Thalassa
Permabanned
- Joined
- May 3, 2009
- Messages
- 25,183
- MBTI Type
- ISFP
- Enneagram
- 6w7
- Instinctual Variant
- sx
One of my biggest and most profound irritations in life is the idea that only institutions are correct. It's not that I am opposed to the existence of institutions, I think they are useful in moderation and serve practical purposes, it's just that people who belong to the most "popular" institutions (everything from big organized religion to some branches of academia to medicine) sometimes have a terrible tendency to forget that there are other valid ways of thinking and being. While all humans do this on some level (I have strong personal ethics) people who represent the biggest institutions of their time period can suffer from a delusional form of arrogance that I find remarkably insufferable. This kind of thinking has marred the scientific community, because science is no longer science when it becomes dogma, when being part of a science-based community has become a form of priesthood in your narcissistic mind. Not all scientists are this way, my sister isn't, Einstein wasn't, but in both cases (though my sister is no Einstein) the trait they appear to share is lack of affiliation with some puffed up institution of authority. I have a real appreciation for science, but I am an independent learner and an independent thinker, and part of my education is that I understand that Western thought is not the only firm of thought, it is not the only type of intelligence, it's actually a biased perceptual framework just as much as being Christian or anything else, and the profound arrogance we tend to associate with modern Christians, to stay on that train, is actually partially the by product of mixing Christianity with the rigidity of the Western framework, and unfortunately our science had fallen prey to the very rigidity it was born out of. Science has become am organized religion to some people to an extent that they take the words of very human very fall able people as absolute gospel until the great church of Rome says birth control is allowed. Just because someone is a priest doesn't mean they don't sin, just because someone is a scientist doesn't mean that they also are not operating from a framework of personal bias (for example, a person can be a scientist or a doctor but endorse or oppose slightly different things because of their ethics, or lack thereof). It's weird to me too how much men are more likely culturally I have noticed on the internet, versus women, to just brutally patronize and talk down to people to a point I can actually guess with fair accuracy a person's gender when they take a particularly asinine arrogant tone in the name of science or math, it reeks of the sort of Puritan men folk who once took the same tone about burning witches and eradicating the heathen natives.
Because it still seems, in the cases of some, to not be about hard truth, but rather, about ridding the culture of whatever doesn't suit their perceptual bias. It's not lost on me that witches and natives also lived in greater harmony with nature, the Western perceptual bias in its most extreme and disturbing form is to subject all nature to the artificiality of mankind, and to have an overabundance of masculine energy for fear of feminine ways of thinking and building culture.
Because it still seems, in the cases of some, to not be about hard truth, but rather, about ridding the culture of whatever doesn't suit their perceptual bias. It's not lost on me that witches and natives also lived in greater harmony with nature, the Western perceptual bias in its most extreme and disturbing form is to subject all nature to the artificiality of mankind, and to have an overabundance of masculine energy for fear of feminine ways of thinking and building culture.
