The CoEvolution Of Spiritual Ideas

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Hi Everyone, Smile

The coevolution of spiritual ideas works on the same principles as the coevolution of ideas in general, the nature of the world is that it is a relational world. In this world of ideas, it is not so much the physical presence of the world that makes ideas plastic, but the changing knowledge of that physcial world being the ground upon which mutation and adaptation of ideas occurs. One thing should be obvious to all, that nothing has its being in isolation, in any system in the here and now, elements of the systems that proceeded it can be found within it. So, any given tradition which claims orginality, as somethihng which stands alone is deceptive and a fraud. With this understanding one can examine all of our past traditions, accept perhaps those that are lost to prehistory, but knowing the process we can speculate fairly accurately the nature of even these prehistoric developments. Knowledge of the natural world is the bases of the adaptation of spiritual ideas, and any tradition which cannot incorporate new knowledge or denys its correlation both to other existing spiritual traditions and the spiritual tradiitions of the past, is then not a vital tradition. The processes of adaption do not change over time whether of biology or the development of ideas, the foundation for change is knowledge, so why are we treading water. Your thoughts!!

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,866 • Replies: 29

No top replies

@boagie,

There has definitely been an evolutionary process with human thought. But all, 100% of lasting traditions have found ways to accomodate modernity, though some have chosen rejection of modernity as their tact.

Realize that it's education that allows people to accept modern knowledge, and that means implanting ideas early in life before kids can really analyze anything critically. So even acceptance of modern ideas is only so genui, as opposed to a benign kind of indoctrination. Also realize how quickly our scientific knowledge has advanced. Maybe we need to be patient with it, because it's sort of overwhelming. Finally, when we see science as morally neutral, but we also see BAD things it can do, we need to realize that modern knowledge has not yet replaced everything that people seek in religions that have offered moral teaching for centuries.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Hi Aedes,

I quite agree, we are in a sense in free fall, the traditions of past do not really cut it anymore, so, in a very real sense, we have inherited the wind. I would contend however, that our planet is in peril, and the old thinking has to go. As long as people believe they are being cared for by a fairy godfather, they are not likely to responed rationallly to the crisis the world finds itself in. The end of civilization is on the horizon, complete despair and desolation will do these old traditions in, but, then it will be to late. I agree with you, that patients would be the answer if we wish to effect any form of transformation, but, we do not have time. Mankind is going to perish wearing some really silly hats, all the while feeling self-righteous until the curtian starts coming down on the tragedy of these old beliefs.

0 Replies

@boagie,

I think that major effects can be brought about with small changes applied on a massive scale. And cultural change will happen. Look at the generational shift in American politics, in which the youngest generations of voters overwhelmingly supported Obama and older voters supported McCain. The older ideas that Reagan championed about small, unintrusive government, are NOT resonating with the younger generation. Also, science has brought with it its own cynical backlash -- but so has religion, especially with the current pope being antagonistic to the political mandates that might keep the Catholic church popular with a younger generation. This stuff is all part of that evolution, but I think our job is to first and foremost reject the Bush administration's approach to science, which was only let it say what you want to hear, and only fund it to discover what you want to know. Secondly, we need to make sure that kids who grow up understand the epistemic differences between science and religious, such that they realize that they are NOT at odds with one another -- they merely serve different purposes in life.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;

I truely do hope you are right, perhaps the bleekness of the picture I have painted is not realistic, but it sure will take some convincing, even the most basic thing which is problematic to the world, the world cannot bring itself to deal with, over population. These old traditions in this to are barriers, they cannot suddenly get real and respond to real crisis. Keep talking Aedes, I feel slightly better already. Yes the Bush administration was, how should I put it, an abomination, the Christian right wings representative, god was directing foreign policy--a funny little man that Bush. I guess hope is the younger generation, perhaps they will turn things around, I do hope there is time.

0 Replies

@boagie,

I've got no problem with society having every extreme of belief from the religious to the atheistic, so long as cruel treatment of others isn't part of the equation anywhere. I've met a lot of Christian missionaries in Africa, and while I have a bit of dyspepsia about bringing religious teaching where it's not exactly asked for, when it comes down to it no one is going to be truly free if they're sick and poor and dying, and a mission hospital is better than no hospital. When the wellness and strength and knowledge of the community improves, people will have the opportunity to make authentic choices for themselves.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

I've got no problem with society having every extreme of belief from the religious to the atheistic, so long as cruel treatment of others isn't part of the equation anywhere. I've met a lot of Christian missionaries in Africa, and while I have a bit of dyspepsia about bringing religious teaching where it's not exactly asked for, when it comes down to it no one is going to be truly free if they're sick and poor and dying, and a mission hospital is better than no hospital. When the wellness and strength and knowledge of the community improves, people will have the opportunity to make authentic choices for themselves.

Aedes,

Yes, I agree with the above but it does seem a little off topic. I would like to be optomistic about the future but I think in order to do so, we must be able to see this process of evolutionary or rather coevolutionary ideas developing and coming into their own. So, it is a condition I think we are looking for, a cluster if you like of mutually evolving ideas, that is it seems to me to be what is necessary, but, do we see this happening? It must be a relational deveopment, with many aspects to it. Pehaps self-control and reclaiming the environment could become the major industry of humanity. It however, needs to start now. Thoughs things which would be roadblocks to this development need to be shoved to the side of the road. If they cannot be of aid, they should not get in the way, for there is indeed a crisis, and that which is not part of the answer, is part of the problem.

1 Reply

@boagie,

It's not as off-topic as it seems. Think about Reverend Warren at the inauguration. The whole point of it is that here is a right wing religious Christian who sees it as a Christian duty to be a good shepherd of the earth and of poor people who are in need.

In other words, it'll be a lot easier for us to share priorities and goals despite coming from different belief systems than it will be for everyone's belief system to change. Most of the things we think are important in a practical sense (i.e. active problems in our collevtive lives) are things for which common ground can exist for many people.

Call it convergent evolution. Vertebrates and insects independently developed wings in order to fly -- they faced the same challenge and independently came up with almost identical solutions. That can happen in culture, too -- we can get to a similar point from very different starting points. That way you don't have to turn a bug into a bird just to get it to fly.

1 Reply

@boagie,

it sounds like you are referring to Memetics. i certainly agree that the right ideals need to be in place in order to progress, but more then that i think people need to learn critical thinking more so then be instilled with "correct" ideas. human culture is a non-linear complex system and no one idea or another is going to be best, because memetic evolution happens as emergent behavior.

i'd say the biggest problem with culture comes from idealogues attempting to push agendas (on both religious/secular and democrat/republican fronts). i think people need to be given knowledge, understanding, and taught how to think critically and allow them to come to their own conclusions, as oppose to the mass indoctrinating that our education system pushes on kids (this is from an Americans POV, anyway).

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes,

Excellent, how do we overcome the resistence of the institutions? In theory I am with you. What can you do with someone who insists on embracing ignorance, denying the reality which is upon us? Granted we are at a stage now when say the problem of global warm is even to the righteous difficult to deny, but they will fight every new insight that emerges.

1 Reply

@boagie,

Kreist,

Education in the process of thinking, well, nature is in the process of educatiing us, all we have to do is connect the dots, but I guess that is where critical thinking comes in, god, we are done for.

0 Replies

@boagie,

This may be rhetorical, but I think it's about using language in a way that emphasizes how we're in this together. It's the kind of thing that made Martin Luther King Jr such an effective, peerless leader -- that he did not spend his time lashing out at the enemy, but rather lifting up everyone. I think it's also coincidentally Obama's main rhetorical trick, his "Koolaid" -- he spends very little time attacking except when his target is already so unpopular (i.e. Bush) that he barely alienates anyone by doing so. He's inclusive.

Resistance, i.e. defensiveness, is often a response to perceived offense. That's why in microscopic examples innocent arguments get blown out of proportion here. But you simmer down the arms race by talking congenially and first finding what you CAN agree on.

It's difficult in the US because usually issues fall on a dichotomous political line, so there aren't very many gradations -- except in the ever important 1/3 of the country who are more or less noncommital to one party or another, and you win them over by making them realize that they're already on your side -- not by giving them the urge to defend something.

3 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

This may be rhetorical, but I think it's about using language in a way that emphasizes how we're in this together. It's the kind of thing that made Martin Luther King Jr such an effective, peerless leader -- that he did not spend his time lashing out at the enemy, but rather lifting up everyone. I think it's also coincidentally Obama's main rhetorical trick, his "Koolaid" -- he spends very little time attacking except when his target is already so unpopular (i.e. Bush) that he barely alienates anyone by doing so. He's inclusive.

this hits the nail on the head, i'd say. people don't need someone to do things for them or to tell them how to think, they need someone that will teach them to think for themselves.

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes,

Excellent Aedes, I think you Ace it!!

0 Replies

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Hi Everyone,

The coevolution of spiritual ideas works on the same principles as the coevolution of ideas in general, the nature of the world is that it is a relational world. In this world of ideas, it is not so much the physical presence of the world that makes ideas plastic, but the changing knowledge of that physcial world being the ground upon which mutation and adaptation of ideas occurs. One thing should be obvious to all, that nothing has its being in isolation, in any system in the here and now, elements of the systems that proceeded it can be found within it. So, any given tradition which claims orginality, as somethihng which stands alone is deceptive and a fraud. With this understanding one can examine all of our past traditions, accept perhaps those that are lost to prehistory, but knowing the process we can speculate fairly accurately the nature of even these prehistoric developments. Knowledge of the natural world is the bases of the adaptation of spiritual ideas, and any tradition which cannot incorporate new knowledge or denys its correlation both to other existing spiritual traditions and the spiritual tradiitions of the past, is then not a vital tradition. The processes of adaption do not change over time whether of biology or the development of ideas, the foundation for change is knowledge, so why are we treading water. Your thoughts!!

Dear Boagie,

There is but One original truth of nature that singualarily stands alone, and that is the true Oneness of All.
Spiritually or Physically, Energetically, or Elementary, God is truly One.
And equal or = unites us All, UFT., TOE., or you and equally me.

=
MJA

1 Reply

@MJA,

MJA,

Yes I agree, and I guess you can call it god, I rather think of it as an understanding of reality. Actually I think what Aedes has said is just that in different terms. Thanks for the input. Even the newest development of science method, general systems theory, or whole thinking is one of the aspects of coevolutionary thought which needs to come together.

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Agree; bravo Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

This may be rhetorical, but I think it's about using language in a way that emphasizes how we're in this together.

Precisely! As a species, we have very similar needs. As a people (since the U.S. was mentioned) we have a shared culture and heritage. Despite this, there is so much polarization that it boggles the mind. And yes, language is the best place to start; using it properly, absent of bitterness and without presumption (along with a pinch of deftness) emphasizes this "likeness". We're all in this together and we've *all* got the same problems. Behold yonder firemen arguing over who tangled the hose while the Public Library burns - what a shame.

Aedes wrote:

... it's also coincidentally Obama's main rhetorical trick, his "Koolaid" -- he spends very little time attacking except when his target is already so unpopular (i.e. Bush) that he barely alienates anyone by doing so. He's inclusive.

Indeed. I just hope to high-heaven that it makes a difference; that it soaks down to the enraged levels necessary to effect a change. I suppose time will tell.

Aedes wrote:

Resistance, i.e. defensiveness, is often a response to perceived offense. That's why in microscopic examples innocent arguments get blown out of proportion here. But you simmer down the arms race by talking congenially and first finding what you CAN agree on.

Yep, I one wrote a paper on Reducing Defensiveness (forgot what grade it warranted - I probably forgot that on purpose~). There are many tools one can use, quite simply, to craft their thoughts in such a way that enables productive communication.

Aedes wrote:

It's difficult in the US because usually issues fall on a dichotomous political line, so there aren't very many gradations -- except in the ever important 1/3 of the country who are more or less noncommital to one party or another, and you win them over by making them realize that they're already on your side -- not by giving them the urge to defend something.

Concur - and I've about reached my tolerance level. This needless bickering between political parties (particularly as the U.S. tries to stumble its way back to financial health) comes to mind immediately. Wherein lies this need to dichotomize and vilify at just such times wherein cooperation is needed most? Sad stuff for sure, but I'll not be silent on the destruction this needless polarization bring any longer.

Excellent thread - Thanks

0 Replies

@Kreist,

Kreist wrote:

... and no one idea or another is going to be best, because memetic evolution happens as emergent behavior.

... but is it a matter of "best" when it comes to memetics, or is it rather a matter of whether or not an ideology is "colonial"? (i.e., any ideology that contains a strong imperative for the active conversion of non-believers) ...

0 Replies

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Your thoughts!!

... it's interesting to observe that the same cultural turning points that have resulted in an ever-more-rapid evolution of ideas about the natural world have resulted in the ever-less-rapid evolution of ideas about the spiritual world ... long, long ago, stories were told and retold in the firelight, with each retelling slightly modified from the previous one in order to address a contemporary crisis ... spiritual knowledge was alive! ... but the same invention that enabled philosophy and science - the written word - also allowed spiritual knowledge to be tamed ... to become The Word ... fast forward through the printing press to the Web ... scientific knowledge is evolving at lightspeed, whereas The Word has fossilized into stone ... how much cognitive dissonance will it take before spiritual knowledge breaks free of the shackles of The Word to live and breathe again? ...

1 Reply

@paulhanke,

Paulhanke, Smile

Hard to say how things will unfold, the fact that there is nolonger an oral tradition means that the word cannot change with the changing world. You might say, that that is the reason for the lack of vitality. Mythology was at one time a means of orienting the population, to bring into accord the individual with society, with the cosmos, nature and to the knowledge of its time, it was alive. What might it take with all the mind blowing discovers of the sciences in human nature, the natural world and the cosmos for a mythology to arise which could ground us in modernity. It does not appear that people desire it so, is it a profound lack of imagination, I do not know, the stuff for a new mythology is right there, the mystery of the cosmos is open to us and we are stuck with a childish fairytale. I am embarrassed for our humanity, the waters are a stagnate pool.

0 Replies

The CoEvolution Of Spiritual Ideas

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know