Well, I didn't think of it at the time, but "Priests" may not have been the right choice; not that it isn't accurate, but that, in using such noun description, I would undoubtedly raise the ire of those attached to Judeo-Christian doctrine and their earthly acolytes.
On the other hand, Hearhere, I'm not sure that's "you", because you seem to be saying: if, Asa, you say that empathy is the goal (being-to-being permeability), then why do you stimulate recoil in others by punching their buttons with such loaded terms? Is that an accurate synopsis?
Well, apart from assuming a sense of humor- perhaps, in retrospect, a misplaced assumption - the term is, again, accurate. Actually, it is borrowed - verbatim - from a description by Henryk Skolimnowski, former Professor Emeritus of philosophy at the Univ. of Michigan at Ann Arbor and founder of Eco-philosophy, of the advocates/acolytes of scientific materialist assumptions in his book, "The Participatory Mind". If you study the similarities between the denial of the Cartesian (scientific) differentiation of Judeo-Christian doctrine of the medieval Catholic Church with the differentiation of science by the deconstructionists (and my integrative ideas above), you will see very similar reactions of marginalization and resistance - which accounts for the appropriateness of the analogy.
As for the question I've been waiting for, phrased as an assumption, here it is:
Hearhere states that it is "baseless" to believe that people listen at varying degrees of "feeling". The contra assumption of this statement, inherently implied, is that all people listen at the same level of "feeling". Simple question: in everyone's experience, do people feel to the same depth in terms of empathic identification? If so, then we have a whole area of knowledge assuming such differences - called, PSYCHOLOGY - that must be "baseless." I know that Judeo-Christian doctrine says that all people are equal in their degree of "sin" (which, I understand, actually means "to miss the mark" in aramaic, somewhat an illustrative coincidence here...), but are minds actually equal in their willingness to open to the other person, or the Music? For the record, I am not talking about "feeling" per se, but depths of awareness (differing emotive response being a manifestation of differing awareness levels). And, yes, I am saying that people possess differing abilities to address and access these symmetries of awareness. However - and unlike Judeo-Christian doctrine that says all mind are sinful while on earth inherently - I am saying that all minds are equal in their ability to open to the Music, stereo or not. While that mind may deny that such depths exist, and, therefore, give up the gift given to him/her of seeing beyond his idea of himself (cognitive structures), the mind never gives up the potential to do so. All are equal in our ability to orientate our will (not our thoughts) towards transcending an attachment to thought.
It is an egalitarian delusion in the States that all people are equal, a denial that stems from our desire to see ourselves as "democratic" (read: the assumption that everyone is equal in their freedom, even though, I might add, this is mutually enforced freedom: under the Lockian assumptions that underly our system, I only respect your freedom because you respect mine - it is not empathically based). However, no one is equal in the cognitive ways that we measure our stature in western culture (IQ tests, aptitude tests, etc. which differentiate individuals based on cognitive agility into socio-economic stratas). Nor does western culture say that we are equal in our abilities to "feel" (i.e. psycho-pathologies). Do you think Hitler was equal in his ability to "feel" the others' suffering?
To claim differently in the name of political correctness, while summoning the loaded-ness of the word "Priest" to support one's assumptions, is disingenuous. And, again, folks, this is what I've been talking about: whenever such scientific materialist assumptions are questioned, the "Priests" of those assumptions attack in disigenuous ways with political correct rhetoric, while - and this is important to see here with Hearhere - making strong accusations without ANY substantiation.
Hearhere, when you say "baseless", on what arguments, properly laid out so that a fair response can be made, do you mean? HOW are they "baseless"?
People who are attached to assumptions do not want to engage in reasoned response, but rather, resort to an attempt to rouse others to shout the heretic down. The exposing of such motives is not an "attack", because, remaining in denial of your potential does no one any "service".
I repeat: Burn the Witch!!! Or even better (and, no, I do not equate myself even remotely with this level of evolvement), let's all get together and take that guy who makes "baseless" statements on the current assumptions of being-to-being empathy - a guy somehow saying that we can all get to the Music without Caesar's help - and take him to the edge of town and nail him to a cross! Yea, now that's a proper way of dealing with such "baseless", "surreal", "irrational", assumption "attacking" persons!
