Since it seems I've introduced something quite controversial, I thought I would seek to address it here.

I would like to lay a little ground work akin to ground rules initially.

First, it is my argument that people can and do recognize value in conceptualizations. People then also fashion many words for these concepts. I also hold the position that concepts do not exist. A mistake often easily made is to allow concepts to become believable, thus treatable as factual, actual things that exist. Of course factually, with many concepts being treated as existent, people get to factually contend with the fruit of those beliefs.

Now I offer some "words": "the" "cult" "of" "the" "family".

What do we have here? Essentially we have "five" arrangements of pixels. That's about as close to any facts as we'll come, no? To clarify this, I'd simply ask if I might substitute precisely, and exactly what I mean as:

"ito" "tluc" "@^" "ito" "gizmo"

Even better would be if we could either express it with Japanese characters or Martian characters (the latter being mere presumption).

Thus, do you see what I'm saying? <<--- and by my emphasis, that as well?

What I'm hoping to get at is that essentially words are only expressions offered as up for agreement or rejection. One can reject the likes of a hammer as well, but the experience of such-- not so much, especially if said hammer is of the sledge variety and I drop it on your toe. One might call it a "sledge hammer" and another a "gizmo widget", but what essentially matters is that one experiences it via the senses.

And so we come back to "the cult of the family". And of course for our purposes, the key words.
What by way of facts, is a "cult"?
And what by way of facts is a "family"?

What I'm essentially asking is how much of this is conceptual versus how much of it is factual, actual, ie exists? I offer that this mental exercise is crucial when it comes to communicating with another.

Another approach is to go back to our hammer. By what fact(s) is it a hammer? If I ask by what facts is it a widget, we'd get closer to getting beyond the presumptions. Essentially, I can take the "widget" and grip it, then swing and strike the nail repetitively and we have the widget "hammer".

What if next, I take, oh say, my shoe and grip it, then swing and strike the nail with the shoe's heel, repetitively, do I have a "hammer"? Technically, I would say yes, we do. But another simple test would suffice the point: open this metal box, called a "toolbox" (why?) and therein find said footwear and see if there's a "hammer"-- or is there a "shoe"?
Then how about this shoe. You do see a shoe, no? S-h-o-e, shoe <<---the one there. Oh, you say, that's not a "shoe", that's a word? Well actually unless I agree, it's not even a word per se, it's but pixels in a certain order on a display-- assuming we first agreed on the word "pixels". Or just as well it IS a "shoe"! If you say so?

My point is that the closer we can tie elemental matter to a word, the closer to perpetual agreement we can sustain, akin to mutual value and reduced confusion. The difficulty comes the further we allow ourselves and others of like state of mind to drift from empirical matter, and begin to mentally hold words themselves as being equal with such matter.
I'd offer that the most crucial aspect of any of this, is to ask: upon or about what will I or another exercise or threaten the use of force/violence?

Now akin to my question with the hammer, I would ask you to factually prove a cult for me. Prove it to me. Are you able to point at it's equivalent of a hammer? a shoe even? How significant is this? Or how significant is it socially, as communicatively?

I would then ask the same of the family?

Based on these exercises, I hold that essentially neither a cult nor a family exists. Rather, individuals that do exist, do and participate in actions as a part of that existence upon which we then seek to communicate how we feel and react to those actions. One can seek to select from among the actions, then seek to fashion (or find where another has fashioned in the past) a word for those, and then determine how one feels about that collection. But factually, it is but a state of mind. The labeling is but a convenience for something we've mentally complied together.
Of course we can then go about evangelizing amongst others, to see if we can find agreement on our conceptualizations, typically playing up to stirring up similar emotions and feelings, closely emulating Pavlov.
And so it is with the likes of cult and family.

I mentioned already, the crucial consideration of asking what one will exercise violence regarding, and so it is crucial precisely here. Will I resort to or appeal to the use of violence regarding my conceptions-- be that whether I fashioned the conceptions, or the more typical, I embraced someone elses?

Concepts, in and of themselves, are neutral. They hold the potential for evaluation, resulting in either positive or negative, beneficial or destructive. Value of course is purely subjective, also known as opinion, but notably based mostly upon objective reality. Value doesn't exist while most things valued do, or are at least directly linked to something that exists.

Since I'm convinced that most here have a pretty clear grasp of the word cult, the rub is probably with the word family. Further complicated then when calling a family a cult.

Let me say here, that as a concept, the one we use the word "family" for is neutral. It holds the propensity for evaluation, resulting in either positive or negative opinion.

So certainly, all families are not a cult, and using the phrase "the cult of the family" is not all inclusive. I offer that this is similar to the state, as an area of middle north America, contrasted with The State Of Arizona, purely a state of mind. Calling, as claiming, all families to be cults is akin to calling participants at FDR cult members-- sadly something too many are doing and evangelizing others to do as well.

What then distinguishes some individuals linked by the facts of natural biological association as cults then? Essentially it would be to make family anything but a voluntary association when those so linked are adults. Same as the core of any cult charge. Preaching that family is eternal and perpetual regardless of individual choices about it and participation in it is culty. My position is generally that if one believes in the concept of a cult, simply examine any and all of the criteria and fairly examine those claiming there's a family by that same criteria. Are alleged members allowed to associate with whom they choose? Are members allowed to question and challenge the core beliefs held by the leaders aka parents? Are the members on equal footing regarding authority? Can a member break, sever, and cut all ties with the group aka the family? Do the leaders within the group/family appeal to other members for their validation? Do they appeal to majority power? etc etc. [by reminder, I'm speaking here of "members" as surely obviously meaning adults]

Family then factually is nothing more than what one or more individuals declare it to be-- based on their individual state of mind. The only facts are the biological ones-- which in and of themselves, are just as easily allowed to be declared not family, no? Individuals, who by natural selection are biologically linked, all factual, can then be one definition of family. Bringing to light a crucial question yet again: who has the Authority to define words? doG, even most Nations don't tred that far in Authority claims*. *[the exception being in cases legal; and an ever expanding realm at that]

This is akin to our toolbox having it's hammer in it. Ideas and parameters can mentally ie conceptually be attached to these core (biological) facts, of course. But to do so quickly shifts us off to both the wood+metal thingy AND the leather+dye thingy in our mental toolbox. Taken far enough, and family is also the widget-- to any and all who agree. To another rather than widget, it but a cult?!

Finely linked to this agreement consideration, comes an agreement of huge significance, which then gets it's own special word even: "culture". When enough, known ie "worded"/labeled as the majority, rule that a family is this, that, and the other, why the actions of the individuals mentally associated and boxed by those states of minds united, puts the Good Housekeeping Seal Of Approval on it and it's simply culture--- no, not a cult but culture. Wave the magic wand and cult isn't cult, it's culture. And the cultural norm. Any groups then who don't toe this mental line, this State of mind, risk being The Cult Of [in the present state of mental affairs, FDR].


In summary, by using the phrase the cult of the family, I am not saying all families are cults; I'm merely speaking of the cases where individuals with cultic states of mind, use the label family to justify their control needs, including their opinions and values.
By parallel, I'd counter that one can not rationally say FDR IS a cult. One may decide certain individuals, doing certain actions, are acting culty, but to say carte blanc any there (does "there" exist?) are the cult is akin to saying any member of a family is the cult.

Lastly, I generally admonish rejecting using the word cult. It's just too subjective, much less needlessly inherently derogatory and inflammatory. Why not just identify actions that one feels to be nonvaluable and address them one by one? My use of it, at least as my desired intent, is only in cases where other's use it dogmatically, so that my use of it is simply to reflect it back.

Thanks for considering my offer(s),
---eye2i2

2i2, (please ignore this dress of Dyl's that I'm prancing around in, it's rather comfy and I'm enjoying it for the moment...)

As usual, you are TOTALLY WRONG!

(That was just to get you on my good side so you'll listen to what I have to say before totally rejecting me. I hate rejection!)

Interestingly you make a claim, but then you suggest that it is an offering. But you state it in the form of a claim and produce a long chain of "proofs" defending it's validity. (Just holdin' up the mirror, dude, just holdin' up the mirror! )

I will make this suggestion. You proclaim/offer-up-for-consideration the idea that an idea, a concept, is not factually real whereas a hammer/shoe is. I will offer to you that the hammer/shoe is merely a pattern of energy, and so, most likely, is the concept. Differing patterns no doubt, but both only patterns when you get right down to it.

And this suggestion: that value is a real and measurable thing. Auntie Ayn (for all her faults) is responsible for showing me this bit of wisdom. I think that it is very easy to see that brocolli and rat poison fall at different places on the scale of value to the human life. Value is real and measurable if you know what it is that your references are. Now THAT may be a problem, of course...

Also, and this is too big to get into here, but "culture" really is something very tangible. I say this as a long time fan of Thomas Sowell's life work, that of studying culture. (I hasten to add that I am horrified by his recent decent into neocon faith, but that is another issue.) I offer for your consideration his book Migrations and Cultures. It is a fascinating study of just what it is that makes culture, and how amazingly robust it is against all assaults. It is a big book, and somewhat scholarly, but I found it simply fascinating and it has altered and made more rich my understanding of the world I live in. I recommend it to you.

Aside from these things, I think your post is quite valuable as a thought provoking and mind stirring tool.

- NonE

I never thought I'd see a person who's posts were longer or more meandering than mine. Nice work, eye.

Dyl...

Heh heh heh (You're dealing with a PRO there, be careful!)

- NonE

i2i2.. I get where you're going here to some degree and I think you are on to something ie: the cult of the family. Let's say cult isn't a 4 letter word and rather one state of relating. I would say you're correct and the family and the term cult can have alot of similarities.

Before my mind explodes and gets green goop all over the monitor....

"You're" has an apostophe in it unless it's an pronoun.

- NonE (returning you to your thoughtful and considered postings now...)

god damn rules...NonE... you're the last person I'd imagine to be bound by convention...

Bet you'd LIKE to see me bound, huh?

- NonE

the only things I like to see "bound" are worth reading LOL

I guess that the reason that certain rules make sense to me is so that when you BREAK them you are sending a message by breaking them. If there are no rules then how the hell can you tell WHAT someone is communicating? If sentences are not begun with Upper Case letters and terminated with appropriate terminators, then how the hell is the reader, who IS NOT IN YOUR HEAD supposed to know which words are part of what idea? Now, if you wanna (!) break some rulez for some reason, cool, go fer it! But just being fucking lazy and disrespectful of your audience is something else again.

- NonEnglishnazi...really...or maybenot.

Why would you take my poor grammar skills personally?
My inability to write correctly is not a reflection of my opinion of you or any reader for that matter. If my poor grammar renders your judgment of me or other poor grammar peeps as lazy; I suppose I can accept that as one man's assumption.

B.T.W....my reference above to the word "bound" was bound as in book.. implying ...book's are worth reading..and the only kind of binding I enjoy...ok..sheeshkanazi.

I think this addresses a key component of family as a cult:

Quote:

Unfortunately, the price of ethics is rather high these days, because most of our family and our companions which we have accidentally inherited are not - not virtuous, right? I mean this is the ABC, the Accidental Biological Cage - the reason why I chisel so hard at the innate virtue of the family, is that family is - absolutely accidental. If you were to ask just about any moralist throughout history, or in the modern world... to open the phonebook and point at a name - and then say that you now have to spend time with this person for the rest of your life, and you have to love them, and so on, well, of course, most people would say that the odds of you finding somebody who's really compatible with your values, and somebody who's really honorable, and somebody who's really virtuous and somebody who's really intelligent, or whatever the characteristics are that you look for in any kind of relationship, friend or lover or, whatever - the odds of you finding that person by pointing at a random name in a phonebook is ridiculous, and if you were to say that the whole world over, this is the, sort of, the phonebook is the whole world, then you'd say the odds go down even more, right?

--- podcast # 281, transcribed by desertrat

See my post in your other thread.