Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
What I mean by paganism is that hedonism and decadence aren't modern inventions, but the space where upon the sky religions and steppes-cultures derive their own identities and organization, which is the basis of Western civilization (Judeo-Christianity)Can you rephrase that for me?
Christianity itself appropriated massive amounts of paganismTo call it appropriation is to deny the syncretic nature of the effort.
thoroughly decadent in that respectWhich respect?
In my own opinion, this constitutes a continuous, sustainable and productive relationship, an incredibly important dialectic, not a dichotomy.I fully agree, this is well stated.
How can anyone truly fault the excesses of the 1960s/1970s when it, for example, has taught us to treat the blight of child abuse with important consideration?I don't see the connection.
There is no boogeyman that is hedonism or decadence in my opinion, but simply the seemingly timeless relationship between the Judeo-Christian and the pagan, the high culture and the low culture, the steppes-culture and the marsh-culture, and so on. When either of these attempt to destroy the other, the adventure is bound to certain failure.You're just downplaying the significance of the contest in order to say it will work out in the end. I'm not going to hold my tongue waiting for people to realize that without the prudent traditional mating strategies we are bound to usher in an era of normalized heartache.
Can you rephrase that for me?
To call it appropriation is to deny the syncretic nature of the effort.
I don't see the connection.
When the tradition is finally dead we will be faced with the real and ugly face of the Earth-type religion preeminent; love will end it's complete transformation from transcendent and hygienic to debauched and diseased. And then we will say of the traditional marriage that it was an attempt to compromise, as if that were surprising.
Well, the Adversus Haereses and Nicaean councils and so on speak more of a political truth than a metaphysical one. It was simply not politically viable to allow the paganistic gnostics, who were either radically celibate or radically orgiastic, to shape the future of the church.You wanna talk about Paul's church like it's Christianity, maybe I have some news for you; a Manichean Hedonist Berber Neoplatonist Rhetoritician very much shaped the church.
Jesus of Nazareth is basically a politicized, progressive and historical incarnation of Dionysus, Osiris, Mithras, Attis, etc.Now you're pissing me off. Do you need to look up the term syncretic? It's basically the definition of monotheism. Jesus is most certainly not Dionysus. We've talked about this before. If you don't withdraw this claim I'll ask you to take it to another thread where I can demolish it at length... again.
I reject the notion that society became worse as a result of the knowledge obtained through the Sixties revolt.The truth that sets us free isn't abstract information; your list demonstrates you don't think very highly of the behavior, your conclusion demonstrates you think the ends justify the means. I cannot emphasize how fundamentally I disagree. The truth is the things we've done and the fact is it didn't make us better people. You don't get revelations about human nature from Charles Manson, you get Charles Manson and understandable fear and cynicism.
Where would you pin-point the death sequence of ‘tradition’? The 60s? The immediate post-war period? The interbellum? Queen Victoria’s death? The advent of the revolutionary bourgeoisie?Even if I accepted your premise that it is an immortal practice I would just say that the process of killing it would be it's constant death.
Suska wrote:Yes Godstud, the popular idea is that marriage is meaninglessShow me a source for your assertion that this is a "popular idea". I think it's just your own personal opinion, and that you're trying to make it appear as fact, when it's not.
Suska wrote:anyone else who is a hedonist. Correct.Bullshit. Everyone is a hedonist by your "theory", so then everyone else must feel that way. I guess that would mean that gay people are just like everyone else.
Suska wrote:Yes, exactly, when I say traditional in a thread called "If homosexuals can marry each other" I'm obviously talking about sod houses.It's tradition, Suska. Why don't you go back and read what I posted, instead of making asinine comments without first reading the part about TRADITION? You're now doing exactly what you insulted me for and accused me of doing.
Show me a source for your assertion that this is a "popular idea". I think it's just your own personal opinion, and that you're trying to make it appear as fact, when it's not.Marriage is made increasingly meaningless by casual divorce. Divorce rates broke the chart decades ago and continues to rise. This entire campaign for gay marriage is predicated on the assumption of the meaninglessness of marriage.
Everyone is a hedonist by your "theory"Hedonist has a particular meaning, which evidently you've never heard. No, not everyone is a hedonist. Gay sex is inherently hedonist since it serves only the selfish passions. Although it seems evident to me that most people think love is sex, they are hedonists.
You make it appear as though tradition is so important, and then dismiss the fact that we've abandoned many traditions(sod houses, horse-drawn carriages, slavery, etc.) due to the advancement of society, culture, technology, etc.Ridiculous. I don't hold to tradition because it's tradition. I've given you specific reasons for my argument, if you want to extrapolate that into absurdity you should be insulted mercilessly.
Incidentally, I think your main reason for disliking me, and insulting me(what happens when people can't actually debate or discuss), is that I call you on your bullshit, and that I'm not a self-professed "philosopher king".Philosopher King is something Zyx liked to talk about for which I did ridicule him more than a few times. I'm not in some exclusive club. I talk to you as you need to be talked to Stud. I don't dislike you.
Suska wrote:Hedonist has a particular meaning, which evidently you've never heard.Hedonism has a particular meaning of which I have heard, and I've even gone so far as to read up on the hedonism theory you like to bring up on an almost constant basis.
Suska wrote:Gay sex is inherently hedonist since it serves only the selfish passions.How do you know? Sex, regardless of which gender practices it, is not hedonistic. Sex is part of human intimacy. You imply selfish passions to homosexual sex, in particular(by your own statement), but I think you're doing some broad-based assumptions based on nothing more than pure ignorance, or maybe aversion to homosexuality.
Suska wrote:Although it seems evident to me that most people think love is sex, they are hedonists.Sex is part of the human intimacy that people who love each other use. Sex, in itself, is not love and I am aware that most people, even homosexuals, can tell the difference between the two. Your statement is a very broad generalization of a less than general point of view. I doubt if you ran a poll you'd find that people, even gay ones, can tell the difference between the two.
Suska wrote:I talk to you as you need to be talked to Stud. I don't dislike you.I don't need to be talked to in an insulting manner any more than you do. You can disagree with me or even say my arguments, or statements, are ridiculous, but when you insult ME, then it is indeed implying dislike. It's also happens to imply that you have a weak argument, or are immature, when you have to resort to name-calling.
Stormy wrote:Now, what's true for hetrosexual couples is true of gay couples, don't you think?No, children can keep a marriage together, at worst the parents will always have to deal with each other and it is the insularity and inevitability of that arrangement that matures a person. Sex for it's own sake is counter-courtship, gay sex is inherently for its own sake. This doesn't preclude a transcendent relationship, but as long as we're talking about gay sex and not love according to Plato we're well within the realm of hedonism, which carries with it certain ugly side-effects.
How can you so vehemently deny being a supporter of traditions when you so obviously are?The way you use the word is manipulative and incorrect. In this conversation we're talking about a particular set of traditions; courtship, marriage, family. Do you notice a theme? So what other traditions are you trying to associate with me? I just wasted 5 minutes of my life you ask you to stay on topic because you keep trying to maneuver me into some position you think you'll get a better shot at me from. You use weasel words and unfair characterizations, "die hard traditionalist"? You can't even construct a logical rebuttal. It's all grudge and blather with you Stud.
Canada, despite having homosexual marriage for several years now(2004), we have not seen marriage affected negatively.You mean the divorce rate isn't rising much more than it was a few years ago? Since the 70s repeat divorcees have tripled. Or do you mean marriage rates are falling less than they were a few years ago? Or are we talking about the increasing employment of common-law marriage which has an extremely low durability? I'm not sure which it is. Or do you think that the legality of gay marriage was supposed to be such a bombshell (according to your imbecilic concept of my "theory") that heterosexuals would flee from marriage because it's also now being offered to gays. Instead of say, accepting that hedonism has a longer than 6 year history...?
LDS is hardly isolate, and ... lol... The Amish reactionary..? Still reacting to the English Civil War are they?
Not cooperating with congresses harassment do[…]
No. It is you who have missed the obvious an[…]
Greta Thunberg, the teen activist from Sweden who[…]
I now more specifically see how Ilyenkovs concept […]