Secular Intolerance

[Nick_A]

Uwot

I'm sure you you explained this elsewhere, but why do you equate scientific thought with dualistic reason?

I believe you have a scientific mind so this won’t go over your head. But if you read in this link how science is normally reliant on the Law of the Excluded Middle, you will se how Dr. Nicolescu’s introduction to the Law of the Included Middle brings a new direction not only to science but of appreciating the relativity and potential for the evolution of human being.

http://ciret-transdisciplinarity.org/bulletin/b15c4.php

1. Quantum physics and levels of Reality

The major cultural impact of the quantum physics has certainly raised questions for the contemporary philosophical dogma of the existence of a single level of Reality [1].
Here the meaning we give to the word "Reality" is pragmatic and ontological at the same time.
By Reality I intend first of all to designate that which resists our experiences, representations, descriptions, images or mathematical formalizations. Quantum physics caused us to discover that abstraction is not simply an intermediary between us and Nature, a tool for describing reality, but rather, one of the constituent parts of Nature. In quantum physics, mathematical formalization is inseparable from experience. It resists in its own way by its simultaneous concern for internal consistency, and the need to integrate experimental data without destroying that self-consistency.
In so far as Nature participates in the being of the world one must ascribe an ontological dimension to the concept of Reality. Nature is an immense, inexhaustible source of the unknown which justifies the very existence of science. Reality is not only a social construction, the consensus of a collectivity, or an intersubjective agreement. It also has a trans-subjective dimension, to the extent that one simple experimental fact can ruin the most beautiful scientific theory.
By level of Reality [1] I intend to designate an ensemble of systems which are invariant under the action of certain general laws : for example, quantum entities are subordinate to quantum laws, which depart radically from the laws of the macrophysical world. That is to say that two levels of Reality are different if, while passing from one to the other, there is a break in the laws and a break in fundamental concepts (like, for example, causality). No one has succeeded in finding a mathematical formalism which permits the rigorous passage from one world to another. Semantic glosses, tautological definitions or approximations are unable to replace a rigorous mathematical formalism. The recent decoherence models have nothing precise to say on the passage between the quantum level and the macrophysical level: in fact, the main problem is not decoherence but precisely coherence.
There are even strong mathematical indications that the continuous passage from the quantum world to the macrophysical world would never be possible. But there is nothing catastrophic about this. The discontinuity which is manifest in the quantum world is also manifest in the structure of the levels of Reality. That does not prevent the two worlds from co-existing.
The levels of Reality are radically different from the levels of organization as these have been defined in systemic approaches [2]. Levels of organization do not presuppose a break with fundamental concepts : several levels of organization appear at one and the same level of Reality. The levels of organization correspond to different structurings of the same fundamental laws. For example, Marxist economy and classical physics belong to one and the same level of Reality.
The emergence of at least two different levels of Reality in the study of natural systems is a major event in the history of knowledge.
The existence of different levels of Reality has been affirmed by different traditions and civilizations, but these affirmations were founded on religious dogma or on the exploration of the interior universe.
In our century, in their questioning of the foundations of science, Edmund Husserl [3] and other scholars have discovered the existence of different levels of perception of Reality by the subject-observer. But these thinkers, pioneers in the exploration of a multi-dimensional and multi-referential reality, have been marginalized by academic philosophers and misunderstood by the majority of physicists, enclosed in their respective specializations.
The view I am expressing here is totally conform to the one of Heisenberg, Pauli and Bohr.
In fact, Werner Heisenberg came very near, in his philosophical writings, to the concept of "level of Reality". In his famous Manuscript of the year 1942 (published only in 1984) Heisenberg, who knew well Husserl, introduces the idea of three regions of reality, able to give access to the concept of "reality" itself : the first region is that of classical physics, the second — of quantum physics, biology and psychic phenomena and the third — that of the religious, philosophical and artistic experiences [4]. This classification has a subtle ground : the closer and closer connectiveness between the Subject and the Object.
As we shall see in the following, the notion of levels of Reality will lead us to a general philosophical understanding of the nature of indeterminacy. If there was only one region or level of reality, it was impossible to conceive what means a true, irreducible indeterminacy, like the quantum one.

The article goes on to provide the logic for the included middle. Once a person moves from the perspective of secularism or one level of reality into universalism or several levels of reality it opens new avenues into appreciating both human and universal meaning and purpose. Obviously the Great Beast is not ready for this so the best that can be done is to introduce it to those who are more open minded and can open to the reality of the triune universe.

Dualistic reason isn’t bad. It just limits a person to the yes and no of one level of reality. Those with the philosophical/religious need to become one with objective human meaning and purpose both with their emotional and intellectual intelligence will have to open to the hidden third which the Law of the Included Middle is based upon.

I suspect you're idea of the evolution of human beings, and mine are two different things. Given that some of your references, Socrates and Jesus, for example, are over two thousand years old, in what way are we supposed to evolve?

Animals have a perspective that initiates reactions. Cats react as cats and dogs react as dogs etc. It is their perspective.

The earth is representative of a level of reality within the universe where conscious evolution can begin. Up to this point all that takes place is mechanical evolution. Man can make the transition, the change of being, from a mechanical REACTIVE animal perspective to a conscious being capable of conscious ACTION

The normal perspective for modern man is as a creature reacting to the world around them. Conscious evolution begins when a person realizes that they are a creature of reaction that lives their life for them. A person’s conscious perspective can grow in the world from a person of a city, a state, a country, and the world. The human conscious perspective can continue to experience they are part of a planet, a solar system, and the level of the sun. They are all conscious perspectives where the lower level is inside the higher level. But since we are just creatures of reaction mulling about in Plato’s cave, ideas such as what we ARE and conscious evolution are not a concern and can only exist for us as fantasy. Only a few will make the efforts necessary to “know thyself” so as to verify the human condition and how to partake in conscious evolution

[Greta]

We’ve come to a great question in philosophy and religion: what is human progress?

Greta thinks she is open to the question which she is not. Uwot restricts the concept of human progress to science and ridicules those who know that human progress is primarily associated with conscious evolution or the evolution of Man’s “being.”

Nicky poo, you speak as though you are the only one to appreciate that life is both subjective and objective - as though none of us have noticed that there is an "in here" as well as an "out there". This is simply naive solipsism.

Here's a life tip for free: people notice FAR more than they let on. The reason why they don't display most of what they know is that they also care MUCH less about others than they let on.

You can continue talking BS by judging people on naive prima facie impressions but you will not make any progress until you face the actual reality that you are not a 3D spiritual colossus walking amongst 2D cardboard cutout "secularists", just one more schmuck with opinions.

[Arising_uk]

Another one with the complaints. Anyone questioning the logic of the Great Beast is considered to be complaining. In previous times it was called philosophy. ...

No it wasn't. In older times they put forward a Philosophy. So you put up a metaphysic, and ethic, an epistemology and a politics, in later times you add a phil of mind. I hear bugger all philosophy from you.

How can you speak of education or expect me to describe what to teach if we haven’t agreed on the goals of education? ...

It's got fuck all to do with me agreeing with you and everything to do with you having a replacement for what you whine about.

For secularism, the goal is to indoctrinate the outer man into preferred cave life which secular intolerance supports and for universalists the goal is to awaken the inner man so as to put facts into a conscious human perspective. Establish your goal first and then describe what furthers it.

I'm all ears!

The main goal of a modern education is to teach the common man to read and write, something your ancients would have abhorred.

[Nick_A]

We’ve come to a great question in philosophy and religion: what is human progress?

Greta thinks she is open to the question which she is not. Uwot restricts the concept of human progress to science and ridicules those who know that human progress is primarily associated with conscious evolution or the evolution of Man’s “being.”

Nicky poo, you speak as though you are the only one to appreciate that life is both subjective and objective - as though none of us have noticed that there is an "in here" as well as an "out there". This is simply naive solipsism.

Here's a life tip for free: people notice FAR more than they let on. The reason why they don't display most of what they know is that they also care MUCH less about others than they let on.

You can continue talking BS by judging people on naive prima facie impressions but you will not make any progress until you face the actual reality that you are not a 3D spiritual colossus walking amongst 2D cardboard cutout "secularists", just one more schmuck with opinions.

Greta

Here's a life tip for free: people notice FAR more than they let on. The reason why they don't display most of what they know is that they also care MUCH less about others than they let on.

OK, so you don’t care about others and refuse to condescend to enlightening them with your opinions. But why become a ranting pain in the ass?. Refusing to condescend is one thing but supporting the spirit killing of secular intolerance is another. Just don’t condescend and leave it at that.

You can continue talking BS by judging people on naive prima facie impressions but you will not make any progress until you face the actual reality that you are not a 3D spiritual colossus walking amongst 2D cardboard cutout "secularists", just one more schmuck with opinions.

When secularism denies a conscious source for existence and supports the belief that there are no objective values but instead values are relative and strictly a creation of the Great Beast, then it is two dimensional, Then it is dualistic: yes,no-affirm,deny, and so on. When a person denies and condemns the awareness of the conscious vertical third direction of thought then they are two dimensional. I consider it child abuse when students are naturally becoming aware of their connection with something greater than themselves but become intimidated by idiots in education for some reason called experts to the degree that they begin to die inside due to secular intolerance. As human beings they deserve better than this.

[Nick_A]

Arising

I'm all ears!

The main goal of a modern education is to teach the common man to read and write, something your ancients would have abhorred.

A good way to further indoctrination into a life as an atom of the Great Beast but inadequate for becoming a human being.

Plato knew that education was more than reading and writing. It concerned developing these skills so there is something human to read and write about. But that is just the beginning.

http://epublications.marquette.edu/diss ... AI9517932/

Plato regards education as a means to achieve justice, both individual justice and social justice. According to Plato, individual justice can be obtained when each individual develops his or her ability to the fullest. In this sense, justice means excellence. For the Greeks and Plato, excellence is virtue. According to Socrates, virtue is knowledge. Thus, knowledge is required to be just. From this Plato concludes that virtue can be obtained through three stages of development of knowledge: knowledge of one's own job, self-knowledge, and knowledge of the Idea of the Good. According to Plato, social justice can be achieved when all social classes in a society, workers, warriors, and rulers are in a harmonious relationship. Plato believes that all people can easily exist in harmony when society gives them equal educational opportunity from an early age to compete fairly with each other. Without equal educational opportunity, an unjust society appears since the political system is run by unqualified people; timocracy, oligarchy, defective democracy, or tyranny will result.

So in modern education hand head skill is abandoned for computer or head knowledge. Knowing oneself is abandoned for following the leaders who will tell you what you are and knowledge of the “Good” is irrelevant now that we have the Great Beast to worship as the “Good.” We have unqualified people in education to make sure it will never change

Do you really believe anything human will come out of this? If so, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you.

[Greta]

Here's a life tip for free: people notice FAR more than they let on. The reason why they don't display most of what they know is that they also care MUCH less about others than they let on.

OK, so you don’t care about others and refuse to condescend to enlightening them with your opinions. But why become a ranting pain in the ass?. Refusing to condescend is one thing but supporting the spirit killing of secular intolerance is another. Just don’t condescend and leave it at that.

You forgot another option - rather than coming to forums trying to enlighten to hoi polloi, maybe we are interested in seeing what others' perspectives are like? Do you feel that dismissing others' perspectives while attempting to "enlighten" has worked out well for you? Perhaps another strategy could be in order?

BTW learning is not "spirit killing". We have to start growing up sometime, and that involves learning and growing rather than clinging to old, loved myths like a worn teddy bear. The myths may still have subjective efficacy for you, but there's no reason why that should undermine the collective learning of humanity in the macro realms.

Also, I don't disagree with the possibility that reality is actually dual, given the issues with integrating GM and relativity. That doesn't make the various assumptions of "quantum mysticism" (or any mystics) necessarily true.

[Nick_A]

Greta

You forgot another option - rather than coming to forums trying to enlighten to hoi polloi, maybe we are interested in seeing what others' perspectives are like? Do you feel that dismissing others' perspectives while attempting to "enlighten" has worked out well for you? Perhaps another strategy could be in order?

I don’t dismiss others. Secular intolerance attacks me. The Platonic perspective is in the minority on a secular forum so I expect it to be attacked. Yet I am convinced of the value of keeping the ancient ideas alive in society. Without them we crumble into pure animal reaction requiring tyranny to control it. The problem is that secular intolerance denies discussion opposing the contention of secular superiority as archaic and must be eliminated. I cannot enlighten. I can quote those capable of enlightening who raise the spiritual contemplations which may well save some spiritual lives.

BTW learning is not "spirit killing". We have to start growing up sometime, and that involves learning and growing rather than clinging to old, loved myths like a worn teddy bear. The myths may still have subjective efficacy for you, but there's no reason why that should undermine the collective learning of humanity in the macro realms.

It depends on what and how we learn. The learning that enabled the holocaust and Armenian genocide was not only spirit killing but physically killing as well. There is no value in indoctrination other than for the demagogues and tyrants who profit from human gullibility.

You don’t know what it means to grow as a human being or what makes it possible. You have no idea how to separate the wheat from the tares or profound esoteric knowledge from blind superstition and will condemn all efforts to open to the distinction..

Also, I don't disagree with the possibility that reality is actually dual, given the issues with integrating GM and relativity. That doesn't make the various assumptions of "quantum mysticism" (or any mystics) necessarily true.

But if those like Dr. Nicolescu are right, all your secular intolerance does is stand in the way of progress towards opening to universal reality..

[Dubious]

What is "Universal Reality"? Is it the reality of the universe...whatever that may imply? Just because we can string two or more words together does that mean whatever meaning we presume it has turns into a reality! There was never a sage East or West at ANY time in history who knew or knows what Universal reality really means or even if it denotes anything of value. They only know what they think it means. If there's anything factual to be said about it, universal reality is simply how the universe works and most of that is still a mystery to us though obviously not to itself since there is NO self to consider.

The Universe knows neither philosophy nor anything pertaining to enlightenment. Call it a stupid or malicious creation; it matters not, It just IS. That is its totally unvarnished reality and the most difficult concept for us to understand being thoroughly indifferent to our thoughts and existence. The universe is both dead and alive; dead to consciousness but alive in process. Not much enlightenment to be gained in that scenario! We fertilize ourselves using the universe as catalyst.

Whatever WE mean by Universal Reality has NOTHING to do with the universe or anything described as universal; they are only OUR imagined realities.

[Greta]

I don’t dismiss others. Secular intolerance attacks me.

A claim not corroborated by the evidence!

[Nick_A]

Dubious

Universal reality refers to what the universe is and what it does.

There was never a sage East or West at ANY time in history who knew or knows what Universal reality really means or even if it denotes anything of value. They only know what they think it means.

If true it means no one could experience the dharma or the world of forms simply because the forms and the dharma don’t exist.

The Universe knows neither philosophy nor anything pertaining to enlightenment. Call it a stupid or malicious creation; it matters not, It just IS. That is its totally unvarnished reality and the most difficult concept for us to understand being thoroughly indifferent to our thoughts and existence. The universe is both dead and alive; dead to consciousness but alive in process. Not much enlightenment to be gained in that scenario! We fertilize ourselves using the universe as catalyst.

If we live in a dead universe without objective meaning and purpose the same must be true for man that arose somehow and invented subjective purpose depending upon external conditions. We are the walking dead.

Now what if we live in a conscious universe? Then there can be no conflict between the laws of science and the verticality of being. Objective human meaning and purpose is an expression of the relationship between levels of reality above and below the one creating subjective meaning and purpose. To understand how this can be I invite you to read this section from Jacob Needleman’s book: “A Sense of the Cosmos.” Don’t believe it. Just consider how it could be verified and the difference it would make if humanity as a whole arose from the sleep of Plato’s cave and its small secular world and consciously experienced the vertical expanse of the conscious universe within Which Man has its objective meaning and purpose..

Again, you are used to your perspective and secularism is intolerant of mine. This is understandable because the assertion that we live in a conscious universe where Man serves the universe minimizes the importance of the secular perspective which has the universe serving Man and the prestige associated with this belief..

http://www.tree-of-souls.com/spirituali ... leman.html

Ancient man's scale of the universe is awesome, too, but in an entirely different way, and with entirely different consequences for the mind that contemplates it. Here man stands before a universe which exceeds him in quality as well as quantity. The spheres which encompass the earth in the cosmological schemes of antiquity and the Middle Ages represents levels of conscious energy and purpose which "surround" the earth much as the physiological function of an organ such as the heart "surrounds" or permeates each of the separate tissues which comprise it, or as the captain's destination "encompasses" or "pervades" the life and activity of every crewman on his ship.

In this understanding, the earth is inextricably enmeshed in a network of purposes, a ladder or hierarchy of intentions. To the ancient mind, this is the very meaning of the concept of organization and order. A cosmos--and, of course, the cosmos--is an organism, not in the sense of an unusually complicated industrial machine, but in the sense of a hierarchy of purposeful energies.

[Harbal]

I invite you to read this section from Jacob Needleman’s book:

He sounds as nutty as you, no wonder you recommend it.

[Nick_A]

I invite you to read this section from Jacob Needleman’s book:

He sounds as nutty as you, no wonder you recommend it.

I remember you from a previous incarnation. You were leading a mob carrying torches and pitchforks hollering "let's get em before he gets us."

[Hobbes' Choice]

This may be an odd place to ask this question because of so many preconceptions concerning religion but I would appreciate an honest response as to why you believe secular intolerance is so prominent on philosophy web sites. If philosophy is truly the love of meaning why is the intolerance of the search for meaning through religion so repulsive that anyone open to the third dimension of thought within which objective values take their relative place will be condemned in secular society and any attempt to explain it will be eliminated. Even web sites claiming to be open minded will do this.

If someone comes to me claiming to offer me salvation I see no reason to condemn the person yet others will. If the government claims to offer me happiness by taking my money I’ll know it is hypocrisy yet others will gladly offer someone else’s money to the government in the cause of peace and happiness.

The government is not taking YOUR money. They are taking back THEIR money. They issue it they control it. They let you have some of it, but when it comes down to it they expect you to 'render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's"

The former seems to be less annoying than the latter. When the government is taken for God it seems natural for secularism. Why? This is what I want you to tell me. Why does it seem so reasonable that the government becomes the God of secularism to the degree that any other perception must be scorned with the greatest expression of intolerance by those claiming to be tolerant?

You are seriously confused. What are you expecting? Consider yourself lucky that the government is not a Theocracy. Some people don't know they are born; nor which epoch.

Consider the following link which explains the intolerance of secular humanism. It doesn’t matter whether you agree or disagree. My question is why are these opinions so repulsive that they will inspire the greatest degree of intolerance? Why on philosophy sites like Philosophy forum which should encourage the exploration of “meaning” do they also defend and protect the most divisive expressions of secular intolerance?

Secular humanism is the greatest example of tolerance. If you don't like it - go and live in Pakistan, or Saudi-Arabia.

Again, my question is not whether you agree or disagree with religious concepts but why they raise such nastiness from people claiming to be intelligent? ...

I’ve learned through sad experience that sane discussions on the question of secular intolerance must be condemned anywhere secularism is dominant and protected.
Tell me honestly; if you find secular intolerance gratifying as so many do in these times, what does it do for you? What are the satisfactions of emotional secular intolerance?

The secular authorities have to contend with idiots that run their lives on idiotic belief systems. Take a look at what is going on Nazi's in Charlotteville, and a moron in the Whitehouse; police murdering blacks in the street day by day.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

The government is not taking YOUR money. They are taking back THEIR money. They issue it they control it. They let you have some of it, but when it comes down to it they expect you to 'render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's"

Excellent point, and one that all the greedy tossers who constantly whinge about 'socialism' and THEIR hard-earned money being 'stolen' from them (they never mind it being spent on things like the military and nuclear weapons) don't seem to be capable of grasping. (Darned post just won't 'quote' properly).

[Nick_A]

H C

The government is not taking YOUR money. They are taking back THEIR money. They issue it they control it. They let you have some of it, but when it comes down to it they expect you to 'render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's"

That means if I play ten jobs and earn $2,500 the government will say “you didn’t earn that.” We will give you what we believe you deserve and keep the rest. After all it is our money. We printed it and distributed it. So fork over the dough. You are lucky to be given the opportunity to serve the state. You should be honored.

You are seriously confused. What are you expecting? Consider yourself lucky that the government is not a Theocracy. Some people don't know they are born; nor which epoch.

You re offering a choice of evils. Which is better: a theocracy telling you what to do with its God giving it the authority or secularism with the intent of imposing metphysical repression on its citizens for the purpose of glorifying its God, the Great beast? Both are inhuman so sanity in support of objective human meaning and purpose is opposed both by secular religious adaptations and secular intolerance. Not much room to wiggle in support of evolving human being.

The secular authorities have to contend with idiots that run their lives on idiotic belief systems. Take a look at what is going on Nazi's in Charlotteville, and a moron in the Whitehouse; police murdering blacks in the street day by day.

Secular intolerance by definition is based on the need for secularists to contend “with idiots that run their lives on idiotic belief systems.” Of course it never dawns on them that they are just snobbish idiots living in a dream calling other idiots idiots. Anyone recognizing the situation for what it is will be universally condemned by all parties concerned and will be boiled in oil whenever possible.

Is that all there is? Apparently so until the powers that be can rise above the lunacy of one idiot calling another idiot an idiot. Don’t hold your breath.