--- In [email protected], "L B Shriver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Response below: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "L B Shriver" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > > > Here is the context: > > > > > > > > > And most victims of incest, by the way, are young > > > > > > girls, not adult women. > > > > > > True enough, except that the "incest" we have been discussing in > > > this thread is the variety known as "spiritual incest" (a term > > > which you have argued against previously in this thread, if I > > > recall correctly). > > > > Right. That most victims of incest are young children > > rather than adults is yet another reason why the term > > "spiritual incest" is inappropriate. > > > > > > If I may be permitted a small digression: the term "spiritual > > > incest" cannot be correctly understood by exactly parsing its > > > constituents. It has a special meaning which applies most > > > clearly in the cult context. You have argued against its > > > application here based on your parsing, including the argument > > > quoted above regarding the ages of the victims. > > > > No, actually what I've been arguing is that > > borrowing the term "incest" for that phrase acts > > as a thought-stopper, invoking the reaction of > > horror and disgust people normally have to incest > > in a very different kind of situation to which > > that kind of reaction may be inappropriate. > > > > It's an example of using emotionally loaded > > language to bypass the critical thinking process. > > > > Rather than responding to what you go on to say, > > I'll just refer you to the quotes from my > > contributions to the alt.m.t discussion I posted > > earlier, which address your points directly. > > > > <snip> > > > Another small digression: Many people have commented in this > > > forum that they think MMY's alleged infractions amount to "no > > > big deal". However, for the reasons I have referred to above, > > > such abuses are universally condemned in civil society. > > > > As well they should be. > > > > However, I'd suggest that the degree and intensity > > of the condemnation should probably *not* be > > universal; some instances of such behavior are > > distinctly worse than others, so it makes sense to > > consider them on a case-by-case basis. > > > > Which is another reason why I object to the "spiritual > > incest" phrase. It tends to evoke the same intensity > > of revulsion to *all* such instances, when it may not > > be at all appropriate for some of them. > > > > > This is the context in which our discussion is relevant. Your > > > point about the ages of the victims applies to "ordinary" > > > incest, not the variety we are dealing with here. > > > > Yes, that *was* my point. The intensity of the > > reaction to incest is at least partly a function > > of the fact that the victims of incest are > > physically and psychologically so vulnerable. > > > > Not that victims of sexual abuse by spiritual > > teachers are not also vulnerable, but there are > > significant differences in the *nature* of their > > vulnerability, among other reasons because they're > > typically much older. > > > > Consider the difference in the reaction to a > > father having sex with his adult daughter, and > > a father having sex with his 12-year-old daughter. > > There are common elements, but there are also > > marked differences. The term "spiritual incest" > > fuzzes over those differences. > > > > I'd be pleased to continue this discussion with > > you if you're so inclined, but again I'd ask that > > you read my earlier post so you have a better idea > > of what my arguments are without my having to > > repeat myself to set you straight on the context. > > > &&&&&&&& > > I do not feel that I have misunderstood the context, nor do I think > it would be useful to delve into your alt. postings to understand > it "better".
Even after I explained to you how you'd already managed to get several things wrong about my argument. OK. > You have made it clear that you do not feel the term "spiritual > incest" is appropriate. You have parsed it to show your reasoning. > I am saying that the term has been accepted in popular usage and > that its meaning is altogether different than what one would get by > parsing its constituents; the whole is greater than, or at least > different from, the sum of the parts. Yes, I understand all that. > You regard it as a "thought stopper", while the majority of those > who use it might regard it as a "thought facilitator", ie, a > vehicle for encouraging one to think about the kind of > authority which is being abused in the relationship. Which, of course, involves *parsing* it. "Incest" is the component of the phrase that characterizes the kind of authority that is being abused in the relationship. If there were no parsing involved, you might as well call it "spiritual globbing." It's the association with incest that gives the phrase what utility it has. I understand why it's used. I understand its perceived utility; it's really pretty obvious. It calls attention to a common element between incest and sexual exploitation by a spiritual teacher. I understand that the phrase means something different than "incest" alone. None of that is at issue. But you haven't addressed any of my objections to it, even those I outlined again for you above, much less the more detailed versions in my previous post, which, as I said, directly addressed your reasons for finding the phrase an appropriate one. If you can't be bothered, fine, but if you aren't going to address my arguments, there isn't much point in continuing this discussion, is there? ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
