The Sacred and the Profane

[truethat]

Here's a link to a site explaining it in more detail. And I'll pull out bits I think are interesting

http://www.hewett.norfolk.sch.uk/CURRIC/so...gion/funct3.htm

* 1. The "profane". This is the realm of routine experience, the secular, everyday world of work, toil and domestic duties. It is the sphere of adaptive behaviour, and is essentially utilitarian.

* 2. The "sacred". This is the realm of human experience that is residual to, and other than, this work-a-day sphere. It lays somewhere beyond the profane sphere, and evokes an attitude of awe and reverence. Durkheim saw seven main characteristics of

Durkheim saw seven main characteristics of the sacred:-

* a) a recognition of a belief, or power, or force.

* there is an ambiguity of power. Sacred things are both physical and moral, positive and negative, helpful and dangerous.

* c) 'non-utilitarian' - work is utility and everyday but the sacred is beyond the everyday.

* d) non-empirical - the sacred is beyond empirical nature.

* e) it does not involve knowledge - it is not based on knowledge from the 5 senses.

* f) it is "supportive and strength giving" - it raises the individual above himself/herself.

* g) it impinges on human consciousness with moral obligation, and an ethical imperative, and elicits intense respect.

Durkheim never asked what lay behind religious ritual and worship, the attitudes of awe and reverence. Lurking behind all these symbols, Durkheim saw the group itself - society - "God is the deification of society" and religion is "the sacrilisation of society's requirements for human behaviour." Society, to Durkheim, was greater than the individual and it gave him/her strength and support and made things possible and meaningful. The worship of God is the disguised worship of Society, the great entity upon which the individual depends.

When we look at the difference between traditional societies and the society of the individual we see that in many cases the "sacred" offers a form of inclusion and safety. Whereas the profane offers the world of the individual which is also a world of aloneness. So which trade off are you willing to make? Which is more important to you personally?

Errrr......could one of the mods please edit the title of the thread. Thanks.

Edited September 19, 2007 by truethat

[+Sherapy]

Here's a link to a site explaining it in more detail. And I'll pull out bits I think are interesting

http://www.hewett.norfolk.sch.uk/CURRIC/so...gion/funct3.htm

When we look at the difference between traditional societies and the society of the individual we see that in many cases the "sacred" offers a form of inclusion and safety. Whereas the profane offers the world of the individual which is also a world of aloneness. So which trade off are you willing to make? Which is more important to you personally?

the paradigms of the sacred and profane...True it is obvious that the sacred creates dependency, and teaches a seperation from all things including each other..

Ask this question Are you equal to god????

for starters....

the profane teaches interdependency and teaches that all of life is connected and congruent to the whole, one may disagree with dogmatic paradignms but they would seek to be all inclusive regardless it would carry no strings either....

Edited September 19, 2007 by Supra Sheri

[truethat]

the paradigms of the sacred and profane...True it is obvious that the sacred creates dependency, and teaches a seperation from all things including each other..

Ask this question Are you equal to god????

for starters....

the profane teaches interdependency and teaches that all of life is connected and congruent to the whole, one may disagree with dogmatic paradignms but they would seek to be all inclusive regardless it would carry no strings either....

Your first two statements seem to contradict each other. Would you care to offer some sort of example or allegory to explain what you mean?

The profane according to the definition in the OP would be like The US Public School system. I've never seen you suggest that the public school system teaching interdependency and ones place in the system is a good thing.

Does it depend on the system to you? Would a Capitalistic system be a good example of profane to you?

To me it is not.

But at the same time how many of us rely on the systems in the society which we don't like, to run the basics of our lives while we mouth off about our own personal sophistication?

Hmmmm

[+Sherapy]

Your first two statements seem to contradict each other. Would you care to offer some sort of example or allegory to explain what you mean?

The profane according to the definition in the OP would be like The US Public School system. I've never seen you suggest that the public school system teaching interdependency and ones place in the system is a good thing.

Does it depend on the system to you? Would a Capitalistic system be a good example of profane to you?

To me it is not.

But at the same time how many of us rely on the systems in the society which we don't like, to run the basics of our lives while we mouth off about our own personal sophistication?

Hmmmm

sacred say religon, profane say secular....and how one experinces it ... I experince the secuar as spiritual, you are gonna have to account for humanness here....

capatilism is sacred/relgious to me..maybe you should change the words to be clearer as to what it is you are looking for......

I have a question for you true, obviously you are a bright lady why not come from there why the articles??? is this something new for you i actaully prefered off the cuff ,true, bare and brash.....

Gosh you have never had an issue drawing a crowd ..i intend no rudness its jsut confusing to me...LOL

Edited September 20, 2007 by Supra Sheri

[truethat]

Hmmm maybe you should read it again, its pretty simply honey.

Durkheim saw seven main characteristics of the sacred:-

* a) a recognition of a belief, or power, or force.

* cool.gif there is an ambiguity of power. Sacred things are both physical and moral, positive and negative, helpful and dangerous.

* c) 'non-utilitarian' - work is utility and everyday but the sacred is beyond the everyday.

* d) non-empirical - the sacred is beyond empirical nature.

* e) it does not involve knowledge - it is not based on knowledge from the 5 senses.

* f) it is "supportive and strength giving" - it raises the individual above himself/herself.

* g) it impinges on human consciousness with moral obligation, and an ethical imperative, and elicits intense respect.

could you explain how the Capitalistic Society or the public school system "raise the individual above himself/herself"

and how they are "beyond the everyday"

I'm sorry but the examples you are giving are backwards. Perhaps you don't understand the meaning. Try reading it again.

Edited September 20, 2007 by truethat

[+Sherapy]

Hmmm maybe you should read it again, its pretty simply honey.

Durkheim saw seven main characteristics of the sacred:-

* a) a recognition of a belief, or power, or force.

* cool.gif there is an ambiguity of power. Sacred things are both physical and moral, positive and negative, helpful and dangerous.

* c) 'non-utilitarian' - work is utility and everyday but the sacred is beyond the everyday.

* d) non-empirical - the sacred is beyond empirical nature.

* e) it does not involve knowledge - it is not based on knowledge from the 5 senses.

* f) it is "supportive and strength giving" - it raises the individual above himself/herself.

* g) it impinges on human consciousness with moral obligation, and an ethical imperative, and elicits intense respect.

could you explain how the Capitalistic Society or the public school system "raise the individual above himself/herself"

and how they are "beyond the everyday"

I'm sorry but the examples you are giving are backwards. Perhaps you don't understand the meaning. Try reading it again.

thats what i thought with you, lol backwards...

anyways frick it I'm too lazy to re- read it..

i think capitalism makes good consumers, and greed for starters... and the school system makes robots or sheep who agree to it...

[truethat]

I have a question for you true, obviously you are a bright lady why not come from there why the articles??? is this something new for you i actaully prefered off the cuff ,true, bare and brash.....Gosh you have never had an issue drawing a crowd ..i intend no rudness its jsut confusing to me...LOL

What do you mean Sheri? Why do the articles threaten you? Its easy to just skip things if you feel uncomfortable dealing with them.And why all the articles, basically because I like seeing how other people think rather than isolating myself in my own protection constructs.Its interesting and OK with me to explore ideas that I don't understand very well or to challenge my own hypocrisy.What does the "you have never had an issue drawing a crowd?" comment mean? Is it because people haven't been commenting about the latest posts that I've thrown out there?Eh, you win some you lose some.

thats what i thought with you, lol backwards...anyways frick it I'm too lazy to re- read it.. i think capitalism makes good consumers, and greed for starters... and the school system makes robots or sheep who agree to it...

NO that's right. That's considered the profane by Durkheim. You've got it.

[+Sherapy]

What do you mean Sheri? Why do the articles threaten you? Its easy to just skip things if you feel uncomfortable dealing with them.And why all the articles, basically because I like seeing how other people think rather than isolating myself in my own protection constructs.Its interesting and OK with me to explore ideas that I don't understand very well or to challenge my own hypocrisy.What does the "you have never had an issue drawing a crowd?" comment mean? Is it because people haven't been commenting about the latest posts that I've thrown out there?Eh, you win some you lose some. NO that's right. That's considered the profane by Durkheim. You've got it.

I am asking true, and you have answered, i noticed you had made a change, and wow what a great idea...

the drawing a crowd wasn't a slap, it was sort of a compliment for two who disagree with each other yet read everything the other posts LOL

who the hell is durkheim ???? LOL who is this person i should consider his opinion lol... jsut messing with you...

great and candid and honest psot as your other ones today.. very enjoyable reads....

Edited September 20, 2007 by Supra Sheri

[truethat]

Ok you mention a change.

Let me say for example that I experienced a heirophany with a person on this site, that drew me close to what is holy. The experience is ineffable and felt sublime and truly touched me in the soul. I felt as though in reaching blindly out to the great abyss that as Nietzsche would point out, the abyss touched me back.

In this, perhaps the concept of God made more sense to me. We live in the profane and the answers of the profane create a conflict. I can no more disregard the experiences of those who believe in God than I can reject color because I can not see. What is not clear to me no longer ceases to exist.

This is a simple stage of development in small children, and its interesting to see it played out in adults who think that things don't exist if they can't see them.

The word "hierophany" derives from The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion by Mircea Eliade. This word etymologically breaks down into "hiero" (meaning "sacred") and "-phany" (meaning "manifestation" or "appearance"). Eliade defines a hierophany when he writes: "Man becomes aware of the sacred because it manifests itself, shows itself, as something wholly different from the profane. To designate the act of manifestation of the sacred, we have proposed the term hierophany. It is a fitting term, because it does not imply anything further; it expresses no more than is implicit in its etymological content, i.e., that something sacred shows itself to us. [. . .] In each case we are confronted by the same mysterious act—the manifestation of something of a wholly different order, a reality that does not belong to our world, in objects that are an integral part of our natural ‘profane’ world” (11).

whoops source

http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~howard/314lspring2005/eliade.htm

Edited September 20, 2007 by truethat

[+Sherapy]

Ok you mention a change.

Let me say for example that I experienced a heirophany with a person on this site, that drew me close to what is holy. The experience is ineffable and felt sublime and truly touched me in the soul. I felt as though in reaching blindly out to the great abyss that as Nietzsche would point out, the abyss touched me back.

In this, perhaps the concept of God made more sense to me. We live in the profane and the answers of the profane create a conflict. I can no more disregard the experiences of those who believe in God than I can reject color because I can not see. What is not clear to me no longer ceases to exist.

This is a simple stage of development in small children, and its interesting to see it played out in adults who think that things don't exist if they can't see them.

whoops source

http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~howard/314lspring2005/eliade.htm

thanks for the define, as I would of had to look it up....

I am truly happy for you that you have found what you have been looking for....this is not BS either for all the naysayers, many have found their path on UM and are better for it....i did too once upon a time....and friends that touch your heart... regardless of relgion we can all identify with this.....

You seem to be much more clear, keeping in mind this is the net and little can be derived, yet somehow a peace seems to come off of you...

i don't know who said this but i thought you may like it "truth comes most easily out of error then confusion"

I have many 'religious' friends who seem to excude this sort of essence, the construct is lucky to have you.....

[momentarylapseofreason]

I'm not impressed much with the fruits of religion and while I agree with some Durkheim's theories and observations ,I feel that in this age and with our knowledge that we do not need religion.We don't need capitalism either.

Religion has brought alot of good and bad-like Egg said :a two-edged sword.

But for me religion is a lie,so naturally it's difficult for me to tolerate.

I find it sad that society is held together by lies.It reminds me of Santa Claus coersion -so that your kids will behave better-year round

But that's just me and my opinion.

I would not outlaw religion that would be god-like behaviour. LOL !

I am a humanist. I believe we havean AMAZING potential to better this world.

But before humanism we only had religion.

Did the sciences give birth to humanism ?

Humanism is the bond and glue that in the long run may hold us together. But it has not been given a chance so I don't really know. But I think humanism is the future.

We need to believe in each other and ourselves not in some invisible,mysterious,very controversial force.

We need much more courage,empathy,reason, less materialism,social responsibility and ingenuity.

We are all slaves pretty much and brain-washed to a certain extent whether we realise it or not.

I have realised lately that I am also a victim.

Edited September 21, 2007 by momentarylapseofreason

[truethat]

Wow what's going on on UM????? LOL Why thanks Sheri and MLOR that's precisely the point, except I wouldn't use the word victim per se, but its true, we are all brainwashed to a degree.

[+Sherapy]

Wow what's going on on UM????? LOL Why thanks Sheri and MLOR that's precisely the point, except I wouldn't use the word victim per se, but its true, we are all brainwashed to a degree.

i'd agree, we all are conditoned right from birth.. life may just be a letting go of limits...I really feel that relgion is redefinng itself, it is drawing a newer mentality, one that questions in that it will grow, we do see this alot even on here...

[MissMelsWell]

Out of curiosity, can you define "limits"

After thinking about it, I really don't understand how you're defining that word.

[+Sherapy]

Out of curiosity, can you define "limits"

After thinking about it, I really don't understand how you're defining that word.

stuck in a rut, a one truth, one way mentality, basically...that as new ideas/truths show up the old changes ..

[truethat]

i'd agree, we all are conditoned right from birth.. life may just be a letting go of limits...I really feel that relgion is redefinng itself, it is drawing a newer mentality, one that questions in that it will grow, we do see this alot even on here...

Actually Sheri, I have always seen that in religion. For years and years and years, I think a more likely example is that you having been on here for sometime, can't exactly reconcile your scathing prejudices of religion with people who are religious more and more as you are willing to let down the precepts and actually listen for a change.

Seems to me that you are beginning to let go of the limits YOU have put on religion. Not the other way around.

[MissMelsWell]

stuck in a rut, a one truth, one way mentality, basically...that as new ideas/truths show up the old changes ..

And you really think that people who are religious never ever question new truth, ideas, and never change? Do you REALLY believe that?

[momentarylapseofreason]

I know you weren't asking me but you gals- truethat and MW don't apply

And I wish there were more like you .

I feel like I'm talking to YOU not to a mindless former shadow of self.

I feel like there is a human being at the other end with logic intact-not like some before

You know who I mean ya know the burning Harry Potter books kinda fellars

It's called being objective

BM is too

I noticed women fall more on the objective side of thinking-is this coencidence ?

Edited September 20, 2007 by momentarylapseofreason

[truethat]

Hmmm I doubt it, this site is rife with INTPs though, check it out. What's your title MLOR?

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...=103717&hl=

[+Sherapy]

And you really think that people who are religious never ever question new truth, ideas, and never change? Do you REALLY believe that?

no Mw, remember the majority of my freinds are relgious, no they question.....I had a feeling thats why you asked.....

I have freinds of all kinds good ones, because i challenge religion means nothing least of all i would let it divide me from anyone many are put off by my frankness and clarity and try to figure me out, that is about them not me LOL......

[MissMelsWell]

no Mw, remember the majority of my freinds are relgious, no they question.....I had a feeling thats why you asked.....

I have freinds of all kinds good ones, because i challenge religion means nothing least of all i would let it divide me from anyone many are put off by my frankness and clarity and try to figure me out, that is about them not me LOL......

Huh? You just totally contradicted yourself and all your posts.

Although honestly, it's hard to tell because you're rarely clear about anything. I wasn't talking about you or your perceived friends, I was talking about a MUCH larger concept:

You say that religion imposes Limits and this is why you don't like religion.

Then you define Limits as something that is unyeilding, an absolute, a dead end and unchanging...

Then you tell me that Religions and Religious people DO change, question and grow.

Ummmm.... explain please.

Edited September 21, 2007 by MissMelsWell

[+Sherapy]

Huh? You just totally contradicted yourself and all your posts.

Although honestly, it's hard to tell because you're rarely clear about anything. I wasn't talking about you or your perceived friends, I was talking about a MUCH larger concept:

You say that religion imposes Limits and this is why you don't like religion.

Then you define Limits as something that is unyeilding, an absolute, a dead end and unchanging...

Then you tell me that Religions and Religious people DO change, question and grow.

Ummmm.... explain please.

huh??? religion is limiting by default MW... a one truth, one path, one way, sort of says it all...

it certainly encourages limits....its comfortiing for many....

i observe alot of different views MW , not just one...it can be trying for those that are more structured...

Edited September 21, 2007 by Supra Sheri

[MissMelsWell]

Sheri, this wasn't about YOU. (I know you think everything is)

This is about religion and religious people.

I don't find religion limiting... in fact, quite the opposite.

Here's what I was getting at if you can even begin to comprehend what I'm about to say.

Pssst, religious people aren't limited, and religion doesn't limit people.... HOWEVER, there are people who choose to limit themselves, but that has NOTHING to do with religion. NB's often choose to limit themselves as well. Your statements border dangerously on the precipice of perpetual victimization which, like TrueThat, I have NO tolerance for.

[truethat]

huh??? religion is limiting by default MW... a one truth, one path, one way, sort of says it all...

it certainly encourages limits....its comfortiing for many....

i observe alot of different views MW , not just one...it can be trying for those that are more structured...

What does this mean by default?

default

n 1: loss due to not showing up; "he lost the game by default"

2: act of failing to meet a financial obligation [syn: nonpayment,

nonremittal]

3: loss resulting from failure of a debt to be paid [syn: nonpayment,

nonremittal] [ant: payment]

4: an option that is selected automatically unless an

alternative is specified [syn: default option]

v : fail to pay up [syn: default on] [ant: pay up]

http://dict.die.net/default/

Your statement is more accurate than you probably intended Sheri. Religion is limiting when people fail to "show up" when they don't do what is expected of them by God, then yes it is limiting.

It says that all man is created in God's image. Does this suggest that Suicide Bombers are in God's image? No it suggests that all mankind has the potential to "SHOW UP" and to do what is expected of them in order to be in "God's" image, whether God is just another word for love or a transcendent aspect of the human condition.

This is living the word rather than preaching it.

[momentarylapseofreason]

Hmmm I doubt it, this site is rife with INTPs though, check it out. What's your title MLOR?

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...=103717&hl=

So far "the chief"-it figures.

Interesting- I'll do the other parts the test this weekend