For the record, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with these approaches. We needed the Boomers when they came along and I'm glad they did. I liked the individual and spiritually free atmosphere I was raised in. I'm glad I was allowed to think and develop my own opinion, regardless of what any adults at that time wanted me to believe in. I also feel the same way about Xers, most of the musicians I listen to, shows I love, and comedians I enjoy, and are Xers.

Originally Posted by Felix5

I was on the debate team in high school and I was shocked by the poor reasoning and illogic used by my peers. Circular reasoning, appeal to tradition, appeal to popularity, denying the antecedent, affirming the consequent, post hoc ergo propter hoc, appeal to consequences, etc.

You can tell on a lot of messages boards-maybe not necessarily this one, but on many others. People just don't know how to debate in general and I think the Boomers really let that one go. As a child I wrote a lot of persuasive essays, but not once did I learn a single thing about debating until that college course I just told you about. This really says something because not everyone goes to college, especially in this economy, and Philosophy courses are not always required for certain majors. Especially not the one I took, which was Philosophy 201. I think to prophet archetypes, or rather Boomers in particular, debating to them is simply convincing your opponent to agree with you. So Xers and Yers have had to learn how to debate completely on their own. Perhaps that's why rationalism and secularism appeal to our archetypes more. I also think the silents were taught by the last nomads and civics (GIs and Lost) how to debate properly, who in turn learned to debate by simply reacting to the missionary's passion and zeal politicking. I wonder how the Boomers were taught, it would be interesting to hear from some of them.

And something I have noticed is that Boomers in general are really bad when it comes to others criticizing them, it's impossible to criticize them without them taking it as a personal attack, they have merged their sense-of-self with their ideas, and this criticism of their ideas is taken as attack on themselves as a person.

These archetypes are not supposed to be about individual people, you're not supposed to take individual people you know and connect them to the archetypes. You're supposed to analyze the mass reactions and trends of ages groups in relation to history, the present, and the future. Sometimes the archetype of the mass, can actually be the opposite of the individuals involved. For example, the silents were always seen as incredibly conformist, but this is such a mass response. It's also so physical. Were all GIs, robotic and cold? How can anyone possibly know what went on inside of their minds? How they felt about situations? Scholars can only analyze how they reacted and acted to situations. Not what they felt or were thinking on the inside. What they did in their private lives and spare time. In their spare time, silents were creative people and yet were ladened with the stereotype conformist. It's hardly descriptive at all of individuals. That's not what generation theory is for anyway.

Originally Posted by Felix5

I should point out that this was a philosophy class, but the teacher made it so objective to the point where I was suddenly struck with the realization that philosophy was not idealistic in the slightest. Yet I had always believed it to be as it was portrayed in such a light in the 90s by Boomers and early Xers to an extent (or possibly the Boomers perverted version of young Xer adults in the 90s)

It could be that, in philosophy at least, Boomers were aware (and not always just because of who taught them) of the fact that objective reasoning alone is not a sufficient means of discerning truth. That is why many Boomer portrayed philosophy in that light, because that is their experience of it, and this not a "perversion" as you seem to think. But it could mean, maybe, that Boomers do look upon reasoning as more a method of persuasion, because that's often all that it CAN be. Just what it is that one is to be persuaded to, might be found elsewhere. Philosophy, though it has a central core of "reason," consists also of other approaches, such as (but not limited to) phenomenology, and symbolic analogy. It is also informed by mystic experiences, scientific data, and for some more conservative prophets at least, theological and moral beliefs.

But that too is overgeneralization. Many Boomers practice objective reasoning, and are not just moral idealists. Many Xers also have mystic experiences, and many rely on pragmatically-useful approaches and experimental attitudes to form their opinions.

The problem of many Boomers is stubborn adherence to a self-righteous or arrogant attitude. For some this is based on their moral ideals, and for others it is just ingrained emotionalism due to the intense controversy they grew up in. The potential of Boomers and other prophets is visionary wisdom, the ability to see future possibilities and lay out visions and the larger picture. Theorists, and inventors, as well as missionaries, fit the prophet profile. If we can only look at the Boomers and see the arrogant moralistic missionary side, and not the wise visionary side (as seems often the case today), then we will be unable to pass the fourth turning to the other side of a better future. Without vision the people perish. We need ideals and roadmaps, and even zealous leadership has its place.

And something I have noticed is that Boomers in general are really bad when it comes to others criticizing them, it's impossible to criticize them without them taking it as a personal attack, they have merged their sense-of-self with their ideas, and this criticism of their ideas is taken as attack on themselves as a person.


Well no one likes criticism, I certainly don't enjoy it.

Obviously we can't speak for individuals, but as a mass criticism is rarely tolerated by the Boomer age group. Actually it's very evident with the Joneser age group in particular. They loath criticism, take Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman for example. They constantly make cries of sexism anytime someone criticizes them. When you see democrats and Republicans debating, they have a tendency to attack each other constantly. Their response to criticism is usually a response of attacking their opponent in an attempt to paralyze. And it's a response directed at masses of people, "progressives are evil socialists" and "Republicans are racist" etc...

Originally Posted by Felix5

It's a given that Prophets are known for their fire and brimstone approach to politics and spirituality, their energy and moralizing. Of course not every person in this generation is like that, but as a mass, the Boomers have already proven that they are this archetype.

I would also question too limited a description of an archetype, such as your description of prophets.

For example, I always Christopher Hitchens was extremely rational and composed in response to a great deal of people in his age group. Regardless of what his opinions are, his style of debating is cool and collected while expressing them in the manner of a debate.

I've watched him quite a bit. I don't consider him particularly cool and collected; probably less so than his usual opponents. I enjoy his humor and he is articulate. His point of view is very parochial.

Originally Posted by Felix5

Obviously we can't speak for individuals, but as a mass criticism is rarely tolerated by the Boomer age group. Actually it's very evident with the Joneser age group in particular. They loath criticism, take Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman for example. They constantly make cries of sexism anytime someone criticizes them. When you see democrats and Republicans debating, they have a tendency to attack each other constantly. Their response to criticism is usually a response of attacking their opponent in an attempt to paralyze. And it's a response directed at masses of people, "progressives are evil socialists" and "Republicans are racist" etc...[/INDENT]

Democrats and Republicans do not consist entirely of Boomers, by a long shot. Palin is not one.

The problem with our politics is not primarily the personalities or psychologies of the people involved, in my opinion. It is that our politics is frozen in ideology.

It is also informed by mystic experiences, scientific data, and for some more conservative prophets at least, theological and moral beliefs.

Right, you had me until about here. Mystic experiences? I'm not entirely certain what that means. I do generally agree that philosophy is partially a mixture of emotion and objectivity, but at the same time I only perceived philosophy to be a purely emotional thing. That was because Boomers taught us that by the example they set. perhaps they did realize what they were doing, but they were surprisingly awful philosophers.

My first experience with "what philosophy" was came from my silent English teacher from high school, who taught us that enlightenment could not be taught, it must be experienced. This was because we were reading Siddhartha by Herman Hesse in that particular class. I'm not sure if this book was Boomer pressed or Silent pressed, but it was a good book establishing the basic principles of a spiritual journey. However, what it did not do was teach me how to be a philosopher. A part of that journey has to be about seeing both objectivity and emotions. Of course the emotional part, in my opinion, is less important than firmly understanding the world around you before you leap in and make a decision. For Boomers, when they came of age, it was clearly a different story.

You are correct that Prophets are supposed to be visionaries, but right now I believe they are still in their awkward mid-life stage. The mid life stage is filled with the excessive moralizing and stagnant politicking that dominates a great deal of their political career. I mean if you look at how awful the missionaries were as politicians, it's a miracle FDR was ever elected in the first place. People were really sick of the missionaries after their term was done. However, they did, indeed, appreciate the wise, grey champion FDR and his brilliant grand visions for the future.

Democrats and Republicans do not consist entirely of Boomers, by a long shot. Palin is not one.

The problem with our politics is not primarily the personalities or psychologies of the people involved, in my opinion. It is that our politics is frozen in ideology.

Palin would technically be considered a cohort of the Joneser, which is a sub category of Boomers and early Xers. Apparently from this definition they appear to have developed their own personality, they connect with both Boomers and Xers and yet neither at the same time...by some definitions people would consider Palin a boomer. I actually don't consider her one. I think Jonesers are an interesting group in general. They definitely seem to follow the spiritual and philosophical tendencies of Boomers, considering how many born again religions they end up belonging to. A lot of them were a part of the lyric censorship movement of the 90s and probably voted for Reagan in large numbers. They're surprisingly very religious group of people. I believe S&H wrote about this in generations, about the late Boomers, early Xers being the more religious side of the prophet archetype.

I completely agree with your point, the problem really is the stagnant path politics has taken. This, I think, has to do with the addition of the Xers in politics and positions of power. However, let's be realistic, the problems did not start there, Xers simply added their own problems.

I would also question too limited a description of an archetype, such as your description of prophets.


I'm simply summarizing S&H here when it comes to Prophet archetypes overall. Although I have never read any book on Boomer prophets. They are known for their passion, that is what I meant. Spirituality is one of the key components they make advances in. Religion, values, and vision, that is what S&H describe, so take it up with them. Of course, where would the prophets be without their passionate approach in particular during the awakening?

I enjoy his humor and he is articulate. His point of view is very parochial.

He has a very dry attitude and humor about everything, I also enjoy his stoic responses to his otherwise blubbering and passionate opponents. By the way, it stinks that he has cancer. I was going to send him a mixed cd of classical tunes (since he discussed his despair and fear of losing his losing his ability to be intellectual if the cancer became that bad) but I have no idea where to send a get well note or anything.

Originally Posted by Felix5

Right, you had me until about here. Mystic experiences? I'm not entirely certain what that means. I do generally agree that philosophy is partially a mixture of emotion and objectivity, but at the same time I only perceived philosophy to be a purely emotional thing. That was because Boomers taught us that by the example they set. perhaps they did realize what they were doing, but they were surprisingly awful philosophers.

I don't know who you mean by awful philosophers. You mean your teachers? Personally I know a lot of wonderful Boomer philosophers, but that's my opinion.

My first experience with "what philosophy" was came from my silent English teacher from high school, who taught us that enlightenment could not be taught, it must be experienced. This was because we were reading Siddhartha by Herman Hesse in that particular class. I'm not sure if this book was Boomer pressed or Silent pressed, but it was a good book establishing the basic principles of a spiritual journey. However, what it did not do was teach me how to be a philosopher.

Your Siddhartha teaching is a good example of "mystic experiences," but it's true that's not enough to be a philosopher.

A part of that journey has to be about seeing both objective, and responding to it emotionally. Of course the emotional part, in my opinion, is less important firmly understanding the world around you before you leap in a make a decision. For Boomers, when they came of age, it was clearly a different story.

Boomers jumped in to embrace a lot of causes. Did they not understand what was really happening? I tend to think they knew better than their parents. What they didn't do well was present themselves is a cool and rational manner; quite the opposite! Part of that is their circumstances, which shaped the generation; part of that is just being young.

You are correct that Prophets are supposed to be visionaries, but right now I believe they are still in their awkward mid-life stage. The mid life stage is filled with the excessive moralizing and stagnant politicking that dominates a great deal of their political career. I mean if you look at how awful the missionaries were as politicians, it's a miracle FDR was ever elected in the first place. People were really sick of the missionaries after their term was done. However, they did, indeed, appreciate the wise, grey champion FDR and his brilliant grand visions for the future.

It's time for Boomers to move on from that mid-life stage. But Boomers are a divided generation. Boehner doesn't speak for all Boomers!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

What appeals to me about his "holistic" approach, is that it squares with the nature of reality as I experience it.

Whereas I believe that there is no one approach, whether single as single approaches now exist, or blends of qualities of multiple approaches, that can, by itself, describe "reality" in all of the ways it is experienced. That's not what science is for, it's not what spirituality is for, it's not what art is for, and it's not what values are for. Science is for answering objective questions of fact about the observable world, not for describing all of reality. Spirituality is for opening the doors of awareness and developing direct experience of the self and the cosmos, not for describing all of reality. Art is for creating metaphorical/visual/non-rational images of perception and ideas, not for describing all of reality. Values are for deciding the way things ought to be and the way we ought to behave, not for describing all of reality.

In fact, I don't believe that "all of reality" can even be described.

The world does not consist of separate compartments, but is one whole with different aspects.

But the world, although it is one whole, DOES consist of separate compartments. The existence of separate compartments is one of those aspects.

However, what it really comes down to is tools designed for particular purposes. That's not even really dividing the world into separate compartments, so much as insisting that one should not use a hacksaw to tune a piano.

So in fact science and spirituality are approaches to the same question, because it is the same world or reality that is asked about.

No, the fact that it is the same "world or reality" does NOT mean that the questions asked are the same. They are different questions asked about the same reality. Consider an apple. Consider the questions: "What color is the apple?" and "How much does the apple weigh?" Are these questions about the same thing, the same apple? Yes. But are they the same question? No.

Science and spirituality do not define two different realities. They are different approaches to the same reality, for different purposes, achieving parallel results. They can even be pursued more or less at the same time by the same person, but nonetheless they are not the same purpose or action, and neither can replace the other.

I would say that these two approaches take us in different directions, and in fact these two directions are opposites.

Hmm. I don't think that anyone who has practiced both spirituality and science would agree with that. I know I don't. In fact, it's happened before that scientific discoveries and the development of scientific theory have served as a door to enlightenment, and also that spiritual techniques and insights have led to scientific breakthroughs. So they're not really completely insulated from each other. Just the same, each has its own purpose which is not the purpose of the other, and each has its own methods which are not the methods of the other, even if on occasion they can lend each other a hand.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Whereas I believe that there is no one approach, whether single as single approaches now exist, or blends of qualities of multiple approaches, that can, by itself, describe "reality" in all of the ways it is experienced. That's not what science is for, it's not what spirituality is for, it's not what art is for, and it's not what values are for. Science is for answering objective questions of fact about the observable world, not for describing all of reality. Spirituality is for opening the doors of awareness and developing direct experience of the self and the cosmos, not for describing all of reality. Art is for creating metaphorical/visual/non-rational images of perception and ideas, not for describing all of reality. Values are for deciding the way things ought to be and the way we ought to behave, not for describing all of reality.

In fact, I don't believe that "all of reality" can even be described.

That is true. A holistic approach seems to me the best, according to how I experience reality, but not ALL of reality (that would be a neat trick if I could pull it off. I'll let you know when I succeed )

But the world, although it is one whole, DOES consist of separate compartments. The existence of separate compartments is one of those aspects.

However, what it really comes down to is tools designed for particular purposes. That's not even really dividing the world into separate compartments, so much as insisting that one should not use a hacksaw to tune a piano.

Yeah, I just don't go with using the hacksaw to cut the world into separate compartments (or conceive it as such).

neither can replace the other.

I agree.

Hmm. I don't think that anyone who has practiced both spirituality and science would agree with that. I know I don't. In fact, it's happened before that scientific discoveries and the development of scientific theory have served as a door to enlightenment, and also that spiritual techniques and insights have led to scientific breakthroughs. So they're not really completely insulated from each other. Just the same, each has its own purpose which is not the purpose of the other, and each has its own methods which are not the methods of the other, even if on occasion they can lend each other a hand.

Indeed, not insulated from each other, because opposites are not separate, but interdependent.

Originally Posted by Odin

IMO this is something everyone should learn starting in elementary school and through high school. We would be a much better society if we did so, more immune to propaganda, advertisements, and spin.

I was on the debate team in high school and I was shocked by the poor reasoning and illogic used by my peers. Circular reasoning, appeal to tradition, appeal to popularity, denying the antecedent, affirming the consequent, post hoc ergo propter hoc, appeal to consequences, etc.

First, Trivium.

Then, Quadrivium.

Prince

PS:Our current environment:Tedium...Ad Nauseum!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yeah, I just don't go with using the hacksaw to cut the world into separate compartments (or conceive it as such).

Logic makes a better tool for that. But you're dodging, friend.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Logic makes a better tool for that. But you're dodging, friend.

Using different tools for different purposes makes sense to me, as far as I know. The tool you use makes a big difference in what you come up with.

There's a logical consequence to saying that science and spirituality are "taking people in opposite directions." If that's true, then it follows that they can't be pursued simultaneously, because we can't go two opposite directions at once. We should, in that case, examine where/what direction each is taking people, decide which we prefer, choose the approach that takes us that direction, and reject the other.

In fact, science and spirituality aren't going opposite directions at all; each is going towards a different kind or expression of truth, and if there is an opposite of either of them it is dogmatic religion: the enemy of truth. Dogmatic religion is about belief. But spirituality and science are about knowledge. Knowledge and belief are opposed. Those who believe in God will never know God until in the knowing they abandon their beliefs. Those with fixed beliefs about the objective world, such as creationists, are incapable of examining evidence with scientific objectivity. One cannot be a dogmatic believer and either a spiritual person or a good scientist. But one can be a spiritual person and a good scientist without any problem at all.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

There's a logical consequence to saying that science and spirituality are "taking people in opposite directions." If that's true, then it follows that they can't be pursued simultaneously, because we can't go two opposite directions at once. We should, in that case, examine where/what direction each is taking people, decide which we prefer, choose the approach that takes us that direction, and reject the other.

Depends on the situation, and what you are trying to do. For example, Yes, if you have a specific question which one method can answer and the other does not. No, if your goal is to develop holistic ideas on how various aspects of life and reality inter-relate to each other.

In fact, science and spirituality aren't going opposite directions at all; each is going towards a different kind or expression of truth, and if there is an opposite of either of them it is dogmatic religion: the enemy of truth. Dogmatic religion is about belief. But spirituality and science are about knowledge. Knowledge and belief are opposed. Those who believe in God will never know God until in the knowing they abandon their beliefs. Those with fixed beliefs about the objective world, such as creationists, are incapable of examining evidence with scientific objectivity. One cannot be a dogmatic believer and either a spiritual person or a good scientist. But one can be a spiritual person and a good scientist without any problem at all.

Enemies of truth don't fit my idea of "opposite," though they fit yours. Enemies of truth are not even on the playing field. I guess that means I agree with you, except on my use of the word opposite.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Depends on the situation, and what you are trying to do. For example, Yes, if you have a specific question which one method can answer and the other does not. No, if your goal is to develop holistic ideas on how various aspects of life and reality inter-relate to each other.

It doesn't depend on anything, and your example has no relevance to the question at all. You stated that science and spirituality are "opposites," that they take us in "opposite directions." If you don't have a specific question that one answers and the other doesn't, then the question of whether or not they are opposites simply doesn't arise.

But I disagree in any case. "What is the dynamic that describes a quasar?" is an (unanswered so far) scientific question. "What is my true identity behind the mask of my limited personality?" is a spiritual question. The first question can't be answered with spiritual methods, nor the second with scientific methods, but that doesn't mean that the pursuit of the answers is taking one in opposite directions. One can even do both more or less at the same time, if one is an astronomer and a mystic both.

Enemies of truth don't fit my idea of "opposite," though they fit yours. Enemies of truth are not even on the playing field. I guess that means I agree with you, except on my use of the word opposite.

Well, in that case you are using the word "opposite" in an idiosyncratic manner and probably should choose another word that actually means what you intend by it. Clearly, "opposite" does not.

I think whether science and spirituality are opposites is probably an idiosyncratic question. It seems to me you are saying they involve different methods of inquiry, with which I don't disagree.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I think whether science and spirituality are opposites is probably an idiosyncratic question.

LOL well, maybe it would help if you explain what you mean by "opposite."

It seems to me you are saying they involve different methods of inquiry, with which I don't disagree.

A bit more than that. I'm also saying that these different methods of inquiry are appropriate to different questions. The questions pertain to the same reality, but they are distinct areas of thought that don't conflict; when it's believed that they do conflict, one or the other has been misunderstood. And again, the real conflict is between either one and dogma.

Let me expand this a little further. I think we can identify four legitimate modes of inquiry: science, spirituality, art/aesthetics, and ethics/morality. I would submit that dogma is the foe of all four. It opposes science by ruling scientific questions answered and forbidding free exploration. It's the enemy of spirituality by defining God and/or the soul and calling the quest for enlightenment heresy. It's the enemy of art because it demands the servitude of art to power. And it's the enemy of morality because it insists on arbitrary answers to moral questions and forbids the evolution of values as circumstances change.

In general, it is the enemy of all free inquiry because it attempts to freeze our perception and awareness of reality into a fixed mold.

I don't know who you mean by awful philosophers. You mean your teachers? Personally I know a lot of wonderful Boomer philosophers, but that's my opinion.

I mean any Boomer politician who has attempted to discuss their philosophy and spitituality. I'm talking about my childhood exposure to "Boomer philosophy." These people just came off as radical and stupid to me. They basically taught me that philosophy was purely emotional and for years this became what I interpreted as philosophy. So going to college and learning the terms and how to debate with logic took me way off guard.

Your Siddhartha teaching is a good example of "mystic experiences," but it's true that's not enough to be a philosopher.

No it was my first exposure to any sort of philsophical thinking, schools did not delve into this when I attended in the 90s and early 00s. My only exposure was through literature and crazy Boomer politicians on television. How I ever managed to develop my own thoughts, the way Boomers discussed things on television, is still shocking to me. Just watch any kids' program from the late 80s to mid 90s, it's just laden with Boomer values messages.

Boomers jumped in to embrace a lot of causes. Did they not understand what was really happening? I tend to think they knew better than their parents. What they didn't do well was present themselves is a cool and rational manner; quite the opposite! Part of that is their circumstances, which shaped the generation; part of that is just being young.

I think their parents were just exhausted with causes by the end of their lives. I can imagine the late nomads, early civics grew up listening to nothing but the incessant ramblings of their missionary parents and elders and their spiritual and philosophical causes. The ultimate irony is that they would end up getting the same lectures from their very own children.

Actually, I think the Boomers were more affective when they were just hippies marching around the white house.

It's time for Boomers to move on from that mid-life stage. But Boomers are a divided generation. Boehner doesn't speak for all Boomers!


Hear hear, If I ever hear another goddamn lecture again it'll be too soon.

Originally Posted by Felix5

I don't know who you mean by awful philosophers. You mean your teachers? Personally I know a lot of wonderful Boomer philosophers, but that's my opinion.

I mean any Boomer politician who has attempted to discuss their philosophy and spitituality. I'm talking about my childhood exposure to "Boomer philosophy." These people just came off as radical and stupid to me. They basically taught me that philosophy was purely emotional and for years this became what I interpreted as philosophy. So going to college and learning the terms and how to debate with logic took me way off guard.

Wow, I wouldn't expect ANY politician to be a particularly good philosopher!

No it was my first exposure to any sort of philsophical thinking, schools did not delve into this when I attended in the 90s and early 00s. My only exposure was through literature and crazy Boomer politicians on television. How I ever managed to develop my own thoughts, the way Boomers discussed things on television, is still shocking to me. Just watch any kids' program from the late 80s to mid 90s, it's just laden with Boomer values messages.

What were "boomer values messages"?

I think their parents were just exhausted with causes by the end of their lives. I can imagine the late nomads, early civics grew up listening to nothing but the incessant ramblings of their missionary parents and elders and their spiritual and philosophical causes. The ultimate irony is that they would end up getting the same lectures from their very own children.

I don't know any Boomers with Missionary parents. But Boomers reacted mostly to the vapid and uninspiring culture around them, not to lectures from parents.

Actually, I think the Boomers were more effective when they were just hippies marching around the white house.

Probably

Boomers do love to pontificate.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

LOL well, maybe it would help if you explain what you mean by "opposite."

Well, earlier I talked about complementary pairs, different but interdependent. Opposites are all around us: male-female, black and white, dark and light, up and down, soft and hard, positive and negative charges, waves and particles, inner and outer, capitalists and communists, and I think spirit and matter, reason and feeling, classic and romantic, and science and spirituality, are also opposites of a similar kind.

A bit more than that. I'm also saying that these different methods of inquiry are appropriate to different questions. The questions pertain to the same reality, but they are distinct areas of thought that don't conflict; when it's believed that they do conflict, one or the other has been misunderstood. And again, the real conflict is between either one and dogma.

I put it that there are opposite but complementary fields of reality. Opposites don't have to conflict, because they are interdependent and each have something of the same within the other. Within physics, Neils Bohr called it the principle of complementarity. Taoism calls it yin and yang. In astrology it's like Virgo and Pisces, etc.

Let me expand this a little further. I think we can identify four legitimate modes of inquiry: science, spirituality, art/aesthetics, and ethics/morality.

I put ethics within the larger type of inquiry called philosophy, and agree.

I would submit that dogma is the foe of all four. It opposes science by ruling scientific questions answered and forbidding free exploration. It's the enemy of spirituality by defining God and/or the soul and calling the quest for enlightenment heresy. It's the enemy of art because it demands the servitude of art to power. And it's the enemy of morality because it insists on arbitrary answers to moral questions and forbids the evolution of values as circumstances change.

In general, it is the enemy of all free inquiry because it attempts to freeze our perception and awareness of reality into a fixed mold.

Nothing to disagree with there (sorry! )

I was talking about the late Lost/early GI and their parents, not the Boomers. lol.

What were "boomer values messages"?


Pretty typical culture war stuff, "family values," abstinence, environmental concern, etc...the interesting thing is that all of this stuff was presented to us as an appeal to our emotions. For example, Ferngully. "can't you hear its pain?" Dear god, so it's not enough to actually just help the environment, I'm supposed to feel sorry for it? I'm supposed to feel sympathy for a damn tree? Whoa, that's just strange. (and I totally do feel sympathy for trees now...damn!) It's just little things like that, Captain Planet and any show on TGIF were the worst for that sort of thing.