Thank you - what an insightful post. Interestingly I posted a piece a few days ago suggesting that the terms 'islamophobia' and 'antisemitism' need to change. Please do have a look, I'd value your thoughts - Thanks;
In your post of the other day, you wrote about the polarity of our collective human tendency to despise, the “other”. whom we judge for their obvious failings. You, then stated that this human tendency would destroy us all. Of course you are correct. In our desire to obliterate, we will be obliterated. I wanted to comment that Carl Jung, in his concept of “ the shadow self” had found a psychological pathway towards reconciliation. Comments on that post had been disabled, so I posted “about your remarks” on my Substack. Today, you name, the concept of the “ Shadow”, and say you will explain further in a future posting. Carl Jung is a classic example of his own concept. He was so brilliantly insightful in so many of his ideas. I mean the “ Collective Unconscious “, wow!!!! However, he was also racist, classist, a misogynist, a sex abuser, homo- phobic and an intellectual thief. I guess there is no way out of our utterly human tendency to be flawed, and imperfect. “ Tis human to err”. The best of us represent the worst of us.
“It’s all just living on the material plane”. Thank you for your writing, and your insights.
I do not agree with your post (that I do agree with you on other issues you raise, is why I write rather than remain silent).
First, I feel that some of your arguments are unfalsifiable, relying on the attitude that we live in the best of all possible worlds, and therefore not academic. You may theorize me as being anti-Partition-of-India such as that we do not live in the best of all possible worlds. You may temporarily suppose me as being of the opinion that both Judaism and Islam are bad, however unrealistic this is in practice in our multicultural world. May I be entertained to be as such?
Second, is not interracial marriage (and its precursor, "homosexism" (define heterosexism then imagine its inverse as a means to water down standards of manliness)) a form of aggression? Surely it is so to the luckless suitor.
Is it not premeditation to count oneself the offspring of another race in order to cull its resources, a form of aggression? Surely it is to the parents of the intermarried bride.
Relatedly, is it not immoral to put on different moralities, like a robe that can be put on or taken off, in order to achieve the first objective (intermarriage)? (Peripherally, is the impersonation not this very thing that the left attempts to once-again impersonate in order to conquer it?)
I suppose the cosmopolitan answer here contains something about the simultaneous mixing of fairer men and less fair women, but it is indefensible when INTRAmarriage (marrying one's own kind) is generally based upon the preference of the male and not upon the preferences of both sexes equally {diagonal quadrant}).
Third, contrary to supporting Israel because it is a friend to India against Islamic terrorism (the very quandary I am hoping to solve!), supposing that Jewry sought to marry into Aryan peoples who thusly enjealousied Semitic peoples into devising Islam, did not Judaism in an ultimate sense cause Islam that caused the Partition of India? (If others object that I hold Christians blameless, I hold that so many were willing to perish for us to be fortunate enough to work out these moral questions under democratic governments.)
Your speeches/writings help me to formulate whether I am a Hindu-American liberal or a Hindu-American conservative. I can only hope you can help me answer these questions which I ask genuinely and not with any enduring ill-will toward any group.
Thank you - what an insightful post. Interestingly I posted a piece a few days ago suggesting that the terms 'islamophobia' and 'antisemitism' need to change. Please do have a look, I'd value your thoughts - Thanks;
https://substack.com/profile/216710168-ethical-warrior/note/c-252505070
So very true, all of this.
I think the word your looking for is bigotry. Bigots don't distinguish one form of hate from another.
In your post of the other day, you wrote about the polarity of our collective human tendency to despise, the “other”. whom we judge for their obvious failings. You, then stated that this human tendency would destroy us all. Of course you are correct. In our desire to obliterate, we will be obliterated. I wanted to comment that Carl Jung, in his concept of “ the shadow self” had found a psychological pathway towards reconciliation. Comments on that post had been disabled, so I posted “about your remarks” on my Substack. Today, you name, the concept of the “ Shadow”, and say you will explain further in a future posting. Carl Jung is a classic example of his own concept. He was so brilliantly insightful in so many of his ideas. I mean the “ Collective Unconscious “, wow!!!! However, he was also racist, classist, a misogynist, a sex abuser, homo- phobic and an intellectual thief. I guess there is no way out of our utterly human tendency to be flawed, and imperfect. “ Tis human to err”. The best of us represent the worst of us.
“It’s all just living on the material plane”. Thank you for your writing, and your insights.
I do not agree with your post (that I do agree with you on other issues you raise, is why I write rather than remain silent).
First, I feel that some of your arguments are unfalsifiable, relying on the attitude that we live in the best of all possible worlds, and therefore not academic. You may theorize me as being anti-Partition-of-India such as that we do not live in the best of all possible worlds. You may temporarily suppose me as being of the opinion that both Judaism and Islam are bad, however unrealistic this is in practice in our multicultural world. May I be entertained to be as such?
Second, is not interracial marriage (and its precursor, "homosexism" (define heterosexism then imagine its inverse as a means to water down standards of manliness)) a form of aggression? Surely it is so to the luckless suitor.
Is it not premeditation to count oneself the offspring of another race in order to cull its resources, a form of aggression? Surely it is to the parents of the intermarried bride.
Relatedly, is it not immoral to put on different moralities, like a robe that can be put on or taken off, in order to achieve the first objective (intermarriage)? (Peripherally, is the impersonation not this very thing that the left attempts to once-again impersonate in order to conquer it?)
I suppose the cosmopolitan answer here contains something about the simultaneous mixing of fairer men and less fair women, but it is indefensible when INTRAmarriage (marrying one's own kind) is generally based upon the preference of the male and not upon the preferences of both sexes equally {diagonal quadrant}).
Third, contrary to supporting Israel because it is a friend to India against Islamic terrorism (the very quandary I am hoping to solve!), supposing that Jewry sought to marry into Aryan peoples who thusly enjealousied Semitic peoples into devising Islam, did not Judaism in an ultimate sense cause Islam that caused the Partition of India? (If others object that I hold Christians blameless, I hold that so many were willing to perish for us to be fortunate enough to work out these moral questions under democratic governments.)
Your speeches/writings help me to formulate whether I am a Hindu-American liberal or a Hindu-American conservative. I can only hope you can help me answer these questions which I ask genuinely and not with any enduring ill-will toward any group.