Esoterism / Traditionalism / Inward Focus -- general thread

[zwimmy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCtypDIZipg

This dude has a video called "Transgenders in the Olympics. Degeneracy Alert!" where he fails to recognize the fact that intersex individuals exist, and calls trans women "men" and "abominations".


So, like, yeah.

So fuck yourself in the dickhole with an iron spike. I'm so fucking sick of you and your shit.

[crackers]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caster_Semenya

I'm all for trans rights, but Caster Semenya is living proof as to why transgender/gender reassigned people cannot compete fairly in the Olympic environment.

I can't remember exactly what the case was, but I think Caster was a hermaphrodite, possessing breasts, but no womb/ovaries. In terms of competing, the surplus of testosterone circulating around her body gave her an advantage compared to other athletes.

If a person, who was initially a man, was to take estrogen supplements - even after progressing to becoming fully female, they would still have a 'male frame', with muscle foundations that were laid as a man - making it a lot easier to regain lost muscle mass from the transition (if any was lost), once again providing an unfair advantage.

[Bamyasi]

Can we please not turn this into a shitposting thread.

[zwimmy]

Can we please not turn this into a shitposting thread.

2late

[squf]

I want to like esoterism but the belief that there are things in this world that can't be explained seems like a bit of a copout. If you told someone about string theory 300 or even 100 years ago, you'd be committed to bedlam. Humanities discoveries and mental faculties are growing at an exponential rate and why some may say that science doesn't offer a spiritual answer, it does offer a hell of a lot better answer than a guy living in a cave eating moss can give.

It's more like scientists increasingly discovering that traditionally held values and beliefs may have been more correct than we're currently lead to believe, and subsequently having their findings silenced because reality doesn't seem to want to fit into a politically correct framework.

This doesn't really relate to esotericism, but I don't know much about (or have much of an interest in) esotericism.

Some of you might be interested in this forum; https://lumineboreali.net/.

[squf]

What does this whole "return to tradition" thing actually imply?

Racism, we're talking about racism. Well, we're talking about more than racism, but that's a big part of what I assume you're driving at.

Refugees not welcome!

[SrsSam77]

man I feel like someone is going to get triggered again now that traditional values has been said

[Gladius]

lol oops i guess this is why communism doesn't really work

[basketweaver]

an interesting extract from one of my readings which criticizes modern sociologists for duplicitously smuggling in Marxist views of history and neglecting to understand the essential contexts from historical data, thereby leading to wrong interpretation:

"For the sociologist, the meaning of ceremonial [and sacred] rituals in industrial society is inferred from an essentially decontextualized analysis of the ritual itself, evaluated within the relatively historical framework of Marxist or functionalist theory....If the ritual and ceremonial of the British monarchy is contextualized and evaluated [properly], it becomes possible to rediscover its 'meaning' in a more historically convincing manner than sociologists have so far been able to do. For [the sociologist], England from the 1800s is assumed to be a 'modern', 'industrial', 'contemporary' society, [but] for the historian it is the changes and discontinuities which are of major interest rather than the unifying aspects. To suppose, for instance, as many sociologists do, that Walter Bagehot's description of the mid-Victorian monarchy was valid for its time in the same that it is assumed to have been valid since, is to show a profound ignorance, not only of the very peculiar context within which he wrote The English Constitution and his articles in The Economist, but also of the exact same way in which both the context and performance of royal ritual have changed and developed since that time."

- Sir David Cannadine [with underlines added by me]

[Unless]

I enjoy partaking in threads like these despite generally disliking actually posting in them, because I never get around to saying all of what I want to say, I often go on tangents, and I often have a hard enough time articulating all of what I mean even when we're not talking existentially about the concept of believing in things and whether or not the belief in things generally is applicable to life, the universe, or everything.

I want to like esoterism but the belief that there are things in this world that can't be explained seems like a bit of a copout. If you told someone about string theory 300 or even 100 years ago, you'd be committed to bedlam. Humanities discoveries and mental faculties are growing at an exponential rate and why some may say that science doesn't offer a spiritual answer, it does offer a hell of a lot better answer than a guy living in a cave eating moss can give.

Sure, this certainly offers a better scientific explanation which can be more accurately measured mathematically, which obviously has an appeal to it. You could argue that science gives an objectively better answer for this reason, though it gives a different sort of answer to a lot of what esoteric schools are trying to achieve. It objectively doesn't give any sort of better spiritual answer than eating moss in a cave.

...who put those human rights there? Why do they have to "intrinsically" exist instead of not being there at all?

I understand that this isn't the main point of your post, but I'm going to take this aside here to ask what exactly these questions even mean. What exactly do these questions even mean? Human rights do not literally exist and only are a thing at all because we collectively pretend as though they are. When the broader question comes into play of whether anything actually exists (if we are dreaming, or in a simulation of some sort), I would argue that this legitimately doesn't matter on any level. Certainly it shouldn't stand to derail the fundamental understanding of how our self-contained reality exists as a whole, or its practical applications.

Off-topic:
[spoiler]

In terms of competing, the surplus of testosterone circulating around her body gave her an advantage compared to other athletes.

... a 'male frame', with muscle foundations that were laid as a man - making it a lot easier to regain lost muscle mass from the transition (if any was lost), once again providing an unfair advantage.

The special Olympics are an obvious example of catering for some of the most significant innate (dis)advantages which would mean that some people otherwise would have no hope of competing. Cisexual females as a self-contained group also vary in muscle mass and levels of testosterone anyway, and it's probably worth note that further divisions could be made in order to group people with others with which they'd better be able to compete.
This is speculation; I think I watched (most of) Ireland's matches in the soccer World Cup in 2002 because I was in a small primary school at the time where all the cool kids were into that sort of thing, but I've never been incredibly invested in sport and am not interested enough to have any opinions on where these hypothetical divisions could be fairly made.

[spoiler]

Also, please don't be afraid of just posting general comments, questions, or links to other concepts during this general discussion.

How are you feeling today?

[spoiler]

Can we please not turn this into a shitposting thread.

2late

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw2S8dGmJ1c
[/spoiler]
[/spoiler]
[/spoiler]

[basketweaver]

I enjoy partaking in threads like these despite generally disliking actually posting in them, because I never get around to saying all of what I want to say, I often go on tangents, and I often have a hard enough time articulating all of what I mean even when we're not talking existentially about the concept of believing in things and whether or not the belief in things generally is applicable to life, the universe, or everything.

Thanks for posting. I don't think you should be afraid of tangents or of not being able to articulate your main ideas. I think any reasonable and good person should be able to briefly entertain ideas that they don't agree with. Language is a pretty bad way of expressing of ideas anyways.

...who put those human rights there? Why do they have to "intrinsically" exist instead of not being there at all?

I understand that this isn't the main point of your post, but I'm going to take this aside here to ask what exactly these questions even mean. What exactly do these questions even mean? Human rights and do not literally exist and only are a thing at all because we collectively pretend as though they are. When the broader question comes into play of whether anything actually exists (if we are dreaming, or in a simulation of some sort), I would argue that this legitimately doesn't matter on any level. Certainly it shouldn't stand to derail the fundamental understanding of how our self-contained reality exists as a whole, or its practical applications.

Yup. I agree. I think human rights are a fine approximation of morality, but I think it's silly to get overly attached to them or to take them at face value.

Off-topic tangent: Your response basically sums up how I feel about post-modern sexuality as well. I can certainly entertain the idea that, in a broad, ultimate, and existential sense, gender is social construct (and in fact, this is probably close to what I actually believe), but do people really understand what it means to truly believe in this? The T-shirt you're wearing, the concept of France, and idea of a continuous ego are unobjective constructs as well. I think it's kind of funny how a lot of people who claim to believe that gender is social construct don't seem to have the cosmopolitan understanding or broad, tolerant open-mindedness that naturally comes along with a proper understanding of the world. In the eastern tradition, there's a concept where a childish person can claim to believe in something without truly internalizing and intuitively understanding that belief, and I think that applies here.

Also, please don't be afraid of just posting general comments, questions, or links to other concepts during this general discussion.

How are you feeling today?

Pretty good. Have a computer science deadline in less than 24 hours which I'm currently struggling on. How about you?

[Bamyasi]

I think it's kind of funny how a lot of people who claim to believe that gender is social construct don't seem to have the cosmopolitan understanding or broad, tolerant open-mindedness that naturally comes along with a proper understanding of the world.

A trillion times this.

People who call gender a social construct tend to be the ones who most actively reinforce normative gender roles.

[Unless]

Language is a pretty bad way of expressing of ideas anyways.

I actually like the English language because it's particularly good at this, relatively speaking. There are some areas where an awful many more words should probably exist for clarity, the first example that comes to mind is in describing tastes and scents.

...who put those human rights there? Why do they have to "intrinsically" exist instead of not being there at all?

Okay but I was being serious in that I don't actually understand what you meant by these questions.

In the eastern tradition, there's a concept where a childish person can claim to believe in something without truly internalizing and intuitively understanding that belief, and I think that applies here.

And this is something else of which, if you care to, I'd really like to hear a bit more (of your opinion).

I can certainly entertain the idea that, in a broad, ultimate, and existential sense, gender is social construct (and in fact, this is probably close to what I actually believe).

What about the notion of gender and sexuality being completely separate things?

... but do people really understand what it means to truly believe in this?

No, but I think that people can believe it to be true without completely understanding it, and people can understand what it implies for those that understand it better (specifically trans and other folk who are non-comformative to typical and traditional gender implications and roles). But I also believe that most people in this day and age don't have much reason or need to understand it unless the non-conformity has a direct effect on them or somebody close to them, and having a better understanding is often what leads people to believing it to be true in the first place. And if it doesn't, it's very easy to not think very much about it and to dismiss as garbage, if that's your inclination. But I guess that's true of basically everything in this thread.

I think it's kind of funny how a lot of people who claim to believe that gender is social construct don't seem to have the cosmopolitan understanding or broad, tolerant open-mindedness that naturally comes along with a proper understanding of the world.

A trillion times this.
People who call gender a social construct tend to be the ones who most actively reinforce normative gender roles.

The people about which I think you're thinking, I think, are actually instead thinking about the concept of these gender roles being applied to their traditionally respective sex.

The T-shirt you're wearing ...

Either I'm over-thinking things and this makes me more inclined to see patterns where there aren't any, or this is coincidentally the third big coincidence of a similar vain today. In any case, please allow me to clarify to you in no uncertain terms that the cut of my jib is entirely beyond reproach.

Also, please don't be afraid of just posting general comments, questions, or links to other concepts during this general discussion.

How are you feeling today?

Pretty good. Have a computer science deadline in less than 24 hours which I'm currently struggling on. How about you?

Well do HF and GL and all that. I am feeling pretty all right, too. I'm proof-reading a story for a friend and having fun conversations with my father about linguistic rules that I don't generally get wrong, but hadn't ever analysed before. Also I've been asked to be a bridesmaid at my sister's wedding next year, which yay.

Also, please don't be afraid of just posting general comments, questions, or links to other concepts during this general discussion.

Do you like hugs?

[basketweaver]

I actually like the English language because it's particularly good at this, relatively speaking. There are some areas where an awful many more words should probably exist for clarity, the first example that comes to mind is in describing tastes and scents.

I agree. I think the English language is pretty awesome once you get over the hurdle of learning and mastering it. There's a lot of flexibility and room for cool literary moves that you wouldn't have access to in more logical and orderly languages.

Okay but I was being serious in that I don't actually understand what you meant by these questions.

My questions weren't real questions. They were just empty words poking at the boundary cases, used only for the sake of furthering my argument that human rights don't "really" exist in the same way that "truth" and "order" might arguably exist (if you're an idealist). To quote one of my favorite writers, Alasdair MacIntyre: "There are no human rights, and belief in them is one with belief in witches and in unicorns."

In the eastern tradition, there's a concept where a childish person can claim to believe in something without truly internalizing and intuitively understanding that belief, and I think that applies here.

And this is something else of which, if you care to, I'd really like to hear a bit more (of your opinion).

For example, I could be someone who claims that "there are infinitely many prime numbers", but that would be different from proving this fact and truly understanding it.

I could also claim that "God doesn't exist and our world is fundamentally without meaning", but making that claim is different from truly understanding the words. For example, someone can make this claim without having answered the important questions to themselves and without having wrestled with the boundary cases. Once you have the boundary cases answered, that might be a better indication of a true understanding.

I can certainly entertain the idea that, in a broad, ultimate, and existential sense, gender is social construct (and in fact, this is probably close to what I actually believe).

What about the notion of gender and sexuality being completely separate things?

I guess that's probably true, but I don't have any real education regarding this specific separation.

... but do people really understand what it means to truly believe in this?

No, but I think that people can believe it to be true without completely understanding it, and people can understand what it implies for those that understand it better (specifically trans and other folk who are non-comformative to typical and traditional gender implications and roles). But I also believe that most people in this day and age don't have much reason or need to understand it unless the non-conformity has a direct effect on them or somebody close to them, and having a better understanding is often what leads people to believing it to be true in the first place. And if it doesn't, it's very easy to not think very much about it and to dismiss as garbage, if that's your inclination. But I guess that's true of basically everything in this thread.

I guess it's true that someone could believe it to be true without completely understanding it. For example, if I'm an engineer, then I can use the claim that "there are infinitely many prime numbers" without really understanding it. In that sense, I agree that ideas can be useful even without full understanding.

However, and here is what's important, the engineer should be humble before the mathematician. An engineer should use the claim that "there are infinitely many prime numbers", but he should acknowledge the limitations in his knowledge and be ready to change claims if the mathematician demonstrates otherwise. When you've accepted an idea without proper understanding, you must bear the burden of this uncertainty.

So, I guess it's true that you don't need to understand post-modern sexuality in order to subscribe to it or to use the idea for useful purposes. But I think that having a full understanding is good. And I think that not having a full understanding of the idea puts you in a relatively weaker position compared to someone who does.

The people about which I think you're thinking, I think, are actually instead thinking about the concept of these gender roles being applied to their traditionally respective sex.

Could you elaborate? I'm curious.

The T-shirt you're wearing ...

Either I'm over-thinking things and this makes me more inclined to see patterns where there aren't any, or this is coincidentally the third big coincidence of a similar vain today. In any case, please allow me to clarify to you in no uncertain terms that the cut of my jib is entirely beyond reproach.

wut?

Pretty good. Have a computer science deadline in less than 24 hours which I'm currently struggling on. How about you?

Well do HF and GL and all that. I am feeling pretty all right, too. I'm proof-reading a story for a friend and having fun conversations with my father about linguistic rules that I don't generally get wrong, but hadn't ever analysed before. Also I've been asked to be a bridesmaid at my sister's wedding next year, which yay.

Thanks! Congratulations to your newfound bridesmaidhood. Glad you're feeling pretty all right.

Do you like hugs?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69MiOxQNnxM

[Unless]

In the eastern tradition, there's a concept where a childish person can claim to believe in something without truly internalizing and intuitively understanding that belief, and I think that applies here.

And this is something else of which, if you care to, I'd really like to hear a bit more (of your opinion).

For example, I could be someone who claims that "there are infinitely many prime numbers", but that would be different from proving this fact and truly understanding it.
I could also claim that "God doesn't exist and our world is fundamentally without meaning", but making that claim is different from truly understanding the words. For example, someone can make this claim without having answered the important questions to themselves and without having wrestled with the boundary cases. Once you have the boundary cases answered, that might be a better indication of a true understanding.

I understand that you can make a claim without fully understanding the basis behind it, and (to different extents for different things) in this thread we're basically saying that everything is like this to a degree. Anybody can do that though, so I'm wondering what's the uniquely eastern belief you're mentioning?

A thing happened. Will check back in later.

[basketweaver]

I understand that you can make a claim without fully understanding the basis behind it, and (to different extents for different things) in this thread we're basically saying that everything is like this to a degree. Anybody can do that though, so I'm wondering what's the uniquely eastern belief you're mentioning?

A thing happened. Will check back in later.

One example from Buddhism which kind of illustrates this instrumental attitude towards assertions and knowledge-pieces is Upaya: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upaya

But in general, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Daoism all kind of talk about the differences between intuitive, heartfelt wisdom versus logical, face-value surface knowledge

[Unless]

People who call gender a social construct tend to be the ones who most actively reinforce normative gender roles.

The people about which I think you're thinking, I think, are actually instead thinking about the concept of these gender roles being applied to their traditionally respective sex.

Could you elaborate? I'm curious.

LGBT folk tend to stick together as a general-ish rule, despite LGB being being very different from T, regardless of whether or not they're intrinsically linked. And they're not, I don't believe, and only the association is made because it's almost the same sort of non-traditional view that one is more inclined to accept if they're inclined to accept the other. As in, people with traditionalist views tend to dismiss the ideas collectively, presumably because these are all awful people who completely lack empathy for the suffering of people who don't think alike.
Also, because these LGBTETC. peeps tend to stick together regardless of their inclinations not actually being the same thing — which mostly they do because generally this is the sort of person who would tend to jump at a chance to finally fit in — their views often tend to get mingled. In that way, (all of) such people would also be inclined to believe and/or accept that gender is only a social construct artificially applied to sex. Often, that's strange in trans people specifically because they're typically the sort to conform very heavily to the gender roles of the sex as which they identify.

I'm not sure any more what I meant in my response to Bam, but it seems to be something along the lines of "I think you're thinking of a particular type of person, and that sort of person doesn't do exactly what you just said, but instead does exactly what you just said", which I'm not going to pretend I understand.

Do you like hugs?

[spoiler]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69MiOxQNnxM
[/spoiler]

Hugs are great, hugs are. They help people to feel close to another person in more than just the obvious physical sense. I'm in the sort of group of friends where people are actually okay with hugging you when you suggest it, as opposed to looking at you funny and then acting really standoffish because you're obviously a faggot pervert of some sort. Still it's a little weird when I suggest it too much, and I feel like people misread intentions. I just like people and like to be reminded that sometimes they like me too, which I'd like to think is a pretty significantly different thing from wanting to press up against their bodies because I want to have sex with them. I do wish that masks, but ATM more relevantly hugs, would be a more common and socially acceptable thing.
I also wish that people would be more honest and not have to worry about other people being dishonest about their intentions, because it only very recently became awkward between myself and a friend of mine of about eight years when he became worried about me being worried about his intentions, after the party last Halloween where he made a point of insisting that all his hugs were platonic to cover up the fact that they weren't. But I guess that in his defence, that was his first time on drugs. As a result, lots of other little things have become just a little bit increasingly awkward only because they're being read into too much.

Or maybe all that night did was reveal true intentions, and he was only honest with me about it afterwards because he wanted me to think he's always honest with me about things like that in order to make it easier to lie to me about them, and secretly all men actually are pigs. That sounds like something I'd do.

Or maybe, just maybe, I'm the only one for whom it's become significantly awkward because I'm an idiot who spends far too much time thinking about all the wrong things.

Among a thousand and one other things I think should be different about how people operate, I wish that they would be more honest with other people, and could be more honest with themselves.

I usually just sit on my bed in the corner and hug one of my many plushies, and I don't have to worry about their intentions or their worrying about my intentions, which only almost makes up for the fact that they don't hug back.

[ProtoChaud]

Do you like hugs?

[spoiler]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69MiOxQNnxM
[/spoiler]

Hugs are great, hugs are. They help people to feel close to another person in more than just the obvious physical sense. I'm in the sort of group of friends where people are actually okay with hugging you when you suggest it, as opposed to looking at you funny and then acting really standoffish because you're obviously a faggot pervert of some sort. Still it's a little weird when I suggest it too much, and I feel like people misread intentions. I just like people and like to be reminded that sometimes they like me too, which I'd like to think is a pretty significantly different thing from wanting to press up against their bodies because I want to have sex with them. I do wish that masks, but ATM more relevantly hugs, would be a more common and socially acceptable thing.
I also wish that people would be more honest and not have to worry about other people being dishonest about their intentions, because it only very recently became awkward between myself and a friend of mine of about eight years when he became worried about me being worried about his intentions, after the party last Halloween where he made a point of insisting that all his hugs were platonic to cover up the fact that they weren't. But I guess that in his defence, that was his first time on drugs. As a result, lots of other little things have become just a little bit but increasingly awkward only because they're being read into too much.

Or maybe all that night did was reveal true intentions, and he was only honest with me about it afterwards because he wanted me to think he's always honest with me about things like that in order to make it easier to lie to me about them, and secretly all men actually are pigs. That sounds like something I'd do.

Or maybe, just maybe, I'm the only one for whom it's become significantly awkward because I'm an idiot who spends far too much time thinking about all the wrong things.

Among a thousand and one other things I think should be different about how people operate, I wish that they would be more honest with other people, and could be more honest with themselves.

I usually just sit on my bed in the corner and hug one of my many plushies, and I don't have to worry about their intentions or their worrying about my intentions, which only almost makes up for the fact that they don't hug back.

If you're into him, ask him out, he's very interested in you. I've been in similar situations and react similarly.

That being said, I adore hugs and hug people regularly. And since I'm the tallest and overall largest of my friends, nobody questions it when I go in for one. And I don't do the whole one-arm back-patting man-hug bullshit: big fuckin' bear hugs or nothing.

[Bamyasi]

Hugs are gaaaaaaaaaay.
[spoiler=Translator's note]"Hugs are gaaaaaaaaaay" means "Please hug me I need the oxytocin."
[spoiler=Fun fact]Oxytocin is released during arousal and a natural painkiller which can increase a woman's pain threshold by over 100% during orgasm.[/spoiler][/spoiler]

[Unless]

Hugs from people that are not close family/significant other is a no no for me. It's too intimate as a form of appreciating another person. But that may be a geographical/cultural thing.

I don't know relatively how it compares, but that's still not an uncommon opinion over here — I just hang out with a certain sort of people.

... he made a point of insisting that all his hugs were platonic to cover up the fact that they weren't.

If you're into him, ask him out, he's very interested in you. I've been in similar situations and react similarly.

Well I should say that the part I've left in from my own quote didn't mean he was non-platonically hugging me specifically all night, just most people he could reach. And I'd like not to think that he must be lying specifically because he's a guy because that would be sexist and stuff.
We're going to the cinema, just us two, on Saturday, so I'm sure it'll be fine. That's a thing friends do, right?

That being said, I adore hugs and hug people regularly. And since I'm the tallest and overall largest of my friends, nobody questions it when I go in for one. And I don't do the whole one-arm back-patting man-hug bullshit: big fuckin' bear hugs or nothing.

Awesome.

Hugs are gaaaaaaaaaay.
[spoiler=Translator's note]"Hugs are gaaaaaaaaaay" means "Please hug me I need the oxytocin."
[spoiler=Fun fact]Oxytocin is released during arousal and a natural painkiller which can increase a woman's pain threshold by over 100% during orgasm.[/spoiler][/spoiler]

That must explain why I'm so proficient at rubbing off on my friends in this regard.



I feel like this topic has devolved a bit.