... all the while clinging to his own sacred cows. My late grandmother had a great, archaic phrase for such people. Addlepated nincompoops.
Odd, because there seems to be a strong correlation between increasing moral decay in America and decreasing academic performance over the last 40 years.
Liberal lefties say Pink is bad as it stereotypes girls but Codepink is good, because they only want change and inhale without exhaling. Say what? Logic out the window on every level.
For example, take the concept of addiction. Although the twelve step process has helped many, many people and is an excellent program, I disagree with their contention that “Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic!” Neither attachment to alcohol, nor aversion to alcohol is a good thing. In the twelfth step, through ones spiritual growth, they fill the void that created the attachment with Divine Love, that person is no longer an addict. Whether one is drawn toward something or pushing off that same something, they are still attached to it.
To the Buddhist, awakening to the Spirit creates “non-attachment.” To the Christian, it is the “dying daily” concept that Paul spoke of that allows the Holy Spirit” to enter. When a person is connected to the Divine, attachment of the Soul is on the vertical axis and not the horizontal axis, thus there are no opposites. It is the perfect union. The strength comes from above, not from attachment to or aversion from the physical things around us. This, the author of the “Psychology Today” article does not understand.
Remember, money is not evil, but attachment to it(love of) is.
I had the exact reaction you did. It always amazes me how many “smart” people are really stupid as hell.
“Clingy”
Weak, desperate, needy, fearful, insecure, obsessed, manipulative, and a million other unflattering adjectives come to mind.
However
“commitment”
Consent to an informed CHOICE.
Don’t cling. Show commitment.????
Well, let’s try this for an analogous concept.
Clinging is likened to a weed that grows and grows, choking all the other life out of existence.
Commitment, of love, would be like a Rose. Inviting and beautiful, with limits. Hence the thorns.
Clinging — Hanging on too tight.
Committment — Hagning on even through change
Yes, I want my hubby’s committment. No, I don’t want him following me everywhere.
It didn’t take 3/4 of a decade in “higher education” to know the difference... and this guy still hasn’t learned.
I am sure his Buddhist friend told him that concepts like "don't cling" and "show commitment" are guiding reminders for a psychological/spiritual practice of meditation or contemplation not absolutes. He probably also gave him the litmus test he is asking for and it applies to either phrase. If it is neurotic you're doin' it wrong!
He is really doing it wrong.
Preaching immoralism....
Some pseudo-intellectual attempts a defense of the indefensible. Yawn.
One word answer ... "Context."
It is desirable to commit to that which is good. It is similarly desirable not to cling to that which is bad.
This is the kind of garbage bandied about in academia. It is trash, but it will take its place among all of the other leftist psychobabble used to convince idiots with irrelevant degrees that they are intellectually superior to conservatives.
Just think, careers are launched by churning out drivel like this. The worst thing about it is that this is taught to students who don’t know any better. Parents spend lots of money paying for their children to be exposed to this kind of propaganda.
First, everything beyond the first line became blah, blah, blah., since he never addressed moral principles, only behavioral concepts -- since when was "clinging" a moral principle?
Perhaps if he actually tried embracing a moral principle, rather than his "partner", he might understand the idea a little better. As it is, I can understand his need to tear down the idea of morality, if even only for his own sense of self.
200,000 student hours of teaching? When did that way of measuring teaching longevity start being used? It sounds more like trying to puff more air into the empty balloon by manufacturing an impressive number to toss into the CV.
Moral principles didn't make this guy dumb -- he seems more like a self-made man.
This is just another intellectual stroll through moral relativism, the catechism of the Left.
This is moral relativism. Of all liberal tenets, I detest this one more than any of them, since I believe it is the root that all other liberal abominations grow from.
Ugh.
Eggs and bacon for breakfast.
The chicken clings to the concept; the pig is committed.
This guy believes, as many liberals do, that it is bad to have standards, because if you don’t live up to your own standards, then you are a hypocrite.
To liberals, who wear their faults on their backs, nothing is worse to them than being charged with hypocrisy (which is why they constantly charge others with it)
Can’t remain monogamous? Deconstruct and tear down the nuclear family.
Can’t keep kids from having sex? Encourage them to have sex.
Can’t stop using drugs? Make all drugs legal.
Can’t believe in God? Deconstruct, outlaw and destroy religious expression.
And so on.
For liberals, the bottom line is: If you don’t have standards, you cannot fail to meet them, and cannot be accused of hypocrisy.
Then, for them, life is good. What a twisted bunch.
Good analysis. I see why this made your blood boil. As Ann Coulter has said, never concede a false premise to liberals, since they will build a huge edifice on the foundation of that falsehood, which will be 1000 times harder to refute.
This guy is a PHD? I wasted my time reading this stuff that sounds like it came from an 8th grader.