This forum was closed on October 1st, 2010. However, the archives are open to the public and filled with vast amounts of good reading and information for you to enjoy. If you wish to meet some Wardrobians, please visit the Into the Wardrobe Facebook group.

Edited Title: The war of modernity vs paradosis

Edited Title: The war of modernity vs paradosis

Postby rusmeister » 13 Jun 2009, 04:32

(Edit) Please note the change of title!
This post has been edited to reflect its position as an OP of a new thread, while retaining some connection to the conversation it sprung from. The parts relevant to the main idea of the OP have been bolded and the main idea clarified over subsequent posts. My apologies for any confusion!

cyranorox wrote:Not all ethnicities produce bearded men. Like a lot of traits marked masculine, the beard is often coarse, rough, and messy; it can carry quite a load of flora, and, without plentiful water, it can turn sour. It needs tending, grooming and editing, and a good deal of feminine rejection comes from the lack of these things.

But near the end of Perelanda, Ransom comments [through his facial hair] that he had not seen a real man before; most of what we call masculine, as well as much we call feminine, is a set of makeshifts, forced polarities, customs, impositions [on women] and attempts for better or worse to act out or symbolize our concepts of gender.


On the beard, I think your assumptions are culturally based. The perceptions of "rough" and "messy" are subjective. I didn't get what you mean by a "sour beard", or "editing" - unless you mean "trimming". Again, the idea of "requiring" those things is culturally based. One of Lewis's driving points was about breaking free of the mentality of our own culture and time (from being prisoners of it and unable to understand thought of previous times and places. In general, just washing periodically with soap/shampoo and water would eliminate any actual threats to hygiene.

Your last line sounds like it's straight out of a women's studies class at college, and I disagree heartily. It is the women's studies' courses and the modern political action that they have generated that are makeshift, forced elimination of polarity, impositions (on men and women of the new sexlessness) and attempts, for the worse, to stamp out the fact of the uniqueness and differences of the sexes. It is this mentality that It gives birth to a host of evils;to 'sex-changing' (and other denials of one's own sex, from homosexual behavior to transvestitism, etc etc. it results in demanding "independence" for the sexes from each other and normalizes divorce (makes it something normal) because it denies our differences and need for each other, and many other expanding abnormalities in society today, because it is based on denying the differences of God's purpose in creating two sexes. It says at the very least that "in my case He made a mistake!", and our misguided concern for others' rights (without finding out whether God actually gives those rights or not) leads us to support them in that anti-social and ultimately anti-God behavior. The academic language merely attempts to justify the bent (to cop Lewis's term) desires(perverted, as in 'turned from their correct object', and was probably suggested by Screwtape himself.
Last edited by rusmeister on 27 Jun 2009, 02:47, edited 3 times in total.
"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one."
Bill "The Blizzard" Hingest - That Hideous Strength
User avatar
rusmeister
 
Posts: 1778
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Russia

Re: Edited Title: Beards

Postby Sven » 13 Jun 2009, 12:09

Split and moved here.
User avatar
Sven
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 2873
Joined: Aug 1996
Location: Greenbelt, MD, near Washington DC

Re: Edited Title: Beards

Postby Bluegoat » 13 Jun 2009, 13:53

Beards are an interesting topic; we think a lot about women wearing headcoverings, but in some religions and cultures, men are equally expected to grow a beard.

Of course this brings up a number of possible difficulties. Some ethnic groups have no facial hair, and there are lots of men, my husband being one, who would look like a leper if he tried to grow out his beard. A Muslim acquaintance of mine, who lives in a place where beards are expected, has a husband who is unable to grow a full beard due to facial scarring, and he gets comments from those who suppose that he is a "liberal" or not pious, or simply not manly.

I always enjoy Roald Dahls description of beards at the beginning of the book The Twits, though. It's clearly anti-beard, but very amusing.
User avatar
Bluegoat
 
Posts: 205
Joined: Dec 2008
Location: Nova Scotia

Re: Edited Title: Beards

Postby Stanley Anderson » 13 Jun 2009, 17:51

Bluegoat wrote:...in some religions and cultures, men are equally expected to grow a beard.


This strikes me as an odd way of putting it -- sort of like saying "in some religions and cultures, women are equally expected to grow breasts without getting silicone implants", as though implants were the "natural" path. Isn't it the other way around? That in some (many, perhaps most?) cultures men are expected to shave off the hair that naturally grows on their face, and that beards would be the default condition with shaving being the culturally induced activity?

--Stanley
…on a night of rain Frodo smelled a sweet fragrance on the air and heard the sound of singing that came over the water. And then it seemed to him that as in his dream in the house of Bombadil, the grey rain-curtain turned all to silver glass and was rolled back, and he beheld white shores and beyond them a fair green country under a swift sunrise.
User avatar
Stanley Anderson
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 3251
Joined: Aug 1996
Location: Southern California

Re: Edited Title: Beards

Postby Bluegoat » 13 Jun 2009, 21:43

Stanley Anderson wrote:
Bluegoat wrote:...in some religions and cultures, men are equally expected to grow a beard.


This strikes me as an odd way of putting it -- sort of like saying "in some religions and cultures, women are equally expected to grow breasts without getting silicone implants", as though implants were the "natural" path. Isn't it the other way around? That in some (many, perhaps most?) cultures men are expected to shave off the hair that naturally grows on their face, and that beards would be the default condition with shaving being the culturally induced activity?

--Stanley

Hmm, I know around here lots of young women would like to be able to control breast growth... It would be interesting to see a society that expected women to get plastic surgery to have more feminine physical characteristics.

I was thinking, though, of women having long hair and covering their heads. I'm not sure it is quite fair to compare hair or nail growth with other bodily characteristics. After all, the default would presumably be that men not cut head hair either.

Although women in my culturte are generally expected to save their legs, for example.
User avatar
Bluegoat
 
Posts: 205
Joined: Dec 2008
Location: Nova Scotia

Re: Edited Title: Beards

Postby JRosemary » 15 Jun 2009, 02:14

Bluegoat wrote:Beards are an interesting topic; we think a lot about women wearing headcoverings, but in some religions and cultures, men are equally expected to grow a beard.


Judaism's one of those religions and cultures--although even among traditionally-minded Jewish guys there are still many who are clean-shaven. I think there's a halachic way of shaving (a way that's ok by Jewish law.) Since I'm not a guy, I never paid much attention to the issue.

In fact, my entire opinion on beards can be summed up in one sentence: Christian Bale looks just fine [purposeful understatement] either with a beard or clean-shaven. And that's where my interest in the matter ends. :tongue:

Bluegoat wrote:Although women in my [culture] are generally expected to [shave] their legs, for example.


Yeah, what's that about? Oy, as if we don't have anything better to do with our time! Who decided that only shaved legs are attractive on a woman? I don't share that opinion--the natural look is just fine for the women who are brave enough. :cool:
User avatar
JRosemary
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 1332
Joined: Jul 2006
Location: New Jersey

Re: Edited Title: Beards

Postby Bluegoat » 16 Jun 2009, 11:37

JRosemary wrote:
Bluegoat wrote:
Yeah, what's that about? Oy, as if we don't have anything better to do with our time! Who decided that only shaved legs are attractive on a woman? I don't share that opinion--the natural look is just fine for the women who are brave enough. :cool:


I believe it was an idea invented by razor companies.
User avatar
Bluegoat
 
Posts: 205
Joined: Dec 2008
Location: Nova Scotia

Re: Edited Title: Beards

Postby alecto » 16 Jun 2009, 12:41

My word. I come back after months and we're talking about beards. Facial hair!

And it has caused Rus to:

1 - Call "rough" and "messy" relative terms.
2 - Get vague about common definitions of hiegiene (A sour beard is one from which food has not been cleaned.)
3 - Attack modern women's movements (and at the same time refusing to understand modern times in favor of older ones, perhaps?)
4 - Assume that redefining cultural adjuncts to sexuality equals redefining sexuality
5 - Ignore that some aspects of "sex differences" are unjust imposition of power
6 - Invoke sex change operations
7 - Attack homosexuality as evil
8 - Raise clothing to the level of body parts in determining sex
9 - Infer that sexual equality equals sexual separation
10 - Infer that women's rights (or at least Womens Studies) necessitates divorce
11 - Suggest that civil rights are opposed to Divine right, or perhaps that the Orthodox have already figured out what God thinks is right, while the rest of us have not
12 - Extend opinions about hair and college courses to the level of being anti-God
13 - Assume the motivating desires of Women's movements are perverted
14 - Invoke the issue of hair covering
15 - Assume that issues about hair covering are based on issues with male dominance
16 - Bring up same-sex unions

You would think that concern about hair is a very pillar of Orthodoxy.
Sentio ergo est.
User avatar
alecto
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Edited Title: Beards

Postby Stanley Anderson » 16 Jun 2009, 14:05

alecto wrote:My word. I come back after months and we're talking about beards. Facial hair!

And it has caused Rus to:

...[multiple complaints couched in sarcasm and belittlement about the discussion of various cultural/moral/theological issues]...

You would think that concern about hair is a very pillar of Orthodoxy.


Perhaps your absence caused you to miss the fact that the post that R was replying to dealt not only with beards but about larger issues surrounding the subject of beards (not to mention that the post was split off from another thread in the first place). Some serious topics were being discussed whether you agree with certain opinions or not.

If your absence has dulled your resources and caused you to need a bit of "gearing up" time to get back into the intellectual mode, remember that there is the Caffe Wardrobe forum where lighter fare is offered.

--Stanley
…on a night of rain Frodo smelled a sweet fragrance on the air and heard the sound of singing that came over the water. And then it seemed to him that as in his dream in the house of Bombadil, the grey rain-curtain turned all to silver glass and was rolled back, and he beheld white shores and beyond them a fair green country under a swift sunrise.
User avatar
Stanley Anderson
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 3251
Joined: Aug 1996
Location: Southern California

Re: Edited Title: Beards

Postby cyranorox » 16 Jun 2009, 18:32

Rus wrote:
The academic language merely attempts to justify the bent (to cop Lewis's term) desires(perverted, as in 'turned from their correct object', and was probably suggested by Screwtape himself.
It follows that they are therefore ultimately anti-Orthodox.

My what a stretch! you sound like the latest rightwing talking points. The 'at college' is a sly little slur - you're usually better than that. Did you ever take a womens' studies class, to know what was taught? or just get quotes of any silliness [and there was some] cherrypicked by rightwing sites?

"The" academic language, "the" desires? whose? Suggested to whom? Put your subjects in place and let your assertions be examined.

You go well beyond courtesy in this post, which going is immediately anti-Orthodox. Trim your beard, sir.
Apocatastasis Now!
cyranorox
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 274
Joined: Dec 2007
Location: a garret over a moonlit street

Re: Edited Title: Beards

Postby rusmeister » 17 Jun 2009, 02:37

cyranorox wrote:Rus wrote:
The academic language merely attempts to justify the bent (to cop Lewis's term) desires(perverted, as in 'turned from their correct object', and was probably suggested by Screwtape himself.
It follows that they are therefore ultimately anti-Orthodox.

My what a stretch! you sound like the latest rightwing talking points. The 'at college' is a sly little slur - you're usually better than that. Did you ever take a womens' studies class, to know what was taught? or just get quotes of any silliness [and there was some] cherrypicked by rightwing sites?

"The" academic language, "the" desires? whose? Suggested to whom? Put your subjects in place and let your assertions be examined.

You go well beyond courtesy in this post, which going is immediately anti-Orthodox. Trim your beard, sir.


The ideology now required in teacher preparation programs is now based on the ideas you expressed and I attacked. (Please notice that I do see a distinction between ideas and people. If you don't, there's no point talking at all and my apologies, as we would be talking at cross-purposes. There's nothing 'anti-Orthodox' about disagreeing in a civil manner, but ideas CAN be anti-Orthodox.) I certify from extensive personal experience that in both NY and CA the ideas that I labeled "women's studies" are actually required of would-be teachers to profess no matter how much their beliefs conflict with it. I lived through those requirements for over three years. I kept my mouth shut and got my certification (aka credential). Others, like Steve Head, objected to those ideas and get booted from the programs for "having the wrong dispositions".

I no longer believe in or accept the labels "right-wing", "left-wing", "conservative" or "liberal", and don't hang around "right-wing sites" (unless this forum and the CF Orthodox forum count) - I believe that labeling language to be incredibly misleading and don't accept the partisan definitions.

Alecto, I think, looking at your laundry list, that in some places you merely disagree with me, in others you actually misunderstand my position. At least cyranorox and I share something fundamental, of which this general topic is merely an outgrowth (pun intended :) ).
"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one."
Bill "The Blizzard" Hingest - That Hideous Strength
User avatar
rusmeister
 
Posts: 1778
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Russia

Re: Edited Title: Beards

Postby cyranorox » 17 Jun 2009, 18:43

Alecto, Rus and I share human nature, interest in CSL, reasoning, and examining ideas. I don't know your faith or membership, Alecto, and don't want to conclude to much from the Fury name. But if we want to be ecumenical, and you represent the eumenides, together we can form
-
-
-
-
-
-
the Ecumenides.
Apocatastasis Now!
cyranorox
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 274
Joined: Dec 2007
Location: a garret over a moonlit street

Re: Edited Title: Beards

Postby rusmeister » 18 Jun 2009, 02:48

Stanley Anderson wrote:
alecto wrote:My word. I come back after months and we're talking about beards. Facial hair!

And it has caused Rus to:

...[multiple complaints couched in sarcasm and belittlement about the discussion of various cultural/moral/theological issues]...

You would think that concern about hair is a very pillar of Orthodoxy.


Perhaps your absence caused you to miss the fact that the post that R was replying to dealt not only with beards but about larger issues surrounding the subject of beards (not to mention that the post was split off from another thread in the first place). Some serious topics were being discussed whether you agree with certain opinions or not.

--Stanley


I would add that I did not ask for or approve of splitting the thread. It makes it appear as if this is somehow a trivial detail and separate topic, when it was actually in response to a question on the Screwtape Letters.

Something that I have been becoming more aware of lately is how modern thought seems less and less capable of understanding the thought of earlier times. It basically comes down to the nature of pluralism (which gives birth to what we call "political correctness") and the denial of truth - that is, the denial that there can be single, objective truths about faith or morality - or, as I like to put it, faith and truth are "individual" - they do not, and cannot express a reality that also affects others (whether they believe it or not). This leads people who are born and brought up in such an environment of thought incapable of understanding thought expressed in literature or history that is based on the premise that truth does affect others and is universal. I should insert here that by 'faith' and 'truth' I am referring to the true nature of the universe - where it actually came from, Who, if anyone, created it, what the actual nature of Jesus Christ and the Church is, etc.

The effect is that people today are ceasing to understand even so recent a person as C.S. Lewis - as evidenced by Andrew Adamson deliberately rejecting Lewis's ideas about women in battle, or people on this forum asking why beards were thought of as expressions of manliness, just for a couple of examples. This affects far more than just Lewis, of course - it goes for all thought that did not accept this modern idea we call pluralism (most specifically religious pluralism).

That leads me to how we have come to this place where we hold views diametrically opposite to those held by our great-grandparents. My personal discovery was that if you wish to change the thinking of a people long-term, the most effective thing you can do is get control of the schools (especially using any variation of the 18th century Prussian model, which is, uh, what most countries now use) - then the next generation is yours to mold as you wish. This is how the modern ideas that contradict everything traditional that even our recent ancestors held as good and sacred got spread so quickly everywhere and seemed to rise out of the grass-roots. If children can be trained to think in certain ways, they will not even be aware that they have been indoctrinated to think in those ways. They can even be taught not to think about certain things, but to react automatically, using buzzwords designed to stop thought (I think any good anti-utopian novel points this out) - thus, my reference to "women's studies", which I'll grant is too narrow a term. They will then grow up and become the next leaders of the nation, producers of the media, etc. In only two or three generations you could completely reverse a people's thinking. Which is what has happened.

Thus, a minority may stand up to defend those ideas our generation has so quickly rejected, largely without being aware that this is what has happened or how, and are blasted by the majority that has been formed via this public education and our mass media (by which I include all of what we call popular, or mass culture). One need only go through the laundry list above to see an example of how the ideas presented (at least those that are understood correctly) contradict thought held consistently throughout Christendom, and by most of the human race throughout most of history, and explains why people no longer understand things Lewis, Chesterton, Bunyan, or whoever took for granted.

So smile! You have been indoctrinated! :smile:

This is a global topic, and I hope that it is not split again (although I'm OK with renaming it as long as everyone is clear on it). This IS what it's all about.
"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one."
Bill "The Blizzard" Hingest - That Hideous Strength
User avatar
rusmeister
 
Posts: 1778
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Russia

Re: Edited Title: Beards

Postby Bluegoat » 18 Jun 2009, 10:53

rusmeister wrote:
Stanley Anderson wrote:
alecto wrote:My word. I come back after months and we're talking about beards. Facial hair!

And it has caused Rus to:

...[multiple complaints couched in sarcasm and belittlement about the discussion of various cultural/moral/theological issues]...

You would think that concern about hair is a very pillar of Orthodoxy.


Perhaps your absence caused you to miss the fact that the post that R was replying to dealt not only with beards but about larger issues surrounding the subject of beards (not to mention that the post was split off from another thread in the first place). Some serious topics were being discussed whether you agree with certain opinions or not.

--Stanley


I would add that I did not ask for or approve of splitting the thread. It makes it appear as if this is somehow a trivial detail and separate topic, when it was actually in response to a question on the Screwtape Letters.

Something that I have been becoming more aware of lately is how modern thought seems less and less capable of understanding the thought of earlier times. It basically comes down to the nature of pluralism (which gives birth to what we call "political correctness") and the denial of truth - that is, the denial that there can be single, objective truths about faith or morality - or, as I like to put it, faith and truth are "individual" - they do not, and cannot express a reality that also affects others (whether they believe it or not). This leads people who are born and brought up in such an environment of thought incapable of understanding thought expressed in literature or history that is based on the premise that truth does affect others and is universal. I should insert here that by 'faith' and 'truth' I am referring to the true nature of the universe - where it actually came from, Who, if anyone, created it, what the actual nature of Jesus Christ and the Church is, etc.

The effect is that people today are ceasing to understand even so recent a person as C.S. Lewis - as evidenced by Andrew Adamson deliberately rejecting Lewis's ideas about women in battle, or people on this forum asking why beards were thought of as expressions of manliness, just for a couple of examples. This affects far more than just Lewis, of course - it goes for all thought that did not accept this modern idea we call pluralism (most specifically religious pluralism).

That leads me to how we have come to this place where we hold views diametrically opposite to those held by our great-grandparents. My personal discovery was that if you wish to change the thinking of a people long-term, the most effective thing you can do is get control of the schools (especially using any variation of the 18th century Prussian model, which is, uh, what most countries now use) - then the next generation is yours to mold as you wish. This is how the modern ideas that contradict everything traditional that even our recent ancestors held as good and sacred got spread so quickly everywhere and seemed to rise out of the grass-roots. If children can be trained to think in certain ways, they will not even be aware that they have been indoctrinated to think in those ways. They can even be taught not to think about certain things, but to react automatically, using buzzwords designed to stop thought (I think any good anti-utopian novel points this out) - thus, my reference to "women's studies", which I'll grant is too narrow a term. They will then grow up and become the next leaders of the nation, producers of the media, etc. In only two or three generations you could completely reverse a people's thinking. Which is what has happened.

Thus, a minority may stand up to defend those ideas our generation has so quickly rejected, largely without being aware that this is what has happened or how, and are blasted by the majority that has been formed via this public education and our mass media (by which I include all of what we call popular, or mass culture). One need only go through the laundry list above to see an example of how the ideas presented (at least those that are understood correctly) contradict thought held consistently throughout Christendom, and by most of the human race throughout most of history, and explains why people no longer understand things Lewis, Chesterton, Bunyan, or whoever took for granted.

So smile! You have been indoctrinated! :smile:

This is a global topic, and I hope that it is not split again (although I'm OK with renaming it as long as everyone is clear on it). This IS what it's all about.


I'm not convinced that this is primarily the fault of pluralism, though I think it is clearly an issue.

I tend to think that it is largely the fault of people being poorly educated, both in the sense of not having been taught much real history, getting what they know from modern texts rather than actual documents and texts from the period in question, and especially, never being asked to really discipline their thinking to try and understand the issues from the point of view of the people at the time - to take on another worldview.

It's learning to do that that - to see how our assumptions and way of looking at things - is part of a history of thought that allows us to begin to examine our own thinking critically, and see it's connection to earlier modes of thought. And while it seems this would introduce more pluralism, in fact it doesn't seem to.

But even at the university level, students are often allowed to approach texts as critics, not students, and so it should be no surprise that they are caught up in the flow of time, all adrift.
User avatar
Bluegoat
 
Posts: 205
Joined: Dec 2008
Location: Nova Scotia

Re: Edited Title: Beards

Postby rusmeister » 19 Jun 2009, 03:12

Bluegoat wrote:
I'm not convinced that this is primarily the fault of pluralism, though I think it is clearly an issue.

I tend to think that it is largely the fault of people being poorly educated, both in the sense of not having been taught much real history, getting what they know from modern texts rather than actual documents and texts from the period in question, and especially, never being asked to really discipline their thinking to try and understand the issues from the point of view of the people at the time - to take on another worldview.

It's learning to do that that - to see how our assumptions and way of looking at things - is part of a history of thought that allows us to begin to examine our own thinking critically, and see it's connection to earlier modes of thought. And while it seems this would introduce more pluralism, in fact it doesn't seem to.

But even at the university level, students are often allowed to approach texts as critics, not students, and so it should be no surprise that they are caught up in the flow of time, all adrift.


Hi, Bluegoat,
Of course (we) the people are poorly educated. But the education starts with the philosophy by which the education system is formed. There is no such thing as a school or university system that has ever been constructed without answering the questions of what the nature of man is, and what his purpose in life is. Thus, the system itself indoctrinates us, and its philosophy is based on pluralism, which is founded on a denial of absolute truths in the sphere of morality and spirituality (which is why, for example, you have people encouraged to be critics without knowledge). That's what I mean by "pluralism" and that is the problem. (I'd just want to repeat my last post again - I think it hits the nail on the head.)
"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one."
Bill "The Blizzard" Hingest - That Hideous Strength
User avatar
rusmeister
 
Posts: 1778
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Russia

Next

Return to Religion, Science, and Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered members and 1 guest

cron