--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer <groups@> wrote: > > > > on 8/4/06 5:02 PM, authfriend at jstein@ wrote: > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife% > 40yahoogroups.com> > > > , Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > Unless there is some reason you distrust Rick's judgement-- and > > >> > many firm believers *may not even believe it if they hear it from > > >> > one of the women who was subjected to the spiritual incest* > > > > > > Now, there's a loaded term for ya. > > > > > An apt one IMO. A guru should be a trusted father/mother figure. At > > least that¹s the traditional view. > > And MMY, as we all know, is certainly a traditional > guru. <snort> > > No, sorry. The term invokes the very powerful incest > taboo to make sexual activity between a spiritual > teacher and a follower seem especially loathesome. > > Teachers in general, clergy, therapists, bosses in the > workplace, and political leaders are all "father/ > mother figures" in the same sense to those who have > close personal associations with them, yet you don't > hear anybody metaphorically referring to the equivalent > sexual activity as "incest." > > For that matter, one's spouse or lover may be a > "father/mother figure" (older men seduce younger > women, and vice versa, all the time), and nobody > calls that kind of sexual relationship "incest." > > As I wrote on alt.m.t awhile back when Vaj > attempted to introduce the term there: > > ----- > > There are two aspects to the incest taboo: one > is biological, the fact that the offspring of > incest are more likely to have defective genes, > which they then pass down to their own offspring. > In that sense, the incest taboo is a species survival > trait; we're hardwired to react negatively to it. > > The other aspect is purely social and has nothing > *whatsoever* to do with the biological aspect. The > social aspect involves the exploitation of an unequal > power relationship for selfish purposes and its > negative psychological consequences. As such, > of course, it is by no means unique to incestuous > relationships.
Like Bill's relationship to Monica? > > The notion of "spiritual incest" obviously trades > only on this second aspect, but it deceptively > invokes the instinctive biological revulsion of the > first aspect, when in fact that is completely > unrelated to the nature of the misbehavior. > > It's just deeply, deeply intellectually dishonest. > > ----- > > The effect of this kind of misuse of terms is > to reduce words that characterize a very specific and > particularly horrible kind of misbehavior to mean > "behavior I don't like." It *borrows* the horror of > the specific misbehavior in an attempt to legitimize > rabid condemnation of a very different level of > misbehavior--usually because one is primarily > interested in condemning the *individual* rather than > the behavior itself. > > It's a thoroughly dishonest thought-stopper, in other > words, which in this case aims to elicit the extreme > level of outrage associated with the incest taboo and > direct it at an individual who has not committed incest > at all, bypassing judicious critical thinking about the > actual behavior involved. > > Such behavior is reprehensible enough on its own terms. > Why the need to "borrow" an additional level of outrage > it does not merit? > > ----- > > I should point out that Vaj went so far as to > claim MMY was a "pervert" on the basis that he > engaged in "spiritual incest." That's even more > intellectually dishonest. > 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/
