Tertullian, a Christian and therefore an enemy of the games, claimed that those who defended the games and were fans of the games admired the art involved, but considered the artists to be inferior in social status. — Ciceronianus

What about the aristocrats who participated? Did they do so entirely by choice or did it have something to do with status or wealth?

I can settle for that, being the reasonable person that I'm known to be.

I get the feeling you're being sarcastic. — frank

I was shooting for profound.

There's a difference between campaigning and blocking someone's path to running for president. It's a pretty big difference. — frank

Trump is an untouchable so any effort to put him down will ultimately be fruitless and only for show. But there are situations in politics where we have to do things simply because it's the right thing to do, even if we know it's only for appearances because to do otherwise is to abandon hope and allow the spirit of democracy in the good hearts of Americans to fall. We cannot let that happen! Appearances matter!

I mean you have to be a literal moron to think Jan 6 is the election play. — StreetlightX

Indeed.

So no one would care if there wasn’t an upcoming election? The presidential election is three years from now and Americans have a very short attention span, in case you hadn’t noticed.

The law and order president is sued by police officers. Hmm, maybe, just maybe, Trump ain’t as law love’n as advertised? :chin:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/04/politics/trump-lawsuits-metro-capitol-police/index.html

Google Translate renders it as 'nothing more than I'. What I meant it to mean is 'nothing more than self'. It's a sarcastic reference to the outlook of liberal indivualism, that the individual ego is the sole arbiter of truth. — Wayfarer

That is not necessarily the case, clearly. What's also clear is that in religion it is exclusively 'nothing more than the tribe of fellow believers'. That is a necessary constraint not shared (in its necessity) by enlightened secular culture. I will also point out that identity of any sort, secular or religious, is based on ego. Is an identity bound to a tribe any better than bound to one's self, or is it worse? Better to transcend all limitations, right?

'nihil ultra ego' — Wayfarer

When I do a search I get this pokeman jellyfish thing and I think to myself “what could Wayfarer be trying to say” :chin:

A Long Petal of the Sea by Isabel Allende. She never disappoints.

Took a glance at Breitbart, as I occasionally do, and noticed a story about the new West Side Story remake by Spielberg. They all...



They refer to it as Woke Side Story. If casting Latin roles to actual Latin actors (instead of white people with dark makeup) is woke then I guess it's woke. Anyway, I liked it tremendously.

Seriously?

Conze describes the necessary basic structure of religion, a hierarchy of authority indistinguishable from a hierarchy of truth or reality. Secular culture makes a distinction and is so freed from this terrible chain of being.

Enlighenment in the sense of 'awakening' relies on qualities of mind other than the objective:

The "perennial philosophy" is...defined as a doctrine which holds [1] that as far as worth-while knowledge is concerned not all are equal, but that there is a hierarchy of persons, some of whom, through what they are, can know more than others; [2] that there is a hierarchy also of the levels of reality, some of which are more "real," because more exalted than others; and [3] that the wise of old have found a wisdom which is true, even though it has no empirical basis in observations which can be made by everyone and everybody; and that in fact there is a rare and unordinary faculty in some of us by which we can attain direct contact with actual reality--through the Prajñāpāramitā of the Buddhists, the logos of Parmenides, the Sophia of Aristotle and others, Spinoza's amor dei intellectualis, Hegel's Vernunft, and so on; and [4] that true teaching is based on an authority which legitimizes itself by the exemplary life and charismatic quality of its exponents.
— Edward Conze, Buddhist Philosophy and its European Parallels

Whereas, in secular culture, there are no criteria for such a distinction. Hence all the argument about 'how to judge the Enlightened' (which is a fair question from the secular POV.) — Wayfarer

Of course, secular culture does not rely on authority. The following has already been posted in this topic but sometimes you just can't help hitting repeat.

Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment. — Immanuel Kant

Hello, Yeah.

Do you recognize an emotional need behind your post?

You guys are heartless. How long do they have to wear it?

It is the concern only of trolls to know exactly how much offence they can give before they are ejected. — unenlightened

This nails it.

The involuntary and coercive cooperation produced by the regulatory and legal institutions are not. — NOS4A2

Well, the state can't be all that morally unsound because it always seems to favor the powerful.

So you believe those observations indicate a problem but can't explain what the problem(s) are.
— praxis

It would be a breach of the TOS to do so. — baker

Your explanation would contain malware, pornography, spam, or otherwise violate property rights? Don't be silly, or sillier than not being able to explain your beliefs.

I suppose people banging their heads against walls are also not a problem ... sort of ... — baker

So you believe those observations indicate a problem but can't explain what the problem(s) are.

As for people who disbelieve in rebirth, or who lack belief in rebirth, I have observed the following in regard to enlightenment (one or a combination of more can be seen in such a person):

1. they generally lack ambition in spiritual life;
2. they believe they are already enlightened;
3. they believe they are inevitably close to being enlightened;
4. they believe enlightenment is an ancient, "highfalutin" idea that has no place in modern life;
5. they flat-out don't care about whether they become enlightened or not. — baker

Those are fine observations. Are you suggesting that any of them are a problem? If so, why?

Watched the new Matrix movie on HBO last night. Reeeeallly bad.

What's an IPA? — Xtrix

India Pale Ale, a pale ale made with extra hops/malt and consequently a higher alcohol level than regular beer. Good stuff.

unimpeachable — Janus

Glad we agree. :up:

Good onya an unimpeachable source to be sure! — Janus

So you’re an enlightenment denier?

This is a punishment out of all proportion with the offence. — Banno

That’s just your mortal judgment. You can’t begin to conceive how God judges stuff.

How would you know about the transformation of consciousness or lack of it that has occurred over the millennia? — Janus

I read the wiki page, of course. :brow:

If you want to learn a practice, any practice: art, music, literature and so on, guidance from those more experienced is, if not essential, at least an advantage. I see no reason why it should be any different with practices designed to transform consciousness and the self. — Janus

The difference, in a word, is religion. The purpose of religion is not to produce graduates but to bind communities. Graduates or 'free' individuals may not be as inclined to move with the herd. If a religion like Buddhism were actually interested in 'transforming consciousness and the self', wouldn't it do a better job of it after over two thousand years???

"Those who have no guidance, fall like leaves are free (enlightened)."

Fixed.

You’ll have to forgive his American slang.

This seems to imply that all (conditioned) life, including pleasure, is suffering from the perspective of the wise — Apollodorus

That seems to imply that the wise can’t feel.

I watched A Hidden Life last night. Beautifully made and a beautiful (tragic though inspiring) story.

The growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs. — George Eliot

whale thumbnails ain't gonna catch on - just telling you now. — The Opposite

Have I mentioned that sperm whales have been on the endangered species list for fifty years?

A little show of appreciation and support would demonstrate exemplary character.

It's been 50 million years since they, in a fit of madness, decided to return to the sea. — jamalrob

Mad are they, who’s gonna look crazy once global warming covers the earth in water.

An hour and a half over 50 million years? Could do better. — jamalrob

Perhaps, but what’s the rush.

For some reason I thought you were American.
— praxis

I am. I saw it on the T.V. set. :death: — James Riley

Ah, I watched The Tiger King this year.

My impression - totally cray cray.

My Conclusion - ego bad.

My lesson - stay away from crazy egotists.

An adult sperm whale can hold its breath for an hour and a half, FYI. Pretty impressive, you must admint.

That I can't decide. Even though I've lived in both situations. — god must be atheist

And if you were forced to decide???

I also liked seeing some elephants and other wildlife come down out of the hills and start wandering towns. — James Riley

For some reason I thought you were American.

I'm being obtuse?

I've agreed with you that being less attached can be good. Being less reactive can be good. As I've mentioned, 'less' and 'non' are different. It's the extreme (non) that I think is not natural (nature is balanced) or religious in nature.

There's no point in continuing. It's like arguing over the existence of God.

Also, you keep ignoring my suggestions that you might see it more favorably if you think in terms of 'reactivity' instead of attachment. — Janus

Being nonreactive sounds even less alive than being non-attached.

I'm attributing my thumbnail's nonelection to penis envy. A sperm whale penis in its entirety is 13 feet in length, and weighs nearly 800 pounds.

What do you mean "harsh"? I'm using stupidity as an analogy to attachment; unlike pregnancy there are degrees. — Janus

I never disagreed that there are degrees of attachment or reactivity. I would disagree that there is such a thing as non-stupidity, at least in regard to human beings. I'm sure that God-fearing folk would say that God is non-stupid, similar to how Buddha-loving folk would say that Buddha realized non-attachment. Easy to claim, not easy to show.

Everything you've been claiming appears to be 'less' and not 'non'. Less can be great, but less is not non. 'Non' may not even really be desirable since we need to live in this world, and if we don't want to live in this world, a well-aimed bullet is an expedient solution.