The Key

[Antlerman]

what I do hear is fluff with regard to elevating the importance of the discussion, but no real alternatives for a framework or direction or explanation that moves me or humanity to the point of peace with my/our reality. In other words, "Where's the beef"?

So you're asking what practical system can speak to the masses in such a way as it moves us beyond what Christianity fails to do, and where science ultimately is only a part of?

 

I can say there are very many clear directions that need to happen and it is a matter of support systems to evolve for that to occur, which will begin to emerge in my opinion as consciousness as a whole begins to move more in that direction. Until that time, you have pockets of movement within individuals and smaller communities, opening up discussion and awareness, and the human spirit naturally does the rest in response to evolutionary movement.

 

Since I know you meant this rhetorically, I toss it back at you. Where's the beef in Christianity? If it had the chops for the overall need, then why are we here as a whole? Christianity has been trying to redefine itself ever since the Enlightenment, and what you see in the flaying about of fundamentalism and evangelical kookiness is evidence of its overall failure to translate the dawn of the new day. Wouldn't you say?

 

I think that comes well back to MM's question about religion without Myth. Christianity struggles to move their symbols forward and adapt. That makes it necessary to replace it, to supersede it with something that can translate. Can Christianity talk to the world within a rational worldspace (and I don't mean the broken apologetic of those like LNC, which is quasi-rationality and a spiritual waterless canal, as opposed to an integrated Reason)? Can it speak in such a way that principles of human spirituality can be communicated without having to believe in Noah's magic giraffe boat and dead bodies pouring out of graves and walking through cities as historical facts?

 

You tell me. How would you do that? Where's that beef?

[JadedAtheist]

I'm letting this one go. As usual, I can't make enough sense of what A-man is saying to make a response.

 

lol, I'm glad someone else said this. I thought I was the only one.

 

No offense intended Antlerman!

[MagickMonkey]

I'm letting this one go. As usual, I can't make enough sense of what A-man is saying to make a response.

 

lol, I'm glad someone else said this. I thought I was the only one.

 

No offense intended Antlerman!

 

Hehe, I ended up getting into a discussion with him anyway.

[Antlerman]

I'm letting this one go. As usual, I can't make enough sense of what A-man is saying to make a response.

 

lol, I'm glad someone else said this. I thought I was the only one.

 

No offense intended Antlerman!

 

Hehe, I ended up getting into a discussion with him anyway.

Alright, just for that I'm going to ramp it up a notch.....

[Antlerman]

I think your concept of myth is much more encompassing than mine.

You had brought up before the use of language affecting our abilities to conceive, which I agree with wholeheartedly. I had mentioned how this leads to the use of signs and symbols in language, representation of something 'beyond' just the signified, and the whole study of semiotics. Myth is the next level of language beyond signs and symbols, into symbols with symbols. A good point of reference for you to understand this, since I know you've got an analytical and inquisitive mind, would be to look at Roland Barthes for starters. He wrote a book called Mythologies:

"It is a collection of essays taken from Les Lettres nouvelles, examining the tendency of contemporary social value systems to create modern myths. Barthes also looks at the semiology of the process of myth creation, updating Ferdinand de Saussure's system of sign analysis by adding a second level where signs are elevated to the level of myth. It is considered to be a key antecedent of cultural studies.

 

...

 

To make a myth, the sign itself is used as a signifier, and a new meaning is added, which is the signified. But according to Barthes- this is not added arbitrarily. Although we are not necessarily aware of it, modern myths are created with a reason. As in the example of the red wine, mythologies are formed to perpetuate an idea of society that adheres to the current ideologies of the ruling class and its media.

 

...

 

In writing about the process of mythologisation, Barthes refers to the tendency of socially constructed notions, narratives, and assumptions to become "naturalised" in the process, that is, taken unquestioningly as given within a particular culture.

 

 

You will hear me reference this understanding again and again when I speak of the force of myth in language. In fact, the early Christianities were quite actively engaged in this process of myth creation as supporting stories for their social and religious ideals. The Canonical Gospels as well as the Gnostic Gospels were all about attributing to Jesus and his disciples, points of views, sayings, teachings, which were all reflective of their own community's position. There was no 'fraud' or 'lying' going on in those creations in any sense we would imagine it, but rather it is the nature of mythmaking. Founding figures are always assigned ideals, such as the various myths about the Founding Father's of America.

 

The American dream in fact is very much a myth - not in the commonplace use of the word myth as meaning a falsity or a fantasy, but rather in it's symbolic nature.

 

Now that leads to the original question. How do you express unrealized potentials and grant them a focus point except through symbolism? You ask what if you strip mythology out of religion. I ask in this context what you mean, mythology as symbolic language, or notions of controlling gods, demons, ghosts, and other myth creations of the past? Is it just a philosophy when you strip them out? I would say no still.

 

Now I'm going to dive a little deeper with this, so bear with me. It is my view that mythology as supporting language arouse out of a developmental mindset of society and culture itself in the same way a child perceives the world. As we discussed earlier language both reflects and supports a present perception, and the present perception of the world in our recent past, prior to the 1700's (and sometime roughly after 3000 BC), the average mode of thought and developed languages reflected a mythological overarching view of reality. What it experienced, how it conceived, were all framed in this mythological use of language I described above. As an example, since we were talking about rationality before. In one of the widely accepted refutation of Galileo's proposed number of planets the nobleman Francesco Sizzi said:

 

“There are seven windows given to animals in the domicile of the head, through with the air is admitted to the tabernacle of the body, to enlighten, to warm and to nourish it. What are these parts of the microcosm? Two nostrils, two eyes, two ears, and a mouth. So in the heavens, as in a macrocosmos, there are two favorable stars, two unpropitious, two luminaries, and Mercury undecided and indifferent. From this and many other similarities in nature, such as the seven metals, etc., which it were tedious to enumerate, we gather that the number of planets is necessarily seven.”

 

Now you of course can cite the logic fallacies and all that, but that is only because you are presently able to outcontexulize him because you operate within a Rationalist framework. And that is my point. He was operating still underneath a Mythological framework and his rational mind, which is most clearly being employed here in how strings together thoughts with corresponding analogies - that is a function of rationality, but he was doing so within a different context, and different mode of conscious mind, the mythological framework. What happened is that with the telescope in hand employing a higher rationality that included evidence, Galileo was simply able to outcontextualize him. We were moving out of the Age of Myth into the Age of Reason.

 

Under the Age of Myth everything, science, morality, art, and all aspects of life were all framed within the mindset and support language of Myth as the above example gives one example of. Follow so far? With the advent of Reason as an emerging new average mode of consciousness, the languages followed. And, the early way of creating language took the easy path and adopted the use of symbolic systems in mythological frameworks. Instead of religious myths with gods, and other supernatural beings, you had secular myths, myths about Reason!, of all things.

 

In other words, we still conceptualize the same way built upon early adaptations of the languages into higher newer context. We haven't reinvented the language, but adapted it. Make sense?

 

So then religion without symbolic language systems, including myths? No, you're talking science. Is it philosophy? Inasmuch as worldviews and questions of that nature are inherent in religion, it would still be philosophical. But can it jettison the supernatural symbolism? I think that is the heart of your real question. Right?

 

I would say you can have religion that speaks outside a mythological framework, that of controlling deities, and not just reduce religion down to metaphysical discussions or philosophical discourse, but actual, realized, transformative experiences in systems of support. That makes it more than a philosophy, but an integrated practice. That to me would define a true religion. One that translates the current world through its present symbols, and one that creates an atmosphere for transformation, which of necessity will use transcendent symbols, since it is 'above' the present stage'.

 

Now a note on those symbols. As I have been arguing elsewhere, "soul" and "spirit" do not have to be understood as supernatural. I use them comfortably in my life without any suggestion of the mythological understanding of those terms. They are not scientific terms. Period. So any questions of 'evidence' is misplaced. They are symbolic terms to describe things like your 'essence'. Moreover and more importantly, they are symbols which are transcendent. The same can be said of God.

 

So when you employ a symbolic language to speak of transcendent states, or potentials, the language of necessity is going to by highly symbolic. This is the frustration in discussions where the thing pointed to is overlooked and obfuscated by focusing literally on the symbol. In other words, using Saussurian terminology, the signifier becomes conflated with the signified.

 

Follow so far?

 

Well, that's all for the moment. Go give the brain a rest.

[Antlerman]

That is, science builds from the ground up a priori and becomes more complex over time while myths retain a top down approach and rarely evolve to higher orders of complexity.

I'm not sure how you are making that statement. Myths do evolve all the time. Just look at the evolution of the god Jehovah in the OT. People adapt their myths to support their current world they live in. What do you think gave birth to Christianity? How were the gospels created? Evolving myths. And what fascinates me in particular about those evolving myths is to look at the overall progression of human social consciousness you see evolved through it.

 

I would say myths are very much a bottom-up support structure, along with visionary languages of new ideals, aspirations, and human yearnings. They are created in social contexts, and for a reason. So to make comparisons to them with the 'reliability of science' are truly an apples and orangutans argument. They seem judged more appropriately in terms of how effective and relevant they are.

 

Take the myth of apostolic succession. The church created that myth in order to support its social position on hierarchical structures. Was the myth effective? You bet it was, when you consider how it survived 2000 years because of it. Is it 'true" historically and scientifically? Of course not. But that's not what its purpose or intent was for.

 

Back to mythic structures and their legitimate supports for that structure, and rationalist structures and its legitimate supports. Science may have evidence for its discoveries, but where are it social programs and where is the legitimate support from it as a system for those? Or is this in fact not a comparison at all and try as we wish to prop up science this is not what it is about? Apples and orangutans. We can come back to this later if you wish...

[Galien]

Honestly where do you people think you get your ideas about EVERYTHING? Do you think you are born knowing and believing the stuff you know and believe? We are surrounded by myths, influences, brainwashing every day of our lives. Standing in the queue at the supermarket yesterday I wondered if I were the only woman there who wanted to take every woman's magazine and flick a match on it? Was I the only one thinking "this shit defines for women who they should be and it fucking SUCKS that they let it?" Am I the only one that sees that we are all influenced by everything we see hear and read? Surely not.

 

For me the thing is to decide how much of what is presented to me I actually accept and live by. I have always been keenly aware that many ideas and concepts jockey for position in my mind. In our culture its mainly who will get my money. Who will influence me to believe I need what they are trying to sell me? That also happens when it comes to the world of ideas.

 

In 1993 I was kicked out of a cult. That launched me into to trying to work out what happened to me and why. I studied spiritual abuse and coincidentally also studied organisational behaviour at university. Looking at the two together I could really see just how influenced by are by each other. Sadly the basis of that influence is usually power, and not for good. Ever since then I look at everything from a point of view of what is being sold to me here, and more importantly, WHY?

 

There are so many things we learn growing up that we take for granted. I don't do that with anything. Where did this idea come from? What perpetuates it? Should it be changed? What is the human need behind it if it is clearly a stupid idea? Stuff like that. Our culture is full of myths. Try taking a look at it from that point of view. Blows my mind how easily influenced we really are.

[Deva]

I might be laughed at, but I think an example of a successful mythology that to an extent encompasses science is the whole world of "Star Trek". This is an example of a successful mythology - it isn't "real", it was meant to be purely entertainment, and then it mushroomed into a whole world, including an ethical view, an ideal, theoretically in harmony with science (in the future who knows?) and something presented as a future culture that is successful enough to transcend war. Originally it was presented that The United Federation of Planets had overcome our present day problems of racism, war, pollution, etc. Of course it did evolve over time. Its like a very fast forward mythology since it only took decades and not centuries! It still exists, of course, and people still live in that world, as there are also "Lord of the Rings" and "Star Wars" people. In fact there is now a "Jedi" religion.

 

By no means do I want to derail this discussion onto the subject of Star Trek. I am simply using it as an example of a successful myth. The American dream is another - which may have run its course.

[MagickMonkey]

I think your concept of myth is much more encompassing than mine.

You had brought up before the use of language affecting our abilities to conceive, which I agree with wholeheartedly. I had mentioned how this leads to the use of signs and symbols in language, representation of something 'beyond' just the signified, and the whole study of semiotics. Myth is the next level of language beyond signs and symbols, into symbols with symbols. A good point of reference for you to understand this, since I know you've got an analytical and inquisitive mind, would be to look at Roland Barthes for starters. He wrote a book called Mythologies:

"It is a collection of essays taken from Les Lettres nouvelles, examining the tendency of contemporary social value systems to create modern myths. Barthes also looks at the semiology of the process of myth creation, updating Ferdinand de Saussure's system of sign analysis by adding a second level where signs are elevated to the level of myth. It is considered to be a key antecedent of cultural studies.

 

...

 

To make a myth, the sign itself is used as a signifier, and a new meaning is added, which is the signified. But according to Barthes- this is not added arbitrarily. Although we are not necessarily aware of it, modern myths are created with a reason. As in the example of the red wine, mythologies are formed to perpetuate an idea of society that adheres to the current ideologies of the ruling class and its media.

 

...

 

In writing about the process of mythologisation, Barthes refers to the tendency of socially constructed notions, narratives, and assumptions to become "naturalised" in the process, that is, taken unquestioningly as given within a particular culture.

 

 

You will hear me reference this understanding again and again when I speak of the force of myth in language. In fact, the early Christianities were quite actively engaged in this process of myth creation as supporting stories for their social and religious ideals. The Canonical Gospels as well as the Gnostic Gospels were all about attributing to Jesus and his disciples, points of views, sayings, teachings, which were all reflective of their own community's position. There was no 'fraud' or 'lying' going on in those creations in any sense we would imagine it, but rather it is the nature of mythmaking. Founding figures are always assigned ideals, such as the various myths about the Founding Father's of America.

 

The American dream in fact is very much a myth - not in the commonplace use of the word myth as meaning a falsity or a fantasy, but rather in it's symbolic nature.

 

Now that leads to the original question. How do you express unrealized potentials and grant them a focus point except through symbolism? You ask what if you strip mythology out of religion. I ask in this context what you mean, mythology as symbolic language, or notions of controlling gods, demons, ghosts, and other myth creations of the past? Is it just a philosophy when you strip them out? I would say no still.

 

Now I'm going to dive a little deeper with this, so bear with me. It is my view that mythology as supporting language arouse out of a developmental mindset of society and culture itself in the same way a child perceives the world. As we discussed earlier language both reflects and supports a present perception, and the present perception of the world in our recent past, prior to the 1700's (and sometime roughly after 3000 BC), the average mode of thought and developed languages reflected a mythological overarching view of reality. What it experienced, how it conceived, were all framed in this mythological use of language I described above. As an example, since we were talking about rationality before. In one of the widely accepted refutation of Galileo's proposed number of planets the nobleman Francesco Sizzi said:

 

“There are seven windows given to animals in the domicile of the head, through with the air is admitted to the tabernacle of the body, to enlighten, to warm and to nourish it. What are these parts of the microcosm? Two nostrils, two eyes, two ears, and a mouth. So in the heavens, as in a macrocosmos, there are two favorable stars, two unpropitious, two luminaries, and Mercury undecided and indifferent. From this and many other similarities in nature, such as the seven metals, etc., which it were tedious to enumerate, we gather that the number of planets is necessarily seven.”

 

Now you of course can cite the logic fallacies and all that, but that is only because you are presently able to outcontexulize him because you operate within a Rationalist framework. And that is my point. He was operating still underneath a Mythological framework and his rational mind, which is most clearly being employed here in how strings together thoughts with corresponding analogies - that is a function of rationality, but he was doing so within a different context, and different mode of conscious mind, the mythological framework. What happened is that with the telescope in hand employing a higher rationality that included evidence, Galileo was simply able to outcontextualize him. We were moving out of the Age of Myth into the Age of Reason.

 

Under the Age of Myth everything, science, morality, art, and all aspects of life were all framed within the mindset and support language of Myth as the above example gives one example of. Follow so far? With the advent of Reason as an emerging new average mode of consciousness, the languages followed. And, the early way of creating language took the easy path and adopted the use of symbolic systems in mythological frameworks. Instead of religious myths with gods, and other supernatural beings, you had secular myths, myths about Reason!, of all things.

 

In other words, we still conceptualize the same way built upon early adaptations of the languages into higher newer context. We haven't reinvented the language, but adapted it. Make sense?

 

So then religion without symbolic language systems, including myths? No, you're talking science. Is it philosophy? Inasmuch as worldviews and questions of that nature are inherent in religion, it would still be philosophical. But can it jettison the supernatural symbolism? I think that is the heart of your real question. Right?

 

I would say you can have religion that speaks outside a mythological framework, that of controlling deities, and not just reduce religion down to metaphysical discussions or philosophical discourse, but actual, realized, transformative experiences in systems of support. That makes it more than a philosophy, but an integrated practice. That to me would define a true religion. One that translates the current world through its present symbols, and one that creates an atmosphere for transformation, which of necessity will use transcendent symbols, since it is 'above' the present stage'.

 

Now a note on those symbols. As I have been arguing elsewhere, "soul" and "spirit" do not have to be understood as supernatural. I use them comfortably in my life without any suggestion of the mythological understanding of those terms. They are not scientific terms. Period. So any questions of 'evidence' is misplaced. They are symbolic terms to describe things like your 'essence'. Moreover and more importantly, they are symbols which are transcendent. The same can be said of God.

 

So when you employ a symbolic language to speak of transcendent states, or potentials, the language of necessity is going to by highly symbolic. This is the frustration in discussions where the thing pointed to is overlooked and obfuscated by focusing literally on the symbol. In other words, using Saussurian terminology, the signifier becomes conflated with the signified.

 

Follow so far?

 

Well, that's all for the moment. Go give the brain a rest.

 

 

I think I do actually follow, and the concepts are interesting. But it makes me still wonder if words like religion, soul, myth, etc. are so tied in most peoples minds to literal beliefs that it makes the words seem inadequate for the concepts you describe. But then again, what would one use as alternatives? Perhaps my Asperger tendencies (I don't know that I actually qualify as an aspie) makes my head want to explode when I try to keep up with too many levels of symbolism.

[MagickMonkey]

Honestly where do you people think you get your ideas about EVERYTHING? Do you think you are born knowing and believing the stuff you know and believe? We are surrounded by myths, influences, brainwashing every day of our lives. Standing in the queue at the supermarket yesterday I wondered if I were the only woman there who wanted to take every woman's magazine and flick a match on it? Was I the only one thinking "this shit defines for women who they should be and it fucking SUCKS that they let it?" Am I the only one that sees that we are all influenced by everything we see hear and read? Surely not.

 

For me the thing is to decide how much of what is presented to me I actually accept and live by. I have always been keenly aware that many ideas and concepts jockey for position in my mind. In our culture its mainly who will get my money. Who will influence me to believe I need what they are trying to sell me? That also happens when it comes to the world of ideas.

 

In 1993 I was kicked out of a cult. That launched me into to trying to work out what happened to me and why. I studied spiritual abuse and coincidentally also studied organisational behaviour at university. Looking at the two together I could really see just how influenced by are by each other. Sadly the basis of that influence is usually power, and not for good. Ever since then I look at everything from a point of view of what is being sold to me here, and more importantly, WHY?

 

There are so many things we learn growing up that we take for granted. I don't do that with anything. Where did this idea come from? What perpetuates it? Should it be changed? What is the human need behind it if it is clearly a stupid idea? Stuff like that. Our culture is full of myths. Try taking a look at it from that point of view. Blows my mind how easily influenced we really are.

 

Like I said earlier, my concept of myth is much less broad. I apparently do not deny the greater concept of myth you just described and what Antlerman described. I just wasn't calling those things myths.

 

Also, no doubt we are all heavily influenced by our culture, but I synthesize many of my ideas and beliefs on my own, even if some of the building blocks of that synthesis relies on subordinate ideas provided by culture. I question many things and the way I think and act isn't quite in tune with society. And most advertising has little influence on how I spend my money. I don't think my mind is simply a blank slate accepting instructions by the power structures in place. I am not a sheeple, and while non-sheeples are the minority, I don't think they are quite rare - especially on this site.

[MagickMonkey]

I might be laughed at, but I think an example of a successful mythology that to an extent encompasses science is the whole world of "Star Trek". This is an example of a successful mythology - it isn't "real", it was meant to be purely entertainment, and then it mushroomed into a whole world, including an ethical view, an ideal, theoretically in harmony with science (in the future who knows?) and something presented as a future culture that is successful enough to transcend war. Originally it was presented that The United Federation of Planets had overcome our present day problems of racism, war, pollution, etc. Of course it did evolve over time. Its like a very fast forward mythology since it only took decades and not centuries! It still exists, of course, and people still live in that world, as there are also "Lord of the Rings" and "Star Wars" people. In fact there is now a "Jedi" religion.

 

By no means do I want to derail this discussion onto the subject of Star Trek. I am simply using it as an example of a successful myth. The American dream is another - which may have run its course.

 

Hahahahahhaha, Yes, I am laughing, but I think your post is completely relevant to the current discussion. The fact that you are right kinda blows my mind in a way that makes me laugh. The Trekkies have even fully developed a klingon language. Some people just take things too seriously. (Trekkies, please don't shoot the monkey). Ditto anyone practicing the Jedi religion. Granted, there really isn't anything horribly wrong with this, depending on just how far one takes the obsession. I wonder if in a few thousand years if there will be an ex-jedi.net site (or whatever the closest equivalent to a site will be in 1000 years) where people talk about escaping the Jedi cult.

 

This also makes me think about the Marine Corps. I remember hearing marines comparing the Marine Corps to religions and how the Marine Corps was like a second religion to most marines. I was so deep into Marine Corps "religion" that I might be a little hypocritical when I poke fun at the trekkies. Hell, I've got my rank tattooed on my right arm, and an Eagle, Globe and Anchor tattoed on my left. For years after getting out of the corps, I would still wear all-leather combat boots with dog tags in the laces, even though I'm not gonna be stepping on any land mines. I still get a high-and-tight hair cut, but that's just because it is comfortable, and looks sharp. My hair is too crazy to grow out long. My obsession with the Marine Corps faded probably about the time I let go of christianity. I guess after I felt comfortable with questioning everything, my way of thinking fundamentally changed.

[MagickMonkey]

FYI: ex-jedi.net hasn't been registered yet.

[Guest end3]

So you're asking what practical system can speak to the masses in such a way as it moves us beyond what Christianity fails to do, and where science ultimately is only a part of?

Yes, pretty much....but you are the one that continually alludes to this elusive yet magical framework.

 

I can say there are very many clear directions that need to happen and it is a matter of support systems to evolve for that to occur, which will begin to emerge in my opinion as consciousness as a whole begins to move more in that direction. Until that time, you have pockets of movement within individuals and smaller communities, opening up discussion and awareness, and the human spirit naturally does the rest in response to evolutionary movement.

 

I believe the consciousness is most likely a moral absolute and is rather self-correcting. And like you say, it's in need of time to evolve. I don't see the consciousness as anything new or in need of elusive visionary input, but see it as having to enroll in it's own school of hard knocks to further it's own evolution....just my opinion. The support systems are already in place and fail because of selfishness and will do so until that time in which our own selfishness is rendered inadequate in our own minds.....like a dream of Heaven, perhaps through faith.

 

Since I know you meant this rhetorically, I toss it back at you. Where's the beef in Christianity? If it had the chops for the overall need, then why are we here as a whole? Christianity has been trying to redefine itself ever since the Enlightenment, and what you see in the flaying about of fundamentalism and evangelical kookiness is evidence of its overall failure to translate the dawn of the new day. Wouldn't you say?

 

I believe Christianity appeals to those that accept their own stage of development....and yes, I would say that the kookiness is just that.....but also see a silent majority that accept humbleness and don't speak much BECAUSE of their own understanding of grace and the need for it......and only pressed into voice when excessively pressed themselves....much like the last election.

 

I think that comes well back to MM's question about religion without Myth. Christianity struggles to move their symbols forward and adapt. That makes it necessary to replace it, to supersede it with something that can translate. Can Christianity talk to the world within a rational worldspace (and I don't mean the broken apologetic of those like LNC, which is quasi-rationality and a spiritual waterless canal, as opposed to an integrated Reason)? Can it speak in such a way that principles of human spirituality can be communicated without having to believe in Noah's magic giraffe boat and dead bodies pouring out of graves and walking through cities as historical facts?

 

Again, supercede it with what that would "supercede" something that is self-correcting? Who says morality is not on an evoltionary path as well?.....a path towards perfection? I don't see that the lapsing of time necessarily means truth is any less true, but needs time to evolve the understanding of truth. Essentially, there is a time to be fed, a time to learn, and a time for suffering, to perpetuate the existance (the seasons, hint hint). The point being, I believe humanity is near the point of suffering NEEDED to perpetuate the cycle. I don't see it happening without excessive pain. Is this the consciousness that you are saying will evolve? Are there pockets of this visionary understanding out there that can see past the inevitable suffering? Probably. Can it be avoided? Probably not.

 

You tell me. How would you do that? Where's that beef?

 

No, I asked you first, and I expect a valid framework with at least a few specifics. Give me the specifics of "clear

directions" and needed "support systems" to evolve this consciousness.

 

I have already given you the answer 'cause I am nice.

[Galien]

Honestly where do you people think you get your ideas about EVERYTHING? Do you think you are born knowing and believing the stuff you know and believe? We are surrounded by myths, influences, brainwashing every day of our lives. Standing in the queue at the supermarket yesterday I wondered if I were the only woman there who wanted to take every woman's magazine and flick a match on it? Was I the only one thinking "this shit defines for women who they should be and it fucking SUCKS that they let it?" Am I the only one that sees that we are all influenced by everything we see hear and read? Surely not.

 

For me the thing is to decide how much of what is presented to me I actually accept and live by. I have always been keenly aware that many ideas and concepts jockey for position in my mind. In our culture its mainly who will get my money. Who will influence me to believe I need what they are trying to sell me? That also happens when it comes to the world of ideas.

 

In 1993 I was kicked out of a cult. That launched me into to trying to work out what happened to me and why. I studied spiritual abuse and coincidentally also studied organisational behaviour at university. Looking at the two together I could really see just how influenced by are by each other. Sadly the basis of that influence is usually power, and not for good. Ever since then I look at everything from a point of view of what is being sold to me here, and more importantly, WHY?

 

There are so many things we learn growing up that we take for granted. I don't do that with anything. Where did this idea come from? What perpetuates it? Should it be changed? What is the human need behind it if it is clearly a stupid idea? Stuff like that. Our culture is full of myths. Try taking a look at it from that point of view. Blows my mind how easily influenced we really are.

 

Like I said earlier, my concept of myth is much less broad. I apparently do not deny the greater concept of myth you just described and what Antlerman described. I just wasn't calling those things myths.

 

Also, no doubt we are all heavily influenced by our culture, but I synthesize many of my ideas and beliefs on my own, even if some of the building blocks of that synthesis relies on subordinate ideas provided by culture. I question many things and the way I think and act isn't quite in tune with society. And most advertising has little influence on how I spend my money. I don't think my mind is simply a blank slate accepting instructions by the power structures in place. I am not a sheeple, and while non-sheeples are the minority, I don't think they are quite rare - especially on this site.

 

And that is exactly the problem. So much of what we accept as given is little more than myth. We are born into a world and told "that is the way it is" and we are just meant to accept it. We all take instructions from the power structures in place, and have to live by their decisions. Of course we are not sheeple, that is why we are here. I do think though that we are still heavily influenced by the opinion of our peers, especially in the case of societal myths.

[Vigile]

Am I really seriously that obtuse? I've been considering how I'm communicating these days, wondering if it is my use of words in sentences has begun to fall apart from before, or if it simply a matter of conceptual and experiential frameworks I'm looking at this in. In my mind it is a highly rational framework that includes and integrates many frameworks of understanding, I suppose you could call it a meta-framework. But to me that is simply what is necessary in order to begin to adequately and fairly deal with these questions, as opposed to simply making them black and white questions, i.e., "Religion vs. Science".

 

I've noticed that some people read what you write and agree completely, offering kudos, while others like myself, often find themselves lost in your prose. My theory is you and those who agree with you have brains wired a bit differently and as such communicate differently. Moreover, those who do easily understand you seem to be those who feel a stronger need for spirituality than those who don't. I'm sure there is a connection there, I just don't have evidence, nor am I qualified to address it. No judgments here, so hopefully this doesn't come across that way.

[Vigile]

It comes down to questions of the nature of truth, perception, and experience of living. People take for granted all the things that define reality to us, and largely ignore them assuming them as givens. To look at the nature of these 'givens' then to look beyond these to 'who' exactly is using all these offers insight into the nature of truth itself. Cite evidence all you wish, the subjective is still interpreting, translating, and building frameworks of reality to interface itself with it. And all of that is always in flux, never static "facts", as much as we might to solace in telling ourselves we have found Truth now.

 

I'm pretty sure if I ever took an acid trip and experienced a new perspective on reality I'd say whoa, dude!

 

[Vigile]

 

 

Perhaps a difference in semantics is the root of my confusion. To me reality means objective reality. Then there is our perceptions and perspectives of reality. Of course, an individuals perception of reality may be much more relevant to that person than actual objective reality. I prefer having a perception of reality closely matches objective reality as much as practical. Of course, I have to accept that my concepts of reality will always be limited.

 

Yup, pretty much sums it up for me too.

 

Moreover, I enjoy questioning givens and measuring them up against testable criteria as much as possible. Embracing an alternative reality gives me the heebie jeebies. My deconversion was a life-changing event that trumps any kind of shock therapy designed by man. I need objectivity like I need air.

[Galien]

It comes down to questions of the nature of truth, perception, and experience of living. People take for granted all the things that define reality to us, and largely ignore them assuming them as givens. To look at the nature of these 'givens' then to look beyond these to 'who' exactly is using all these offers insight into the nature of truth itself. Cite evidence all you wish, the subjective is still interpreting, translating, and building frameworks of reality to interface itself with it. And all of that is always in flux, never static "facts", as much as we might to solace in telling ourselves we have found Truth now.

 

I'm pretty sure if I ever took an acid trip and experienced a new perspective on reality I'd say whoa, dude!

 

 

Funny you should say that. My first hubby who enjoyed his acid trips always said to me please never take acid. You are there already and I am afraid of what it might do to you I think we definately have different brain wiring. I need to be allowed to know what I know without being told it is not valid, like I need air.

[sciencemike]

 

Please don't think I'm anti-science in the least. I simply think we should not have to much of an excessively idealistic mindset towards science. To me, it seems such mindsets compromise objectivity.

 

Certainly the peer review process is highly important and does much to eliminate bullshit. However, no system conceived by and implemented by humans is perfect. Even when intentions are pure, mistakes can happen. If we put too much confidence in the process, we can run into problems.

 

Of course, scientists are generally prepared to question everything, and are careful about stating the results of any research. Unfortunately, when results are presented to the public via the news media, reporters are not to careful about how they report scientific findings. Reporters may report scientific findings poorly because of incompetence, a desire to sensationalize their report, or both. A scientific report might say that x research shows there may be a causal relationship between y and z and more research is needed to confirm this relationship. A news article might say that if you want z, you better do or get some y because of x research. Some company might then sell a product based on y for those who want z, and claim it is backed by scientific research. Some people may look at findings from one scientific report in isolation without even hearing about research that produces conflicting results. They then give the results much more credibility than is due. And, of course, people are duped by pseudoscience all the time.

 

Not at all (I didn't mean to infer that you were anti-science at all), you're right about having a pragmatic approach to the approach and application of scientific principles. As you mentioned, there needs to be a sufficient margin in confidence intervals, as well as carefully ruling out covariates in order to determine causality from correlation. Scientists are generally good at this (there are mistakes but the nature of peer review tends to self-correct any errors) but the media (any media!) tends to get it horribly wrong every time. Then again this is true not only with statistics, but with any sort of mathematics in the public view.

 

xkcd: Advertising

 

 

 

I'm not sure how you are making that statement. Myths do evolve all the time. Just look at the evolution of the god Jehovah in the OT. People adapt their myths to support their current world they live in. What do you think gave birth to Christianity? How were the gospels created? Evolving myths. And what fascinates me in particular about those evolving myths is to look at the overall progression of human social consciousness you see evolved through it.

 

I would say myths are very much a bottom-up support structure, along with visionary languages of new ideals, aspirations, and human yearnings. They are created in social contexts, and for a reason. So to make comparisons to them with the 'reliability of science' are truly an apples and orangutans argument. They seem judged more appropriately in terms of how effective and relevant they are.

 

 

Hmm.. I see what you mean, it makes sense as far as how Christianity came into being. The earliest forms of religion, burial rituals, etc led to Animism/Shamanism, which then branched into mono- and polytheism, with Christianity being a sub-branch of monotheism and an offshoot of the Judaism fork. If beliefs/ideas grow organically within this social construct, why does Christianity have so many logically inconsistent ideas? Say the idea of a Trinity, the splitting of God into three distinct components yet somehow still one component. From an outsider's standpoint the idea is absurd, the closest thing I can think of that corresponds to this is a computer with triple-SLI graphics cards that fits in the motherboard to form a single GPU network. If this is the case, why does religion not push to "eliminate" or "correct" these ideas to form a logically consistent framework?

 

 

Take the myth of apostolic succession. The church created that myth in order to support its social position on hierarchical structures. Was the myth effective? You bet it was, when you consider how it survived 2000 years because of it. Is it 'true" historically and scientifically? Of course not. But that's not what its purpose or intent was for.

 

Back to mythic structures and their legitimate supports for that structure, and rationalist structures and its legitimate supports. Science may have evidence for its discoveries, but where are it social programs and where is the legitimate support from it as a system for those? Or is this in fact not a comparison at all and try as we wish to prop up science this is not what it is about? Apples and orangutans. We can come back to this later if you wish...

 

True, the social structures build into a church society will always be more pronounced and inclusive than those that science has (its difficult to join a scientific community until you already have an advanced degree and know what they are talking about). Then again, the pursuit of science doesn't explicitly have the goal of helping those who are less fortunate. Implicitly though, science does advance this field as well through fields such as Public Health field and modern Medicine. You're right in that they can't exactly be compared in this manner. Both are different, with the primary differentiation being that religion is a socially dynamic structure whereas science is completely entrenched in logic to the exclusion of all other factors.

 

FYI: ex-jedi.net hasn't been registered yet.

 

Neither is ex-sith.net

[Rev R]

Neither is ex-sith.net

 

You've seen the films. An ex-Sith is usually a dead one.

[Antlerman]

So you're asking what practical system can speak to the masses in such a way as it moves us beyond what Christianity fails to do, and where science ultimately is only a part of?

Yes, pretty much....but you are the one that continually alludes to this elusive yet magical framework.

 

I can say there are very many clear directions that need to happen and it is a matter of support systems to evolve for that to occur, which will begin to emerge in my opinion as consciousness as a whole begins to move more in that direction. Until that time, you have pockets of movement within individuals and smaller communities, opening up discussion and awareness, and the human spirit naturally does the rest in response to evolutionary movement.

The support systems are already in place and fail because of selfishness and will do so until that time in which our own selfishness is rendered inadequate in our own minds.....like a dream of Heaven, perhaps through faith.

You don't quite yet follow what I mean. I'm talking about higher states of consciousness, that naturally move beyond your selfish tendencies. I do not believe the supporting system within Christianity (certainly not in how it is promoted in your mainstream Evangelical folds) is in fact reflective or supportive of a higher state of spiritual awareness. In fact, it is reflective and supportive mostly of immaturity, narcissism. "God save me! My salvation, my home in the sky, my afterlife, my relationship with God, God's love for me." Me. Me. Me.

 

My argument is that as we in fact mature from within beyond the whole "me" business, then we will evolve support structures that reinforce and promote that perception and experience of reality. Orthodox Christianity was evolved to speak to the masses who were not mature, and how it is used today is on the immature level. Everything is taken literally and there are no subtleties, nuances, or higher awareness in your mainstream fare. You must believe "what is written", the limits of what can be understood by the average-mode masses. In other words, its a support structure for the immature, which translates into 'selfish'. A child is selfish by nature. A mature adult is not, by nature. (Please note the word mature. I don't mean biologically mature, but emotionally, mentally and spiritually mature).

 

I believe Christianity appeals to those that accept their own stage of development....and yes, I would say that the kookiness is just that.....but also see a silent majority that accept humbleness and don't speak much BECAUSE of their own understanding of grace and the need for it......and only pressed into voice when excessively pressed themselves....much like the last election.

There is wisdom in your words. But then why are the immature allowed the voice of leadership?????????

 

Something seems broken there, don't you think? Something that needs to be rejected, and or replaced?

 

I think that comes well back to MM's question about religion without Myth. Christianity struggles to move their symbols forward and adapt. That makes it necessary to replace it, to supersede it with something that can translate. Can Christianity talk to the world within a rational worldspace (and I don't mean the broken apologetic of those like LNC, which is quasi-rationality and a spiritual waterless canal, as opposed to an integrated Reason)? Can it speak in such a way that principles of human spirituality can be communicated without having to believe in Noah's magic giraffe boat and dead bodies pouring out of graves and walking through cities as historical facts?

 

Again, supercede it with what that would "supercede" something that is self-correcting? Who says morality is not on an evoltionary path as well?.....a path towards perfection? I don't see that the lapsing of time necessarily means truth is any less true, but needs time to evolve the understanding of truth. Essentially, there is a time to be fed, a time to learn, and a time for suffering, to perpetuate the existance (the seasons, hint hint). The point being, I believe humanity is near the point of suffering NEEDED to perpetuate the cycle. I don't see it happening without excessive pain. Is this the consciousness that you are saying will evolve? Are there pockets of this visionary understanding out there that can see past the inevitable suffering? Probably. Can it be avoided? Probably not.

Again, you impress me with your insight. I agree, that even though there are those who not only see or realize what is the next necessary stage, but experience it and live it, as with evolution for the whole it often follows environmental pressure. As we have pushed ourselves into the corner of our present way of doing things, disaster may strike that forces adaptation of the whole out of necessity of survival. This is where 'downward causation' comes to bear on the influence of the direction of things. I do not believe it is possible for humanity to 'devolve' into nothing more than an another animal lacking self-awareness, even though we may take steps down to the lowest levels still with us - such as tribalism, warlords, or sociocentric and ethnocentric mentalities, genocidal wars, etc. But it will be against that that the new light emerges - hopefully.

 

You tell me. How would you do that? Where's that beef?

 

No, I asked you first, and I expect a valid framework with at least a few specifics. Give me the specifics of "clear

directions" and needed "support systems" to evolve this consciousness.

 

I have already given you the answer 'cause I am nice.

Here's what I wanted to add to this briefly, you have to find it from within. It cannot be dictated from outside - such as a God telling you "the way". It has to evolved, to emerge from what is within you, within us moreover, in order to create a support system for us to nurture and support and promote what we have come to realize. And there is always a level above that, and above that.

 

This is one of many reasons why I chaff against some divine book "telling us "the way", then that is interpreted as giving us the answers or the "how to" manual. The how to, is a discovery of inner light that moves out into the world and creatively manifests itself. One is a child looking to be told, the other is an adult creating. You see the difference?

 

 

I want to add a lot to this later but I have to run right now.

[Guest end3]

You don't quite yet follow what I mean. I'm talking about higher states of consciousness, that naturally move beyond your selfish tendencies. I do not believe the supporting system within Christianity (certainly not in how it is promoted in your mainstream Evangelical folds) is in fact reflective or supportive of a higher state of spiritual awareness. In fact, it is reflective and supportive mostly of immaturity, narcissism. "God save me! My salvation, my home in the sky, my afterlife, my relationship with God, God's love for me." Me. Me. Me.

 

I wish I thought it was possible to evolve for more than a brief period of time. The lengthiest time that has lasted for me might have been a day, maybe two. I don't see how one gets around the similarities to accomplishing this evolution as stated in the Bible. Not to force that on you, but one, I think one must personally feel or understand what it feels like and want to share that with others. You say it is selfish, but I would think selfish as being part of the foundational structure to accomplish the evolution. In theory, I don't believe that any man saved by God was perfect other than Christ......it's more of a get on board and follow and saved with the Beginning of the Entity. And I think it works in pockets or groups as well. One person starts and others have to follow to evolve into a new entity. But, here's the kicker....that the standard is unknown, and what dictates the standard among men?

 

 

My argument is that as we in fact mature from within beyond the whole "me" business, then we will evolve support structures that reinforce and promote that perception and experience of reality. Orthodox Christianity was evolved to speak to the masses who were not mature, and how it is used today is on the immature level. Everything is taken literally and there are no subtleties, nuances, or higher awareness in your mainstream fare. You must believe "what is written", the limits of what can be understood by the average-mode masses. In other words, its a support structure for the immature, which translates into 'selfish'. A child is selfish by nature. A mature adult is not, by nature. (Please note the word mature. I don't mean biologically mature, but emotionally, mentally and spiritually mature).

 

How is one to mature from within without calling it "me" or "selfish".....but I am with you on the structures following. I think we do that every day.....things that support our good feelings. I have to agree with you on the orthodoxy. As I was trying to explain to Pappy, there are few mature individuals within the system.......or OUT of the system. Paraphrasing....the path is wide, but narrow is the gate/door. I don't remember. But still, you get the point that few find what you are expressing. Ultimately how is the human entity to evolve to a different level if the entire entity is not subject to the mechanism that evolves it?

 

There is wisdom in your words. But then why are the immature allowed the voice of leadership?????????

 

Because it is that same grace that allows for people to learn by the mature's example rather that having it force fed. A clear example is our church. We are 45 miles from Abilene Christian University....a trainging ground for preachers. We have gone through four or five ministers at our church since I started attending 15 to 20 years ago. The learn and then they move on to another higher paying church. The point being, that those that are mature within our church recognize these young men and women and help them along rather than beat them up for what they don't know in their mid-20s to thirtys. I think that very much answers your questions. You take someone like you or I that think perpendicular to the norm and we are considered fringe at best within the orthodoxy. Why it's like that? Good question. Fear?

 

Something seems broken there, don't you think? Something that needs to be rejected, and or replaced?

 

Yea verily.....isn't that what is referenced thoughout the Bible? ....that there will be a replacement? And please note, I am not trying to beat you down with the bible symbolism, but use it as that is how it is easier for me to understand after the years of brainwashing. Seriously, outside of Christianity, the simplest terms would be how would one stay "in love" and remain there and adequately share that with others. I don't know of any higher consciousness.

 

Again, you impress me with your insight.

 

One of the few I believe, but thanks.

 

 

I agree, that even though there are those who not only see or realize what is the next necessary stage, but experience it and live it, as with evolution for the whole it often follows environmental pressure. As we have pushed ourselves into the corner of our present way of doing things, disaster may strike that forces adaptation of the whole out of necessity of survival. This is where 'downward causation' comes to bear on the influence of the direction of things. I do not believe it is possible for humanity to 'devolve' into nothing more than an another animal lacking self-awareness, even though we may take steps down to the lowest levels still with us - such as tribalism, warlords, or sociocentric and ethnocentric mentalities, genocidal wars, etc. But it will be against that that the new light emerges - hopefully.

 

Japan atm comes to mind. I think anyone in their right mind sees humanity there rather than anything else....and the need to evolve in such a way to move the entire entity higher.

 

Here's what I wanted to add to this briefly, you have to find it from within. It cannot be dictated from outside - such as a God telling you "the way". It has to evolved, to emerge from what is within you, within us moreover, in order to create a support system for us to nurture and support and promote what we have come to realize. And there is always a level above that, and above that.

 

Perhaps like the levels of Heaven? Sorry, I couldn't resist. But you bring up our old nemisis (sp) back to the conversation. I would ask how does it happen within and why isn't it happening more often....the evolution of the masses. I guess it is, just not at a rate that I am expecting.

 

This is one of many reasons why I chaff against some divine book "telling us "the way", then that is interpreted as giving us the answers or the "how to" manual. The how to, is a discovery of inner light that moves out into the world and creatively manifests itself. One is a child looking to be told, the other is an adult creating. You see the difference?

 

I just had a Biblical insight today....somewhat recognizing a layer or pattern that helps me understand or at least HAVE a "how to" direction. I would ask that you consider the evolutionary steps within an average human's life as not much different than what is suggested in the Bible.

 

Again, not to beat you down with my personal symbolism, but it does, to me, seem correct at heart, and how to achieve the evolution. And also that is why I am pressing you to present a different structure so that we might compare.

 

 

 

 

 

I want to add a lot to this later but I have to run right now.