Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
May 27, 2017 - 07:04pm PT
|
Words, words, words. Here’s a few more.
In all of these threads and writings, there seems to be an abundance of modernisms that promote rationalism, meta-narratives, “being” centered as a unitary personality which can make and execute decisions, overarching single-coded totalities, utopias, myths of one sort or another, materialisms, and scientific projections—all conceptualizations in one form or another.
Modernism seems to be one of the strongest religions. With the rise of secularisms (Darwinism, attacks on Christianity), intellectuals have become skeptics, and materialism’s theorists (e.g., Smith, Darwin, Marx, progressives) have made it difficult to believe in any creator. Rationalism, socialism, Marxism, and economics (all oriented to self-interest) have seemingly become unquestioned pseudo religions, expressed as technical functionalisms and structuralisms. What one knows legitimately is what one knows technically. We are still Bobos in Paradise. Brooks’s insights apparently still hold true.
Rational self interest (e.g., avarice; in the big picture, Darwinism) was supposedly the best understanding that leads to civil peace, efficient resource allocations, and of how the world works. There was a time when the rational pursuit of utility (Hume and Hobbes) was considered a rare moral achievement. Today, it’s considered basic common sense, and it’s vulgar. Supposedly everything works out for the best that way. A flurry of cognitive research indicates, however, that human beings cannot pursue self-interests or maximize utilities fully because they cannot fully process complete data. There’s too much of it. Instead, human beings identify with the groups they belong to heuristically, even when those groups’ goals go against their self interests. Communities and groups shape human beings behaviors, norms, values, and beliefs almost more than science can say—and not just religions.
Modernism has been privileging abstractions and projecting all sorts of sacred qualities that Christianity had once absorbed. One could say that modernism’s abstractions have become “the opiate of the intellectuals.” Ornament, polychromy, metaphor, humor, symbolism, place, cultural identity, local contexts, the senses, mind, multiple codings, irrationality, and historical context have all been stripped of their value, even seen as taboos. Instead, meta-narratives of emancipation, progress, universal brotherhood, Nature, etc. are more acceptable to modernists. These metanarratives are relevant, sure, but they do not appear to tap fully into the richness of human existence.
One recognized pervasive problem of modern living revolves around alienation, meaninglessness, anomie, self-estrangement, and powerlessness. One can see much of it in the threads here in ST. People appear generally unhappy about a long list of things, and they often report a lack of personal efficacy and a sense of detachment from their communities and societies both large and small.
Marx first got folks thinking along these lines of alienation by arguing that the energy and skill invested in the objects of people’s labors were part of their life’s blood. People see themselves communally and individually by the things they create. They socially construct. Without the perception of a direct connection between them and the things they make (e.g., laws, their communities, products and services, even their very lives), human beings become alienated from themselves (which is kind of a strange notion). Marx said that the lack of insight into one’s true condition is itself a consequence of alienation. Emile Durkheim agreed and noted that the division of labor, and values, norms, and beliefs of communities were ceasing to provide meaning to contemporary human beings (circa 1890-1910, anyway), even though memberships should theoretically ground people in their communities. In other words, people were becoming disconnected from one another, from their very selves, and from their worlds that they themselves helped to make. Erickson argued that alienation from the planet, societies, communities, and in people themselves resides not in any of those but rather “in the whole of one’s existence.” (One can argue today’s situation looks worse.)
There are, however, minority views to challenge the modernist view. One of them can be termed a postmodern view. A postmodern view focuses on finding enchantment in life. One can do so by focusing on the more cultural and aesthetic aspects of living—found, for example, in fashion, images, style, and tropes. Postmodernism takes notice of a moment-to-moment sense of living that always seems to be fragmented, de-centered, multi-narrative, multi-coded, qualitative, deconstructed, embedded in discourses and practices, and the very “spectacle” some call life. It rejects the totalizing arguments of elites and embraces pluralism and multiculturalism. The view is impossibly messy. Rather than focusing on what is true or what is right or accurate, postmodernism focuses on what’s interesting. As a result, it places high values on paradox, contrast, counter-intuition, humor, sarcasm, satire, and irony, indeterminacy, and relevance (rather than rigor). It’s made for iconoclasts.
It’s interesting to note that a fair amount of 20th Century philosophy (Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Sartre, Derrida, Foucault) has concentrated on the perplexity (the unexplainability) of the universe and human beings’ apparent alienation from it. Existentialists say human beings are forced to be free because they’ve been thrown into a meaningless universe with no answers. They say beings must heroically choose between vicious alternatives with very imperfect information. What is uncertain, undecidable, and chaotic appears to be an emergent cosmic presentation that has no underlying essence. IT is simply as it appears. Estrangement and disillusion thus enables human beings to see the familiar for the first time—all the time. “Solutions” no longer arise because “problemizing” (structuring situations as problems in the first place) doesn’t arise.
It is also perhaps worth noting that the postmodern view looks remarkably similar to what certain spiritual masters have pointed to over the centuries. Postmodernism appears consonant with the views of Advaita Vedanta, Dzogchen, Bon, Kashmir Shaivism, Kundalini Yoga, primal Buddhism, the Tao, and other radical spiritual teachings. What they all seem to say is what arises in consciousness are simply manifestations. Those displays appear to be without certainty, indescribable, highly ornamental, sense-based, uninterpretable, infinitely creative and energetic, momentary, unpatterned or unique, undecidable, chaotic—and beautifully enchanting. A kind of never-ending kaleidoscope of virtual reality, and really, really, really intelligent. The masters call it “the natural state.” Others call it liberation. Alienation, anomie, disillusionment, meaninglessness, radical ambiguity, powerlessness (no cause-and-effect or free will), and the estrangement and alienation from all constructed selves and groups might be early stepping stones to seeing the natural state.
One need not to commit to totalities or single interpretations of either this or that. There appears to be a middle way, an excluded middle, a lack of substantiality in apparent appearances, in-the-moment spontaneities, wide-open potentialities, an absence of absence.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
May 27, 2017 - 07:17pm PT
|
Pu
trans. uncarved block
def. original/primordial nature; perception without prejudice/duality; mental clarity aligned with the Great Unity/Tao
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
|
May 27, 2017 - 08:55pm PT
|
I lost an entire post, frats.
Just as well.
Mike L, you have, in a no few words, opened the discussion of the vast spectrum of individual faith, facts and feelings.
I think each individual chooses one's own point within this spectrum, plotting for absolute indifference to the entire question, all the way to a belief that one is a (part of) god.
And why would we care who others think? Of course, unless they initiate force against us? And that is certainly a major problem with religions. Not so much with individual spirituality. Perhaps individual spirituality is going to be this reformation's evolution from the last one's Protestantism. The internet has certainly replaced the printing press, and mores daily.
Anyway, technology seems to be taking us on a fast ride toward a global sense, beyond nationalism. Given that fact, consider the vast and awesome universe of the G*d question. LOL
end of nattering.
feralfae
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
|
May 27, 2017 - 09:20pm PT
|
Religion is human escapist theory because we are faced with an indifferent universe. Whatever makes you happy is a good thing as long as you don't bother other people.
Succinct, to the point, and even fewer words. Excellent!
ff
|
|
d-know
Trad climber
electric lady land
|
|
|
May 27, 2017 - 09:56pm PT
|
Very insightful post MikeL.
What is apparent to me is that some
"religions" don't know what they believe
so they try to get others to agree
to their ideas through mission work
and conversion and if that doesn't
work out they simply kill off those who
do not agree. More harm than good.
The spiritual teachings that you
mentioned are suggested ways of
experiencing existence and acceptance of
the dualistic nature of reality.
One can take it or not without fear of
judgment. More good than harm.
|
|
ß Î Ø T Ç H
Boulder climber
ne'er–do–well
|
|
|
May 27, 2017 - 11:44pm PT
|
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
May 28, 2017 - 02:02pm PT
|
Is there something wrong with physics?
Feralfe, I thought the cartoon was funny.
Was Jesus misunderstood?
Yeah. Read the red print in the New Testament and listen to Jesus' words as a mystic speaking. Gives some insight.
Interesting reading what Jesus said to the Pharisees about having no authority in light of priests, preachers and pastors.
Jesus speaks of a direct relationship - a spiritual relationship, not a religious relationship.
I'll skip the neurology of religious and mystical experience other than to ask what proof - beside how you feel - does anyone have that all religious and spiritual experience is anything but internally derived phenomena?
|
|
okay, whatever
climber
|
|
|
May 28, 2017 - 02:43pm PT
|
Though there have been some interesting posts here, for sure, this thread seems to have largely degenerated into a lot of insults to those who don't think along the same lines as the poster of the insult. I don't have a particular axe to grind on this topic, and while I am interested in what a variety of people have to say, I wish there was a bit less mud-slinging... and more genuine discussion along the lines of "I do hear what you're saying, and can understand that, but here's why I think differently....". That sort of dialectical process is how we broaden our horizons, or perhaps just reinforce our own views... but it doesn't happen without an initially open mind and the personal discipline to not react in knee-jerk fashion. And Mark Force, I do believe that religious/spiritual feelings and thoughts are internally generated, though also with input from one's life experiences, tragic, loving, or otherwise. At the end of the day, it's all about compassion for people/animals/plants/things beyond our personal selves. Having and caring for a family, and really, just LIVING, whatever your circumstances, also make these philosophical issues recede into the background. Philosophical arguments are just parlor games, really, though interesting ones!
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
May 28, 2017 - 03:37pm PT
|
At the end of the day, it's all about compassion for people/animals/plants/things beyond our personal selves. Having and caring for a family, and really, just LIVING, whatever your circumstances, also make these philosophical issues recede into the background. Philosophical arguments are just parlor games, really, though interesting ones!
Worth making stand out and repeating.
"Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible."
~ Dalai Lama
|
|
okay, whatever
climber
|
|
|
May 28, 2017 - 03:57pm PT
|
The Dalai Lama quote posted by Mark Force puts in all into eight words....
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
May 28, 2017 - 04:03pm PT
|
"The Dalai Lama quote posted by Mark Force puts in all into eight words...."
Which you don't need have religion to do.
|
|
NutAgain!
Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
|
|
|
May 28, 2017 - 05:25pm PT
|
MikeL said:
Providing a narrative about how people make decisions that relies upon a sort of cost & benefit view so oversimplifies cognition
I don't think people consciously and rationally evaluate their options in light of the facts at their disposal. People are complicated: we lie to ourselves and to each other, sometimes intentionally, sometimes not, and in the end, I believe our actions are based on what we REALLY perceive and what meaning we add to that, rather than what we tell ourselves we perceive/believe or what we tell other people.
So from a behavioral and relationship modeling standpoint, I stand by my perception that people seek to minimize pain and maximize pleasure. That doesn't mean people act cowardly and hedonistically in all cases. That would be a narrow interpretation of what causes pain and pleasure. What really causes pain or pleasure for a person are influenced by the person's history and values. People who have trust in the future benefits of hard work or delayed gratification can endure quite a lot of pain in exchange for their perception of a future benefit, and the loss of material benefits might be exchanged for spiritual peace of mind, etc.
So a simple sounding model can actually lead to quite complex outcomes if you look at the richness and diversity in how pain and pleasure are learned and what material and conceptual things people value.
As for this dude:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman
I'm not familiar with him. A quick perusal of his Prospect Theory looks a lot like standard game theory with some consideration for people's perceptions and wanting to hedge against the consequences of low probability negative events, explaining behaviors that seem inconsistent with pursuing the highest risk-adjusted benefits. I guess this is on the same track with how I am thinking, if I have grasped what they are after.
Pivoting...
I wonder how many people who are already in a mental contract with a religion are able to form a perception outside of that framework or intellectually consider alternatives, and to evaluate what are their fundamental needs that are being met by it. I guess the danger for these folks is that having such thoughts, recognizing their religion or their relationship with it as a contract, might constitute a breach of that contract and have dire personal consequences in terms of loss of identity, loss of safety, loss of love, etc. etc.
Makes it easy to discuss religious beliefs, but hard to remove biases in a discussion on the topic raised in the title. It's like we ca have a collection of anecdotal data points, but we can't transcend from being a data point to being an evaluator of the options, as long as we are in a contract with a religion that demands our belief. Perhaps that is part of why religions are so persistent.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
May 28, 2017 - 05:36pm PT
|
^^^Funny. He doesn't even have to believe it's a big deal and can just play the whiner game for coin. Any judge that lets that go anywhere has no spine. The article says he didn't know the pepperoni was pork....uh, huh.
I stand by my perception that people seek to minimize pain and maximize pleasure.
Epicureanism is a far more efficient practice than religion. Of course, that's merely my opinion...
....and I'm weird.
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
|
May 28, 2017 - 06:41pm PT
|
At the end of the day, it's all about compassion for people/animals/plants/things beyond our personal selves. Having and caring for a family, and really, just LIVING, whatever your circumstances, also make these philosophical issues recede into the background. Philosophical arguments are just parlor games, really, though interesting ones!
Worth making stand out and repeating.
"Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible."
~ Dalai Lama
Hear! Hear! Well said! ^^^^
Yes, I thought the cartoon was funny as well. My humorous aside would be, "Just when you think you have it figured out, you don't." We then to think, as humans, that our sense of boundaries is the natural order of things. We are a young species. Not all that long ago, a bunch of humans thought the Earth was flat. We are still living down that assumption.
So we ask questions. We find some answers. We measure things as well as we are able to do so this day, and hypothesize and extrapolate from there. Whether G*d or physics. Personally, I have had enough personal, subjective experience that I think I have proof of and know a tiny bit of the Mind of G*d. But that is just me.
But I also think that each individual human has a right to believe and think and know what they find best for them, as long as they do not initiate violence or fraud against any other person. And they honor their contracts. :)
fascinating discussion.
ff
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
Sands Motel , Las Vegas
|
|
|
May 28, 2017 - 06:42pm PT
|
Pork Pizza... ? A definite violation of his civil rights....If the case gets tossed out of court Little Caesar employees should at least have to take sensitivity training and maybe wear Burkas...
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
|
May 28, 2017 - 06:52pm PT
|
I still think a lot of religion is simply a social event for people. A way to share a structure for social/tribal events. While the theocrats and democrats and republicrats may be organized and have longer-term goals and plans, I think most every day people adopt the religion of their family, stay within the mores and dogma of the family unit, and thus avoid alienation from the community. That we live in a nation with the tolerance for RC and COE, as well as the Wesleyans, Baptists, Lutherans, and all the other branches of the JC tree is remarkable.
I think most humans would gather for story-telling under almost any social structure, and use that relational structure for their Tribal/Family/Congregational celebrations and rites. It did not begin with Christianity, nor with Judaism. We all know about prehistoric Solstice gatherings. These simple celebrations and rites are global.
One of a human's strongest needs is to belong. I think we often underrate the power of belonging, and look to material gain and power as motivations, when belonging will cause otherwise sane people to do very odd things. Like genuflect. :)
feralfae
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
May 28, 2017 - 07:17pm PT
|
Religion is great, you can get d#@&%ebags like Donald Trump and Mike Pence to use it to get you to vote them into office so they can't push their backwards agenda down our throats and it previous times to wipe out indigenous people around the world.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
May 28, 2017 - 09:50pm PT
|
okay, whatever: . . . more genuine discussion along the lines of "I do hear what you're saying, and can understand that, but here's why I think differently....". That sort of dialectical process is how we broaden our horizons, . . .
Sure. It’s gonna take a lot of time and patience.
I honestly don’t think that kind of thing happens often. At least that’s my academic opinion. People just don’t change when they are experiencing what they perceive as success or pleasure. Why would they? If you want people to change, you have to challenge them hard. Threaten them with survival, and that will get their attention to start. Young people you have more of a shot at. The mature ones, . . . good luck. Check out Chris Argyris’s research at Harvard in the 60s and 70s. (He’s a big guy on organizational change / learning.) Don't get me wrong: I’m all behind you, dude. I’m just not very optimistic. Argyris said: unfreeze them cognitively, shift their views (show them possibilities), then refreeze them.
NutAgain!,
I think you need to pick which side of the argument you’re going to be on. One the hand, you don’t think people rationally evaluate their options. On the other hand, you believe people are in a mental contract with others and with religion. Which is it? Do they know what they are doing or not?
Scientifically, it’s a big deal which one you’re arguing. Ultimately, in the spiritual sense that I’m very familiar with, the very question is meaningless in much the same way that a dream is meaningless when you are in it.
(BTW, Kahneman had a bit more to say than project theory. On could go to Amazon and look at the reviews of his latest books, but you’d have to be interested. Really, it doesn’t matter.)
. . . You guys with your arguments about “contracts.” Seriously, do you believe that people live or actually think that way?
feralfae: I still think a lot of religion is simply a social event for people.
I suppose that anyone could make this argument for any behavior. It strips others of their humanity, their experience, their understanding, their learning. It makes a thing of them. It lacks empathy. Of course, one can describe any so-called event as a psychological this, or a social that, but those are abstractions.
Other people live in an infinite bubble of experience just like you do.
(Ugh, we’re so technical and scientific. I wonder why we’ve not solved our problems by now?)
Bob D’A,
You’re not really adding to the conversation.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!