The Evolution of Religion

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Nick_A
Posts: 5215
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: The Evolution of Religion

Post by Nick_A »

Belinda wrote: Sun Jul 19, 2020 6:30 pm
Nick_A wrote: Sun Jul 19, 2020 5:55 pm
Belinda wrote: Sun Jul 19, 2020 5:22 pm
Yes, I do believe honesty and well meaning are basic qualities of men. There is plenty of evidence. No society , including societies with the most oppressive and cruel regimes , can be a society unless honesty and well meaning are basic to how men deal with each other every day. And yet there are societies of people.
If you haven't verified this, why isn't it blind emotional faith?

Consider the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide for examples. It is honest to say that killing people offers a lot of prestige to verify believed supremacy. Man is unique in that killing for self importance and respect for life are both qualities of men. How they can be reconciled, impossible for politics, yet possible for the evolution of religion. But for now we will continue to kill as we pontificate about morality and justify our hypocrisy. What is wrong with this picture?
Nazi Germany's regime depended upon basic honesty and well meaning among its own Nazi citizens. The evil that pertained to Nazi Germany was that honesty and well meaning affected only ethnic Germans, and excluded other 'races' who were viewed as lesser human beings.

There are antisocial individuals among all societies, individuals who are dishonest and not well meaning. But unless the antisocial elements are dominant the society survives.
This is why Plato described society as the beast. Iike all beasts it lacks human consciousness. If true, can a society do other than what is described in Ecclesiastes 3 and follow natural cycles? Politics are not the cause of war but the attempt to explain and justify natural cycles. There is nothing conscious in it
3 There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under the heavens:

2 a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
3 a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,
4 a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,
5 a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing,
6 a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
7 a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,
8 a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.
The idea is that if there is sufficient human consciousness in the world to minimize the effects of natural cycles on the Beast, Humanity may survive the next war.
"We must make the individual man aware of his conscience so that he understands what it means that only a few will survive the next war. " Albert Einstein
Bu Man needs help to invite conscience rather than fantasy. This help is grace.
Humanism was not wrong in thinking that truth, beauty, liberty, and equality are of infinite value, but in thinking that man can get them for himself without grace." Simone Weil
That is why the world must hate these ideas. They doubt secular supremacy and the force of human hypocrisy to keep humanity turning in circles. Such doubts are intolerable as we are now. Maybe not for the future. Who knows.
Nick_A
Posts: 5215
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: The Evolution of Religion

Post by Nick_A »

Sculpture
But I have already told you what hope is.
What you repeat to paste is simply wrong, and reinforces exactly what I said about Weil at the top of this discussion. A wasted life.
What could Simone have done differently to not result in a wasted life IYO?
Belinda
Posts: 4053
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: The Evolution of Religion

Post by Belinda »

Nick_A wrote: Sun Jul 19, 2020 9:26 pm
Belinda wrote: Sun Jul 19, 2020 6:30 pm
Nick_A wrote: Sun Jul 19, 2020 5:55 pm

If you haven't verified this, why isn't it blind emotional faith?

Consider the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide for examples. It is honest to say that killing people offers a lot of prestige to verify believed supremacy. Man is unique in that killing for self importance and respect for life are both qualities of men. How they can be reconciled, impossible for politics, yet possible for the evolution of religion. But for now we will continue to kill as we pontificate about morality and justify our hypocrisy. What is wrong with this picture?
Nazi Germany's regime depended upon basic honesty and well meaning among its own Nazi citizens. The evil that pertained to Nazi Germany was that honesty and well meaning affected only ethnic Germans, and excluded other 'races' who were viewed as lesser human beings.

There are antisocial individuals among all societies, individuals who are dishonest and not well meaning. But unless the antisocial elements are dominant the society survives.
This is why Plato described society as the beast. Iike all beasts it lacks human consciousness. If true, can a society do other than what is described in Ecclesiastes 3 and follow natural cycles? Politics are not the cause of war but the attempt to explain and justify natural cycles. There is nothing conscious in it
3 There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under the heavens:

2 a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
3 a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,
4 a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,
5 a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing,
6 a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
7 a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,
8 a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.
The idea is that if there is sufficient human consciousness in the world to minimize the effects of natural cycles on the Beast, Humanity may survive the next war.
"We must make the individual man aware of his conscience so that he understands what it means that only a few will survive the next war. " Albert Einstein
Bu Man needs help to invite conscience rather than fantasy. This help is grace.
Humanism was not wrong in thinking that truth, beauty, liberty, and equality are of infinite value, but in thinking that man can get them for himself without grace." Simone Weil
That is why the world must hate these ideas. They doubt secular supremacy and the force of human hypocrisy to keep humanity turning in circles. Such doubts are intolerable as we are now. Maybe not for the future. Who knows.
Nick, aren't some societies better than other societies?
Nick_A
Posts: 5215
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: The Evolution of Religion

Post by Nick_A »

Belinda
Nick, aren't some societies better than other societies?
I don't know what you mean by "better than" As beasts they serve their purpose for nature by transforming substances. Are certain animals in the jungle better than others? Are deer better than tigers? They all serve their purpose sustaining the cycles of nature. Interacting societies serve the same purpose.

However is it possible for a particular society to consciously evolve to become more more consciously human and less animal: to become more than a beast following the cycles of nature? That would be better but I don't see any signs of it and hypocrisy still rules the day
Belinda
Posts: 4053
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: The Evolution of Religion

Post by Belinda »

Nick_A wrote: Mon Jul 20, 2020 4:28 pm Belinda
Nick, aren't some societies better than other societies?
I don't know what you mean by "better than" As beasts they serve their purpose for nature by transforming substances. Are certain animals in the jungle better than others? Are deer better than tigers? They all serve their purpose sustaining the cycles of nature. Interacting societies serve the same purpose.

However is it possible for a particular society to consciously evolve to become more more consciously human and less animal: to become more than a beast following the cycles of nature? That would be better but I don't see any signs of it and hypocrisy still rules the day
Isn't a society with an oppressive regime worse than a democratic society?
Nick_A
Posts: 5215
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: The Evolution of Religion

Post by Nick_A »

Belinda wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2020 9:35 am
Nick_A wrote: Mon Jul 20, 2020 4:28 pm Belinda
Nick, aren't some societies better than other societies?
I don't know what you mean by "better than" As beasts they serve their purpose for nature by transforming substances. Are certain animals in the jungle better than others? Are deer better than tigers? They all serve their purpose sustaining the cycles of nature. Interacting societies serve the same purpose.

However is it possible for a particular society to consciously evolve to become more more consciously human and less animal: to become more than a beast following the cycles of nature? That would be better but I don't see any signs of it and hypocrisy still rules the day
Isn't a society with an oppressive regime worse than a democratic society?
“Force is as pitiless to the man who possesses it, or thinks he does, as it is to its victims; the second it crushes, the first it intoxicates. The truth is, nobody really possesses it.” Simone Weil

Actually you are inspiring me to write something for the AWS colloquy next April. I just don't know how to do justice to it. :)

Anyhow, from a subjective secular point of view the oppressive regime is worse than a democratic society. But how about from the eternal perspective where they are both slaves to force? From the objective perspective, better or worse doesn't exist. Consider Simone's essay on Homer's Iliad


She is describing Man and society in eternity as mechanical slaves to force the same as in all organic life on earth

Shakespeare describe individual man as meaningless in "All the World is Stage" Simone writes that it is the same for the social collective. In reality, regardless of our subjective opinions, we are slaves to force. From the Iliad

http://www.holoka.com/pdf-files/weil.pdf
1. The true hero, the true subject matter, the center of the Iliad is force. The force that men wield, the force
that subdues men, in the face of which human flesh shrinks back. The human soul seems ever conditioned by its ties with force, swept away, blinded by the force it believes it can control, bowed under the
constraint of the force it submits to. Those who have supposed that force, thanks to progress, now belongs to the past, have seen a record of that in Homer’s poem; those wise enough to discern the force at
the center of all human history, today as in the past, find in the Iliad the most beautiful and flawless of
mirrors.
2. Force is that which makes a thing of whoever submits to it. Exercised to the extreme, it makes the
human being a thing quite literally, that is, a dead body. Someone was there and, the next moment, no
one. The Iliad never tires of presenting us this tableau.......................
When Christ said "forgive them for they know not what they do", he was speaking from eternity.

This is really a mind-stretch to write on "force" and Man's potential to understand what it is and become more than a slave to force.
Belinda
Posts: 4053
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: The Evolution of Religion

Post by Belinda »

Nick_A wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2020 7:34 pm
Belinda wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2020 9:35 am
Nick_A wrote: Mon Jul 20, 2020 4:28 pm Belinda



I don't know what you mean by "better than" As beasts they serve their purpose for nature by transforming substances. Are certain animals in the jungle better than others? Are deer better than tigers? They all serve their purpose sustaining the cycles of nature. Interacting societies serve the same purpose.

However is it possible for a particular society to consciously evolve to become more more consciously human and less animal: to become more than a beast following the cycles of nature? That would be better but I don't see any signs of it and hypocrisy still rules the day
Isn't a society with an oppressive regime worse than a democratic society?
“Force is as pitiless to the man who possesses it, or thinks he does, as it is to its victims; the second it crushes, the first it intoxicates. The truth is, nobody really possesses it.” Simone Weil

Actually you are inspiring me to write something for the AWS colloquy next April. I just don't know how to do justice to it. :)

Anyhow, from a subjective secular point of view the oppressive regime is worse than a democratic society. But how about from the eternal perspective where they are both slaves to force? From the objective perspective, better or worse doesn't exist. Consider Simone's essay on Homer's Iliad


She is describing Man and society in eternity as mechanical slaves to force the same as in all organic life on earth

Shakespeare describe individual man as meaningless in "All the World is Stage" Simone writes that it is the same for the social collective. In reality, regardless of our subjective opinions, we are slaves to force. From the Iliad

http://www.holoka.com/pdf-files/weil.pdf
1. The true hero, the true subject matter, the center of the Iliad is force. The force that men wield, the force
that subdues men, in the face of which human flesh shrinks back. The human soul seems ever conditioned by its ties with force, swept away, blinded by the force it believes it can control, bowed under the
constraint of the force it submits to. Those who have supposed that force, thanks to progress, now belongs to the past, have seen a record of that in Homer’s poem; those wise enough to discern the force at
the center of all human history, today as in the past, find in the Iliad the most beautiful and flawless of
mirrors.
2. Force is that which makes a thing of whoever submits to it. Exercised to the extreme, it makes the
human being a thing quite literally, that is, a dead body. Someone was there and, the next moment, no
one. The Iliad never tires of presenting us this tableau.......................
When Christ said "forgive them for they know not what they do", he was speaking from eternity.

This is really a mind-stretch to write on "force" and Man's potential to understand what it is and become more than a slave to force.
The Shakespearian character who spoke the soliloque "All the world's a stage" is a foil to the main freedom theme of "As You Like It" which is freedom as embodied in the splendid Rosalind and somewhat hippy lifestyle in the Forest of Arden. Melancholy Jacques pessimistically vouches for man's total lack of freedom. But "As You Like It" is a comedy not a tragedy so all ends happy and free to be happy.

Man is not subject to biological force like Jacques in the play would have it. Man evolves through cultures. You who know Simone Weil perhaps can say whether or not she espoused the cause of man's freedom to evolve through men's cultures of ideas.
Nick_A
Posts: 5215
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: The Evolution of Religion

Post by Nick_A »

Belinda
The Shakespearian character who spoke the soliloque "All the world's a stage" is a foil to the main freedom theme of "As You Like It" which is freedom as embodied in the splendid Rosalind and somewhat hippy lifestyle in the Forest of Arden. Melancholy Jacques pessimistically vouches for man's total lack of freedom. But "As You Like It" is a comedy not a tragedy so all ends happy and free to be happy.
Well to each his own but when I read this I don’t sense a happy ending. I read of the cycle of life lacking meaning.

(from As You Like It, spoken by Jaques)


All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. At first the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse’s arms;
And then the whining school-boy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress’ eyebrow. Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths, and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the cannon’s mouth. And then the justice,
In fair round belly with good capon lin’d,
With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws and modern instances;
And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and slipper’d pantaloon,
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side;
His youthful hose, well sav’d, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion;
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.


Man is not subject to biological force like Jacques in the play would have it. Man evolves through cultures. You who know Simone Weil perhaps can say whether or not she espoused the cause of man's freedom to evolve through men's cultures of ideas.
Man’s beiing doesn’t evolve mechanically. It adapts. Learning facts doesn’t suggest evolution but just more information. Man can only evolve consciously. It is what enables Man to put facts into a conscious perspective. Einstein suggests that a human perspective can be acquired by opening to the experience of conscience. But it is rejected and sometimes even violently so.

Man’s ability to learn more facts is part of our being. Acquiring a conscious perspective is a potential for human being. Without evolving towards a conscious human perspective he becomes even more out of balance. As Man learns more facts Man learns to kill more efficiently without knowing why or what to kill; a dangerous situation.

A society is a cycle. It is born, lives, ages, dies and repeats in another form. It is part of eternity. Animal Man feeds nature through its bodily processes as does the rest of organic life on earth. Man’s animal evolution is complete. Man’s saving grace is his conscious potential to evolve into a quality of conscious life that has the quality of meaning our species is continually called to open to receive. However it is violently rejected. It is the human condition
Belinda
Posts: 4053
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: The Evolution of Religion

Post by Belinda »

Nick_A wrote: Wed Jul 22, 2020 7:16 pm Belinda
The Shakespearian character who spoke the soliloque "All the world's a stage" is a foil to the main freedom theme of "As You Like It" which is freedom as embodied in the splendid Rosalind and somewhat hippy lifestyle in the Forest of Arden. Melancholy Jacques pessimistically vouches for man's total lack of freedom. But "As You Like It" is a comedy not a tragedy so all ends happy and free to be happy.
Well to each his own but when I read this I don’t sense a happy ending. I read of the cycle of life lacking meaning.

(from As You Like It, spoken by Jaques)


All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. At first the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse’s arms;
And then the whining school-boy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress’ eyebrow. Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths, and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the cannon’s mouth. And then the justice,
In fair round belly with good capon lin’d,
With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws and modern instances;
And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and slipper’d pantaloon,
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side;
His youthful hose, well sav’d, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion;
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.


Man is not subject to biological force like Jacques in the play would have it. Man evolves through cultures. You who know Simone Weil perhaps can say whether or not she espoused the cause of man's freedom to evolve through men's cultures of ideas.
Man’s beiing doesn’t evolve mechanically. It adapts. Learning facts doesn’t suggest evolution but just more information. Man can only evolve consciously. It is what enables Man to put facts into a conscious perspective. Einstein suggests that a human perspective can be acquired by opening to the experience of conscience. But it is rejected and sometimes even violently so.

Man’s ability to learn more facts is part of our being. Acquiring a conscious perspective is a potential for human being. Without evolving towards a conscious human perspective he becomes even more out of balance. As Man learns more facts Man learns to kill more efficiently without knowing why or what to kill; a dangerous situation.

A society is a cycle. It is born, lives, ages, dies and repeats in another form. It is part of eternity. Animal Man feeds nature through its bodily processes as does the rest of organic life on earth. Man’s animal evolution is complete. Man’s saving grace is his conscious potential to evolve into a quality of conscious life that has the quality of meaning our species is continually called to open to receive. However it is violently rejected. It is the human condition
It's a super speech I do enjoy it and thanks for printing it,I'd forgotten some of the lines. Yes, that speech is about life lacking meaning but instead being predestined by biology and culture. The play as a whole is about people finding meaning and love in freedom from the restraints of society.
Einstein suggests that a human perspective can be acquired by opening to the experience of conscience. But it is rejected and sometimes even violently so
.

Why do you think some people reject the "experience of conscience" ? Is it fear that makes them reject changing and adapting what they are conscious of ?
Nick_A
Posts: 5215
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: The Evolution of Religion

Post by Nick_A »

Belinda
Why do you think some people reject the "experience of conscience" ? Is it fear that makes them reject changing and adapting what they are conscious of ?
Before becoming able to experience conscience, a person must be capble of sustained conscious attention
."Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity. It is given to very few minds to notice that things and beings exist. Since my childhood I have not wanted anything else but to receive the complete revelation of this before dying." ~Simone Weil
Yet efforts towards conscious attention are often violently rejected. Once I learned why it became obvious. It is actually a study in itself.
"Grace fills empty spaces, but it can only enter where there is a void to receive it We must continually suspend the work of the imagination in filling the void within ourselves."
"In no matter what circumstances, if the imagination is stopped from pouring itself out, we have a void (the poor in spirit). In no matter what circumstances... imagination can fill the void. This is why the average human beings can become prisoners, slaves, prostitutes, and pass thru no matter what suffering without being purified."

"That is why we fly from the inner void, since God might steal into it. It is not the pursuit of pleasure and the aversion for effort which causes sin, but fear of God. We know that we cannot see him face to face without dying, and we do not want to die."
-- Gravity and Grace
I had underestimated how much of my life is built on defending imagination and imaginary values. But since I don't want to die I don't want to see it; to experience it. Doing so requires sacrificing acquired imagination in favor of experiencing the conscious void where conscience resides.

It seems simple but very diffficult which is why Simone called this quality of non directed free attention the rarest and purest form of generosity. Yet when we can sustain conscious Attention, we can experience conscience. She wrote
There Comes

If you do not fight it---if you look, just
look, steadily,
upon it,

there comes
a moment when you cannot do it,
if it is evil;

if good, a moment
when you cannot
not.
In these times when our collective attention span is becoming less and less, who has time or the desire to experience conscience? Imagination supported by relativism is the rage of the day.
Belinda
Posts: 4053
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: The Evolution of Religion

Post by Belinda »

Nick_A wrote: Thu Jul 23, 2020 4:11 am Belinda
Why do you think some people reject the "experience of conscience" ? Is it fear that makes them reject changing and adapting what they are conscious of ?
Before becoming able to experience conscience, a person must be capble of sustained conscious attention
."Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity. It is given to very few minds to notice that things and beings exist. Since my childhood I have not wanted anything else but to receive the complete revelation of this before dying." ~Simone Weil
Yet efforts towards conscious attention are often violently rejected. Once I learned why it became obvious. It is actually a study in itself.
"Grace fills empty spaces, but it can only enter where there is a void to receive it We must continually suspend the work of the imagination in filling the void within ourselves."
"In no matter what circumstances, if the imagination is stopped from pouring itself out, we have a void (the poor in spirit). In no matter what circumstances... imagination can fill the void. This is why the average human beings can become prisoners, slaves, prostitutes, and pass thru no matter what suffering without being purified."

"That is why we fly from the inner void, since God might steal into it. It is not the pursuit of pleasure and the aversion for effort which causes sin, but fear of God. We know that we cannot see him face to face without dying, and we do not want to die."
-- Gravity and Grace
I had underestimated how much of my life is built on defending imagination and imaginary values. But since I don't want to die I don't want to see it; to experience it. Doing so requires sacrificing acquired imagination in favor of experiencing the conscious void where conscience resides.

It seems simple but very diffficult which is why Simone called this quality of non directed free attention the rarest and purest form of generosity. Yet when we can sustain conscious Attention, we can experience conscience. She wrote
There Comes

If you do not fight it---if you look, just
look, steadily,
upon it,

there comes
a moment when you cannot do it,
if it is evil;

if good, a moment
when you cannot
not.
In these times when our collective attention span is becoming less and less, who has time or the desire to experience conscience? Imagination supported by relativism is the rage of the day.
Nick, I think grace was part of Simone's own psyche.
Nick_A
Posts: 5215
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: The Evolution of Religion

Post by Nick_A »

Belinda, What do you feel when you read Simone Weil described as the "Patron Saint of Outsiders?". Next year as the Pandemic calms down I'd like to begin a meetup group on the life and ideas of Simone Weil here in NY.

I was considering using this popular description of her but concerned that instead of attracting seekers of truth the term outsiders would attract all types of escapists and those just wanting to argue details. This would defeat the purpose of the meetup. What does "outsider" mean to you? Does it suggest defending imagination and self justification or can it refer to the minority willing to and with the courage to experience the world with conscious attention? Consider how the author describes his experience:

https://begininwondersite.wordpress.com ... outsiders/
All my life I have felt like an outsider, never quite fitting in wherever I was. Being an outsider can make one both extremely lonely but also allows one to identify with those on the fringes, those who are forgotten or overlooked. During my college years, while working in a bookstore, I began to read the existentialists. My favorite was Albert Camus, not only because of his writing but because he looked like a movie star in the same cool, rebel style of James Dean or Marlon Brando. It was through Camus that I discovered the French philosopher and mystic Simone Weil. Not only did she have a huge influence on him (Camus described her as “the only great spirit of our time) but he meditated in her room before he went to Stockholm to accept his Nobel Prize. She also impacted feminist and philosopher Simone de Beauvoir. Both attended the École Normale Supérieure where they studied philosophy and logic. Weil finished first in her final exams, while de Beuavoir came in second. Simone de Beauvoir spoke often of her admiration for Weil’s intelligence and courage to live out truly what she believed.

Simone Weil was an unintended mystic. She clung to being an outsider and felt that she was always at the “intersection of Christianity and everything that is not Christianity.”

Because of Camus, I ordered a copy of Weil’s master work Waiting for God. Reading Simone Weil’s writing was like reading no other that I’d ever read before. The breadth and width of her mind and thought was astounding and I found myself mesmerized and overwhelmed by her spiritual intellect. I was especially drawn to this passage:

“Attention consists of suspending our thought, leaving it detached, empty, and ready to be penetrated by the object; it means holding in our minds, within reach of that thought, but on a lower level and not in contact with, the diverse knowledge we have acquired, which we are forced to make use of. Our thought should be in relation to all particular and already formulated thoughts, as a man on a mountain, who, as he looks forward, sees also below him, without actually looking at them, a great many forests and plains. Above all our thought should be empty, waiting, not seeking anything, but ready to receive in its naked truth the object that is to penetrate it.”

Reading Weil, made me, for the first time, stop and consider what I gave my “attention” to. For her thinking is a form of attention and attention is one of the deepest forms of generosity or love that one can give another, even God. As she wrote, “Absolute unmixed attention is prayer.” Attention for her is active and not passive. Prayer then is a form of active receptivity or, as she puts it, “The highest ecstasy is the attention at its fullest.” It is a focusing on reality. It is giving a deep attention to reality. Listening as a way of understanding, of forming thought, of comprehending (whether it’s listening to another person or to God). “The poet produces the beautiful,” she believed, “by fixing his attention on something real.”
The outsider describing Simone is not fighting society but rather inwardly opening to experience the external world free of preconceptions. It goes beyond right and wrong but the experience of what we are and how we fall into battles over right and wrong.

This idea attracted those as different as Albert Camus and the rock star Patti Smith because itr is genuine. I'm used to appreciating "The patron Saint of Outsiders" as mind opening but wonder if it would attract the opposite. What do you think?
User avatar
Luxin
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:49 pm

Re: The Evolution of Religion

Post by Luxin »

Nick_A wrote: Fri May 29, 2020 9:08 pm

...

The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another.

-- Albert Einstein, Science and Religion, NY Times, November 9, 1930.


... Objective conscience must be remembered rather than indoctrinated as with morality

Einstein is part of a minority who understand the function of conscience. I know how and why the world must hate them but I do respect and value them. How and what they know must be communicated to the world which denies conscience in favor of egoistic imagination. They will be ignored and persecuted.

Can religion evolve? I know Einstein, Simone Weil, Jacob Needleman, and others know its value if Man is to become human. Will art and science retain its belief in truth and awaken cosmic religious feelings or will it sink along with the rest of society into self serving interpretations? Only time will tell.
User avatar
Luxin
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:49 pm

Re: The Evolution of Religion

Post by Luxin »

Nick_A wrote: Fri May 29, 2020 9:08 pm

...

The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another.

-- Albert Einstein, Science and Religion, NY Times, November 9, 1930.


... Objective conscience must be remembered rather than indoctrinated as with morality

Einstein is part of a minority who understand the function of conscience. I know how and why the world must hate them but I do respect and value them. How and what they know must be communicated to the world which denies conscience in favor of egoistic imagination. They will be ignored and persecuted.

Can religion evolve? I know Einstein, Simone Weil, Jacob Needleman, and others know its value if Man is to become human. Will art and science retain its belief in truth and awaken cosmic religious feelings or will it sink along with the rest of society into self serving interpretations? Only time will tell.
Hello Nick,
I don't believe morality can be taught; you're implying that you do believe this; I'm just curious....
I'm with Kabir and Spinoza -- a pious but irreligious iconoclastic deist. God is within; people can become Self-realized without religion. The Beatles were right with "All you need is Love".
"Listen, my friend. He who loves understands." (Kabir)
I agree that religion has value "if man is to become human." Christ's logia, the essential teachings of Christianity, will survive long after Christianity has expired; however, the implied "inhuman" cannot benefit from the logia.
Nick_A
Posts: 5215
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: The Evolution of Religion

Post by Nick_A »

Luxin wrote: Thu Jul 23, 2020 7:46 pm
Nick_A wrote: Fri May 29, 2020 9:08 pm

...

The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another.

-- Albert Einstein, Science and Religion, NY Times, November 9, 1930.


... Objective conscience must be remembered rather than indoctrinated as with morality

Einstein is part of a minority who understand the function of conscience. I know how and why the world must hate them but I do respect and value them. How and what they know must be communicated to the world which denies conscience in favor of egoistic imagination. They will be ignored and persecuted.

Can religion evolve? I know Einstein, Simone Weil, Jacob Needleman, and others know its value if Man is to become human. Will art and science retain its belief in truth and awaken cosmic religious feelings or will it sink along with the rest of society into self serving interpretations? Only time will tell.
Hello Nick,
I don't believe morality can be taught; you're implying that you do believe this; I'm just curious....
I'm with Kabir and Spinoza -- a pious but irreligious iconoclastic deist. God is within; people can become Self-realized without religion. The Beatles were right with "All you need is Love".
"Listen, my friend. He who loves understands." (Kabir)
I agree that religion has value "if man is to become human." Christ's logia, the essential teachings of Christianity, will survive long after Christianity has expired; however, the implied "inhuman" cannot benefit from the logia.
The whole point of this thread is to introduce the idea that morality is relative and taught while conscience is objective and remembered. The religious feeling Einstein wrote of is the path leading from morality to conscience and the evolution of religion
Post Reply