Working Together: Can We Restore the World?

fresco wrote:

Setanta,

Have you read "Siddharta" by Hesse ? (Available in full on the net).

I think this is a good introduction to cosmic "swimming"

Yes, i read it about 40 years ago or so--what impressed me most were two things. The first was that it was far less outrageous than the hilariously hyperbolic stories told about the Buddha in the generations after his death. The second was that it is no better founded on reliable evidence than are those stories.

0 Replies

Setanta,

There's a certain "quality of mind" which can be gained in the "de-bunking" of that word "evidence" and I say that as a (former) scientist and an atheist. This point involves many epistemological and ontological issues which are beyond the scope of this thread. Ultimately. as the hero of the book finds out, all division of observer and observed, on which the concept of "evidence" rests, is antithetical to such "quality of mind".
This is the experiental "authority" which informs IFF's style which annoys us by bordering on "the religious". But irrespective of its meditational roots as so well described by Hesse, it now has scientific functionality in the realm of quantum physics where it has become accepted that "evidence" and "objectivity" are problematic.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Setanta,

There's a certain "quality of mind" which can be gained in the "de-bunking" of that word "evidence" and I say that as a (former) scientist and an atheist. This point involves many epistemological and ontological issues which are beyond the scope of this thread. Ultimately. as the hero of the book finds out, all division of observer and observed, on which the concept of "evidence" rests, is antithetical to such "quality of mind". This is the experiental "authority" which informs IFF's style which annoys us by bordering on "the religious". But irrespective of its meditational roots as so well described by Hesse, it now has scientific functionality in the realm of quantum physics where it has become accepted that "evidence" and "objectivity" are problematic.

Good points. Objectivity in science is sometimes compromised by the social hierarchy of scientists. Often when evidence is discovered that is in variance with existing theories, there is an effort to explain away the evidence at first, until the evidence becomes too great. Examples include the theory of an "ether" for electromagnetic wave propagation in the 19th century, and arguments against indeterminism in early 20th century quantum mechanics.

At a deeper level, it can be argued that true objectivity can never be achieved since all sensory data is filtered by our cultural conditioning and existing mental concepts. As you suggest, quantum mechanics formally recognizes the inseparability of subject and object. Since complete objectivity is impossible, I have tried to argue for the validity of subjective experience as evidence for uncovering truth provided that the subjective experience is predictable and repeatable for anyone who choose to conduct the "experiment". I understand that this is controversial, but it is very different than arguing in favor of "faith". I am sympathetic to Sam Harris' arguments in "The End of Faith", and I have sought an alternative way of incorporating the spiritual dimension that does not require acceptance of irrationality.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Setanta,

There's a certain "quality of mind" which can be gained in the "de-bunking" of that word "evidence" and I say that as a (former) scientist and an atheist. This point involves many epistemological and ontological issues which are beyond the scope of this thread. Ultimately. as the hero of the book finds out, all division of observer and observed, on which the concept of "evidence" rests, is antithetical to such "quality of mind".
This is the experiental "authority" which informs IFF's style which annoys us by bordering on "the religious". But irrespective of its meditational roots as so well described by Hesse, it now has scientific functionality in the realm of quantum physics where it has become accepted that "evidence" and "objectivity" are problematic.

That "evidence" and "objectivity" are problematic at the level of quantum physics does not invalidate a charge that someone has attempted to offer what is patently subjective as evidence.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

That "evidence" and "objectivity" are problematic at the level of quantum physics does not invalidate a charge that someone has attempted to offer what is patently subjective as evidence.

No, it doesn't, and I plead guilty. However, I am trying to outline the set of circumstances in which I can make that claim, hopefully, with some credibility.

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

Setanta wrote:
That "evidence" and "objectivity" are problematic at the level of quantum physics does not invalidate a charge that someone has attempted to offer what is patently subjective as evidence.

No, it doesn't, and I plead guilty. However, I am trying to outline the set of circumstances in which I believe that I can make that claim, hopefully, with some credibility.

0 Replies

I suspect you hit "quote" when you meant to hit "edit." I've waited for your to correct it before posting, but i'm not going to sit around all afternoon waiting for you to clean it up.

Your proposition, which you forward with tedious regularity is made particularly odious by your insistence upon such terms as "higher consciousness" and "overcoming the ego." The first implies a superior consciousness, for which there is no more evidence than there is that you'd done it at all. The second implies that you have accomplished something which is not only not supported by the style of your exposition, but which the style of your exposition renders rather ludicrous. If you have eliminated or overcome your ego, why do your posts bristle with "I?"

0 Replies

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

...If you have eliminated or overcome your ego, why do your posts bristle with "I?"

I have never claimed to be completely free of ego. However, even if I were, I doubt that I would avoid using the word "I". Even if someone is not identified with the collection of thoughts, perceptions, emotions, memories, and body that we call the "self", "I" is a useful convention for referring to the apparent source of words or actions that are being witnessed by the field of consciousness.

0 Replies

On more than one occassion, i've taken notice of the extent to which it appears to me that, if anything, your ego is now more important in your consciousness than it is in others.

Leaving that aside, however, not only is there no good reason to take you at your subjective word on the nature and meaning of your experiences, but even if for sake of discussion, one were to stipulate your "higher consciousness," you have failed to make a case about how that would lead us to "work together to restore the world." Since those are not your words, i won't belabor with the question of to what we are to "restore" the world.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

...if for sake of discussion, one were to stipulate your "higher consciousness," you have failed to make a case about how that would lead us to "work together to restore the world."

The recognition of our interconnectedness, and the knowledge that my Self is the Self of all beings, encourages us not to harm others since we would really be harming ourselves.

Quote:

Since those are not your words, i won't belabor with the question of to what we are to "restore" the world.

The transformation of the world begins with the transformation of the individual. This can only occur if there is a fundamental shift in a person's consciousness.

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

Setanta wrote:
...if for sake of discussion, one were to stipulate your "higher consciousness," you have failed to make a case about how that would lead us to "work together to restore the world."

The recognition of our interconnectedness, and the knowledge that my Self is the Self of all beings, encourages us not to harm others since we would really be harming ourselves.

In other words, you intend to continue to dodge the titular subject of this thread. If, as you assert, it will only require a "recognition of our interconnectedness" (another unsupported statement from authority), who do you propose to foster said recognition? Do you propose that everyone be forced to "meditate" according to your method?

You haven't answered the question at all.

Quote:

Quote:
Since those are not your words, i won't belabor with the question of to what we are to "restore" the world.

The transformation of the world begins with the transformation of the individual. This can only occur if there is a fundamental shift in a person's consciousness.

Well, i was pointing out that you needn't concern yourself with the issue of to what the world were to be "restored"--but you decide to tackle that anyway. However, your response is a complete non sequitur, and in no way addressed the subject of to what the world were to be restored.

I begin to suspect that although you deploy a sufficiently broad vocabulary, you don't actually consider the meanings of words, and that you don't extract the meaning of what other people write. That last response was wandering around somewhere in left field--after the game had ended and the other kids had gone home.

0 Replies

Setanta,

I understand exactly what IFF is talking about but the irony is that unless most of mankind, (especially intellectuals like you !) also understand it, his aspirations are indeed doomed.

0 Replies

Setanta is a bit tough and relentless in his criticisms. However I believe he is largely correct.

While it certainly is true that if the world is perfectable or even reformable, such a transformation would have to come from a series of individual transformations in the thoughts and values of individual people - and that would presumably stsrt with the transformation of one individual. The overwhelming problem is that such a mass transformation has not occurred - even locally - throughout human history - and there is no basis on which to assume it will ever happen.

Then there is the problem of defining the end state of a reformed world. Such a state has never existed - as Setanta noted. Moreover I doubt seriously that one could come up with such an ideal system that would solve even the riddle of achieving efficient economic production and, at the same time, equitable distribution - to name only one of the many basic contradictions that human nature appears to present.

You appear to suggest something akin to the individual transformations central to Buddism and Christianity - and very likely other religions as well. It is noteworthy that none of these ethical or religious systems went so far as to promise a paradise on earth as a result of such individual transformations. Implicit in each was the realistic assumption that not everyone would agree to be so transformed. Life would continue to involve conflict and contradictions.

Finally, the historical track record of people and movements that sought to organize such mass individual transformations doesn't suggest that much good would come of it. The 20th century was badly disfigured by the systematic attempt to create a new "Socialist Man" who would work for the common good in happy conformity with the dictates of the vanguard of illumimnati. Indeed this self-appointed vanguard ended up slaughtering millions in the name of the perfection of mankind.

With all of this in mind, I believe your ideas are seriously flawed.

0 Replies

Two points, Fresco:

I understand what he means just as well as you do--however, i consider that he deludes himself both about the significance and replicability of his experience. I know of no good reason to assume that anyone who follows his methods will have the same results, nor that having the same experience will necessarily convince them to "love their fellow man." For example, sufism among Muslims has been common since the very beginning of Islam, with one of the sufi orders tracing its origin to Abu Bakr, and all the others to Ali ibn Abi Talib, the son-in-law and cousin of the prophet. But that mysticism, which is not explained any differently than what IFF is peddling (apart from references of Allah), neither prevented the Muslim conquests, nor prevented any Sufi from participating. One can also find examples of Buddhist warriors, and entire Buddhist sects, such as the Ikko Ikki in Japan who not only followed war, but willfully instigated peasant rebellion and insurrection.

Which brings me to my second point--which is that what IFF proposes is neither new, nor reliably prescriptive for the worlds ills. Mysticism and transcendentalism can be found in all sophisticated religious traditions, and not a one of these threads of self-abnegation and "getting in touch with the cosmic oneness" have lead to any mitigation in the violence of religious repression and sectarian competition. It's basically a pipe dream, a big what if about how this contact with the great cosmic, unitary Self would cure the human race of its putative flaws. I have this vision of a member of the ancient Bushi class smiling and nodding at IFF in complete understanding of his transcendental experience--just before beheading him with his katana because that Samurai considered that IFF's habits of hygiene were disgusting. After all, it would not diminish the great cosmic oneness.

I've been disgusted since i was a young man with the phony palaver and "cosmic oneness" dog and pony show peddled by mystics who are happy to pursue their selfish ends while women and children starve around them. IFF has offered not a single pragmatic solution for the world's ills--but he excels at peddling hollow bromides.

0 Replies

By the way, Fresco--this thread calls for people to work together. IFF is not different than any perfervid religious proselytizer. He is not calling for people to work together, he is claiming that if only people would see things his way, then all the world's ills would melt away. Not only does that have the ring of the hopelessly naive, it's the same old religious song and dance which holds that there is only one true way--and in this case, it is IFF who knows that way.

There is no offer on the part of IFF to work together with anyone. He calls on others to follow his method, and to see the world the way he does, before suggesting that anything can be done to ameliorate the human condition. There is nothing the least bit ecumenical about his point of view.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Setanta is a bit tough and relentless in his criticisms. However I believe he is largely correct.

While it certainly is true that if the world is perfectable or even reformable, such a transformation would have to come from a series of individual transformations in the thoughts and values of individual people - and that would presumably stsrt with the transformation of one individual. The overwhelming problem is that such a mass transformation has not occurred - even locally - throughout human history - and there is no basis on which to assume it will ever happen.

There have been all sorts of mass transformations that have happened throughout history, both good and bad. The spread of the major religions throughout large parts of the world, the rise of science and the waning of religion's power, the rise of Nazism, the fall of Soviet Communism, the spread of capitalism, apartheid, the growing awareness about global warming, etc. The type of transformation that I'm talking about is, in part, a recognition that the existing institutionalized religions are not offering real spirituality to their followers. They are offering belief systems.

The first stage in this transformation is polarization -- we can observe both an unprecedented influx of consciousness and an entrenchment and intensification of ego. I have been following the growth of non-mainstream spiritual groups since the 1960s (starting with the Beatles visit to the Maharishi). There has been an explosion of such groups over the years, some exhibiting cultic behaviors to some degree, and others being much less structured. Many individuals practice on their own and don't really belong to any particular group. There are many spiritual teachers such as Eckhart Tolle and Gary Renard who aren't associated with any structured organization. While this is going on, we see the rise of fundamentalist religions. They harden their doctrinal positions and become part of those other man-made structures, such as political structures, through which the ego defends itself and "fights back". But if humanity is to keep from killing itself, the ego must dissolve. All of the ossified structures -- religious institutions, corporations, governments -- will disintegrate from within, no matter how deeply entrenched they appear to be. The most rigid structures will collapse first, as has happened with Soviet Communism. No one foresaw that. There are more surprises in store.

Quote:

Then there is the problem of defining the end state of a reformed world. Such a state has never existed - as Setanta noted. Moreover I doubt seriously that one could come up with such an ideal system that would solve even the riddle of achieving efficient economic production and, at the same time, equitable distribution - to name only one of the many basic contradictions that human nature appears to present.

We cannot know in advance what a new earth would look like. Having lived in different spiritual communities for periods of time, I can imagine some of the changes that might occur. For example, regarding economic production, there is going to have to be a halt in world population growth. There are only a finite quantity of natural resources in the earth. We are approaching peak production of fossil fuels. Fortunately, recent demographic data show that birth rates are falling in both the developed and developing countries. Furthermore, the rapid rise in the Asian economies in recent years is evidence of a more equitable distribution of those resources. Many South American economies are doing well, in part, because they have the scarce resources the rest of the world needs. I expect that Africa will be the next region to experience faster economic growth and, if governmental corruption can be overcome, this should greatly reduce violence there. The present challenge for the developed world is to develop sustainable economies based on renewable resources.

Quote:

You appear to suggest something akin to the individual transformations central to Buddism and Christianity - and very likely other religions as well. It is noteworthy that none of these ethical or religious systems went so far as to promise a paradise on earth as a result of such individual transformations. Implicit in each was the realistic assumption that not everyone would agree to be so transformed. Life would continue to involve conflict and contradictions.

Conflict will be reduced, and contradictions will continue. A new earth doesn't mean that everyone will think the same. Everyone will choose their own paths. There will no doubt be atheists and agnostics, as well as different spiritual paths and organized religions. However, there needs to be a greater cooperation between various governments, corporations, and communities to further the physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual well-being of humanity. For this to happen the ego must be dissolved. This will not happen completely in everyone, of course, but it will happen to a greater degree in more people than in the past. Because we interact with each other in society, those individuals who are less ego-identified will tend to have a liberating effect on others around them. Conflict is less likely to arise. Contradictions, on the other hand, are part of the mystery of life.

Quote:

Finally, the historical track record of people and movements that sought to organize such mass individual transformations doesn't suggest that much good would come of it. The 20th century was badly disfigured by the systematic attempt to create a new "Socialist Man" who would work for the common good in happy conformity with the dictates of the vanguard of illumimnati. Indeed this self-appointed vanguard ended up slaughtering millions in the name of the perfection of mankind.

Those were ego-based movements started by certain people for their own limited goals, even if they believed those goals to be altruistic. The transformation I'm talking about is not being initiated by any particular group or collection of groups. It is taking place in spite of, not because, of the wishes of those in power. It is the natural evolution of human consciousness.

Quote:

With all of this in mind, I believe your ideas are seriously flawed.

You may be correct. I am trying to make sense of the trends that I see in the world without imposing my own ideas. I could be mistaken or deluded. Time will tell.

0 Replies

It appears that you are suggesting that there exists a growing movement towards such a transformation, and that such an evolution is - in your opinion - a part of a "natural", perhaps even preordained, process. There is precious little evidence of such a growing mass movement today, and the suggestion that such an evolution is the result of natural objective factors that make it somehow inevitable requires some fairly radical assumptions about the natural world, evolution, the nature & origins of the cosmos and observable human nature as well -- assumptions that, in my view, are not at all supported by observable fact or even a coherent theory based on postulates I can visualize.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

It appears that you are suggesting that there exists a growing movement towards such a transformation, and that such an evolution is - in your opinion - a part of a "natural", perhaps even preordained, process. There is precious little evidence of such a growing mass movement today, and the suggestion that such an evolution is the result of natural objective factors that make it somehow inevitable requires some fairly radical assumptions about the natural world, evolution, the nature & origins of the cosmos and observable human nature as well -- assumptions that, in my view, are not at all supported by observable fact or even a coherent theory based on postulates I can visualize.

That's what makes the world interesting -- we all don't think alike! *LOL*

Seriously, I don't know that this process is "pre-ordained" or inevitable. It may not occur. We may even blow ourselves up, for all I know. However, I can tell you that there are many "pockets" of spirituality throughout the world that are not associated with institutionalized religion. This appears to be happening on a bigger scale now. In the past, the Christian church had a virtual franchise on spirituality in the West. That is no longer the case. Due to this influence, and the influx of Eastern teachings, a growing number of followers of traditional religions have been able to relax their identification with rigid belief systems. There is a more acceptance of the idea that being "spiritual" has nothing to do with what you believe, but everything to do with your state of consciousness. Unless you have followed the growth of these non-mainstream spiritual groups as I have, you might not be aware of their proliferation and influence. I believe this points to an unprecedented rise in world consciousness. However, it may be quite some time before this is widely acknowledged.

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

I am trying to make sense of the trends that I see in the world without imposing my own ideas.

This is the most dishonest thing you've posted here yet. From where i sit, you are no different at all, other than insignificant differences of superficial detail, than any other religiously fanatical proselytizer.

As for what time will tell, i have complete faith in the process of self-delusion, and suspect that time will, unsurprisingly, tell you just what you want to hear. I could not begin to point out the flaws in your statements about history, historical movements and human nature without using up pages of space in this thread. Suffice it to say that, rather naively and disingenuously (to put it in charitable terms), you tend to describe history and human nature in terms convenient to at the least not contradicting your silly thesis, if not supporting it outright.

0 Replies

Working Together: Can We Restore the World?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know