Just the other night I was talking with my partner about what seems to be the wests obsession with that which is physical, material and most importantly visual.
In this post I don't wish to make any profound statements or criticisms but simply wish to discuss the deeper meaning behind religion, with out getting into issues of control and manipulation.
I was discussing with my wife to be the issue of visual love, love that is directed to the visual and not the invisible.
I put forward the contention that the deeper meaning of the dress code of Islamic females was more about teaching the islamic men that love is not for the physical beauty of women but for the beauty that can not be seen. That by clothing women in a way that elliminates the visual the men have an opportunity to find the path to loving that which is within us all and not the superficial exterior.
If there are any erudite Muslims reading this I would beg for their comments on this observation and understanding. Maybe I am stating what most religious persons already know, but from a humanistic perspective this is not so obvious as the first reaction to this custom of Islamic dress is the cry of oppression of women, subjugation and denial.
It is true, I feel, that one of our challenges in life is to learn how to love, and if one can get past the hyperbol and such, religion in many aspects is just about this. To learn to love that which is intangible and beautiful about all of us. With out reference to how we look and what we wear. That the physically "ugly" can be so beautiful and not judged and loved only by their physical appearance.
Christianity also has a history of "Visual Modesty" and most will claim that this is just a form of manipulation. I guess it is but is it just a way to shift our gaze from the superficial loves to a more deeper love that goes beyond the physical form and extends to the personality and the nature of the persons "heart" instead.
Admitedly the extremes of Isalmic and Christian modesty have the potential for the weaker members to compensate in their behaviour due to the difficulty of this lesson in the art of Loving.
That the denial of visual stimulation leads them to seek the visual and their behavious becoming in some cases extreme as they compensate for the denial that this lesson requires.
It would be true I guess that the harder way to learn this lesson is to be free of visual censorship and struggle with this issue of finding how to love "in the Dark". For surely when the lights are turned off at the end of the day it is how you feel about your partner and not how she looks, because the darkeness equalises every one to just feelings and not visual stimuli.
I dunno whether any one can make sense of what I am trying to explore here, I like most, have struggled with the dicotomy of visual love and non-visual love and some how a balance needs to be struck.
Maybe some one reading this can describe what I am saying in better words with more skill than I and if so I invite you to do so.
Care to discuss?
In this post I don't wish to make any profound statements or criticisms but simply wish to discuss the deeper meaning behind religion, with out getting into issues of control and manipulation.
I was discussing with my wife to be the issue of visual love, love that is directed to the visual and not the invisible.
I put forward the contention that the deeper meaning of the dress code of Islamic females was more about teaching the islamic men that love is not for the physical beauty of women but for the beauty that can not be seen. That by clothing women in a way that elliminates the visual the men have an opportunity to find the path to loving that which is within us all and not the superficial exterior.
If there are any erudite Muslims reading this I would beg for their comments on this observation and understanding. Maybe I am stating what most religious persons already know, but from a humanistic perspective this is not so obvious as the first reaction to this custom of Islamic dress is the cry of oppression of women, subjugation and denial.
It is true, I feel, that one of our challenges in life is to learn how to love, and if one can get past the hyperbol and such, religion in many aspects is just about this. To learn to love that which is intangible and beautiful about all of us. With out reference to how we look and what we wear. That the physically "ugly" can be so beautiful and not judged and loved only by their physical appearance.
Christianity also has a history of "Visual Modesty" and most will claim that this is just a form of manipulation. I guess it is but is it just a way to shift our gaze from the superficial loves to a more deeper love that goes beyond the physical form and extends to the personality and the nature of the persons "heart" instead.
Admitedly the extremes of Isalmic and Christian modesty have the potential for the weaker members to compensate in their behaviour due to the difficulty of this lesson in the art of Loving.
That the denial of visual stimulation leads them to seek the visual and their behavious becoming in some cases extreme as they compensate for the denial that this lesson requires.
It would be true I guess that the harder way to learn this lesson is to be free of visual censorship and struggle with this issue of finding how to love "in the Dark". For surely when the lights are turned off at the end of the day it is how you feel about your partner and not how she looks, because the darkeness equalises every one to just feelings and not visual stimuli.
I dunno whether any one can make sense of what I am trying to explore here, I like most, have struggled with the dicotomy of visual love and non-visual love and some how a balance needs to be struck.
Maybe some one reading this can describe what I am saying in better words with more skill than I and if so I invite you to do so.
Care to discuss?