Beyond Humanism?

[Belinda]

From some accounts it appears that the humanities are under threat in academia from scientific materialism. Humanism should get its act together and decide what it is for rather than harping on what it is against; religion being its favorite target. Religious dogmatism has not had, and still does not have a great track record but neither does materialism. Materialism in action so far has been the herd complicit and cowed; intellectuals in the gulag breaking stones, while a ruling class, not having rejected either the dancing girls: Buddha, or power: Christ, oversees it all. In China people of faith are put in camps and reprogrammed. Maybe it is not in human nature to respect freedom of thought.

The mind, and the role of the mind, in understanding the world; the cosmos; not just matter, has been important in the humanities, especially in philosophy since its inception. The thought of a future generation in a classroom studying Eliminative Materialism: "the mind does not exist; "food was the source of ethics" is daunting.

Why do you conflate materialism and Humanism?

Do you think Christ is the unique Saviour? If so why? Why not Socrates, or Mandela?

China's history, the story of people in that place, formed the culture prevailing culture there, including the revolution.

The individuals in the Humanist group I attended were open to the humanities as well as to science.

[Belinda]

Humanism has denied the help of grace and forgotten what it is. Humanity left to its own devices can only repeat the cycles of hypocrisy

How can you worship a God who bestows grace only on a few people but leaves the vast majority in poverty ? You may rightly object poor persons might be rich in mind and spirit however extreme deprivation usually causes people to attend only to bare necessities of staying alive .

You refer to the personal God of secularism. Grace is available for those open to receive it. It requires freedom from imagination. God as I understand it is the ONE beyond time and space and described by Plotinus. Nothing to worship here. The universe is not here to serve humanity. Humanity can serve the universe either as animal Man, as a creature of reaction, or as conscious man where we experience human meaning and purpose.

Do you question karma in the same way? Why do only some people benefit from Kama? Isn't that unfair?

Yes, I do refer to the personal God. The personal God is the God of established Christian sects. I was a Presbyterian and had Catholic chums so i have some experience of the idea of God as a Person.
Non-believers take it from established Xian doctrine that God is a personal God, non-believers did no invent the notion that God is a personal God.
I am more interested in your

God as I understand it is the ONE beyond time and space and described by Plotinus. Nothing to worship here. The universe is not here to serve humanity. Humanity can serve the universe either as animal Man, as a creature of reaction, or as conscious man where we experience human meaning and purpose.

Naturally I'd like to believe in grace. But what is grace that an impersonal deity would deliberately favour some humans before the event? I am thinking maybe your preference in a doctrinal matter matches your conservative political allegiance. Is your impersonal God the Republican Party at church?

[Nick_A]

Belinda

Naturally I'd like to believe in grace. But what is grace that an impersonal deity would deliberately favour some humans before the event? I am thinking maybe your preference in a doctrinal matter matches your conservative political allegiance. Is your impersonal God the Republican Party at church?

I believe that all the great traditions initiating with a conscious source reveal the same objective truth at their transcendent level

Man in the world exists at the exoteric level. He is attached to the shadow on the wall described by Plato. For many reasons a person becomes disappointed and no longer satisfies his need for meaning. He then if lucky, can enter the esoteric vertical inner direction and the path to the esoteric level leading to the origin of Man's being.

Some rare ones if lucky have the potential to reach the transcendent level in which human meaning and purpose is reflected in them.

In short I believe in the perennial tradition. The truth at the transcendent level always was. We can't learn it but Plato suggests it can be rememered

The secular world is consumed with I. Secularism put's I as its reason to be and why it is defended as violently as it is. We haven't experienced that we are a plurality with many i's which arise as they are needed. We lack inner unity.

Universalism or the perennial tradition, know we are not I but this I has been created in the world through fear, imitation, and habits. It is not locked into the world but knows the world is part of a far greater organisation we know as the logic of the universe.

An atheist or secularist cannot accept the perennial tradition. which accepts a source at the transcendent level. Opening to the idea that objective human meaning and purpose can only be consciously experienced when person is detached from the world, identified with it as its source of meaning.

As a seculrism, one looks down and around into nature in the attempt to understand. A universalist looks vertically up and into the universe to receive meaning through conscience.

I am a defender of freedom. I also know the attractions of statist slavery to so many. That is why I am a conservative. It values freedom and knows how easily it can be lost..

[Nick_A]

Belinda

Naturally I'd like to believe in grace. But what is grace that an impersonal deity would deliberately favour some humans before the event? I am thinking maybe your preference in a doctrinal matter matches your conservative political allegiance. Is your impersonal God the Republican Party at church?

I believe that all the great traditions initiating with a conscious source reveal the same objective truth at their transcendent level

Man in the world exists at the exoteric level. He is attached to the shadow on the wall described by Plato. For many reasons a person becomes disappointed and no longer satisfies his need for meaning. He then if lucky, can enter the esoteric vertical inner direction and the path to the esoteric level leading to the origin of Man's being.

Some rare ones if lucky have the potential to reach the transcendent level in which human meaning and purpose is reflected in them.

In short I believe in the perennial tradition. The truth at the transcendent level always was. We can't learn it but Plato suggests it can be rememered

The secular world is consumed with I. Secularism put's I as its reason to be and why it is defended as violently as it is. We haven't experienced that we are a plurality with many i's which arise as they are needed. We lack inner unity.

Universalism or the perennial tradition, know we are not I but this I has been created in the world through fear, imitation, and habits. It is not locked into the world but knows the world is part of a far greater organisation we know as the logic of the universe.

An atheist or secularist cannot accept the perennial tradition. which accepts a source at the transcendent level. Opening to the idea that objective human meaning and purpose can only be consciously experienced when person is detached from the world, identified with it as its source of meaning.

As a seculrism, one looks down and around into nature in the attempt to understand. A universalist looks vertically up and down at himself and into the universe to receive meaning through conscience.

I am a defender of freedom. I also know the attractions of statist slavery to so many. That is why I am a conservative. It values freedom and knows how easily it can be lost..

[owl of Minerva]

How Einstein described the evolution of religion is not necessarily the case. Primitive man had a lot of fear in nature and consequently in god. However, there was always the idea of sacrifice and a strict moral code: taboos. In modern culture the fear is less because nature has been modified by the comforts of science and morality is often little more than hypocrisy; based on superficial social mores and appearances, lacking authenticity. It is true that there has been a god in man's image; a punishing god, rather than a loving one.

Einstein is correct that cosmic religion is the best kind. It is unlikely that it could be conveyed from one person to another. It could be realized on a personal level only. If the nature of the cosmos; both sides of space, and mankind's relationship to it was understood, it would not have to be conveyed; it would be understood by everybody.

Both Einstein and Spinoza saw religion in the created universe only. They did not believe in the transcendent god of the theologians. For them the cosmos was confined to this side of space; to motion, time, space and the atom. They did not believe in existence without motion. Democritus understood that everything material began withe the atom, which cannot be denied. How to fit the soul into that became the problem. The dispute with the Eleatics was over motion; the absence of motion or the presence of motion. St. Francis saw god on both sides of space; transcendent and immanent, omnipresent everywhere.

Because of the relativities of duality; either/or, the idea of both appears contradictory; impossible. Even highly intelligent people cannot fathom non-duality; reason gets in the way. Secular theology; based on a material cosmos would leave the question often asked unanswered: Is everything something from nothing.

[Belinda]

Belinda

Naturally I'd like to believe in grace. But what is grace that an impersonal deity would deliberately favour some humans before the event? I am thinking maybe your preference in a doctrinal matter matches your conservative political allegiance. Is your impersonal God the Republican Party at church?

I believe that all the great traditions initiating with a conscious source reveal the same objective truth at their transcendent level

Man in the world exists at the exoteric level. He is attached to the shadow on the wall described by Plato. For many reasons a person becomes disappointed and no longer satisfies his need for meaning. He then if lucky, can enter the esoteric vertical inner direction and the path to the esoteric level leading to the origin of Man's being.

Some rare ones if lucky have the potential to reach the transcendent level in which human meaning and purpose is reflected in them.

In short I believe in the perennial tradition. The truth at the transcendent level always was. We can't learn it but Plato suggests it can be rememered

The secular world is consumed with I. Secularism put's I as its reason to be and why it is defended as violently as it is. We haven't experienced that we are a plurality with many i's which arise as they are needed. We lack inner unity.

Universalism or the perennial tradition, know we are not I but this I has been created in the world through fear, imitation, and habits. It is not locked into the world but knows the world is part of a far greater organisation we know as the logic of the universe.

An atheist or secularist cannot accept the perennial tradition. which accepts a source at the transcendent level. Opening to the idea that objective human meaning and purpose can only be consciously experienced when person is detached from the world, identified with it as its source of meaning.

As a seculrism, one looks down and around into nature in the attempt to understand. A universalist looks vertically up and down at himself and into the universe to receive meaning through conscience.

I am a defender of freedom. I also know the attractions of statist slavery to so many. That is why I am a conservative. It values freedom and knows how easily it can be lost..

But Nick, everyone cannot be a philosopher king. Most people in fact can't be philosopher kings whose very existence depends upon lesser humans to do the manual work. Political conservatism maintains the trend of the priestly and kingly castes to retain or increase their power.

[owl of Minerva]

Einstein did not give the pagan religion credit for the role it played in the survival of primitive man. He said the fifth element; the ether was defunct. They realized sound was carried by space and their Shaman used drumming and sound to transcend the ego; to go to the underworld; the subconscious mind, or to the upper-world; the superconscious mind to gain information that could be used in a variety of ways in helping the tribe survive.

Democritus, Spinoza and Einstein did not believe in transcendence. They saw god as intelligence in nature only; that was the god they worshiped. St. Francis does not fit into this category. Through his identification with Christ, he did not just see god as intelligence in nature but identified with It (Christ Consciousness); becoming one with it. Similar to the Buddha who identified with Intelligence; (Buddhi) and became one with It. The Buddha did not go any further, into transcendence; that was not his mission. The Dalai Lama can discourse with scientists as he does not talk of a transcendent god. If he did, science would not discourse with him. St. Francis accepted transcendence on faith. There is no evidence that he was one with Intelligence elsewhere as was Christ: I and my Father are One.

Einstein is right in his view that the religion of theology is limited, often wrong, and dogmatic. It is limited to human understanding and reason, which has not reconciled the relativities of duality; not Einstein's relativity but the psychic relativity of the either/or; a reconciling of opposites; the strong and weak forces, much less reconciling the major duality; Spirit/Nature which would be required for transcendence. A cosmic religion would be better. For that, a better understanding of the nature of reality is needed.

[owl of Minerva]

Hi Nick A.

I tried to post twice but it didn't take and wasn't posted.

[owl of Minerva]

Sorry, it has not gone through it is posted now.

[owl of Minerva]

Belinda, having trouble with my computer or I would re post your questions here. I will respond to them by number instead.

No.1
I do not confuse materialism and humanism. From what I read and observe, some humanists are too ready to be fawning in interviews with proponents of eliminative materialism, not asking them probing questions, so I conclude that they agree with them.

No.2 I do not think Christ is a unique Savior. There have been many in the east who have met the criteria of being one with Intelligence in nature. Buddha for one, and some with the Intelligence beyond nature as well, which qualifies them as Avatars, Saviors, or prophets; a liberated being. If someone is wise as was Mandela or Socrates that does not qualify them as saviors; of being liberated.

3. Freedom of thought should not be subject to either culture or revolution. It is a basic human right.

4. It a good thing to be open to the humanities as well as to science. All systems of inquiry are equally valid. We can be open to eliminative materialism but we do not have to agree with it.

[Belinda]

Belinda, having trouble with my computer or I would re post your questions here. I will respond to them by number instead.

No.1
I do not confuse materialism and humanism. From what I read and observe, some humanists are too ready to be fawning in interviews with proponents of eliminative materialism, not asking them probing questions, so I conclude that they agree with them.

No.2 I do not think Christ is a unique Savior. There have been many in the east who have met the criteria of being one with Intelligence in nature. Buddha for one, and some with the Intelligence beyond nature as well, which qualifies them as Avatars, Saviors, or prophets; a liberated being. If someone is wise as was Mandela or Socrates that does not qualify them as saviors; of being liberated.

3. Freedom of thought should not be subject to either culture or revolution. It is a basic human right.





1. Maybe the Humanists were being polite to guests. The social context of what people say matters. I was at a Humanists' meeting where the invited guests were two Muslims and the tone of the conversation was respectfully listening to the Muslims describing their religion to us.

2.But being one with "Intelligence in nature" is not what Jesus , Socrates, Confucius, or Buddha were famous for. These men were famous for explaining and demonstrating how best to live.

3. It's impossible to independently maintain one's life without subscribing to some culture of belief and practice. Any individual who fails to become socialised into a culture of belief and practice needs to be cared for by other people.

4. I just looked up eliminative materialism. Am I right in thinking eliminative materialists deny minds exist?

[Nick_A]

Belinda

I believe that all the great traditions initiating with a conscious source reveal the same objective truth at their transcendent level

Man in the world exists at the exoteric level. He is attached to the shadow on the wall described by Plato. For many reasons a person becomes disappointed and no longer satisfies his need for meaning. He then if lucky, can enter the esoteric vertical inner direction and the path to the esoteric level leading to the origin of Man's being.

Some rare ones if lucky have the potential to reach the transcendent level in which human meaning and purpose is reflected in them.

In short I believe in the perennial tradition. The truth at the transcendent level always was. We can't learn it but Plato suggests it can be rememered

The secular world is consumed with I. Secularism put's I as its reason to be and why it is defended as violently as it is. We haven't experienced that we are a plurality with many i's which arise as they are needed. We lack inner unity.

Universalism or the perennial tradition, know we are not I but this I has been created in the world through fear, imitation, and habits. It is not locked into the world but knows the world is part of a far greater organisation we know as the logic of the universe.

An atheist or secularist cannot accept the perennial tradition. which accepts a source at the transcendent level. Opening to the idea that objective human meaning and purpose can only be consciously experienced when person is detached from the world, identified with it as its source of meaning.

As a seculrism, one looks down and around into nature in the attempt to understand. A universalist looks vertically up and down at himself and into the universe to receive meaning through conscience.

I am a defender of freedom. I also know the attractions of statist slavery to so many. That is why I am a conservative. It values freedom and knows how easily it can be lost..

But Nick, everyone cannot be a philosopher king. Most people in fact can't be philosopher kings whose very existence depends upon lesser humans to do the manual work. Political conservatism maintains the trend of the priestly and kingly castes to retain or increase their power.

The main reason that communism can't work is because we cannot produce philosopher kings. So our best option is to govern ourselves. Lacking philosopher kings we end up with statist slavery. Consequently, freedom is worth defending.

‘Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’Winston S Churchill, 11 November 1947

John Stuart Mill said that a healthy society vacillates between order and change. America is no longer like this and becoming less ble to do so. The mad desire is for change which can only lead to tyranny. The state becomes the philosopher king and provides your obligations to satisfy its lust for power.

[Nick_A]

Ow o M

Democritus, Spinoza and Einstein did not believe in transcendence. They saw god as intelligence in nature only; that was the god they worshiped. St. Francis does not fit into this category. Through his identification with Christ, he did not just see god as intelligence in nature but identified with It (Christ Consciousness); becoming one with it. Similar to the Buddha who identified with Intelligence; (Buddhi) and became one with It. The Buddha did not go any further, into transcendence; that was not his mission. The Dalai Lama can discourse with scientists as he does not talk of a transcendent god. If he did, science would not discourse with him. St. Francis accepted transcendence on faith. There is no evidence that he was one with Intelligence elsewhere as was Christ: I and my Father are One.

Is the universe God as Pantheism suggests or does God exist within the universe as Panentheism suggests?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panenthei ... n%22%20God.

Baruch Spinoza later claimed that "Whatsoever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived."[5] "Individual things are nothing but modifications of the attributes of God, or modes by which the attributes of God are expressed in a fixed and definite manner."[6] Though Spinoza has been called the "prophet"[7] and "prince"[8] of pantheism, in a letter to Henry Oldenburg Spinoza states that: "as to the view of certain people that I identify god with nature (taken as a kind of mass or corporeal matter), they are quite mistaken".[9] For Spinoza, our universe (cosmos) is a mode under two attributes of Thought and Extension. God has infinitely many other attributes which are not present in our world.

According to German philosopher Karl Jaspers, when Spinoza wrote "Deus sive Natura" (God or Nature) Spinoza did not mean to say that God and Nature are interchangeable terms, but rather that God's transcendence was attested by his infinitely many attributes, and that two attributes known by humans, namely Thought and Extension, signified God's immanence.[10] Furthermore, Martial Guéroult suggested the term "panentheism", rather than "pantheism" to describe Spinoza's view of the relation between God and the world. The world is not God, but it is, in a strong sense, "in" God. Yet, American philosopher and self-described panentheist Charles Hartshorne referred to Spinoza's philosophy as "classical pantheism" and distinguished Spinoza's philosophy from panentheism.[11]

In 1828, the German philosopher Karl Christian Friedrich Krause (1781–1832) seeking to reconcile monotheism and pantheism, coined the term panentheism (from the Ancient Greek expression πᾶν ἐν θεῷ, pān en theṓ, literally "all in god"). This conception of God influenced New England transcendentalists such as Ralph Waldo Emerson. The term was popularized by Charles Hartshorne in his development of process theology and has also been closely identified with the New Thought.[12] The formalization of this term in the West in the 19th century was not new; philosophical treatises had been written on it in the context of Hinduism for millennia.[13]

What transcends in the body of God or the mini universe we call Man? Can Man evolve in the body of God serving a higher purpose or is the visible universe God?

[owl of Minerva]

Reply to Belinda

1. Being considerate of religious feeling is understandable. A philosopher can be polite when interviewing a scientist but it should not be necessary to be considerate of the scientist's feelings when discussing a theory; presenting an opposing view, or expressing skepticism.

2. If what a Buddha or Christ has achieved is not understood and they are perceived as the equivalent of other wise men; then we can be grateful that they manifest wisdom.

3. Spinoza is an example of someone who was banished from his society because he did not subscribe to its beliefs. Accepting or being subservient to views we do not agree with can be detrimental to mental health; it is better to be true to ourselves.

4.Eliminative materialism denies mind exists. They perceive mind as a function of the physical brain.

[owl of Minerva]

Reply to Nick_A

Spinoza's view is similar to that of Eastern philosophy. That view is a form of thought and extension, although in any scripture East or West it is not expressed as God thought: it is either God sees, or God said: the Word; the Sound: Aum structured creation containing everything within itself. In Vedic philosophy the manifested is God's dream.

That solves the problems of dualism: transcendence/immanence (pantheism). Also the problem of evil in the world. If in a nightly dream if we see someone fall off a cliff when we wake up we are not troubled because we know no one died. It solves the problem of an impotent God or an indifferent God. Although humanity suffers all the painful relativities of duality because of identification with a body and an environment, in this philosophy it is just a dream. Liberation is waking up from the dream and realizing the true nature of reality.

Reason cannot get past the relativities of duality; either/or cannot be perceived as both; as non-dual. That is why it is thought that God cannot be perceived by reason. The choice is always either this or that view only, in any opinion being expressed, and defended, which can lead to endless discussions of opposing viewpoints which are essentially meaningless and lead no where.

In time humanity will know until then it is best to keep an open mind and not get involved in pointless arguments on a topic that reason by its very nature cannot solve.