Discussions with TB - a dedicated thread

Discussion of the SES's satellite organisations in the USA.
NYC
Posts: 122
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 10:17 pm

Reply to TB's Reply to NYC

Postby NYC » Tue Mar 08, 2005 2:43 am

Hello TB et all,
Seems like we could do with an entire thread on gender issues in the SES/SoPP as all threads seem to lead down that road eventually...

I wrote
??if the differences are natural and genetic, there is no need to enforce them culturally"
TB replied
Can you expand upon this?

Sure. Biological differences between men and women have been one of the historic bases for treating the sexes differently, and as Freethinker writes, ?surprise surprise, unequally.? It?s the only basis that still has any currency for the majority of people ? the Biblical basis that Eve tempted Adam with the apple and so women are unfit for leadership because they can?t be trusted is only applicable in a fringe element (although in America, at least, this fringe is alive & strong & gaining a disproportionate degree of power to their actual numbers). And apparently Senior SES/SoPP people find something in advaita Vedanta that reinforces the idea of male superiority. I have some familiarity with advaita and I don?t find support for that view in the philosophy at all. But biological difference remains an acceptable ground for ?treating people differently,? or put another way, discrimination.

TB wrote
As far as genetic and cultural differences, the classic nature vs nurture debate, these are so interdependent that they cannot operate in isolation.

Actually my point is that genetic differences are totally unaffected by cultural codes. No matter what the rules of the society, women can get pregnant and men can?t. No matter what laws the culture has, that basic genetic difference will remain. However, there is no natural difference between the sexes that prevents men from wearing skirts or women wearing pants. It?s strictly a cultural difference.

(BTW, I don?t want to be misunderstood ? I?m not arguing that men are naturally inferior to women, or any such claptrap. I?m just stating something I think is obvious but for some reason frequently ignored: that the single biggest natural difference between men and women is not that women have less upper body strength or muscle mass, but that women have a capability men do not possess.)

So genetic sexual differences are actually completely INDEPENDENT of cultural differences. I understand that cultural differences are intended to come from/be dependent on natural differences, but I would argue that the number & magnitude of actual natural differences are much smaller than it seems, because we all grow up with culturally enforced differences which we begin to assume are natural. I would also argue that many of the cultural differences which are NOT actually based on something genetic come from the tendency for groups who have power to ascribe their dominance to a natural and genetic cause. This doesn?t apply only to gender differences, but also presumed natural differences between races.

You mention that 'yes the sexes are different', but do not comment if there should be different treatment based upon those differences.
I am deeply suspicious of rules or laws claiming to be based on ?natural? differences, I think it?s really difficult to pin down which differences are natural and which are cultural, and all too often the dominant group, which wants to hold onto power, declares their authority as rulemakers based on ?natural? differences which are really a result of their subjugation of the other group. I?m thinking of whites in America in Martin Luther King Jr.?s day, who opposed integration with blacks on the grounds that blacks were ?too violent, too angry and uncivilized,? to be fully integrated into American society, somehow failing to notice that perhaps blacks were angry and violent in response to their cultural situation, not out of an innate tendency to impulsivity.

I have less suspicion of the softer sort of social codes, where the only penalty for breaking it is social disapproval. I?m thinking of things like men giving way to women if both approach a doorway at the same time ? When I was young it irritated me if men opened the door, I always found myself thinking ?I can open the door myself, old man, you aren?t so much stronger than me,? but as I got older and started having sexual relationships I saw the value in socializing men to treat women differently than they do other men. The differences between the sexes are certainly part of what makes life fun, at least for us heteros?

I think the key point I want to make is that historically, culturally enforced differences between men and women have been confused with natural differences and that these artificial differences are used to hold women in an inferior position. The Greeks apparently didn?t bother to teach women to read because they thought women were not very intelligent, somehow not noticing that all the women they knew were totally uneducated and thus not very good thinkers. It?s a cyclical and self-reinforcing approach.

RE the SES - I wouldn?t be so mistrustful of splitting the Senior participants into men?s groups and ?ladies? groups if the SES did not have this horrifying history of abuse.


INNATE WORTH

I wrote
Innate worth, the intrinsic value of a person is not tangible.

?Intangible? means you can?t touch it, it?s not material. It doesn?t mean ?indefinable,? although intangibles like justice or love or innate value are a good bit more difficult to define than tangibles like ?keyboard? or ?house.?

TB wrote
You mention that 'equal inherent worth' is not hard to understand, yet later falter when asked to define it, calling it intangible. I am well aware that having a sense of something does not always easily translate to a verbal definition. This is no reason to avoid trying.

Saying that innate worth is intangible is not a full definition, it?s true, but it is a description, circling around what innate worth IS by clearing out what it IS NOT.

I have to admit, I was a little surprised at how hard it was to say why ?all humans have equal innate value? without resorting to religious language. I know that something like ?innate value? is the basis for human rights & the UN uses language which is not specific to a particular religious tradition, but I?m not up on what that language is.

TB writes
You confidently assert that intrinsic worth is intangible, saying you cannot define it. You do not say so directly, but I sense you think it cannot be done by other people either, and you do not appear willing to try.


Well, once again, intangible doesn?t mean indefinable. And actually, I do think that other people could & have done a far better job of defining innate value than I have in the post. I gave it my best shot in the time I can take to mess around on the computer, but I have no doubt that there are plenty of thinkers/writers who have defined it more clearly & more poetically than I.

You also paraphrase me saying that abilities and acts do not affect a person?s inherent worth, and that this worth arises from life itself. As you say elsewhere, we are in violent agreement! I do think people?s equal inherent value arises from their existence ? the fact they are alive, embodied, their ?beingness,? to put it in weird philo language.

I know that some people will say that while everyday actions don?t touch one?s innate worth, really horrific things (like humiliating and terrorizing children) could reduce it. I don?t think this is so ? though I can?t take the time to find secular language for why this would be right now. My belief that all people have a baseline of equal innate value, regardless of their capabilities and independent of their actions, (even evil ones) is first an intuitive faith-feeling and second defensible on utilitarian principles of maximizing good-- basically I mean that this belief in equal innate value makes the world a better place, therefore, it?s a good idea to have. It makes people treat each other with a basic regard, and if put into practice would inhibit actions like those taken at St James/St Vedast.

does karma only operate at the level below advaita?
Don?t know how to answer this. Put it here as kind of a flag for future discussion, or other people?s participation if they want to.

I devalue them as human beings [people w/out integrity] and would deprive them of the rights that we offer others. I believe in justice systems that carry penalties. At a more everyday level, if I am lied to by a vendor or customer, they have less inherent value in my eyes. I will be less likely to do business with them than those who act with integrity.

By all means, if a vendor is dishonest with you then the sensible thing to do is respond, take your business elsewhere, etc. If someone rapes and murders then yes, please, let?s have a reliable system of justice that can remove such a person?s ability to do so again. And I do think there is room to lose respect for people who behave badly ? on top of maintaining a baseline regard for their humanity. I don?t think it?s necessary to ?devalue them as human beings? while we deprive them of rights. Maybe a semantic point, but I think it?s worth refining/defining.

If you, as a mature person, can tolerate and show love of inherent value to people that behave the way many criminals do, then you are a far better person than I.
I want to be clear that I don?t think it?s necessary to tolerate criminal behavior & just let people run around hurting each other, but within the system of punishment & think it?s possible to maintain an awareness of even the worst criminal?s humanity/innate worth, even though the criminal maintains no such regard.

If I can resort to spiritual language ? it?s got to do with recognizing the atman in them, which is untouched by their body, mind, actions, anything. It?s there no matter what they do, based as you say on embodiment, life itself. And it affects attitude more than action I think ? if someone is proved convicted of heinous crimes, we can put him/er in jail for life but we shouldn?t demean them, torture them, etc. BTW, I don?t have to actually interact with such people, so it doesn?t require much of me personally in the way of good behavior -- but I think it?s important for me to maintain that respect in the abstract.

(Re people getting upset) I have to say that I think this happens because people become uncomfortable with being able to justify their opinions.

mmmm?you have a point but it?s possible to challenge someone to substantiate in a gentle way, and I think if you leave them ?face-saving? room you?ve got a better chance of getting an actual answer.
(Re SES people in particular) They usually parroted the party line when questioned. I often found myself facing brick walls as they rolled out pat phrases.

I haven?t been taking the evening courses for decades or anything, but I have yet to hear a tutor say ?I don?t know? in response to a question and I think that I could go years and years and YEARS and probably not hear it. It is obvious to me that these volunteer tutors are doing the best they can but don?t have ALL the answers, so I just wish they would sometimes say ?that?s a good question, I really don?t know, let?s think & see if we can figure it out? instead of using one of their many tactics to sidestep or as you say ?parrot the party line.?

As for my tone, I tried to moderate it, hopefully I partly succeeded.
Yes TB, I found your response to my criticism very fair-minded. Hope we can get you to post in some detail about teachings in SES in Senior level re natural order. Do they just bald-facedly state that women must obey men? (Perhaps you could post it on the ?Attending the adult schools? thread ? I think it would be valuable to hear a detailed description from a former tutor of what the teacher training for tutoring is like.

Regards, NYC
Last edited by NYC on Fri Mar 11, 2005 4:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

shonarose
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 8:35 pm

Postby shonarose » Tue Mar 08, 2005 6:49 pm

a great post, NYC

TB
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:51 pm

Postby TB » Tue Mar 08, 2005 11:01 pm

Hi NYC,

I had not intended to continue posting on this site, following this exchange with emmalu9, probably not seen by you and others.

Senior Member



Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 34

Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 9:02 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

emmalu9,



Quote:
TB, what is your actual SES experience? Why don?t you tell us? You were lucky enough to have the choice of whether to join and when to leave the SES. You will never understand the loss of a childhood to its poisonous rubbish.



I have posted details of this a few times, shall I repeat them in my thread? You are right to say I am lucky not to have attended St James and I am unable to comprehend the impact on its students.

Quote:

On the other hand, your detachment from your experience of sexual abuse as a child could mean that it actually affected you more than you realise. Often children deal with traumatic events by shutting down, leaving them with little or no memory of it at all. You could have more feelings about those sexual abusers than you remember.


What are you talking about? Do you genuinely read this into my posts or are you trying to stir me up?

Back to top


emmalu9
Intermediate Member



Joined: 17 Feb 2005
Posts: 12

Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 12:16 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TB,

I mean no offence and I'm not making any criticism or comment on you personally. In a previous post you spoke of the sexually abusive priests at your school in such a detached way that it made me wonder if there was any forgotten feelings about the incidents you mentioned. There is plenty of literature on how the abuse of a child, and witnessing another child being abused can affect people in childhood, and later in life.

I'm sorry if my last post sounded antagonistic, but if you did feel 'stirred up' perhaps looking into some of these theories, even if only to put your mind at rest would be a good thing to do... I could personally recommend 'Facing Codependence' by Pia Mellody, which helped me to understand what abuse is, how it affected me when I was little, and how it was still limiting me as an adult.

As I have said before, this forum for me is about helping to heal from past events, not causing further damage.

Back to top


TB
Senior Member



Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 34

Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 1:55 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi emmalu9,

Thankyou for clarifying your approach and I appreciate the suggestion. I have no doubt you are right when you talk about the mechanism of repressed memories, but for me there seems no indications. I would imagine that the first requirement to dig deeper is either an intention or at least a sense that something needs to done. I do not feel anything like this, so it means one of two things. Either I was abused but have no readiness to face it, or I was not abused at all.

My ability to separate myself from the incidents mentioned is not limited to just this. On most topics, whether intensely emotional or trivial I seem to be able to separate the feeling from the concept. When I was in early school, probably 8 or 9, I would make comments or ask questions that the other kids could not even imagine. It was nothing to do with intelligence, it was more to with perspective. The examples I recall were in astronomy or human behaviour. It was only as a teenager when I actively studied the subjects, that I realised I had registered some fundamentals without any obvious references. They were not difficult or controversial things, just things that had no apparent requirement for questioning. I grew up among a variety of cultures that had some very different standards of behaviours and habits, quite a few of which my peers or relatives found distasteful or wrong. I never seemed to have an issue with them, rather finding them interesting and different.

I mention these to show that for me an ability to examine something without somehow getting personal or disturbed is normal, and does make me think that I have no 'forgotten' memories.

I have read your posts about your own experiences, and as with so many of the past pupils I am appalled at how much people have been hurt. I have no place on a board like this, and no right to make comments that add to the pain.

You are quite correct when you state I am a critical observer and do not talk about my feelings. I have no issue with doing this but I cannot imagine what value it would add to anyone if I did.

On the other hand, most of my posts get me beaten up by people, and thats hardly value. People have asked to leave this board in the past, however with my time in the SES, I felt qualified, and was damned if I would. Perhaps as a non past-student of St James/Vedast I should be disqualified. Kindly don't all cheer at once and set up a voting panel for this.

Good luck with the inquiry, do not give up on it, I will be reading the progress. Daffy recently opened a thread looking to restore some harmony. I do not think this board is best served by the likes of me who disrupt it. It's been an education for me, I now look at the SES through different eyes, courtesy of the people on this board. My apologies to anyone who was hurt by anything I said.


NYC
Posts: 122
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 10:17 pm

Postby NYC » Tue Mar 08, 2005 11:06 pm

whoops - just realized I screwed up the quote mechanism in my post above.
EDIT - gee, there's a little edit button in the right upper corner -- and it works! quotes above fixed.

NYC

Shout
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Reality
Contact:

Postby Shout » Sat Mar 12, 2005 5:01 pm

_____________________________________________________________
Last edited by Shout on Wed Nov 22, 2006 8:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

anti_ses
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 5:31 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Postby anti_ses » Sat Mar 12, 2005 10:56 pm

Shout, it looks like you need to relax a little. Try some yoga or meditation. You've obviously had some awful experiences with the SES. Why not investigate other organisations which offer those practices? I'm not going to mention any, but I'm sure after all your suffering you will have a better idea of what to avoid. If you find that your anger is implacable, it may be advisable for you to see a psychotherapist. Martial arts or exercise of any sort may also help burn off some anger. Remember, only you suffer by hating anyone whom you feel contributed to your distress. The perpetrators of the crimes described throughout this site will sleep quite happily.

As for the question of whether or not a person has a place on this board, I feel that it is best answered by the moderators of these boards.

User avatar
a different guest
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 12:13 am
Location: Australia

Postby a different guest » Sun Mar 13, 2005 11:23 am

Who are these boards for? I would say anyone with an interest in the SES. Personally I woulnd't mind seeing more "pro" people here - I would seriously like them to justify some of their beliefs to the rigors of some true intelligent debate - that is if they were actually able to without resorting to SES non-speak gobblygook that says absolutely nothing.

After all - these boards ARE called "general discussion". And for those survivors of the school there is also a separate yahoo group that is a closed group JUST for survivors - so if some survivors feel that cannot share these boards with people who are NOT school survivors (which is people like myself) there is a designated site where membership is carefully vetted.

However all that being said the thing i do object to is people hiding their agenda. Which IS something that TB was perhaps guilty of. If you are in the SES and think its great - well come clean and discuss it. DON'T hide behind a smokescreen of who and what you are. I am sure that sort of obfuscation is particularly painful for the school survivors.

Now with that being said I would point out to anti-ses that a couple of people have asked you about YOUR agenda/background. You haven't yet answered those queries

Shout
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Reality
Contact:

Postby Shout » Sun Mar 13, 2005 2:16 pm

_____________________________________________________________
Last edited by Shout on Wed Nov 22, 2006 8:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

shonarose
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 8:35 pm

'School survivors'

Postby shonarose » Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:10 pm

ADG, I think many would prefer to be described simply as ex-pupils rather than 'school survivors'.

s.

User avatar
a different guest
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 12:13 am
Location: Australia

Postby a different guest » Tue Mar 15, 2005 9:00 am

shona - my apologies - i did not mean to cause any offence. An earlier thread spoke of "surviving" the schools, and also the term "survivor" is used here in relation to child abuse/stolen generations etc. I just did not think it was out of turn to use the term.

Once more, my apologies.

shonarose
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 8:35 pm

no apology necessary, and no offence taken

Postby shonarose » Tue Mar 15, 2005 11:19 pm

... just a preference not to be defined as a victim.


Return to “The North American schools”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests