Discussion in 'Skeptiko Shows' started by Alex, Apr 18, 2017.
I highly reccomend "The Nature Of Things" by Lyall Watson.
Thanks! Looks very interesting.
I guess we're kind of agreeing and at the same time talking past each other. this sense of place... of land... of our people has not only always been with us, and is still with us moderns. how many of yr childhood friends stayed put due to this sense of place. but, that doesn't make it real! we have all these built in predispositions (some much more than others) and we develop all sorts of rituals and beliefs around them. then, add in the spirit world and things get really complicated. I don't think we need to look at indigenous people as being all that different.
I suspect Emma balks at reincarnation because it kinda crushes all this "land and blood" stuff. I'm not willing to look past the reincarnation science.
Maybe some people reincarnate, some people don't.
Imagine a bunch of aliens all deciding to play one of our massive online games. They would all be "human" in the game, but have different roles and ideas that would go on after they finish the game.
Same might be the case with souls.
What's the difference between Anism or panpshycism ? I know I spelt those wrong
Here's a good intro from a prior interview:
This is closest to my view:
top down versus bottom up.
Can you elaborate? Curious as your response made me think some more about the question ->
Finding a place for Animism does seem worthwhile IMO, it fits nicely with some ideas floating around about metaphysics...I kind of think Animism has a refreshing cleanliness to it as it divorces itself completely from assumptions about physical laws (which don't do anything anyway) and matter/energy (where no one knows what either actually is) being the foundation. It's like a preceding echo for later metaphysics like Whitehead's Occasions or Leibniz's Monads.
Animism to me is looking at oneself having a subjective view that has a boundary of experience and an inner volition and then projecting that onto everything around us. However everything has a mental/internal/subjective pole and a physical/external/objective pole. It could be Idealism at the bottom, or Information Realism, or something else...but functionally you are considering yourself a conscious entity among a variety of other conscious entities - what Gordon White thinks of as non-human, non-biological, and in some cases non-corporeal entities.
This actually helps to make sense of causation, where you need effective properties (to have a cause) and receptive properties (to have an effect). This is why there's "Something rather than Everything" because of the societies of conscious entities choosing, within the limits of prior decisions (karma), their future paths from the realm of possibilities. The smaller the consciousness the more limited the choices. Effective properties relate to the decisions an entity can make in the world through its causal powers, receptive properties are the way an entity is effected by the world around it - a world made up of other free willing entities. So we have Sartre's definition for freedom, where freedom is what you do with what is done to you.
The Harmony between Spirits/Entities is why we have a fairly predictable world, the Freedom inherent to this conception of reality reconciles randomness with the Principle of Sufficient Reason - every entity, human or otherwise, is making decisions about the next state of that piece of the Whole they constitute.
Not saying this is The Answer but it is cool how a seemingly archaic idea put to pasture can be revitalized.
I hope this isn't offensive, but I think maybe you're a little too afraid of being offensive. Integrate your shadow and flip somebody the bird every now and then.
In regards to the toy bear and chair. I have wondered the same things...
I don't think the chair or bear have anything like what we might call experience or emotion, but I think that there is a semantic connection with all objects and their stories which imparts an emotional anchor or "charge" or "spirit" to objects which can be perceived. I imagine the object as a point on a timeline with field lines curving out to different points on the timeline where the object was associated with an emotional event. This is the fullness of the "5D" object which is composed of not just material but also meaning and emotion.
I think we are all like that: having real semantic connections to the past and future.
This idea of semantic connections to emotionally charged events combined with Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields where biologically similar (familial) creatures share a real connection through time... leads to the idea of concentric circles of connectedness... which oddly enough is now adopted by the white nationalist sect of the Alt-right in a push back against white discrimination and multiculturalism. And although I find some of those ideas potentially dangerous, I can't help but agree with some of them.
When you have millennia of traditions and culture and religion and genetically similar family lines in a geographical region, I think an emotional "charge" or "spirit" gets built up that is something powerful (and also can be constructive or dangerous) which those in modern western culture have lost to a great extent the ability to feel and experience. Many of us are people without roots and without a story or a sense of connectedness. Reductionism in science resulted in the fragmentation of groups into individuals and then shattered individuals upon which corporations have imposed a depressing uniformity of thought and non-culture. And I am big on individuality and not following the herd and I think groups of people are scary and dangerous. But it's also a trade off, that we gain freedom from restrictive traditional structures but also miss out on a certain tribal collectivist aspects of human experience which create the sense of connectedness that many in the modern world are missing.
It seems to me any race-based tribalism is already, not potentially, dangerous given whites and non-whites have been killed for it in 2017?
It is interesting to consider that geographic echoes play a role in the kind of identification people have. I've felt more connection with other math and econ majors, D&D players, etc than I have with people of my race/religion, but there is a kind of primeval echo race/religion that keeps me from eating beef despite not actually believing in the idea that cows are more sacred than other animals.
One of my friends greatly resents the idea that him being black or even male should be expressed online, he longs for the pre-social media Internet of the 90s which he feels was more a place of ideas rather than identity. I'm not sure I 100% agree with him but I do think there was something appealing there, and it may be that it enabled the creation of new patterns, new family constellations that possibly brought something transformative to the "morphic resonance" that could better divorce itself from the weight of the past.
Not even sure one needs actual morphogenic fields in this instance, as even from a metaphorical standpoint there's value....but perhaps this helps explain why certain lines of identification dominate over others...
I think race relations have made amazing progress over the last few decades, but I think since the 2008 election things got worse because there was a concerted effort on the part of the media and the democrats to use racial identity in minority groups for gaining political power and the result was racism against whites which provoked a reaction in some whites to get tribal and reassert their ethnic identity as something valuable and not to be ashamed of.
I think one can be proud of one's race and heritage and the strengths unique to that history and ancestors without being prejudiced and hateful of others, but for a group on the whole to maintain such a balanced benevolent attitude towards those in other groups is far more difficult. "Pride cometh before a fall."
Groups of people are dangerous and anything that brings cohesiveness to the group increases the strength of the group - doesn't matter whether that's an ideology or a heritage. But if there is a biological morphogenetic resonance action then cohesiveness based on race and a shared history can probably be more powerful than ideological cohesion as it has a kind of physicality to it.
That is interesting! We know instincts can be programmed into animals through the generations, but for some reason most people don't consider how this has occurred in humans. Perhaps hundreds of generations before you had an aversion to beef so that instinct has asserted itself in your culinary tastes.
It is interesting that we feel pride from any group we identify with. "Nerds run the world", for example. Even if this is true the individual "nerd" doesn't necessarily have any benefit nor do they necessarily deserve credit. Same with non-mental identifications like race, gender, etc.
I get the value of counterexamples - if someone says group-X cannot do something you can point to a member. But this seems different from feeling pride just from being in group-X because someone else in group-X did something.
It's a curious question which simply might be answered psychologically, though there might be some metaphysical possibilities there as well.
Regarding the actual state of race relations in the US or elsewhere that seems too far from the metaphysical questions so don't want to go down that hole.
Well, I've failed numerous times and eaten beef accidentally. It's pretty delicious!
It is curious why we have any need to feel connected to cultural artifacts - is the reason morphogenic? Is the physical instantiation somehow more meaningful (whatever that word means) than the non-spatial interaction on the 'Net?
Reminds me of a radio programme I heard today which described breaking away from a religious tradition and deliberately eating non-kosher food for the first time:
How synchronous. Last night I had an awesome conversation with my best mate's g/f: we finally disagreed about stuff (vaccinations, intelligent design, etc) and spoke frankly and honestly to one another. Anyhow, one of the things she told me was to stop saying "sorry" so much. It simply isn't necessary, she told me. Kind of scary to wonder how deep this goes. Is it just a social adaptation that I've adopted because it (in my perhaps misguided view) smooths over interactions? Or do I really, at a deep psychological level, genuinely believe I should apologise for... well, myself?
Enjoyed the rest of your post, thanks for sharing your original musings!
Ah a Canadian at heart. Hello, soul brother.
Please watch this Canadian orientation video, and remember that, while it's nice to be polite and apologetic, sometimes we need to pull one of these manoeuvres, among others, to remind everyone that we still mean business:
I really like every time Alex asks anyone of any particular religion “what does yours bring to the table?” with the universal answer so far being “absolutely nothing” because all of them say the exact same thing at the end of the day. I liked the interview for the most part. There was a lot in there that I agreed with but me being me, I gotta point out some of the more ridiculous errors in reasoning.
Like all religions it appears hers is rife with contradictions. There's no truth but apparently we are responsible for things other than ourselves, we need to separate our needs from our wants, and my favourite, be happy with what you have and minimise your consumption. So there is a truth. No mention of who gets to decide any of this. I mean what if I decide that I "need" that big house, or that bag of chips, or that video game? Am I allowed to determine my own path to happiness or are certain paths just "bad"? And if there are some that are just bad, will action be taken to limit or remove bad elements from the society?
So standard collectivist propaganda. Alex was right to point out that it's the same stuff new-agers with an agenda say as well. Same as pretty much every religion ever actually. This is why the world is split into two classes. Collectivists on the bottom telling everyone to be collectivist, and individualists at the top telling everyone to be collectivist. And gee wouldn't you know it? The power hungry, cutthroat individualists are the ones ruling the world while the collectivists tell themselves to be happy with what they increasingly don't have and that problems can be solved by telling other people to be more compassionate and stop harshing their mellow. I wonder what that tells us about their respective “fruits” eh?
It's a phenomenon that's been going on for as long as people have existed, hell Aristotle talked about this. Get people to think their feelings and existence have any meaning, then tie that meaning to whatever it is that you, the intelligent individualist, want to achieve. Creating a morally good imperative that can justify any action.
This is why the only philosophies I can come close to agreeing with are existentialism, nihilsm and taoism. Because they're all about absolutely nothing. You're very unlikely to see a gang of black clad taoists beating people in the streets and calling them nazis. The existentialist might do it if they felt like it, and the nihilists would do it if it got them closer to their goals. But moral busybodies? They'll be lined up down the street for the chance to murder people in the name of peace and love.
James Corbett certainly noticed this double standard phenomenon:
Man those dastardly rich people really know their fruit don't they? It's almost like their way of doing things actually works.
Everything is sacred and everything has a right to thrive? Yeah, cool story, here's an orca torturing a seal for fun:
I'd say that either nothing is sacred, or that sacredness requires a double standard placing some things above everything else in existence.
It always seems like whenever people get into spirituality they think it gives them a license to rewrite reality even when they themselves know better because it's "the unknown." Suzanne Geisemann did it best with her “Oh I just don't go there” approach to evil, which I'm sure is currently saving the US government billions on all those expensive military upkeep costs.
And then there's my experience with the spirit world:
Fun fact, I'm Canadian, I must not have the politeness gene or something.
Well, not every rose is red.
But I still smell just as sweet.
Separate names with a comma.