Exclusivism

[SoliDeoGloria]

I never attempted to change the english language. I said there wasn't a word for what I was trying to describe and obviously couldn't describe it using the english language or an analogy. I do not know if i could of in any other language. Essentially I would have to make up a new word to describe what I was trying to say. I have tryed to communicate my idea, but you have picked it apart on small trivial points instead of seeing it for what it is.

If I didn't understand it for what it was, I couldn't have made a statement about it. As it is, as you admt, it can not be properly communicated, which begs the question of whether or not you trully understand what you are trying to communicate. It would be really convenient to resort to linguistic conventionalism to make everything we want to believe be true, but if that were the case, communication would no longer have any real purpose any more and we may as well do away with all kinds of communication due to lack of practicality.

I don't recall Shakespeare having had a lexicography badge and many of his words have no logical roots in already established words and are used in common language and found in a dictionary to this day, but that isn't the point. I never made up a word! I was offering an explanation.

Even if this were indeed true, obviously what he communicated made enough sense to be able to adopt it into the english language to those he was communicating it to. There is a big difference in communcating a play in artistic form and persuading a philosophical truth. If slang were able to be used in such instances, I could state that the existence of pink zebras logically proves the existance of predestination over free will and be right.

Basically you are saying in that last statement that anything is up for different interpertation. Which is true. Proper communication is simply for two human beings to talk and communicate their ideas as best as they can.

I can communicate that there is such a thing a square circle, and no matter how I attempt to communicate it, that doesn't make it true.

i will explain again maybe this will be easier to understand. we(for lack of a better term again) are part and are only part of this an eternal concious, the return of energy back to energy. this conciousness that prevades through everything is indistinguishable other than in the human condition. Now this human condition is what you have to fight to feel compassion and not see race, gender, sex- creed. Essentially reaching a place past the human condition. conquering any lines in your mind because you have realized this conciousness("God").

The only way this could be true is to presuppose a special nouminal knowledge of this, which begs the question of how could you know this is your individual existence phenominal?

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[ALifetimeToWaitFor....]

I am simply trying to use the means I have to describe why what I feel isn't exclusivist at all and that everyone can feel the same as I. They are beliefs that are re affirmed over and over again. That I have tested from different angles, but in truth they are subjective.

If slang were able to be used in such instances, I could state that the existence of pink zebras logically proves the existance of predestination over free will and be right.

Slang is how we got to our current english language. It evolves and changes over time. People try to find ways to communicate themselves and it has evolved from grunts, to words, to more words and more and more. Slang has a meaning its logical. They make sense to the audience because they make sense in context and can be understood. Whose to say that anybody can't make a word up, although that is not widely known, that communicates an idea to a few in order for "proper" communication to be established. Words communicate ideas plan and simple, it doesn't matter in what facet.

The only way this could be true is to presuppose a special nouminal knowledge of this, which begs the question of how could you know this. Is your individual existence phenominal?

Correct?

I don't think its a phenomena any more than anything else. I think people can achieve this through many different ways in life. It came about in an utter state of despair actually. Totally changed me. Thats it, its like nothing and everything rolled into a ball of chaos and balance, love and hate, light and darkness, damnation and salvation all at once.

If I didn't understand it for what it was, I couldn't have made a statement about it. As it is, as you admt, it can not be properly communicated, which begs the question of whether or not you trully understand what you are trying to communicate. It would be really convenient to resort to linguistic conventionalism to make everything we want to believe be true, but if that were the case, communication would no longer have any real purpose any more and we may as well do away with all kinds of communication due to lack of practicality.

Explain to me exactly was God is. Explain to me exactly was love is. Explain to me what pain is. Explain to me the feeling you get when you see the sun rise come up. All of these things can not be communicated besides subjectively. You try anyways and more often than not guess who does this the best. Artists. Communication is an art. Its difficult and the meaning can get lost in the words, but you try anways.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

I am simply trying to use the means I have to describe why what I feel isn't exclusivist at all and that everyone can feel the same as I.

Sure they can, but they don't which just further enforces that exclusivism exists and is a part of reality.

They are beliefs that are re affirmed over and over again. That I have tested from different angles

obviously they fail the test of being able to be properly communicated while individualism and exclusivism can be properly communicated over and over again in a logical way.

but in truth they are subjective.

Now, this I can actually agree with and the best part is that your acknowledgement of subjectivity further affirms individuality and exclusivism:
*** The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 ***
Subjective \Sub*jec"tive\, a. [L. subjectivus: cf. F.
subjectif.]
1. Of or pertaining to a subject.
[1913 Webster]

2. Especially, pertaining to, or derived from, one's own
consciousness, in distinction from external observation;
ralating to the mind, or intellectual world, in
distinction from the outward or material excessively
occupied with, or brooding over, one's own internal
states.
[1913 Webster]

Slang is how we got to our current english language. It evolves and changes over time. People try to find ways to communicate themselves and it has evolved from grunts, to words, to more words and more and more. Slang has a meaning its logical. They make sense to the audience because they make sense in context and can be understood. Whose to say that anybody can't make a word up, although that is not widely known, that communicates an idea to a few in order for "proper" communication to be established. Words communicate ideas plan and simple, it doesn't matter in what facet.

And yet there is still a distinguishing between what is slang and what is proper language. Don't believe me? You should've seen the reaction that came when a lady in California tried to get a law passed that would recognize "ebonics" (a type of slang) recognized as an official language that would be taught in schools.( http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=SUNA,SUNA:2006-28,SUNA:en&q=ebonics )Most people in that black community took it as an insult on them claiming that it implied that black people were incapable of speaking proper english. On top of that, you would think with how old this concept is; much older than shakespeare; and all this grunting going on, a proper way to communicate this concept would've come up by now. As it is, there is good reason for why that has yet to happen.

Correct?

I don't think its a phenomena any more than anything else. I think people can achieve this through many different ways in life. It came about in an utter state of despair actually. Totally changed me. Thats it, its like nothing and everything rolled into a ball of chaos and balance, love and hate, light and darkness, damnation and salvation all at once.

I think we may be having a different usage of the word phenomena. I meant to use the word as so:
*** The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 ***
Phenomenon \Phe*nom"e*non\, n.; pl. {Phenomena}. [L.
phaenomenon, Gr. faino`menon, fr. fai`nesqai to appear,
fai`nein to show. See {Phantom}.]
1. An appearance; anything visible; whatever, in matter or
spirit, is apparent to, or is apprehended by, observation;
as, the phenomena of heat, light, or electricity;
phenomena of imagination or memory.
[1913 Webster]

Besides that, your testimony of how you recieved this revelation and the acknowledgement that others don't or or can recieve this revelation in different ways just further affirms exclusivism and individuality.

Explain to me exactly was God is. Explain to me exactly was love is. Explain to me what pain is. Explain to me the feeling you get when you see the sun rise come up. All of these things can not be communicated besides subjectively. You try anyways and more often than not guess who does this the best. Artists. Communication is an art. Its difficult and the meaning can get lost in the words, but you try anways.

As far as describing God goes, The best part is that the Bible does that just fine. Besides that, before we take this thread on an off subject trail, I will just reffer you to a one on one discussion I am currently having with s2a on this subject ( http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33948 ) although I am anxiously anticipating a response from s2a.

Besides that, there is still a major difference in communicating a subjective feeling and trying to promote a philosophy as objective truth. There is no real valid comparison between the two and to try to do so just cheapens what you believe to be a philosophical fact.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[ALifetimeToWaitFor....]

Besides that, there is still a major difference in communicating a subjective feeling and trying to promote a philosophy as objective truth. There is no real valid comparison between the two and to try to do so just cheapens what you believe to be a philosophical fact.

It matters what epistemology you use. i.e. sensationalism. Second this isn't a philosphy debate post it in a philosphy next time if you want to use pure empirialistic logic.


Individuality I may be in a indirect way. Only because a lack for better words. Slang isn't a language it gets incorporated into the "proper" language then eventually becomes a standard word. How do you think we progressed from old english to our modern version. Just like latin its going to have branches i.e. ebonics, northern ireland slang, pigeon, jamacian english etc. Every principle of evolution can be applied to it.

Peace, Love, Joy

B.C. Smith

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

It matters what epistemology you use. i.e. sensationalism

If you know of an epistemology that can turn this, whatever you want to call it, into an exhaustive truth or something that can be at least be logically communicated, I would love to see it. Until then, the best that could be done is use words improperly to communicate this "sensation" you may or may not have felt and has absolutely no bearing on disproving the use of exclusivism.

Second this isn't a philosphy debate post it in a philosphy next time if you want to use pure empirialistic logic.

linguistic philisophy, which I have been primarily using in this thread, by definition, is not empirialistic, and could be considered more rationalistic than anything else. Your insistance on "sensationalism" is more empirialistic than linguistic philosophy. Besides that, exclusivism reaches far buyond mere philosophy into many religions, which is why I put it here. But thanks for criticizing where I decide to start threads anyways. I am sure that the "mods" here are compitent enough to figure out whether or not I have misplaced a thread.

Individuality I may be in a indirect way. Only because a lack for better words. Slang isn't a language it gets incorporated into the "proper" language then eventually becomes a standard word. How do you think we progressed from old english to our modern version. Just like latin its going to have branches i.e. ebonics, northern ireland slang, pigeon, jamacian english etc. Every principle of evolution can be applied to it.

Well, Wikipedia doesn't seem to agree with this assessment at all:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slang

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[PureX]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusivism :

Exclusivism is the practice of being exclusive; mentality characterized by the disregard for opinions and ideas other than one's own, or the practice of organizing entities into groups by excluding those entities which possess certain traits (for an opposite example, see essentialism).
(The part of this definition I want to concentrate on is the underlined part)

What is generally wrong with this? Despite claims, everyone with cognitive abilities practices this in one form or another. We practice it in every day life in the simplest form of identifying one's self by name and in a more complex form of practicing one's religion or beliefs and claiming them to exclusivate ourselves from those who do not share the same beliefs. Ofcourse, I would argue that when this is practiced with a hatefull intent(racism, sexism, etc.) it should be dealt with as it deserves, but to claim that all exclusivism is wrong is not only directly self contradicting in the sense that the one making the statement exclusivates themselves from those who practice exclusivism, but it is a denial of reality and individualism. Exclusivism can be practiced without hate and is not in itself generally wrong.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

The problem is that the difference between being exclusive and being a bigot is subtle, and often slight. (Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of another group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance because of one's devotion to one's own opinions). Exclusivity as an ideal is not a problem, unfortunately, as a practice, it very often becomes bigotry, and that is a problem.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

The problem is that the difference between being exclusive and being a bigot is subtle, and often slight. (Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of another group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance because of one's devotion to one's own opinions). Exclusivity as an ideal is not a problem, unfortunately, as a practice, it very often becomes bigotry, and that is a problem

Once again, this may be indeed true, but the opposite extreme of this, calling everything the same thing, just cheapens everything and is a denial of reality which is all the more reason to make sure there is proper education about this. To do otherwise would be like doing away with marriage all together since so many of them fail and end up in bitter rivalries.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[PureX]

Once again, this may be indeed true, but the opposite extreme of this, calling everything the same thing, just cheapens everything and is a denial of reality which is all the more reason to make sure there is proper education about this. To do otherwise would be like doing away with marriage all together since so many of them fail and end up in bitter rivalries.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

I don't believe that the opposite of exclusivity is "calling everything the same thing". Person "A" claims that there is only one pathway to the top of a mountain. Person "B" claims that there are many pathways to the top of that same mountain. Person "B" is not claiming that all of these pathways are of equal difficulty, or of equal value, or are equal in any other way but that they will lead to the top of the mountain if followed. Some paths may be very difficult, some may be easy, some may be impossible for some people to follow but not for others. Some paths may be the best for some people to follow, while other paths are best for other people to follow. There is no "sameness" being implied just because there are multiple choices.

As to the "realty" of religious beliefs, goals, and the best methods of obtaining them, it seems pretty obvious to me that there are many goals, many paths, and many different people with different characteristics following them. I really don't see any evidence to suggest uniformity or superiority, here. I do see some reason to suspect religious bigotry, however, among those who insist without evidence that only one path can or will lead to the truth.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

I don't believe that the opposite of exclusivity is "calling everything the same thing". Person "A" claims that there is only one pathway to the top of a mountain. Person "B" claims that there are many pathways to the top of that same mountain. Person "B" is not claiming that all of these pathways are of equal difficulty, or of equal value, or are equal in any other way but that they will lead to the top of the mountain if followed. Some paths may be very difficult, some may be easy, some may be impossible for some people to follow but not for others. Some paths may be the best for some people to follow, while other paths are best for other people to follow. There is no "sameness" being implied just because there are multiple choices.

This comparison doesn't even come close to being accurate for two reasons. One, if this were to be true, then the "sameness" is implied in the goal of each religion and the only difference that is noted is the difficulty of the path that is taken to reach that goal. Two, this presupposes that all religions are heading in the same direction to reach the same goal which can not be supported in any way shape or form. The goal of Hinduism is not the same goal that Islam claims. The goal of Satanism is nowhere near the same goal of Christianity.

As to the "realty" of religious beliefs, goals, and the best methods of obtaining them, it seems pretty obvious to me that there are many goals, many paths, and many different people with different characteristics following them. I really don't see any evidence to suggest uniformity or superiority, here. I do see some reason to suspect religious bigotry, however, among those who insist without evidence that only one path can or will lead to the truth.

That is a different subject. As Fluffy pointed out in post #16 of this thread

Saying that one category is superior or inferior to another is nothing to do with exclusivism since superiority is not an attribute but a subjective judgement with regards to a specific purpose.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[PureX]

This comparison doesn't even come close to being accurate for two reasons. One, if this were to be true, then the "sameness" is implied in the goal of each religion and the only difference that is noted is the difficulty of the path that is taken to reach that goal. Two, this presupposes that all religions are heading in the same direction to reach the same goal which can not be supported in any way shape or form. The goal of Hinduism is not the same goal that Islam claims. The goal of Satanism is nowhere near the same goal of Christianity.

Then the "exclusivity" of Christianity is a bit of a sham, as all it can claim exclusively is that if you want to go to the Christian heaven and be with the Christian God, then you have to follow the Christian path. And that's fine, but it loses any claim to universal truth at that point.

Do you see what I mean? Christianity can't have it both ways. If the Christian goal is not universal (and clearly it is not), then neither is the exclusivity of it's path to that goal. The path is only exclusive for those who choose that goal. For anyone else the "exclusivity" is meaningless. That being the case, then it's a bit silly for Christians to sit around touting the relative exclusivity of their subjective choices. It'd sorta be like a bunch of people sitting around in their blue cars shouting to the people in other color cars that they can't have blue cars if they keep driving cars of other colors.

It's true, I suppose, but so what? If they'd wanted blue cars they'd already be sitting in one. The whole exclusivity thing becomes mostly meaningless when we find out that it comes from a subjective choice.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

Then the "exclusivity" of Christianity is a bit of a sham, as all it can claim exclusively is that if you want to go to the Christian heaven and be with the Christian God, then you have to follow the Christian path. And that's fine, but it loses any claim to universal truth at that point.

Do you see what I mean? Christianity can't have it both ways. If the Christian goal is not universal (and clearly it is not), then neither is the exclusivity of it's path to that goal. The path is only exclusive for those who choose that goal. For anyone else the "exclusivity" is meaningless. That being the case, then it's a bit silly for Christians to sit around touting the relative exclusivity of their subjective choices. It'd sorta be like a bunch of people sitting around in their blue cars shouting to the people in other color cars that they can't have blue cars if they keep driving cars of other colors.

I never stated that Christianity didn't claim to be universal. Believe it or not, most religions claim the same, they're just not as prominent in western civilization as Christianity so they don't have as loud of a voice as Christianity and don't get as much attention.

The point I am trying to get at, is that exclusivism is something different. As far as claims of superiority goes, unless they are claims based on purely subjective reasoning, they can still be tested and affirmed in an objective manner. For example, "The shortest path to any goal is a straight line", but that is a different thread altogether.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[PureX]

I never stated that Christianity didn't claim to be universal. Believe it or not, most religions claim the same, they're just not as prominent in western civilization as Christianity so they don't have as loud of a voice as Christianity and don't get as much attention.

The point I am trying to get at, is that exclusivism is something different. As far as claims of superiority goes, unless they are claims based on purely subjective reasoning, they can still be tested and affirmed in an objective manner. For example, "The shortest path to any goal is a straight line", but that is a different thread altogether.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

I guess I just don't get the necessity for Christianity's exclusivity claim in the first place, then. If it's not implying superiority, and it can't claim universality, then what's it's point? And why do some Christians use it to attack and dismiss other people's religious goals and methods? I can't help but wonder if that is why it exists in Christian doctrine in the first place - as a cult methodology (holding the "us" together by enforcing the image of others as "not us", and holding the "us" as "closer to God" by enforcing the image of others as lost or confused or "not in the spiritual know"). In a word, these are the characteristics of bigotry.

 

[Paraprakrti]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusivism :

Exclusivism is the practice of being exclusive; mentality characterized by the disregard for opinions and ideas other than one's own, or the practice of organizing entities into groups by excluding those entities which possess certain traits (for an opposite example, see essentialism).
(The part of this definition I want to concentrate on is the underlined part)

What is generally wrong with this? Despite claims, everyone with cognitive abilities practices this in one form or another. We practice it in every day life in the simplest form of identifying one's self by name and in a more complex form of practicing one's religion or beliefs and claiming them to exclusivate ourselves from those who do not share the same beliefs. Ofcourse, I would argue that when this is practiced with a hatefull intent(racism, sexism, etc.) it should be dealt with as it deserves, but to claim that all exclusivism is wrong is not only directly self contradicting in the sense that the one making the statement exclusivates themselves from those who practice exclusivism, but it is a denial of reality and individualism. Exclusivism can be practiced without hate and is not in itself generally wrong.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

I think it depends on in what sense we are excluding certain entities. For example, I have encountered people who believe that only blacks have souls and that whites are inhabited by demons. If this black supremacist group was simply stating that whites are inferior, that wouldn't be so much a problem. That kind of exclusivism on the bodily platform is fine. It may be that taking birth in a black family is more beneficial for cultivating spiritual knowledge than it is in a white family, or vice versa, and so in this way one group can be "superior" to another. Nevertheless, spiritual knowledge concerns the spiritual nature of all living entities. When we start discriminating one spiritual being from another in regard to bodily considerations, that is when exclusivism is wrong. Even if the white body is an inferior facility for cultivating spiritual knowledge, the fact is that all living entities are spiritual beings of the same caliber.

 

[Paraprakrti]

I part ways with you on this one, Soli. I can see where you are going with this, however, this view only supports placing boundaries on our true essential nature, and places more emphasis on what discriminates us than on what binds us together. The more I am allowed to see *you* as being different than *me*, the further away from enlightenment I become. This view may seem harmless, but it leads to suffering.




Peace,
Mystic

It is herein assumed that individuality is false. Why?

Why must the totality of things be homogenous? Do you assume that oneness must constitute the negation of variegatedness?

 

[Paraprakrti]

Individualism is not a truth. We are all the same. All of the world religions are essentially at the mystic core the same. We all want the same thing. We are defined not by names, creeds, sexs, or colors. We are defined by the prevading conciousness.

Although we are not defined by names, creeds, sexes or colors, this does not negate individuality. You are assuming that these things constitute individuality and that in the liberated state, we are all one homogenously. Why do you assume this?

 

[Paraprakrti]

There is nothing wrong with the concept as you have defined it in the OP even when combined with hateful purpose. Exclusivism on race or gender is simply common sense. Saying that one category is superior or inferior to another is nothing to do with exclusivism since superiority is not an attribute but a subjective judgement with regards to a specific purpose.

I would say that that specific purpose (of the human species) concerns the cultivation of spiritual knowledge and I am open to the idea that one race may be superior to others in that respect. It may only be a subjective judgment, but nonetheless I am not inimical toward the idea.

 

[Paraprakrti]

Save that some scriptures, the Baha'i scriptures in particular, implicitly disparage exclusivism, stressing unity and concord, and explicitly stating that all the great religions are legitimate and of God! . . .

Best,

Bruce

Although, all religions being legitimate and of God does not necessarily mean that all religious sects are equal. Religion is revealed to a group of people according to their level of comprehension. Considerations of time, place and circumstance are applicable and therefore one religion may actually be more advanced than another in understanding what is self and what is God.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

I guess I just don't get the necessity for Christianity's exclusivity claim in the first place, then. If it's not implying superiority, and it can't claim universality, then what's it's point? And why do some Christians use it to attack and dismiss other people's religious goals and methods?

Oh Boy!!! I screwed up in my last post. That is why we are having this confusion. I meant to start it by stating I never stated that Christianity didn't claim to be superior not universal. Although Christianity does claim universality, but in a different context than what you are implying. You may want to read my last post with that change of word there.

To help explain my point.
Exclusivism= Christianity is different from certain religions because it forbids idolatry.
Claim of superiority= Christianity is better than certain religions because it forbids idolatry.
Can you see the difference?

(Edit)

I can't help but wonder if that is why it exists in Christian doctrine in the first place - as a cult methodology (holding the "us" together by enforcing the image of others as "not us", and holding the "us" as "closer to God" by enforcing the image of others as lost or confused or "not in the spiritual know"). In a word, these are the characteristics of bigotry.

Although. this is a different subject I just wanted to make the point that for this claim to be true, one would have to, by definition, prove that accused claims are unreasoned and obstinate. That is why racism is usually associated with bigotry, it meets those qualifications. So one should be carefull when making such accusations towards a belief unless they want the accusation turned back on them
* *** The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 ***
Bigotry \Big"ot*ry\, n. [Cf. F. bigoterie.]
1. The state of mind of a bigot; obstinate and unreasoning
attachment of one's own belief and opinions, with
narrow-minded intolerance of beliefs opposed to them.
[1913 Webster]
(end edit)

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[Ciscokid]

The opposite extreme of this is to try to imply that all religions are the same which is a denial of reality.

This loosely describes UUism. This is why some people find it odd that any Christian or Muslim would attend a UU church.