Could the conservative tendency to look away actually be rooted in (forgotten) sacredness of Eros? Why should desire be made into a spectacle? What is erotic about the fluorescent glare of shamelessness? Your piece has made me wonder. Thanks for writing it.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I can't say I have the answer. I can see that a healthy aversion to excess is a good thing but I also think an opposition from a point of understanding/empathy is advantageous. I'm not sure where I fall on this point. One might say it isn't a matter of absolutes. I'll tackle this in part 2.
I think this is a very interesting point. The sacred is something you can't touch. Or even look at because it's too terrible and powerful.
Modernists, whether conservative or liberal, believe in science and the objectification of life – this world – and cannot comprehend the idea of another parallel, eternal world.
Yes, absolutely. There is a definite blindspot of liberals and materialists because they can't understand the mindset of a religious person. They very often dismiss genuine expressions of faith, revulsion and deep attachment as posturing or driven by material concerns. I'll go into this in my second piece.
This lacks any understanding at all of the religious perspective on desire, women, sex etc which the author seems to equate with “conservatism” which in their mind equals the quaint, the hypocritical or the perverse(what is generally referred to as “Victorian values”).
Lacking any perspective on human beings as having higher and lower natures(and therefore reduced to a confused muddle- both author and humans in general) there is absolutely no understanding possible of the religious viewpoint.
This, to put it simply, is that there is a conflict or tension between the higher and lower natures in men and women and between men and women , but also a harmony which if correctly cultivated results in a higher form of both men and women.
Lacking this , or at least the striving towards it (which all true religions engender) is to lack the possibility of reaching the truly human.
In this article I present the most superficial and incomplete reflexive response of conservatives. I do not suggest that religion does not offer insights into the grotesque or strange. My argument was that an automatic response from people who haven't dwelt at length upon the implications of sin and suffering - and from not having been initiated into these subjects properly - is a weakness.
I hope that you will have the patience to stay with the series as I explore more aspects of this discussion and dig deeper into this topic.
Could the conservative tendency to look away actually be rooted in (forgotten) sacredness of Eros? Why should desire be made into a spectacle? What is erotic about the fluorescent glare of shamelessness? Your piece has made me wonder. Thanks for writing it.
MB
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I can't say I have the answer. I can see that a healthy aversion to excess is a good thing but I also think an opposition from a point of understanding/empathy is advantageous. I'm not sure where I fall on this point. One might say it isn't a matter of absolutes. I'll tackle this in part 2.
I think this is a very interesting point. The sacred is something you can't touch. Or even look at because it's too terrible and powerful.
Modernists, whether conservative or liberal, believe in science and the objectification of life – this world – and cannot comprehend the idea of another parallel, eternal world.
Yes, absolutely. There is a definite blindspot of liberals and materialists because they can't understand the mindset of a religious person. They very often dismiss genuine expressions of faith, revulsion and deep attachment as posturing or driven by material concerns. I'll go into this in my second piece.
Great piece!
This lacks any understanding at all of the religious perspective on desire, women, sex etc which the author seems to equate with “conservatism” which in their mind equals the quaint, the hypocritical or the perverse(what is generally referred to as “Victorian values”).
Lacking any perspective on human beings as having higher and lower natures(and therefore reduced to a confused muddle- both author and humans in general) there is absolutely no understanding possible of the religious viewpoint.
This, to put it simply, is that there is a conflict or tension between the higher and lower natures in men and women and between men and women , but also a harmony which if correctly cultivated results in a higher form of both men and women.
Lacking this , or at least the striving towards it (which all true religions engender) is to lack the possibility of reaching the truly human.
In this article I present the most superficial and incomplete reflexive response of conservatives. I do not suggest that religion does not offer insights into the grotesque or strange. My argument was that an automatic response from people who haven't dwelt at length upon the implications of sin and suffering - and from not having been initiated into these subjects properly - is a weakness.
I hope that you will have the patience to stay with the series as I explore more aspects of this discussion and dig deeper into this topic.
Fair enough