[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: Political constructions of self vspoliticalconstructions of identity



Hi Larry!


I hope you are not gasping to grasp that which isn't an object but upon which all objects depend.


Essence is a peculiar concept. I was looking at it in the dictionary and it has to do with what is real as opposed to what is phenomenal, accidental, or illusory.


But the word is also used in relation to spiritual notions, as pertaining to an immaterial entity. So what is peculiar to me is its definition as both substantial and non-substantial.


These appear to us to be opposite, don't they.


If we consider capitalism as a religion of modernity, then what does it look like, to consider the other religions (and their categories) in terms of how they overlay upon (or beneath) capitalism? I'd say that the religion of capitalism does not possess an ethics pertaining to the integrity of cultures and of peoples, which other religions seem to do, unless these cultures and peoples already possess ethics that coincide with the cultures and peoples who (can) advance the religion of capitalism.


Perhaps this is why Republican values can be as they are, and why it is possible to nominate Trump who can say very unethical things that deeply hurt people's feelings who have personal and emotional connection to religious practice (and identity).


As far as  Buddha-ity as a disposition generating "truth", I'd call that knowledge, rather than enlightenment. But the generation of the disposition is a cognitive event, but the truth is perennial and not dependent upon human minds. It could be called the "aha!" moment, that moment of recognition of what is, as it is.


Sitting on the river bank!


Kind regards,


Annalisa