Thinking Outside the Box

[_Roger Morrison]

Miss Taken wrote:
Do you think then perhaps that the 'consistent pattern and adaptions' might suggest something about human nature throughout human environments past and present?


(Mak's response:) OF course, and it suggests (or rather requires) that morality and perception change.

Yes! I assume that change to be an 'improvement', generally speaking, rather than a retrogression?? I suggest that is attributed to an expanded conscience of feeling-humanity as thinking-humanity becomes democratized spiritually faster than it does politically...

As the balance of power, and the need of/for supremacy by psychophathic leaders, is influenced by empirical evidence of systemic evils that support that particular socio-politico-religious system, perception does change, and subsequently morality... A slow but ongoing process...

Non-the-less one that will, in time grant women more than the right-to-vote; homosexuals full equality within the law and total, unprejudiced acceptance in the hearts and minds of heteralsexuals. EDUCATION (not indoctrination) will be available to all to their capacity. Health care will be a right of life. Poverty--physical and spiritual--will impinge no one...

In other words, Aposticized Christianism, with its rituals, social compromises, wealth indulgence, prejudices and half-truths will ebb away as the 'Gospel'--good-news--is understood to be about HERE & NOW.

It's all in the Sermon On The Mount, and being found by an increasing number who are climbing out-of-the-box ;-) Warm regards, Roger

[_maklelan]

Yes! I assume that change to be an 'improvement', generally speaking, rather than a retrogression?? I suggest that is attributed to an expanded conscience of feeling-humanity as thinking-humanity becomes democratized spiritually faster than it does politically...

You'll notice that a few posts back I called it adaptation, and that I would not call it evolution. What you've subscribed to above is what the anthropologists call the evolution of human nature. It has been a common theory ever since anthropology began, but the more evidence is amassed the more it is clear to modern anthropologists that this is not the way human nature works. It moves sideways and backwards as well as forward.

As the balance of power, and the need of/for supremacy by psychophathic leaders, is influenced by empirical evidence of systemic evils that support that particular socio-politico-religious system, perception does change, and subsequently morality... A slow but ongoing process...

But the idea that it is progressively moving forward is nothing more than an idealistic hope.

Non-the-less one that will, in time grant women more than the right-to-vote; homosexuals full equality within the law and total, unprejudiced acceptance in the hearts and minds of heteralsexuals. EDUCATION (not indoctrination) will be available to all to their capacity. Health care will be a right of life. Poverty--physical and spiritual--will impinge no one...

So tell me where the increased hostility towards religion, the breakdown of the family and the increased reverence of promiscuity and moral relativity fit into this evolution. Are they improvements as well?

In other words, Aposticized Christianism, with its rituals, social compromises, wealth indulgence, prejudices and half-truths will ebb away as the 'Gospel'--good-news--is understood to be about HERE & NOW.

It's all in the Sermon On The Mount, and being found by an increasing number who are climbing out-of-the-box ;-) Warm regards, Roger

But your theory fails to account for the fact that those same values you want to see in the future are on the same docket as the removal of your rights as a Christian. People say that laws are never passed that restrict people's rights, but religions are constantly having their belts tightened by congress, and the new morality thinks you're a religious whack-job who's too buried in superstition to uinderstand the real world. Is that attitude part of this progression as well?

[_Mary]

I'm convinced by the evidence in favor of it. If you feel the evidence is stronger in the opposite direction then, by all means, I'm willing to hear it.

I'm not arguing against it being a facet of ancient Greek Culture, what I am arguing against is that it was necessarily an ideal for every single Greek young man, or even for Greek society as a whole. I'd link to a couple of articles but they are pretty pornographic, and I don't wish to offend anyone...

You tried to assert that human nature is constant, inferring that my conclusions about a shift in moral framework is in error, which can only mean that you contend that those moral frameworks that encapsulate ideologies of war are constant in that eternal human nature.

No, I am not, I appreciate that cultures (which are not easily defined particularly if they existed 2000 years ago, let alone 4000 years ago) differed, in some times significant ways, but that under-pinning that is my assertion at least that human beings have the same needs (think Maslow) and that the way they act are probably attempts to efficiently meet those needs.

I have already posted published research to the very contrary.

Not on this thread you havn't.

This last time I only referenced it, but that research is pretty clear in the fact that killing and war operated in a completely different ethical context in the ancient world. If you would like to argue otherwise please address that research.

I'm sorry, but what are you suggesting here? Humans have choices, they can choose to co-operate for resources (and there is excellent evidence that they have always done just that) or they can choose to compete, particularly if the resources are scarce. That's human nature, regardless of the ethical context in which they lived, and that 'ethical context' (even if we have lists of ethical beliefs and laws) is incredibly difficult to ascertain with any degree of certainty. Particularly since for the majority of 'ordinary' (as opposed to the rich and powerful) people we have relatively little information about them, as you have already admitted.

All areas.

That's quite a big area, with a diverse number of cultures and peoples.

Up until the end of the autonomy of the Levant.

Are you including the Natufian culture in that?

How do you 'KNOW' they (as in who is 'they') spent 'all' their time, 'killing' and 'plundering' 'everyone' they could?

Because we have the records of the governments, and they were always out conquesting. Alexander the Great left Macedonia to fight in one battle and never returned because he spent the rest of his life in active conquest.

and Macedonia isn't in the Levant at least (when I visited last year) a Greek person would never admit such. (very beautiful though)

That's not the modus operandi of anyone with even a decent understanding of historical methodology.

Now, now Maklelan, no need to get 'b*tchy'!!

[_maklelan]

I'm not arguing against it being a facet of ancient Greek Culture, what I am arguing against is that it was necessarily an ideal for every single Greek young man, or even for Greek society as a whole. I'd link to a couple of articles but they are pretty pornographic, and I don't wish to offend anyone...

I never said it was an ideal for every single one. I said it was an ideal, and it was. It was so popular and prevelant that the Romans picked up on it. One Roman emperor was so distraught when his young partner died that the poets tried to console him by writing a story about this boy becoming one of the stars in the sky (a.k.a. apotheosized). Pederasty originated most likely with Dorian initiation rites. The older man was called the erastes, and the boy was called the eromenos. It was entirely inappropriate for two grown men to consort (they were called kinaidoi, and that was a title you didn't want). The older man was required to be the agressor. For a grown man to be a passive participant was humiliating. Among aristocratic circles every man had a young man lover. When democracy came to Athens this changed, and pretty much everyone was practicing pederasty. In 450 BC a law was passed making payment to the lackey's a disqualification for public office. The laws had nothing bad to say about the practice, but it was considered immoral to charge for it. Xenophon and Plato both testify that Socrates was smitten with adolescents. You can insist and insist that you're right about this, but you've managed to avoid providing any evidence that pederasty was not the accepted norm in Greece. My evidence is what I've provided in addition to the books Pederasty and Pedagogy in Archaic Greece, by Percy; "Greek Love at Rome," by Craig A. Williams, in The Classical Quarterly, New Series, 45.2 (1995): 517-39; and Homosexuality in Greece and Rome: A Sourcebook of Basic Documents, by Thomas K. Hubbard. If you wish to continue to insist you are right then I will request that you provide evidence.

No, I am not, I appreciate that cultures (which are not easily defined particularly if they existed 2000 years ago, let alone 4000 years ago) differed, in some times significant ways, but that under-pinning that is my assertion at least that human beings have the same needs (think Maslow) and that the way they act are probably attempts to efficiently meet those needs.

But that doesn't address ancient perspectives on war and killing.

Not on this thread you havn't.

You're right, it's on the thread that directly addresses this issue. I apologize.

I'm sorry, but what are you suggesting here? Humans have choices, they can choose to co-operate for resources (and there is excellent evidence that they have always done just that) or they can choose to compete, particularly if the resources are scarce. That's human nature, regardless of the ethical context in which they lived, and that 'ethical context' (even if we have lists of ethical beliefs and laws) is incredibly difficult to ascertain with any degree of certainty. Particularly since for the majority of 'ordinary' (as opposed to the rich and powerful) people we have relatively little information about them, as you have already admitted.

You're right, they could have chosen that, but they didn't, and one group of 70,000 people is not going to change the minds of millions of others who kill or enslave 70,000 people every month. The evidence is crystal clear on this. You can conjecture all you want because it doesn't make sense to you, but this is not an issue that has many grey areas, as shocking as that may sound to you.

That's quite a big area, with a diverse number of cultures and peoples.

That it is.

Are you including the Natufian culture in that?

The Natufian culture existed thousands of years before civilization began, and they have nothing to do militarization because there was no such thing back then.

and Macedonia isn't in the Levant at least (when I visited last year) a Greek person would never admit such. (very beautiful though)

And you must know that I am well aware of that fact. The question of God's people in the Old Testament deals with the Levant, but this principle was alive and well all over the world back then, even in the more "civilized" Hellenistic cultures.

Now, now Maklelan, no need to get 'b*tchy'!!

I'm sorry.

[_Mary]

Hi Maklelan,
The quotes you gave on pederasty refer (again) to the rich, educated, powerful and indeed beautiful (if some accounts are to be believed), not the ordinary, unwritten folk of human history. Just how many people in Ancient Greece do you think were wealthy enough or aristocratic (and ran in the right circles) enough to engage in the practice? How on earth can you assume that it was an 'ideal' for the whole of Greek society. Which is what you implied rather than an 'ideal' for a small sector of that particular society. It is absent in Homer's works, and Plato condemned it. There is also debate as to it's frequency, nature (chaste pederasty) and morality.

Greece comprises of a vast area of land and islands. All I am arguing is against making general assumptions based on very little evidence coming from very few people. (and there is plenty of pornographic pottery around to suggest that male homosexuality and every other sexual art was also a 'part' of Ancient Greek society, unless the pornographic stuff was reserved for the bathing houses and places of ill repute - it isn't now, and is widly reproduced in about every single Greek tourist shop you wish to go in..). Sex (and homosexuality even with adolescent boys) is as ancient as life itself in almost 'every' society. There goes human nature again.

Just as an aside, was reading some interesting stuff about just 'who' got syphilis (the pox) in our more recent and 'christian' society! The list is interesting!!!


Mary

[_maklelan]

Hi Maklelan,
The quotes you gave on pederasty refer (again) to the rich, educated, powerful and indeed beautiful (if some accounts are to be believed), not the ordinary, unwritten folk of human history.

Since this is the foundation of your current argument I will only respond to this portion. If you'd like me to answer another specific question please let me know. You say it's only the rich that do this, and therefore my statement that it was an ideal in Greece is wrong. Two things. First, after the democratization of Athens in the late fifth century every class in Greek society participated. I've already made this statement, so your problem with my argument is fallacious. Second, the rich and the powerful drove and defined the Greek culture. The word "pagan" comes from the Greek word for "country," and was akin to our words "redneck," or "hillbilly." The poor and the rural people were barely a part of Greek culture, and they were called pagans by their own philosophers. They were an important part of the economy, but they contributed nothing to the actual culture. All they did was continue to believe in the old gods. When Hellenization victimized Athens the art turned introspective, and poets began to yearn for the simpler lives of rural folk. Pastoral ideals began to flourish, and the poor working class became the focus of much art and literature. Irony of ironies, homosexual escapades were an essential elements of this art form. Shepherds and farmers all by themselves in the wilderness sought entertainment in the same way that aristocrats in the city did. Greece, then, was permeated with homosexuality. That practice is one of the defining characteristics of the period. This is not really an issue that is open to debate. If you would like to continue to assert your position I will ask you to provide references. If you just continue to reassert the same exact thesis statement with no logic or evidence to back it up then I cannot continue. I have provided a response to your argument. The ball is in your court. Please do not accuse me of ignoring you or evading your argument, just please respond to my evidence or cease arguing.

[_Mary]

Just a few questions for you Maklelan..

Is there evidence that pederasty was not universally excepted in Greek society? (clue: there is)
Is there evidence that the use of underage boys was condemned as unnatural? (clue: there is)
Is there any evidence for how a pederastic relationship was viewed by the passive partner? (clue: there isn't much)
Is there any evidence for the suggestion that some pederastic relationships were platonic and that
this was also put forward as an ideal? (clue: there is)
Is there any evidence that suggested that sexual contact should be limited to that of an intercrural nature? (clue: there is)
Is there any evidence that the passive partner was later widely ridiculed as a woman? (clue: there is...and interestingly the
term Malakos (effeminate man) is still in general use today as my own son can testify, since he heard the term a great deal
in our various forays into the beautiful land of Greece)

Have a chew on that!

[_maklelan]

Just a few questions for you Maklelan..

Is there evidence that pederasty was not universally excepted in Greek society? (clue: there is)

No principle or ideal that has ever existed has ever been universally accepted in any society. I did not say it was.

Is there evidence that the use of underage boys was condemned as unnatural? (clue: there is)

And that sentiment was not very popular (the only people who ever expressed it were a few members of the aristocratic class), and it was only expressed for a short part of Greece's history.

Is there any evidence for how a pederastic relationship was viewed by the passive partner? (clue: there isn't much)

For a long time they were thought to be uncomfortable (in that they were rarely shown to be aroused in the iconography), but there has recently been much research to the end that the young partners more often than not were willing participants. I posted it earlier.

Is there any evidence for the suggestion that some pederastic relationships were platonic and that
this was also put forward as an ideal? (clue: there is)

Platonic in the modern sense, no, but Platonic in the sense that the love did not stoop to satisfying lusts of the flesh, yes, this was put forth briefly by Plato, but another contemporary of Socrates disagrees. Plato also condemned all urges of the flesh as inferior to "Platonic" love.

Is there any evidence that suggested that sexual contact should be limited to that of an intercrural nature? (clue: there is)

But this represents a vast minority, and it is still pederasty.

Is there any evidence that the passive partner was later widely ridiculed as a woman? (clue: there is...and interestingly the
term Malakos (effeminate man) is still in general use today as my own son can testify, since he heard the term a great deal
in our various forays into the beautiful land of Greece)

Sure, but this was in specific periods of moral pot-stirring.

Have a chew on that!

What am I supposed to conclude from these questions?

[_Mary]

What am I supposed to conclude from these questions?

That the nature, frequency, and attitude towards pederasty is not easily summed up and is certainly not well represented by your assertion that

Many find the idea of pederasty inherently immoral, but it was an ideal in ancient Greece

Pederasty, is not paedophillia, and I hope you are not encouraging anyone on this thread to conclude that. 16 and over for the younger and between 20 and 30 for the older....and actually there is good evidence that pederasty did at least 'officially' involve intercrural sex, and well you should know it, unless you want to take a few Greek vases (now widely copied) as your evidence...

And by the way, I also disagree with your first assertion

'many find the idea of pederasty inherently immoral'

In the UK pederastic relationships also have had their place, think Oscar Wilde, public school practices (older student and younger), and indeed on into some of the most prestigious of universities. It's often been a facet of male dominated environments.

Regards
Mary

[_Roger Morrison]

Yes! I assume that change to be an 'improvement', generally speaking, rather than a retrogression?? I suggest that is attributed to an expanded conscience of feeling-humanity as thinking-humanity becomes democratized spiritually faster than it does politically...

You'll notice that a few posts back I called it adaptation, and that I would not call it evolution. What you've subscribed to above is what the anthropologists call the evolution of human nature. It has been a common theory ever since anthropology began, but the more evidence is amassed the more it is clear to modern anthropologists that this is not the way human nature works. It moves sideways and backwards as well as forward.

RM: Me thinks you're playing semantics here. So be it. I assumed most folks would be cognizant of the not constant up-ward 'mobility', so to speak. Since trial AND error is the learning/evolution/adaptation process it would-be/is rather unknowledgeable to not be aware of this...

As the balance of power, and the need of/for supremacy by psychophathic leaders, is influenced by empirical evidence of systemic evils that support that particular socio-politico-religious system, perception does change, and subsequently morality... A slow but ongoing process...

But the idea that it is progressively moving forward is nothing more than an idealistic hope.

RM: See my above comment... That's why it is SLOW! "...idealistic hope." Of course. Where's yer 'faith' Bro?

Non-the-less one that will, in time grant women more than the right-to-vote; homosexuals full equality within the law and total, unprejudiced acceptance in the hearts and minds of heteralsexuals. EDUCATION (not indoctrination) will be available to all to their capacity. Health care will be a right of life. Poverty--physical and spiritual--will impinge no one...

So tell me where the increased hostility towards religion, the breakdown of the family and the increased reverence of promiscuity and moral relativity fit into this evolution. Are they improvements as well?

RM: Good questions. "Hostility towards religion" has been with us since Jesus kicked over the temple tables and told the Priest-craft they "didn't know "God". From there, through the Christians-to-the-lions, and on, and on >>>>> Today i venture to say with more enlightenment than ever before. Religions--of most sects--have been the biggest hurdle over which social, and physical sciences have had to contend with. I don't think it necessary to be detailed... "...family breakdown..." is the product of family-dysfunction which has ever been there.

However now that "Man is not King in His castle", the opaqueness of the family has given way to anti-abuse laws and intervention into acts that were not according to acceptable standards of behaviour, that left emotional, mental and physical scars. I tend to think much of this type of fundamentalist criticism is scape-goating, and avoiding the responsibility for the obvious incompetency of institutions that were supposed to lead to be leading to "peace and goodwill"... "Promiscuity" seems more problematic in relationships that are dysfunctional and abusive. They are symptomatic of many things that fall within the mandate Jesus left 'us' with. You know, the Mount Sermon, and those Two New Commandments.

Generally speaking, when things are awry it's cuz we's not living by da simple stuff in the "Good-News". Ya know what i'm sayin'? Religion, Judeo-Christianism, tends to the "Bad-News". Everyone's going to Hell...unless they accept....fill in the blank to satisfy your self. Warm regards, Roger

In other words, Aposticized Christianism, with its rituals, social compromises, wealth indulgence, prejudices and half-truths will ebb away as the 'Gospel'--good-news--is understood to be about HERE & NOW.

It's all in the Sermon On The Mount, and being found by an increasing number who are climbing out-of-the-box ;-) Warm regards, Roger

OOPS! I missed some stuff... I'll be back after i do my Prison Mentoring... I'll pick up on the "failed theory" then :-) RM

But your theory fails to account for the fact that those same values you want to see in the future are on the same docket as the removal of your rights as a Christian. People say that laws are never passed that restrict people's rights, but religions are constantly having their belts tightened by congress, and the new morality thinks you're a religious whack-job who's too buried in superstition to uinderstand the real world. Is that attitude part of this progression as well?