After all, if nothing else, it is a breach of contract. — andrewk

Yes, and it is grounds for divorce, if that is what the 'victim' in a relationship that has been 'adulterated' wants. Many people choose to live in de facto relationships, though, where no formal agreement has been made, or maybe not even any explicit informal agreement. Surely you would not agree that there could be any reasonable argument for legal sanctions in regard to adultery occurring within the context of de facto relations?

Do it, man. I think it's a worthy, albeit incredibly complex, issue. (Y)

Surely you would not agree that there could be any reasonable argument for legal sanctions in regard to adultery occurring within the context of de facto relations? — John

It all turns on that word 'reasonable'. What seems reasonable to you and me may not seem reasonable to Agustino and Wayfarer and vice versa.

I observe that some harms to others are punishable by law, whereas others are not. Examples that are not are insults, ridicule, social exclusion and, within the fairly weak limits imposed by libel laws, spreading nasty rumours. There are no doubt historical and practical reasons why these are not punished by law, but we can't claim that the law is consistent in its treatment of harms.

Somebody can be punished by law for stealing 50c bag of sweets but not for insulting and ridiculing someone enough to make their life a living hell.

In that context, I could not mount an argument based on fundamental principles as to why adultery should not be illegal while a woman slapping her partner in the face when she learns of his adultery should be.

I could, and would, mount an argument that it should be like that (and by 'should' I mean that I want the laws to be that way, and I am trying to persuade others to adopt that view), but that argument would be complex, multi-faceted and contain a large dose of rhetoric.

I reject the view that religious conservatives are trying to foist their morals on Progressives while the reverse is not the case. I believe that we Progressives are trying to foist our morals on religious conservatives just as much as they are on us. I hope we prevail, but I don't believe that there is any fundamental principle according to which we are right and they are wrong.

For sure, I agree that there can be no perfect logic determining the law; but I believe there can better or worse, more workable or less workable, logics. And I would certainly say that a logic that promotes punishment for adultery must be be considered a worse, less workable logic than that which we currently work under. I do think though that insults, social exclusion and ridicule where they can be shown to amount to intentional and systematic bullying or persecution, should be punishable. But much of this kind of thing occurs among children in any case, who are not conisdred to be fully morally and legally responsible for their actions.

Thus the argument that I would mount for why adultery should not be punishable is simply based on the fact that it is too diverse and unquantifiable a phenomenon to be justly and workably punished.

I don't agree with you about the mutual imposition of values either, because the laws that we actually do have represent (at least in principle) the will of the majority; they embody (or ideally should, at least) the kind of society that most people would like to live in. How many people do you think, if asked whether they would choose to live in a society wherein adultery was punishable, would say they would? Also, are we considering punishing 'cheating' in de facto relationships here, or just in marriage?

Many conservatives are Christian, and don't you think that even most of those would think that the punishment of God suffices in cases which are merely moral, as opposed to criminal, transgressions. Society as such is not critically threatened by even widespread moral transgressions (as it would be by widespread criminal transgressions); it is only a certain very particular (and I would say extremely conservative) conception of how society should be that could rightly think itself to be threatened.

I hope we prevail, but I don't believe that there is any fundamental principle according to which we are right and they are wrong. — AndrewK

That's as good a statement of cultural relativism as we're likely to see! To bastardise Voltaire, 'though I may disagree with what you say, I see no reason to believe my view is any better.'

I think the bottom line in secular culture is this: there are no boundaries around sexual morality except for non-consensual acts, and acts involving juveniles.

Thus the argument that I would mount for why adultery should not be punishable is simply based on the fact that it is too diverse and unquantifiable a phenomenon to be justly and workably punished. — John

That's a pragmatic argument and, to me, a compelling one. It is a mainstay of my 'multi-faceted' argument against criminalizing adultery.

I don't agree with you about the mutual imposition of values either, because the laws that we actually do have represent (at least in principle) the will of the majority; they embody (or ideally should, at least) the kind of society that most people would like to live in. — John

Indeed. That's why democracy is sometimes called the 'tyranny of the majority'. They impose their worldview on the minority. Fortunately for me, where I live the majority is in favour of laws mostly based on secular, utilitarian values, so to that extent my viewpoint is imposed on religious conservatives that would for instance like abortion to be illegal.

It is not uniform though. Currently our laws do not enable gay marriage or voluntary assisted dying - not because a majority of the public does not support it (it does) but because a majority of parliamentarians either oppose it or are afraid of the incurring the wrath of the socially conservative Christian lobby if they publicly vote for it.

But the disproportionate - and hence unrepresentative - number of committed Christians in our parliament is a separate topic. I have no ideas about how to solve that one.

If the kind of morality you indicate here is representative of the kinds of legally embodied moral principles the vast majority would wish to live under (which I think it is fair to say it is), then what would be the alternative? Totalitarian imposition via law of more restrictive moral principles would seem to be the only alternative. Would you choose that?

I don't know! I don't have any particularly ideas here, it's just an observation. I do notice that at Dharmawheel, where I also post, there is essentially what I would describe as a 'libertarian mindset', i.e. if one advocates a socially-conservative point of view, you cop a lot of heat for it (so, I don't). But I have been PM'd a couple of times by monastics who contribute there, when I've expressed such views, supporting what I've posted (I've also notice that they have generally stopped posting, too.)

We're never going to come to any consensus but I think it's worth reflecting on why it's such a hot-button issue - why views are held so strongly, why it so easily leads to disagreement. I think it's because we're very much products of the culture we're in, and that culture is basically individualistic. But it's a deep issue.

But the disproportionate - and hence unrepresentative - number of committed Christians in our parliament is a separate topic — andrewk

It seems that you have recognized me as being a fellow Australian. :)

Yes, what you indicate here is manifesting in what is, for me (and apparently also the majority of other citizens) the fiscally irresponsible, not to mention absurd, idea of holding a plebiscite to decide whether or not to recognize gay marriage. :-}. :s. :-x. :-d.

I'm not complaining here, but I would like to point out how hard it seems to be to keep even talk of mysticism from becoming political. Personality is a throbbing 8=====> that wants to jam itself in to the center and become law. To condemn this would be hypocrisy. To "zoom out" and contemplate this structure is something else, which is not to say innocent or pure but perhaps the opposite: a desire for incarnation.

I know that I'm probably magic, and at least defy logic, as I am both simultaneously hot, and cool. :D

I had a mystic experience once, it was really awesome and I wanted to have another one right away, but I couldn't afford to until like a week later :(

Yeah, damn expensive those chemicals!

I look at magic people like I do spontaneous generation and determinism. Sure, I haven't observed every single animals birth, or anything, but I am fairly certain they all had parents, precursors, and not a single one of them popped into existence all from nothing like. Similarly with people, I assume that all of them are full of shit know nothings just like me, and none of them are magic. It's axiomatic, deductive.

No men are magic
Socrates was a man
Socrates wasn't magic.

This looks interesting. Thanks, John.

An arcanum is a "ferment" or an "enzyme" whose presence stimulates the spiritual and the psychic life of man. And it is symbols that are the bearers of these "ferments" or "enzymes" and which communicate them -- if the mentality and morality of the recipient is ready...

Among Christian Hermeticists nobody assumes for himself the title and the function of "initiator" or "master."

The changing of work, which is duty, into play is effected as a consequence of the presence of the "zone of perpetual silence," where one draws from a sort of secret and intimate respiration, whose sweetness and freshness accomplishes the anointing of work and transforms it into play — Meditations on the Tarot

https://books.google.com/books?id=DR_IAgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Not for nothing that Timothy Leary call his book 'The Politics of Esctacy'.

Quite that's what I thought you meant.

I tend to refer to the Theosophical or Hindu tradition as a framework to work from. As I am not well versed in the Hindu cannon, the Theosophical will do.

The idea is basically that each entity progresses or evolves from the atom to a god through a long period of "incarnations". Humanity is at a key stage in this progression, that of individuation*.

Mysticism is the manifestation of folk(souls) who are of the disposition, or chose, to play an active role in the progression of the group. This does on ocassion result in a mystic reaching a prominent position in the progression of the group of humanity, or any of the other kingdoms of nature( such as the Christ or the Buddha).

I am interested in your view of where in this scheme the "direct route" of Buddhism would fit, if atall, or if this scheme is not applicable?

*By the use of individuation I am referring to a development of mind as well and all the consequent issues, which we know all to well. Or to put simply, metaphorically,- To climb up into the branches of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and eat of its fruits.

Aha! I was once under the influence of something very strong in a quiet valley in the Himalayas. I was told shortly afterwards that that is where Timothy Leary used to go to drop acid. A place called cranks ridge, a magical place indeed.


I would point out that I was meditating a few hours a day and only indulged at weekends. It wasn't all decadence and debauchery.

Well when I took it, it was still legal! (Now I'm showing my age.)

I turns out that Leary arrived in Kasa Devi (cranks ridge) a few months before my conception. Does that make me a spring chicken I wonder.

Well, put it this way, at a young age I had vivid recollections that seemed to originate from an earlier life. I couldn't recall any of the specific details, but had the distinct memory of having known something of great importance which I had to recall. That is one of the things that lead me to start reading various spiritual books. When I went to University, I entered as a mature-age student, as I had made a total cock-up of my leaving exam. As it happens, this entry exam mainly comprised a long passage of Bertrand Russell's Mysticism And Logic, with a series of questions on it. When I got in to university, that more or less defined my curriculum. And I've been at it ever since.

During that time the Adyar Bookshop was still in existence so I got to know about theosophy. I got to know a Uni tutor who had quite a lot of archival documentation on Krishnamurti.

So I am very sympathetic to that kind of 'evolutionary enlightenment' view, but on the other hand, I'm mindful of it being wishful thinking.

I also had memories of a previous life, well more feelings of emotional atmospheres and certain Victorian furnishings and effects would have a strong and mysterious impact on me.
For me I was always from a young age fascinated by these ideas even before I had words for them. As I grew up, I would avidly seek out any literature on the topic read them and look for something more meaningful just like a pig sniffing out truffles. I ended up at the Theosophical society in London which felt like finding my way back home.

I am aware of the way in which it might be wishful thinking, it was only a stepping stone for me anyway. The ideas take their place along with all the others I have found and developed myself in a kind of virtual library in my head.

So I am very sympathetic to that kind of 'evolutionary enlightenment' view, but on the other hand, I'm mindful of it being wishful thinking. — Wayfarer

I find it a little surprising that you would say that, because it seems obvious that consciousness has evolved, both from an evolutionary perspective and also, culturally and quite radically, as Hegel has shown, as the Western philosophical tradition. That consciousness has not evolved (in the sense of 'produced many radically different and yet dialectically related paradigms) to the same degree in the East does perhaps seem a little odd; maybe it has to do with the Western development of science, or maybe the Western development of science was possible because of the evolution of consciousness in the west; who knows? I guess complex geographical and multi-cultural factors fed into the turbulent process we call 'the History of the west'.

Even in the more stable East the notion of enlightenment did certainly evolve from the early Vedic teachings through Brahmanism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and so on, and there has been quite an evolution of thought even within Buddhism itself.

Badly worded on my part. I generally do agree with the idea of the 'evolution of consciousness'. and, as I said, I have had recollections from a previous life, which I regard as apodictic. All I'm saying is, be careful of projecting. In early Buddhist texts, one of the basie of 'wrong view' is 'eternalism', the idea that there is a self that migrates from life to life. Yet, at the same time, the Buddha is said to 'perceive the fate of beings in the next world'. These are deep and difficult questions. Here is a blog post I wrote on the subject.

know quite a lot about a relationship to know that adultery causes suffering — andrewk

I agree with you that adultery is often, possibly even usually, a harm — andrewk

These two don't work very well together. I think "quite a lot" is an exaggeration. I would agree one needs to know at least something about the relationship, but not "quite a lot".

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

That's like saying HIV causes harm only if you know about it or have symptoms. This is false. The virus can live in your body causing harm for 10 years until you have any symptoms. That doesn't mean that after 5 years of having it you're not harmed. Only that you're not aware of what? Of the harm. The virus is slowly attacking your T-cells, whether you are aware of this or not. Or it's like someone has stolen my wallet but I'm not aware of it as I haven't checked my pocket. If you ask me later, when have I been harmed, I will not say "when I checked my pocket" - I will say "when I was robbed". Same in adultery. So it's not an excuse to say "Oh they don't know, therefore no one is harmed" - people are harmed, it's just that they don't know about it.

despite being one of those dreaded Progressives — andrewk

Personally, I am opposed to the criminalisation of adultery — andrewk

I can see that :D

One is intentional harm and the other is not — John

Any action performed knowing that it would harm someone is intentional harm, regardless of the presence of other motivational factors.

So, it's OK with you if people choose to live in open marriages? — John

Morally no - they're harming each other. Legally I can't do anything about it - if they want to harm each other, and agree to this mutually, there's nothing the law can do about it, just like one can't prevent another from committing suicide if they really want to.

I haven't said anything about different circumstances being "justifications for harming someone" — John

Evidently that's what they end up being.

It appears you're OK with divorce then? — John

Morally no - they're harming each other (or if they're not, then they've acted foolishly - like for example by carelessly choosing the wrong partner). But because of the hardness of their hearts, as Jesus said, and in order to avoid adultery and any other such foolishness, it is better that they divorce.

And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire — Jesus Christ

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) — John

They shouldn't get married. Very simple.

Are you advocating for the total abolition of private life? — John

Wow - outlawing adultery is the total abolition of private life. I never knew that committing adultery is all that people do in their private lives - or even what they want to do... If that's what private life is for, then it should rightly be abolished.

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. — John

That's why if I visit your house and take 5 dollars it's a big deal and the police intervenes right? But if you cheat on your wife and ruin her marriage - no big deal, no substantial loss there. Just check the number on violence, crime, or self-harm that's resulting out of adultery please, before stating that there is no substantial loss. There is a very substantial loss - someone is cheated out of a very important, life-long agreement, not to mention the impact on third parties like children and families.

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. — John

This is again liberal propaganda. Most people don't know how bad the cheating statistics are. Most people are not aware that this is a problem. Most people don't know that it's quite likely that this will happen to them. That's why by the time they age, most people will agree with me. So you're wrong - it's not an extreme minority. And if you look through history, you will be surprised to see that most people who have ever lived in fact agree with me. All religions - without exception, be they Hinduism, Buddhism, or Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Taoism - all of them have rules against adultery. Do you think all those people were idiots, and you're the only smart person?

this is far more egregious; it is a matter of democracy versus fascism. — John

No, not at all. There's nothing undemocratic about outlawing adultery and protecting people who are unlawfully and cruelly harmed, in ways that they cannot undo or remedy. There is in fact something very fascist about gleefully enjoying the state of people being harmed and having their lives ruined.

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, — John

This misses the point. I'm not ISIS, nor is conservatism fascism. So please read up on your terms, and don't strawman. You repeatedly and pejoratively throw around labels - this is inadmissible in an intellectual circle. You should know the difference between conservatism and fascism - if you don't, please read up on it before you comment. Adultery being illegal is NOT an extreme position - in fact it's a position that has been very commonly adopted through human history as a moral position. Given mankind's history, adultery NOT being illegal is a much more radical and extremist position. But unlike you I don't get involved in such silly squabble. Ideas are to be discussed on their own merits. And it seems that you're refusing to acknowledge that adultery is a serious problem that can seriously hurt people in long-lasting and irredeemable ways. Much more it seems that you have a problem with decent people who are outraged by this harm - and just like the slave owners 100 years ago, you think it just that people ought to continue to be abused and accept it, without the possibility of defending themselves.

And if you think most people would disagree living in a state which punishes them for hurting each other - by God - there is something absurd in that. If you're an honest and decent man okay, and you want to get married. Why would you be concerned about if there is a punishment for adultery or if there isn't? Do you plan on cheating? If you do, then yes, you should be very afraid. But if you don't, why would you be afraid? Why would you be bothered by such a regulation? Clearly - the only case in which you (or anyone else) would be bothered is if you want to cheat - pure and simple. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors. The only question is "do you want to cheat?". If the answer is yes, then it is terrible for adultery to be illegal. If you don't want to cheat, at worst, it is indifferent to you if adultery is illegal or not. There's nothing more and nothing less to be said on this - a man who is so bothered by making adultery illegal clearly feels something of value is taken away from him. What could this be except the freedom to commit adultery, which is exactly what is under the question?

it seems obvious that consciousness has evolved, both from an evolutionary perspective and also, culturally and quite radically, as Hegel has shown, as the Western philosophical tradition

Yes and considering a spiritual cosmogony is quite reasonable, provided one remembers that it is not known to be the case other than through the personal experience of some people and even there it might come across as an idiosyncratic interpretation and that any spiritual school is likely to be the same.

Anyway I have come to consider this approach on my own through personal experience and contemplation. All we know is that we find ourselves here, how we got here and what is going on is unknown to us, so a considered interpretation of the nature of the world we find ourselves in may provide an understanding of what is going on behind this veil of ignorance. Surely this pursuit is one path followed by the mystic.

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 — Wayfarer

The thing is, that this matter doesn't even have to do with this. Individual consent IS broken during adultery. The problem is that some are so attached to a sin, they don't even want to admit the significant harm it causes. At least @andrewk was honest and recognised it is very often harmful.

Many conservatives are Christian, and don't you think that even most of those would think that the punishment of God suffices in cases which are merely moral, as opposed to criminal, transgressions. Society as such is not critically threatened by even widespread moral transgressions (as it would be by widespread criminal transgressions); it is only a certain very particular (and I would say extremely conservative) conception of how society should be that could rightly think itself to be threatened. — John

This is not true. Every Christian (really, here one should write RELIGIOUS - because all religions are against adultery) man and woman deserve to have their marriage vows protected by law against unlawful transgressions such as adultery. The possibility of divorce is there precisely to enable people to leave marriage without committing adultery.

It deserves a different thread, none of this has much to do with the OP.

Very well then, John or anyone else interested to reply from now on can open a new thread - I finished my reply above already.