Why we need religion

[Nilsi]

4 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I'm sure your spiritual inclinations are pretty New Age. It's essentially just postmodern spirituality.

lol

You can call my a postmodernist, if you really want, but my spirituality has nothing to do with that. Spirituality happens outside the realm of ideology.

4 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

That is mysticim.

What is spirituality then? What you call spirituality, I call religion; and what you call religion, I call religion.

5 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Mmm yes, sprinkle some anti-science in there and we're fully prepared for the New Age ?

You know exactly what I mean. Im not anti science. Im anti bullshit.

[Carl-Richard]

15 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

You can call my a postmodernist, if you really want, but my spirituality has nothing to do with that. Spirituality happens outside the realm of ideology.

You don't have a set of practices or beliefs about how to do spirituality?

 

39 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

What is spirituality then?

Seeking the highest value.

 

41 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

What you call spirituality, I call religion; and what you call religion, I call religion.

Less distinctions = better? ?

[Nilsi]

19 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

You don't have a set of practices or beliefs about how to do spirituality?

I dont. In your case a procedure might be dropping out of college. For someone else it might be going to evening school, getting a high school degree and signing up for college. Whatever makes you less ignorant, is what I would prescribe. Hate to be that guy, but its all relative.

Exactly this is my problem with religion and grand narratives. They make lowest common denominator prescriptions and with that domesticate entire populations of people.

Isnt it obvious that this can never work?

Its the same problem with AI alignment. In fact, its literally the infamous Gödels incompleteness theorem. 

19 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Seeking the highest value.

Fair. In practice that means shedding all distinctions and beliefs. 

To you God is some event at the end of time.

Thats fine. But God is also an experience, that actually happens - like having to take a shit. I might not have to take a shit now, but I did this morning. And the next time I do, I will recognize the feeling again.

I dont need a grand narrative to make myself take a shit, when I feel like having to take a shit.

19 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Less distinctions = better? ?

Not necessarily. I dont have any meaningful definition for mysticism - to me precisely that is spirituality.

Edited March 31, 2023 by Nilsi

[UnbornTao]

On 3/30/2023 at 5:32 AM, Danioover9000 said:

@UnbornTao

   OMG, why so late? Do you do meditation after midnight?

No, I was fucking around on the internet.

 

On 3/30/2023 at 10:57 AM, Carl-Richard said:

You know what I'm going to say, right? Sounds pretty New Age to me: minimal prescriptions, minimal theory, minimal tradition, sort of vague; just pure seeking of the sacred, stripped to its bare bones. "Just follow your bliss, man"

I don't think we're getting anywhere. We disagree on what spirituality and religion is, we disagree on the degree to which belief is inherent to either spirituality or religion, etc. It's hard to get off the ground without settling those.

Still, new age or not, it might as well be true that religion is faith-based, after all. Religion can provide value depending on how you approach it. A lot can be learned from that study. It's fascinating and entertaining, too. But that pursuit embraces beliefs and so is not the same as seeking out what's true. Without belief, religion is... Not religion: rituals, entertainment, wise advice, a set of practices, ideas, a cosmology.

There might not be a requisite to consciousness except consciousness itself!

What matters is you making a leap. What precedes that -- the process that is thought to accomplish the result -- isn't essential in the end. As in a dream, you wake up by waking up. There's no process even though your mind may make one up with what it thinks it did before the breakthrough. Within a dream you can drink coffee but the "cause" of your waking up is that you did it. Let there be light! That's the meaning of direct.

Value is relative. If we postulate that Consciousness is absolute, then value doesn't play in the same domain, so to speak. The definition of spirituality that you gave is based on flawed presumptions. In my view, it's sloppy thinking. Although if it works for people in some way, great.

Set aside what you've been told. Consider experientially: What's needed and true in this regard? What is belief and the act of believing? What's intellectual vs experiential investigation? What difference is there between concept and experience? What is religion up to?

Edited April 2, 2023 by UnbornTao

[Carl-Richard]

I knew I should've prefaced this from the beginning, but I was naively expecting a more openminded and less "religious" (dogmatic) response. Anyways, the issue with this thread, like Nilsi so eloquently pointed out, is that I'm using academic definitions of terms like religion, and when people come with their more colloquial understanding, of course that is going to cause a clash.

What I'll propose though is that academic definitions are often simply better in terms of describing and explaining things in the world than colloquial definitions. They're more precise, and it's why academics use them. What I feel like is going on here is analogous to somebody saying "OCD is a psychiatric diagnosis with specific criteria", while the responses are like "but I'm pretty OCD when it comes to certain things".

Nevertheless, I guess I can also summarize my position using different terms: what I'm proposing with "why we need religion" is that the search for the highest value (whatever that is for you) cannot easily be separated from your mental and physical wellbeing, and those things depend on certain factors. I'm saying we should not ignore those factors. Now, we can for example talk about what you think those factors should be, or we can keep fighting over definitions. Up to you.

[Willie]

Religion already exists, whether or not it’s necessary. So, it’s a moot point. If someone needs religion in their life, good! If someone rejects religion and can still have a nice life, good!

Telling someone they need religion in their life is where problems start occurring.

[Nilsi]

5 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Nevertheless, I guess I can also summarize my position using different terms: what I'm proposing with "why we need religion" is that the search for the highest value (whatever that is for you) cannot easily be separated from your mental and physical wellbeing, and those things depend on certain factors. I'm saying we should not ignore those factors. Now, we can for example talk about what you think those factors should be, or we can keep fighting over definitions. Up to you.

Let's not kid ourselves here, the highest value is God, of course.

The only question is how one goes after this value, which is where I maintain, there is no algorithm or universal narrative for it.

Some "mystics" are so malnourished and poor that they barely stay alive. Some "mystics" are yoked as fuck and wear designer clothes (shout-out to Mr. Wilber). 

Someone may need to put a gun to their head, to get closer to the "highest value." Someone else may need to become a Wallstreet hustler. The next guy may need to find a girlfriend.

Who is to say? 

[zurew]

12 hours ago, Nilsi said:

I dont.

Even though you often talk about that everything is relative, you don't live up to that nihilistic notion, because you would be already dead . In order for you to survive, you have to have a hierarchical valuesystem, where your survival is somewhat up there alongside with other things. Having meaning and values in your life is an essential and a core part of your survival. 

So, yes, you do follow certain set of rules and values and yes you will necessarily follow something that is up at the highest level is your valuesystem and you can't and won't espace that. You don't just do random shit to achieve what you want to achieve, you do a specific set of practices to get there and you have beliefs about which ones are more effective and which ones are not.

This is the thing you guys always forget with the constant "I don't have rules and beliefs" is that you will necessarily follow some patterns and practices regardless if you acknowledge it or realise it or not; and you will act accordingly. The problem is that if you don't have a religion you will have  to reinvent the wheel (all the elements that religion gives - that are part and necessary elements of your survival) in an often times unconcious manner and chaotic way. The maximum you can say is that your system is somewhat dynamic (you will excluide and include certain things in your system), but even that dynamic element has some patterns to it and you don't just use randomness when it comes to exclusion and inclusion.

 

12 hours ago, Nilsi said:

In your case a procedure might be dropping out of college. For someone else it might be going to evening school, getting a high school degree and signing up for college. Whatever makes you less ignorant, is what I would prescribe. Hate to be that guy, but its all relative.

In the relative world its not all relative, and we can use empirical data and science to massively help your realize which path will fit you better. You can set a up a system (that can be dynamic and forever evolving) that can help you with the choosing process accordingly all the known stuff and empirical data at that particular time. Yes doing this algorithmic process is limited, but as I said you will follow your own algorithmic process anyway, that will be often times unconscious and chaotic asf, filled with a bunch of assumptions.

Your example is also not necessarily applicaple this time, because what we are talking about is much more essential and necessary than just education. Its like if you would say "there are people who need water and there are people who don't" - no, people do need water in order to survive. With the integration of statistics and science we could literally demonstrate which values will lead to a more fulfilling life and which ones will lead you to suicide and depression and to other bad stuff.

Pretending that all values will lead to an equally happy, effective, and fulfilling life or to God, would be ignorant  ( so this "everthing is relative" bullshit needs to fly out the window in the context of this conversation).

12 hours ago, Nilsi said:

Thats fine. But God is also an experience, that actually happens - like having to take a shit. I might not have to take a shit now, but I did this morning. And the next time I do, I will recognize the feeling again.

I dont need a grand narrative to make myself take a shit, when I feel like having to take a shit.

If you would have a system where only your feelings would dictate everything , you would probably be dead or in prison right now. You can have a system, where your feelings are integrated and have a very special place and a specific purpose.

2 hours ago, Nilsi said:

The only question is how one goes after this value, which is where I maintain, there is no algorithm or universal narrative for it

Thats where the integration of science and empirical data comes in. You can set up a constantly evolving dynamic system and track what the most common dynamics, practices are, that are often times necessary for Awakening. There are general patterns to everything, and first trying those general practices (that statiscally lead most people to Awakening) is much better than you being forced to do and try all shit  on your own, with your limited time and money.  

When you make a critique, you automatically have to recognise whats the alternative that you argue for --> Doing shit randomly or what?

2 hours ago, Nilsi said:

Someone may need to put a gun to their head, to get closer to the "highest value." Someone else may need to become a Wallstreet hustler. The next guy may need to find a girlfriend.

If we recognize that God is the highest value, then we have to make it somewhat tangible (and btw we all do this, including Leo, because looking at all the fucking threads made about awakening, he clearly made distinctions between awakening to God and other types of awakening) - so we might as well do the "making of the highest value tangible" in a collective, conscious way.

So here is a process. 1) Recognition/acceptance of a common highest value  2) Defining that highest common value in a tangible way, in order to be able to measure if you are moving towards or moving away from that value. You will do both of these steps regardless if you have religion or not. You will define a highest value for your own self, and you will try to make it tangible, because you will want to measure if you are going towards it or going away from it.

Now, once both of those things are established, we can start the measuring process and the exclusion process (excluding things that doesn't lead to that highest value)

Edited April 1, 2023 by zurew

[Nilsi]

27 minutes ago, zurew said:

Even though you often talk about that everything is relative, you don't live up to that nihilistic notion, because you would be already dead . In order for you to survive, you have to have a hierarchical valuesystem, where your survival is somewhat up there alongside with other things. Having meaning and values in your life is an essential and a core part of your survival. 

So, yes, you do follow certain set of rules and values and yes you will necessarily follow something that is up at the highest level is your valuesystem and you can't and won't espace that. You don't just do random shit to achieve what you want to achieve, you do a specific set of practices to get there and you have beliefs about which ones are more effective and which ones are not.

I never suggested that I don't have a hierarchy of values.

All I'm saying is, that there isn't some universal Jacobs Ladder.

I'm all for Ken Wilber's integral theory, because it works quite well - that doesn't make it true though -- and it certainly doesn't mean, we should accommodate our whole reality to fit this particular framework.

[Nilsi]

33 minutes ago, zurew said:

Your example is also not necessarily applicaple this time, because what we are talking about is much more essential and necessary than just education. Its like if you would say "there are people who need water and there are people who don't" - no, people do need water in order to survive. With the integration of statistics and science we could literally demonstrate which values will lead to a more fulfilling life and which ones will lead you to suicide and depression and to other bad stuff.

Pretending that all values will lead to an equally happy, effective, and fulfilling life or to God, would be ignorant  ( so this "everthing is relative" bullshit needs to fly out the window in the context of this conversation).

Again, I never suggested such a thing.

There are certain rules that apply to all members of a category (e.g. humans need water to survive).

The problems start when you push this too far, as Mr. Carl wants to do, and try to formalize all of culture into a universal set of rules (aka religion).

Im an avid follower of discoveries in neuroscience and biology and Im extremely strict and scientific with my health. I do have to choose what metric I want to improve as far as nutrition, exercise, supplementation etc. goes. Optimizing for testosterone and energy is often directly antagonistic to optimizing for longevity, for example. 

Im not suggesting that eating junk food is as good as eating a raw whole food vegan diet - what I am suggesting is that there are alternatives to the vegan diet, that are just as "scientifically rigorous," but get marginalized when too big a consensus builds around one particular local maximum and group think starts running wild.

[Carl-Richard]

3 hours ago, Nilsi said:

Who is to say? 

Who is to say that a baby needs food?

Edited April 1, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

8 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

There are certain rules that apply to all members of a category (e.g. humans need water to survive).

Where do you set your limit? How many human needs are there?

[Nilsi]

1 minute ago, Carl-Richard said:

Where do you set your limit? How many human needs are there?

Thats a complex question.

Many human needs (e.g. recognition, belonging, self-actualization...) can be met in a plethora of ways. 

The only thing Im opposing is offering one way to meet these needs to the detriment of alternatives.

[Carl-Richard]

Just now, Nilsi said:

Thats a complex question.

Many human needs (e.g. recognition, belonging, self-actualization...) can be met in a plethora of ways. 

The only thing Im opposing is offering one way to meet these needs to the detriment of alternatives.

In this thread, did I present one way to meet human needs or did I present a list of human needs?

[Nilsi]

Just now, Carl-Richard said:

In this thread, did I present one way to meet human needs or did I present a list of human needs?

You presented a thesis on why we need a "grand narrative" to meet human needs.

I presented a thesis on why there are infinite possible narratives to meet those needs.

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Nilsi said:

You presented a thesis on why we need a "grand narrative" to meet human needs.

I presented a thesis on why there are infinite possible narratives to meet those needs.

So you still misunderstand what I mean by a grand narrative. That's ok. A grand narrative meets all human needs. There can be many possible grand narratives, but all of them have to meet all human needs in some way. Whether the specific contents of each narrative is efficient or actually conducive to each need is a different question. What I was talking about with an "universal grand narrative" was in the scenario where the world is united (not in serious conflict), which would mean that the specific contents of the leading grand narratives (if they exist) would in some way be commensurate.

[Nilsi]

16 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

So you still misunderstand what I mean by a grand narrative. That's ok. A grand narrative meets all human needs. There can be many possible grand narratives, but all of them have to meet all human needs in some way. Whether the specific contents of each narrative is efficient or actually conducive to each need is a different question. 

That's precisely what I was saying.

16 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

What I was talking about with an "universal grand narrative" was in the scenario where the world is united (not in serious conflict), which would mean that the specific contents of the leading grand narratives (if they exist) would in some way be commensurate.

Now that's gibberish.

 

You're using the term "grand narrative" in a very idiosyncratic way.

Edited April 1, 2023 by Nilsi

[zurew]

2 hours ago, Nilsi said:

I presented a thesis on why there are infinite possible narratives to meet those needs.

There is an abstraction which can outline the categories, characteristics, dynamics that are necessary to fulfill those needs (that is what religion tries to do). You might be able to connect those categories in a large number of different ways (creating narratives), but those categories/characteristics are there, and have to be recognized , and carefully outlined first. 

The problem is that , the abstraction (that could be used to generate your narratives) hasn't really been created yet, and most people only have vague ideas about it how it should look like, and as we said multiple times in this thread already - they attempt to create their own narrative while missing a bunch of dynamics and elements from their craft.

Depending on how we define and recognize those human needs , once they are defined in a tangible way, they can be ranked and compared to each other. The goal would be to create/recognize/outline such an abstraction, that actually includes all the big variables that are necessary to meet those human needs.

The hardness of this problem is the question of how abstract should one go and at the same time, how specific should one be - It needs to be abstract enough to include all the big variables, but at the same time, it needs to be flexible enough so that multiple narratives can be fit inside (of course this assumes, that multiple narratives can properly fulfill the human needs).

To be more precise and not too abstract about it, the question is how to create a grand narrative generator.

Edited April 1, 2023 by zurew

[Nilsi]

11 minutes ago, zurew said:

The problem is that , the abstraction (that could be used to generate your narratives) hasn't really been created yet, and most people only have vague ideas about it how it should look like

Exactly.

You are lost in fantasyland, while I'm out here actually meeting my needs.

And then you have the audacity to preach to me about your grand narrative, which supposedly will meet all of humanities needs.

Ridiculous!

Edited April 1, 2023 by Nilsi

[zurew]

2 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

And then you have the audacity to preach to me about your grand narrative that supposedly will meet everyone's needs seamlessly.

You said it yourself that there are infinite number of ways to fulfill those needs, so this is not that big of a dunk you think it is.

Inside that infinite number ways, including my ideas about it also ,but that besides the point. Once we can clearly and tangibly define those needs, the ranking of those narratives can happen and certain narratives will be better than others (but even this isn't important at this point of the argument).

 

If you think you are that knowledgeable lets see you defining all the necessary characteristics for a grand narrative generator.