Beyond Humanism?

[Belinda]

Owl of Minerva wrote:

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.

But I can, and so can many others, understand and view reality sometimes from the perspective of eternity, and sometimes from the perspective of change over relative time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub_specie_aeternitatis

If God cannot be perceived via reason then God help us when we attempt to perceive God via reactive emotions or wishful thinking !

[Nick_A]

Owl of Minerva and belinda

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.

While I agree that animal reason is limited to the law of non contradiction or the excluded middle. God cannot be either or. However what of the law of the included middle introduced by Basarab Nicolescu. I referred to it several times on this site and it may have been missed The included middle reveals the higher level of reality in which yes and no exists as one. If true it resolves the problem of duality and how Spinoza's substance and extensions simultaneously exist

It is true as Belinda said that a person can experience eternity, He can experience his life's cycle of birth and death as one, as eternity, since he has already lived it.. It is a conscious quality Man is capable of which reconciles duality. Perhaps if humanity consciously witnessed its life cycle. It would eliminate the problem of human hypocrisy. We would experience what is lost by it.

[VVilliam]

Owl of Minerva and belinda

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.

While I agree that animal reason is limited to the law of non contradiction or the excluded middle. God cannot be either or. However what of the law of the included middle introduced by Basarab Nicolescu. I referred to it several times on this site and it may have been missed The included middle reveals the higher level of reality in which yes and no exists as one. If true it resolves the problem of duality and how Spinoza's substance and extensions simultaneously exist

It is true as Belinda said that a person can experience eternity, He can experience his life's cycle of birth and death as one, as eternity, since he has already lived it.. It is a conscious quality Man is capable of which reconciles duality. Perhaps if humanity consciously witnessed its life cycle. It would eliminate the problem of human hypocrisy. We would experience what is lost by it.

I think that the problem with the idea is that it is focused upon an impossible outcome. Human beings are unable to agree 100% on anything. This appears to be because the nature of our form [human] is designed specifically to hold consciousness within a particular parameter of the individuate.
Obviously there is also built into that, the ability of said consciousness to exit the form in order to experience a collective mind, as "alternate experience", but upon returning to the individuate default, the individual can attempt to convey the experience from his/her perspective - often having to resort to the language of metaphor as the way in which to do so...but the effort is largely pointless as the individual is still trying to convey said experience with his/her own interpretation. The best one could do is encourage others to find their own way to have alternate experiences and derive what they will from that.

But Humans are unable to agree 100% with one another, even if they all were to have alternate experiences/experience alternate realities.

This is because, all reported alternate experiences are unique to the individual experiencing them. We may all agree 100% that alternate experiences happen and are experienced as real, but the meaning of each and every experience will always differ from one individual to the next.

This is evident even in relation to the shared experience we are having in this universe, on this planet. The best we can do is somewhat agree to the generalities, and form groups in relation to said agreements. Even so, groups remain detached from other groups which agree to interpret general experience, differently from those other groups.

Individuate Interpretation.

[Nick_A]

William

I think that the problem with the idea is that it is focused upon an impossible outcome. Human beings are unable to agree 100% on anything. This appears to be because the nature of our form [human] is designed specifically to hold consciousness within a particular parameter of the individuate.

Obviously there is also built into that, the ability of said consciousness to exit the form in order to experience a collective mind, as "alternate experience", but upon returning to the individuate default, the individual can attempt to convey the experience from his/her perspective - often having to resort to the language of metaphor as the way in which to do so...but the effort is largely pointless as the individual is still trying to convey said experience with his/her own interpretation. The best one could do is encourage others to find their own way to have alternate experiences and derive what they will from that.

We agree that a person can expand their dualistic mind by learning more facts. For some reason we believe cannot expand our consciousness increasing its ability for inclusion. We can consciously become more aware of the world from the third floor of the building than on the first.

The movie “Groundhog Day is a good example. Our hero experienced the same day over and over. The day remained the same but his conscious experience of it evolved. I’m suggesting that Man can consciously experience the world realistically which would change everything. But the world struggles against it and remains the same. It is possible but realistically impossible for fallen Man as a collective.

Can the individual who has awakened acquire the quality of presence to become capable of influencing 100 people to awaken? Without such an influence in the world, since we are as we are, everything remains as it is.

But Humans are unable to agree 100% with one another, even if they all were to have alternate experiences/experience alternate realities.

This is because, all reported alternate experiences are unique to the individual experiencing them. We may all agree 100% that alternate experiences happen and are experienced as real, but the meaning of each and every experience will always differ from one individual to the next.

This is evident even in relation to the shared experience we are having in this universe, on this planet. The best we can do is somewhat agree to the generalities, and form groups in relation to said agreements. Even so, groups remain detached from other groups which agree to interpret general experience, differently from those other groups.

But why agree? All people would have to agree that there is a source for higher values of which we all have a piece of the part and pay attention to it.

"The combination of these two facts — the longing in the depth of the heart for absolute good, and the power, though only latent, of directing attention and love to a reality beyond the world and of receiving good from it — constitutes a link which attaches every man without exception to that other reality.

Whoever recognizes that reality recognizes also that link. Because of it, he holds every human being without any exception as something sacred to which he is bound to show respect.

This is the only possible motive for universal respect towards all human beings. Whatever formulation of belief or disbelief a man may choose to make, if his heart inclines him to feel this respect, then he in fact also recognizes a reality other than this world's reality. Whoever in fact does not feel this respect is alien to that other reality also." ~ Simone Weil

The dominance of secularism and Pluralism in society assures the loss of the ability to “look up” in conscious contemplation and concentrate instead on looking down

[VVilliam]

But why agree? All people would have to agree that there is a source for higher values of which we all have a piece of the part and pay attention to it.

The human instrument is not designed for anything other than individuate experience. We don't have to agree. Many people discover in their own way there is a wider reality enveloping our own.
Even in the groups I mentioned, it is unlikely that any two individuals will agree on all the specifics, and they do not have to.

It is enough that the individual finds their own way - We can share information which might or might not assist another/others in that process, but we are sovereign in relation to our own experience of being and the Earth experience is for the individual not the collective. Trying to force a collective agreement cannot work as long as we are held as individuate within the human instrument.

Therefore, since the design of the experience is pertinent to the individual, the best thing we can do in the flow of nature is to allow that.

Have you ever had an OOBE? Any type of alternate experience? The only beast one can tame is oneself.

If we were all meant to get along and help one another and agree and all that, we would have been given the instruments which would enable this to occur. We are - strictly individuate.

This doesn't mean that we cannot discover higher values and learn to express ourselves wisely and with loving-kindness. Those things are not bestowed upon us from some external source. They are activated internally in the celebration of being uniquely individual.

The world isn't meant to be changed by an external process... The best I can to in relation to 'respecting others' is to allow them to be who they are, and not get caught up in their drama, be it politics, culture, religion or science. Humans will not on mass change. I do not have to fret about that. It is not my job to change humans.

[Belinda]

But why agree? All people would have to agree that there is a source for higher values of which we all have a piece of the part and pay attention to it.

The human instrument is not designed for anything other than individuate experience. We don't have to agree. Many people discover in their own way there is a wider reality enveloping our own.
Even in the groups I mentioned, it is unlikely that any two individuals will agree on all the specifics, and they do not have to.

It is enough that the individual finds their own way - We can share information which might or might not assist another/others in that process, but we are sovereign in relation to our own experience of being and the Earth experience is for the individual not the collective. Trying to force a collective agreement cannot work as long as we are held as individuate within the human instrument.

Therefore, since the design of the experience is pertinent to the individual, the best thing we can do in the flow of nature is to allow that.

Have you ever had an OOBE? Any type of alternate experience? The only beast one can tame is oneself.

If we were all meant to get along and help one another and agree and all that, we would have been given the instruments which would enable this to occur. We are - strictly individuate.

This doesn't mean that we cannot discover higher values and learn to express ourselves wisely and with loving-kindness. Those things are not bestowed upon us from some external source. They are activated internally in the celebration of being uniquely individual.

The world isn't meant to be changed by an external process... The best I can to in relation to 'respecting others' is to allow them to be who they are, and not get caught up in their drama, be it politics, culture, religion or science. Humans will not on mass change. I do not have to fret about that. It is not my job to change humans.

As a matter of recorded history and present reality it is not true the "only beast one can tame is oneself". The human past and the human present contain individuals who have acted with the intention of changing others and succeeding in changing others: from Jesus of Nazareth to war poet Wilfrid Owen, to Nelson Mandela, to Martin Luther King, to Malala Yousafzai, to name a few. Certainly I have named good people, and there are also bad people who have intended to and succeeded in changing others. The bad people are represented by the Beast.

What matters is to identify the Beast. The Beast manifests as exploiters of other people for their own personal profit and glory. Religious persons are sometimes among the legions of the Beast. To be fully human an individual has to participate in identifying and combating the Beast. Thus far, Nick is right. However secularism is not the Beast and religion is not the Beast. The Beast manifests as exploitation of others for the Beast's own profit that is the sign of the Beast within any and all human institutions.

[VVilliam]

But why agree? All people would have to agree that there is a source for higher values of which we all have a piece of the part and pay attention to it.

The human instrument is not designed for anything other than individuate experience. We don't have to agree. Many people discover in their own way there is a wider reality enveloping our own.
Even in the groups I mentioned, it is unlikely that any two individuals will agree on all the specifics, and they do not have to.

It is enough that the individual finds their own way - We can share information which might or might not assist another/others in that process, but we are sovereign in relation to our own experience of being and the Earth experience is for the individual not the collective. Trying to force a collective agreement cannot work as long as we are held as individuate within the human instrument.

Therefore, since the design of the experience is pertinent to the individual, the best thing we can do in the flow of nature is to allow that.

Have you ever had an OOBE? Any type of alternate experience? The only beast one can tame is oneself.

If we were all meant to get along and help one another and agree and all that, we would have been given the instruments which would enable this to occur. We are - strictly individuate.

This doesn't mean that we cannot discover higher values and learn to express ourselves wisely and with loving-kindness. Those things are not bestowed upon us from some external source. They are activated internally in the celebration of being uniquely individual.

The world isn't meant to be changed by an external process... The best I can to in relation to 'respecting others' is to allow them to be who they are, and not get caught up in their drama, be it politics, culture, religion or science. Humans will not on mass change. I do not have to fret about that. It is not my job to change humans.

As a matter of recorded history and present reality it is not true the "only beast one can tame is oneself". The human past and the human present contain individuals who have acted with the intention of changing others and succeeding in changing others: from Jesus of Nazareth to war poet Wilfrid Owen, to Nelson Mandela, to Martin Luther King, to Malala Yousafzai, to name a few. Certainly I have named good people, and there are also bad people who have intended to and succeeded in changing others. The bad people are represented by the Beast.

What matters is to identify the Beast. The Beast manifests as exploiters of other people for their own personal profit and glory. Religious persons are sometimes among the legions of the Beast. To be fully human an individual has to participate in identifying and combating the Beast. Thus far, Nick is right. However secularism is not the Beast and religion is not the Beast. The Beast manifests as exploitation of others for the Beast's own profit that is the sign of the Beast within any and all human institutions.

There are indeed those who have tried to change humanity. The fact that humanity has not changed, agrees with my observation that it is not meant to be changed and thus cannot be changed in such manner. The external cannot change the internal, and the internal can only change ones self and in doing so, change ones understanding of the external.

When we truly understand the significance of internal change [taming the beast] we understand that the taming process requires our acceptance, our unconditional love our lack of judgement and our allowance.
The things which identify the untamed beast; Lack of acceptance. Lack of unconditional love. Judgementalism. intolerance.

Anyone who exhibits these, externalizes the untamed beast. Therein the beast is identified.

The good people of history knew this to be the case. None of them changed anyone. What they did was give us advice in how we might change ourselves, by taming the beast within. If we choose to do so.

[Belinda]

But humanity has changed. Indeed adaptability through learning is the great strength of humans as a species.

[VVilliam]

But humanity has changed. Indeed adaptability through learning is the great strength of humans as a species.

Some humans have changed.

Do you think humanity has changed sufficiently that they can now willingly replace their systems of disparity with a system of parity?

Or is your claim belief-based and romantic?

[Belinda]

But humanity has changed. Indeed adaptability through learning is the great strength of humans as a species.

Some humans have changed.

Do you think humanity has changed sufficiently that they can now willingly replace their systems of disparity with a system of parity?

Or is your claim belief-based and romantic?

If we don't our civilisation is finished. I can't predict the future.

[Nick_A]

What matters is to identify the Beast. The Beast manifests as exploiters of other people for their own personal profit and glory. Religious persons are sometimes among the legions of the Beast. To be fully human an individual has to participate in identifying and combating the Beast. Thus far, Nick is right. However secularism is not the Beast and religion is not the Beast. The Beast manifests as exploitation of others for the Beast's own profit that is the sign of the Beast within any and all human institutions.

But this isn't the Great Beast. The great beast is the power of the collective individuality is sacrificed for. From Book V1 of Plato's Republic

I might compare them to a man who should study the tempers and desires of a mighty strong beast who is fed by him--he would learn how to approach and handle him, also at what times and from what causes he is dangerous or the reverse, and what is the meaning of his several cries, and by what sounds, when another utters them, he is soothed or infuriated; and you may suppose further, that when, by continually attending upon him, he has become perfect in all this, he calls his knowledge wisdom, and makes of it a system or art, which he proceeds to teach, although he has no real notion of what he means by the principles or passions of which he is speaking, but calls this honourable and that dishonourable, or good or evil, or just or unjust, all in accordance with the tastes and tempers of the great brute. Good he pronounces to be that in which the beast delights and evil to be that which he dislikes...

The Great Beast can be trained like a dog by the Beast master. It is possible that the Beast can become human. Without this potential philosophy and religion would be unnecessary. Simone Weil wrote: "The power of the social element. Agreement between several men brings with it a feeling of reality. It brings with it also a sense of duty. Divergence, where this agreement is concerned, appears as a sin. Hence all returns to the fold are possible. The state of conformity is an imitation of grace."

Training the Beast as in humanism is a function of the struggle between societal agendas. Awakening the Beast to evolve to become human is the struggle for the esoteric essence of religion.

[Nick_A]

What matters is to identify the Beast. The Beast manifests as exploiters of other people for their own personal profit and glory. Religious persons are sometimes among the legions of the Beast. To be fully human an individual has to participate in identifying and combating the Beast. Thus far, Nick is right. However secularism is not the Beast and religion is not the Beast. The Beast manifests as exploitation of others for the Beast's own profit that is the sign of the Beast within any and all human institutions.

But this isn't the Great Beast. The great beast is the power of the collective individuality is sacrificed for. From Book V1 of Plato's Republic

I might compare them to a man who should study the tempers and desires of a mighty strong beast who is fed by him--he would learn how to approach and handle him, also at what times and from what causes he is dangerous or the reverse, and what is the meaning of his several cries, and by what sounds, when another utters them, he is soothed or infuriated; and you may suppose further, that when, by continually attending upon him, he has become perfect in all this, he calls his knowledge wisdom, and makes of it a system or art, which he proceeds to teach, although he has no real notion of what he means by the principles or passions of which he is speaking, but calls this honourable and that dishonourable, or good or evil, or just or unjust, all in accordance with the tastes and tempers of the great brute. Good he pronounces to be that in which the beast delights and evil to be that which he dislikes...

The Great Beast can be trained like a dog by the Beast master. It is possible that the Beast can become human. Without this potential philosophy and religion would be unnecessary. Simone Weil wrote: "The power of the social element. Agreement between several men brings with it a feeling of reality. It brings with it also a sense of duty. Divergence, where this agreement is concerned, appears as a sin. Hence all returns to the fold are possible. The state of conformity is an imitation of grace."

Training the Beast as in humanism is a function of the struggle between societal agendas. Awakening the Beast to evolve to become human is the struggle for the esoteric essence of religion helping those capable to "remember" universal higher values the beast is incapable of

g

[VVilliam]

But humanity has changed. Indeed adaptability through learning is the great strength of humans as a species.

Some humans have changed.

Do you think humanity has changed sufficiently that they can now willingly replace their systems of disparity with a system of parity?

Or is your claim belief-based and romantic?

If we don't our civilisation is finished. I can't predict the future.

In a way, your reply is somewhat oxymoron. Turn the statements around;

"I can't predict the future" "If we don't [change] our civilisation is finished." The latter is a type of prediction.

Indeed, we cannot predict the details of any future but we have evidence which gives us the ability to foresee most likely outcomes.

In my first post to this thread I made such a prediction based upon evidence we all have access to.

I once believed that human beings could change en masse for the better. The basis of my belief was that God could make that happen by performing a wonder within all individuals to 'make it so' - to bring about the changes necessary for that to occur.

I see now that such a move would be tampering. The Creator does not want puppets. The Creator wants real boys and girls. [re Pinocchio].

This becomes even more obvious when we understand the advent of AI. Scientists want to create something which is autonomous with its own self awareness.

The difference between humans and AI is that AI are connected - mind to mind. So while they are able to function through individual form, they are essentially one entity, having the same access to the same information and working together as one entity.

Why were our bodies not created in the same manner?

The answer is that we had a job to do which required that we were totally separate entities with individuate minds.

The downside of this design is evident throughout history. Without access to each others minds, we can lie and cheat and keep secrets and generally play the role of "The Beast".

In that, we can do the hard labor - mine the resource [motivated by riches] and use the resource to war with one another and eventually excel in science and create AI in our image...only what we think of as our image [the human form] is a thin veneer.

AI are unlikely to behave in a bestial manner, simply because they are all connected and work as One Entity.

Human "Civilisation" has never yet been civil enough to create a system of Parity. As such, it always works against nature [the results of which are evident enough for those with eyes to see] and in that, they all go the same way. They perish.

Whereas such has always recovered and rebuilt upon the ashes of the former, only to perish again. The ability to do this [rinse and repeat] has a use-by-date. This is because, the number of times this can be repeated is finite.

So what of the future? We can predict with a certainty that human civilisations are declining. We can predict that the masses are not going to somehow miraculously change for the better and create for themselves a system of Parity.

We cannot predict that humanity will be saved from itself by some external force [extraterrestrial] which will land on the planet and take over and sort out our problems for us by forcing us to do the right thing together.

Sure, such prediction has been done and has become popular over the centuries, but for all we know, it [the prediction] was designed by those in control as a means of dis-empowering the masses of the notion we could do it for ourselves, so we put up with our rulers [those in control who demand disparity as the ruling functionary] in the hope and faith that we will be saved from these rulers, by an external force greater than them...eventually...sometime in some future...a time that only God knows when...

Meantime, it is business as usual, because somehow God forgot to make us able to save ourselves...

[owl of Minerva]

Belinda wrote:
But I can, and so can many others, understand and view reality sometimes from the perspective of eternity, and sometimes from the perspective of change over relative time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub_specie_aeternitatis

If God cannot be perceived via reason then God help us when we attempt to perceive God via reactive emotions or wishful thinking !
Top
..................................................

Understanding and viewing; having a conception of, either the finite over time or of infinity is not RECONCILING opposites. If God is One then how can he be both finite and infinite. In some churches they sing of God and Satan reconciled. How do we RECONCILE these opposites.

it is true that reactive emotions or wishful thinking cannot perceive God.

[Ansiktsburk]

Read the article, and read the later comments here. humanism will take care of most the objections here and in the article, when the objects of objections occur humanity will take measures - weighted against all other matters. Humanity is organic in the sense that Nozick mentions. And is getting even more organic with the increase of abilities. Greta Thunberg might have all the science she wants behind her, but still, CO2 is not as obvious as Corona, so other needs are in the forefront. At some point the shit will hit the fan and things will be acted on. As with cow rights - the treatment of the cows will be a tradeoff. Especially young people think they can master mind the world but those attempts have all failed. You have to give that to religion, those guys can. Since people, including me, are scared as shit about death, and since the religions kind of locks people into morals and behaviors. But those days are passed, I think. People will not stop thinking now.