that generally adultery only causes harm if the cuckolded party knows of it.

However, despite being one of those dreaded Progressives, I agree with you that adultery is often, possibly even usually, a harm, and that there is no logical flaw in somebody arguing for it having legal sanctions. After all, if nothing else, it is a breach of contract.

Personally, I am opposed to the criminalisation of adultery, but that's just a personal position.

It's an act which harms someone. Same with adultery, the only difference is that one is physical harm and the other emotional/spiritual. You seem to ignore that very important commonality. — Agustino

One is intentional harm and the other is not; or at least may not be. There is a big difference between intentional and non-intentional harm, morally (and of course, legally) speaking.

Leaving aside the open marriage situation, these reasons you provide - are they justifications for harming someone? If those reasons are the case there exists divorce. Certainly not adultery. — Agustino

So, it's OK with you if people choose to live in open marriages? I haven't said anything about different circumstances being "justifications for harming someone"; where did you get that idea? (It appears you're OK with divorce then?) Sometimes people transgress the agreements between them, even vows that they might have made (vows. no doubt, often made without proper intent, and perhaps just for superficial reasons of following what have become empty traditions); but in any case it is a private matter for the people concerned. Are you advocating for the total abolition of private life?

The law has no business interfering in people's personal lives and punishing individuals for transgressions against others in virtue of agreements they may have made, unless there is substantial resultant loss or injury to one party. If you would truly advocate this kind of thing then you would be in an extreme minority, along with Muslims who advocate sharya law and honour killings and the like. I am confident in claiming that very few people would choose to live in the kind of society you seem to be advocating. If you promote a law that very few people would want to live under as being good for society in some way, good for "stability" or whatever, then you are promoting a contradiction; if very few people would want to live under some condition then that condition could never rightly be said to be good for society. This is not a liberal;/ conservative divide at all; this is far more egregious; it is a matter of democracy versus fascism.

I only meant that individuality is not primary - community is. Out of community arises individuality. — Agustino

Yes, but it always comes down to what is good for the individuals that form a community. The more individuals in any community feel that they are living a good life in their community, then the better it is for the community. Sure you might argue that some ultra-fascist community might be incredibly stable and last for millenia by total subjugation of the wills of its citizens; but that is highly unlikely because people will not tolerate severe oppression for too long, And even if it were possible; it would be a matter of the welfare of the community, seen just in itself apart from its members, and who would say that it is desirable? What good could an ultra-stable community that did not benefit its members be? It can equally be said that out of individuality arises community. It is a symbiosis. But the important thing is that is the welfare of all the individuals that make up any community that matters most,

Please clarify what you're implying here. — Agustino

Nothing more than that those who break the law and are caught will, and should, be held to account; and that those who sufficiently transgress the moral values of their community will likely suffer on account of the natural disapprobation of their fellows, and rightly so.

However, one needs to know quite a lot about a relationship to know that adultery causes suffering to the other party. — AndrewK

This is in line with the 'culture of consent' i.e. the only criterion for ethical worth in sexual relationships is consent and mutual enjoyment, the only constraint being not to compel. There are no duties towards marriage, as such, beyond individual consent. I do observe that nowadays, the ethics of sexuality are understood almost entirely in such terms, and to question that is to be characterised as being 'reactionary' or 'oppressive'. COMPLETELY different topic, however, and strongly suggest to mods and participants opening a separate thread.