onesteptwostep on Contemporary Wart-healing Pseudo-religion

[The Grey Man]

The purpose of this thread to bring your attention to what I conceive to be a particularly excellent post.

I agree with every word of this:

...to many of the people on this forum, religion is some sort of way of fine tuning the consumer for the needs of capitalism, for example, a fine tuning of the mental being or our psychological health so you can be "living to the full" which in itself is an upper room concept which touches on the boundaries of religion itself. But the world we live is of the consumer world, so even if we go to the 'upper room' we come back down to the temporal life of the consumer, basically our worldviews are too cluttered with the indoctrination of the secular. And adding on, we flirt with qusai-religious concepts while we bash religion itself, especially organized religion. The base line is that we are a consumer, and that sometimes we cross the line into our religious aspect of 'human' to somehow quench our spiritual thirst; basically a spiritual curiosity, and because since we only flirt, we come up with other ideological conceptions to try and solve our spiritual needs, which often come off as or actually are, scams or psychological bullshitery.

We of the West like to think of ourselves as champions of reason who heed best the advice of those who best know the matter, but when the matter is a malady of the soul, we seem to prefer the counsel of quack-doctors to that of our physician.

Many of us—too many—are stricken with a certain moral and intellectual barrenness contracted merely by breathing in our toxic atmosphere of post-industrial philistinism, and instead of fighting this pernicious disease, we suppress its symptoms with superficial pseudo-remedies—pseudo-mysticism, pseudo-philosophy, pseudo-religion.

Pseudo-religion assumes many forms, some more insidious than others; most of us see milk-and-water 'New Age' spirituality for the wretched fraud that it is, but many are yet seduced by the siren call of some vulgar political ideology that stands to the teachings of a true mystic with no more advantage than the prattling of a child; conscious of our moral and intellectual poverty but unwilling to part with the cancerous materialism that causes it, we shop around for some manufactured simulacrum of grace—the genuine article is neither understood nor desired, a forgotten dream.

So enamoured are we with the Godhead that there is no room in our hearts for love of God; we are daily so surfeited with the earthly pleasures conferred by our unprecedented knowledge of natural law that we scarcely even think to lift our gaze to the highest—indeed, many would rather eat of the lotus and forget their own heritage than brave the perilous journey home, to confront the fragment of the divine buried in the profoundest depths of his soul.

 

[Cognisant]

Lots of adjectives yet no actual point being made.

 

[The Grey Man]

I don't know what you find lacking in my post because I don't know what you consider to be an "actual point." Please enlighten me.

 

[Pizzabeak]

So basically, A.I. will get so smart they'll kill us all before we can enter the superquantum computer simulation? Then after man gets cyborg enhancements, they'll energetically enter the VR technological super computer to "live forever" before the computers wipe out man for the good of the universe?

It isn't mutually exclusive. People basically just look at you then do or believe the opposite, hoping it means they're smarter than you at last because they can "see what's missing". It's not being a Jew and having everyone else do things for you. People just make stuff up, after they look at you, then hurry up and try to say it, essentially lying, trying to induce beliefs in others to provoke a response to "get somewhere". Basically it's like a shadowy organization trying to brainwash everyone through media, waiting for the right time to reveal all, forcing fads upon the general population. So for a long time people thought reading stuff then regurgitating it made you smart or intelligent.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

I see obsession with spiritual stuff (especially of the new-age category) as a knee-jerk reaction to consumerism. I don't see the infatuation with an arbitrary system of metaphysical belief as any more profound or aesthetically elevated above infatuation with consumer goods. It's just something at the other end of the spectrum. It doesn't come from a careful evaluation of anything, it's just the easy way out – a (slightly refined) manifestation of basic instincts.

 

[Cognisant]

I don't know what you find lacking in my post because I don't know what you consider to be an "actual point." Please enlighten me.

You seem (I honestly can't be sure) to be arguing in favour of institutionalized religion over new age woo but you haven't explained why it's different or better.

 

[onesteptwostep]

It cuts more to the underlying prepositions some people have, espeically consumerism. If you take a listen to yourself, it seems like we have to give a salespitch for religion when religion is something thats to be personal and fitting for each of our different spiritual condition and need. I speak for Christianity only, but a relationship with God is like a marriage, to strive to be with him, to 'love' him with all your heart, all your strength, all your mind and all your soul. We're not hear to talk of benefits that this would have because I give praise to God for who he is to me, not because of some friends with benefits sort of relation or advantage. We are not the main characters in the story of the cosmos, to Christians, God is.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

@onesteptwostep don't you think the main reason religion exists is to give people a psychological benefit?

 

[Cognisant]

Okay so healing crystals, dream catchers, dousing rods, personal mantras, all this new age spirituality, you don't buy it. Both in terms of money and respect, you don't think it's worth your money so you don't pay for it and you don't think it's worth your respect so you don't respect it.

Cool, I get it, as an athiest that's exactly my attitude towards religion, you want me to buy into Christianity as you have and you just tried to sell your premise to me.

That's fine, but don't assume your premise is any different to theirs, I don't respect Christianity and I don't have to, you can't force your beliefs upon me and if you want to discuss them in a philosophical forum don't be surprised if I deconstruct and argue against them.

 

[onesteptwostep]

@onesteptwostep don't you think the main reason religion exists is to give people a psychological benefit?

Lmao, no. God comes first to a Christian in any equation of that sort, so technically the main reason why a Chrsitianity exists is because of God. Whats the main reason for God existing then? Thats just a nonsensical question because God, according to Thomist philosophy, is the premise itself that allows existence to exist in the first place. But he isnt contingent on existence to exist himself, he is above all reality, all substance, all existence of anything, both corperal and incorperal.

Your question is still within the framework that you are the agent of the world, not God, thus you have to seek things in terms of benefits to adhere to a belief. I think the most direct benefit however is in terms of the soul or the spirit, which I think is seperate from the psychological.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Okay so healing crystals, dream catchers, dousing rods, personal mantras, all this new age spirituality, you don't buy it. Both in terms of money and respect, you don't think it's worth your money so you don't pay for it and you don't think it's worth your respect so you don't respect it.

Cool, I get it, as an athiest that's exactly my attitude towards religion, you want me to buy into Christianity as you have and you just tried to sell your premise to me.

That's fine, but don't assume your premise is any different to theirs, I don't respect Christianity and I don't have to, you can't force your beliefs upon me and if you want to discuss them in a philosophical forum don't be surprised if I deconstruct and argue against them.

Im entirely fine with you talking about Chrisitianity but what I was trying to get at was about your preconceived notions, especially of consumerism. The basic flow of your beliefs is that you are an actor, the ultimate agent to yourself, thus you are an atheist, thus a materialist, thus a consumerist then finally a humanist who flirts with transhumanism. But what Im trying to highlight is that material consumerism is one notion you do not recognize in yourself because thats all youve been truly exposed to, through the secular education thats arguablely materialist thats rampant throughout the education system.

 

[Cognisant]

Your frustration is that Christianity exists in a spiritual free market, that many people don't buy into your premise, perhaps selecting options that you consider inferior, but the very fact that they selected them indicates that they think your selection is inferior to theirs.

The only way Christianity wouldn't have to compete in this spiritual free market is if it was forced upon everybody and FUCK THAT.

Edit: I am well aware that I'm a consumer and I do expect things to be sold to me before I consider buying them, in what way am I an unaware consumerist?

 

[onesteptwostep]

Your frustration is that Christianity exists in a spiritual free market, that many people don't buy into your premise, perhaps selecting options that you consider inferior, but the very fact that they selected them indicates that they think your selection is inferior to theirs.

The only way Christianity wouldn't have to compete in this spiritual free market is if it was forced upon everybody and FUCK THAT.

? Im not frustrated by anything. Chrisitianity has a long history of apologetics so none of this is new. Im not trying to sell anything here, im just pointing out what you already adhere to which you may have forgone/overlooked.

 

[Cognisant]

I adhere to it because I think it's right!

Do you even know what consumerism is?

 

[onesteptwostep]

I adhere to it because I think it's right!

Do you even know what consumerism is?

Well, that we live to consume basically? Youre welcome to tell us of your definition/view. Also Cog, dont be so uppity with this, we're in a safe enviornment, I dont think anyone here on this forum is especially hostile. I think we're well equipped to talk about all this stuff in good faith and civility. Im cool with you~

 

[Cognisant]

 

[onesteptwostep]

No, I mean it in more the ontological sense, not an economic one.

 

[redbaron]

"indoctrination of secularism"

people get to choose their spiritual beliefs based on what resonates with them, instead of having it forced upon them, wow what indoctrination!

 

[onesteptwostep]

I think we're coming in from different angles. Consumerism isnt a spiritual belief, its aspiritual, materialistic.

 

[Black Rose]

@onesteptwostep don't you think the main reason religion exists is to give people a psychological benefit?

Every person has a sense of what reality actually is.
They sometimes get upset when others don't see things the same way they do.
Some try to spread what they know, it all leads to some resistance.

"everyone should see reality the way I see it"
"because reality actually is the way I see it"
"I am not wrong, they are"

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

indeed, many would rather eat of the lotus and forget their own heritage than brave the perilous journey home, to confront the fragment of the divine buried in the profoundest depths of his soul.

I have a pervasive habit of addiction or addiction-like pursuance of pleasure seeking, and having this is such a core focus is likely detracting from my pursuance of the higher things in life, the spiritual.

I don't know if this is what you were getting at with the lotus, but does it fit?

So what I want to do is live more in line with what I have been shown to be the case. I am frequently reminded of the significance of my experiences, but it is quickly forgotten, and I move onto the same old habitual indulgence.

Something has to change, but I don't quite know how to do it.

 

[Black Rose]

reread the thread and two things:

people have shallow beliefs about what reality is.
they get these beliefs from the tailor-made consumer cultural system.

we need a smiley for this -> :NPC:

 

[Hadoblado]

Can we get clarification on the 'indoctrination of the secular'?

RB has a point, it comes across as doublespeak.

You also say:

Consumerism isnt a spiritual belief, its aspiritual, materialistic.

and

No, I mean it in more the ontological sense, not an economic one.

But how is materialism consumerist? What do you actually mean?

This is the second thread in a row I've read where materialism is being associated with something else entirely without really... any reasoning. Why do you need to rebrand materialism before you address it?

 

[onesteptwostep]

I mean consumerism is materialist, not necessarily the other way around. Consumerism is a lifestyle that presupposes materialism.

On the indoctrination of the secular, due to the seperation of church and state the public system is mandated to teach in a neutral fashion. But netruality, the common denominator which can be taught is through the things which know to exist and experience together regardless of religion, which tends to lean towards a materialist presupposition of the world. It's not until college that we might learn of idealism and generally the epistomological subjects so to speak, which means we are up to college, skewed towards a materialistoc understanding. Thats what I mean by the indoctrination of the secular. Not to mention academia is usually filled with capitalists anyway, who tend to be illiterate on life hinging philosophical subjects. In a way its better for marxists to head a school because then at least you have to collide with philosophical history, where you learn about empiricism rationalism idealism and the like.

 

[Hadoblado]

Okay, can you explain to me how this is not a super dishonest reframing?

You say 'indoctrination of the secular'. Then you explain this by saying that by removing indoctrination, this is in fact indoctrination into... non-indoctrination?

Is it fair to say that you think people need to be indoctrinated into dualism in order to stop neutral reality from indoctrinating them into materialism? Or am I misrepresenting you?

 

[onesteptwostep]

Dualism? No, just a superficial understanding of the ways of seeing reality. Materialism is just only one.

 

[Hadoblado]

Okay, same question, but replace 'dualism' with 'non-materialism'.

Do you think that intervention is required to stop people from becoming materialists?

 

[onesteptwostep]

Intervention? Thats a good question. From the tone of your inquiry you neither think the secular eduation is materialist nor do you think theres an influence of materialism at all. You might think theres a possibility but there isnt a real sense that what you learned in middle school and high school were rooted in a secular materialism.

I dont particularly think some sort of "intervention" is needed, but even if it were needed it would violate the separation of church and state, since idealism usually only points towards religion and nothing else really. But colleges I believe should be and I believe religion is losing the fight there, hence why secondary school is just a prerequisite stage for really absorbing materialism/naturalism in college. We're losing the fight because people are prioritizing capital power over value judgements. If we were to become a fair society I believe prioritising notions such as collective justice should be implimented, like those espoused by John Rawls. I dont think we'll achieve a fairer society with just naturalism, because we become beholden to our own notions of whats good or wrong, not God's. Thats my take, but there are plenty of other 'non-materialists' who may think this way. Nor do I think materialists in the philosophical ontological sense is a bad position, but ultimately materialism I think can only lead to relativism.

 

[onesteptwostep]

-phone bug-

 

[onesteptwostep]

-phone bug-

 

[onesteptwostep]

-phone bug-

 

[Hadoblado]

I'm torn between outrage that you're still dodging, and outrage that you've found another way to misrepresent materialism. Do I stick to the point until I get an answer or do I get distracted by being called a relativist? Get distracted I guess..

You don't understand materialism. You constantly misrepresent it and find ways to decide it is what it isn't. It's absolutely fucking insane that over the course of two threads, materialism has been associated with Benthamism and utilitarianism, consumerism, relativism, capitalism, indoctrination...

If I take a samplesize of three... Me, RB, and Cog (relevant and outspoken opposition). We are all:
- materialist
- anti-indoctrination
- anti-relativist
- RB and I are left leaning, not sure on the specifics but I wouldn't call us outspoken capitalists or consumerists. Cog recently mentioned a fondness for socialism.
- We might be utilitarian. It's unclear. But I doubt any of us care about Bentham.

So why do you people insist on all this other bullshit? Your immediate environment shows you that your views are not correct, and you present no evidence or even reasoning for why it might be different in a greater context. You seem to be in a bubble where you decide that all the things you don't like are overlapping. I'm sick of being misrepresented every time I click a thread on this forum. I don't even care about materialism, I'm just sick of people crapping out all these narratives that have no substance. You can't grapple with the fundamental ideas so you equate them with other ideas hoping that you'll find purchase...

 

[redbaron]

I think we're coming in from different angles. Consumerism isnt a spiritual belief, its aspiritual, materialistic.

yeah and secularism isn't consumerism or materialistic

it's the simple idea that political environments don't involve religion. calling something that exists as a form of non-indoctrination, a form of indoctrination is pretty ridiculous

if people choose to be religious based on their perceived merit of religion, good on them. if people choose not to, good on them - but their ability to choose is vital, and this ability to choose free of indoctrination (secularism) is not remotely the same as materialism, or consumerism

your general template is

- something you can construe as bad
- something you don't like
- conflate the two as if they're the same, so you can construe the thing you don't like as bad

secularism doesn't entail a lack of 'spirituality' it entails freedom to pursue ones spirituality, or not, if they so choose

 

[Black Rose]

The opposite of the material is not spiritual.

It is virtual.

All matter has no substance.
It is just digital information.
operating under certain rules.

The material would be a reality, if the material was an absolute substance.

"Everything is impermanent". - Buddha

My Thought.

 

[onesteptwostep]

I'm torn between outrage that you're still dodging, and outrage that you've found another way to misrepresent materialism. Do I stick to the point until I get an answer or do I get distracted by being called a relativist? Get distracted I guess..

You don't understand materialism. You constantly misrepresent it and find ways to decide it is what it isn't. It's absolutely fucking insane that over the course of two threads, materialism has been associated with Benthamism and utilitarianism, consumerism, relativism, capitalism, indoctrination...

If I take a samplesize of three... Me, RB, and Cog (relevant and outspoken opposition). We are all:
- materialist
- anti-indoctrination
- anti-relativist
- RB and I are left leaning, not sure on the specifics but I wouldn't call us outspoken capitalists or consumerists. Cog recently mentioned a fondness for socialism.
- We might be utilitarian. It's unclear. But I doubt any of us care about Bentham.

So why do you people insist on all this other bullshit? Your immediate environment shows you that your views are not correct, and you present no evidence or even reasoning for why it might be different in a greater context. You seem to be in a bubble where you decide that all the things you don't like are overlapping. I'm sick of being misrepresented every time I click a thread on this forum. I don't even care about materialism, I'm just sick of people crapping out all these narratives that have no substance. You can't grapple with the fundamental ideas so you equate them with other ideas hoping that you'll find purchase...

Any propagation of idea with a prepositional premise is a form of indoctrination, either for an idealism or for a materialism. If you're ever taught on what it means to exist, as in, if you're ever taught about anything that is or what is ought to be then you are being exposed to a strain of epistemological thought, whether an idealism or a certain type of materialism.

This is what you don't seem to understand. Try to imagine it the other way around. Let's say everyone on earth was being taught creationism and that was seen as the 'secular norm'. Anything outside that strain of thought would become 'indoctrination', no? Or are both forms of pedagogy a type of indoctrination in itself? I'm getting to the core of epistemology, if you get this, everything, from materialism to consumerism, to humanism, to transhumanism will follow.

Oh and sorry about the post before hand, I was getting to class and was basically tapping away at my phone while walking. Reading it now I could see how it might sound pretty stupid and non-sequitur.

 

[onesteptwostep]

I think we're coming in from different angles. Consumerism isnt a spiritual belief, its aspiritual, materialistic.

yeah and secularism isn't consumerism or materialistic

it's the simple idea that political environments don't involve religion. calling something that exists as a form of non-indoctrination, a form of indoctrination is pretty ridiculous

if people choose to be religious based on their perceived merit of religion, good on them. if people choose not to, good on them - but their ability to choose is vital, and this ability to choose free of indoctrination (secularism) is not remotely the same as materialism, or consumerism

your general template is

- something you can construe as bad
- something you don't like
- conflate the two as if they're the same, so you can construe the thing you don't like as bad

secularism doesn't entail a lack of 'spirituality' it entails freedom to pursue ones spirituality, or not, if they so choose

It's good to see that you have an ass which to pull out your fragmented understanding of what the secular is. ;-)

Let's ask a question since I'm nice, is autonomy really that useful when you're given a false dichotomy or an incomplete set of choices? Freedom is not always a virtue. To paraphrase Terry Eagleton, the "illusion of freedom is what the fascists give to the ignorant".

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

@onesteptwostep I think you gotta consider a more complex reality than viewing consumerism as the only alternative to religion. Appreciating physical reality of life, for example, is not the same as consumerism nor materialism.

It was actually one of the big points in Nietzsche's work: people become Christians because they loathe the earthly life – they escape into metaphysical worlds. I guess in your view, the only alternative to that is hedonism and materialism – basically a life of consumption of goods without any real meaning to it. In Nietzsche's terms, however, the übermensch is someone who can create meaning in life without the need to escape into metaphysics. To me that's very close to the concept of an existentialist, which I consider myself to be.

 

[onesteptwostep]

@onesteptwostep I think you gotta consider a more complex reality than viewing consumerism as the only alternative to religion. Appreciating physical reality of life, for example, is not the same as consumerism nor materialism.

It was actually one of the big points in Nietzsche's work: people become Christians because they loathe the earthly life – they escape into metaphysical worlds. I guess in your view, the only alternative to that is hedonism and materialism – basically a life of consumption of goods without any real meaning to it. In Nietzsche's terms, however, the übermensch is someone who can create meaning in life without the need to escape into metaphysics. To me that's very close to the concept of an existentialist, which I consider myself to be.

Yeah, but Nietzschean philosophy, the uberman, is something Nietzsche himself never even realized. He himself, iirc, says not a lot of people has achieved whatever state he professed was the best. His admiration iirc is towards the Greeks who've achieved this state, where one has temperance, courage, prudence, justice, the four Greek virtues. The Christian virtues however adds in love, hope and faith, which is what Nietzsche despises. He basically does not allow for love in justice, hope in prudence, and things like that. There is no heart, basically, just power.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

Yeah, but Nietzschean philosophy, the uberman, is something Nietzsche himself never even realized. He himself, iirc, says not a lot of people has achieved whatever state he professed was the best.

is that an argument against it, or even an argument in favor of religion? Like I said earlier, religion and recourse to metaphysical beliefs is an easy way out. Nobody said it's supposed to be easy to create meaning out of life as it is.

The Christian virtues however adds in love, hope and faith, which is what Nietzsche despises. He basically does not allow for love in justice, hope in prudence, and things like that. There is no heart, basically, just power.

I would say this is incorrect. As far as I understand, what he despised about Christianity was 1) slave morality, 2) the Christian view that earthly life and the physical body is a form of sickness.

 

[Polaris]

I think you have to look at indoctrination as a relative term, dependent on context. There is a blurred line between education and indoctrination somewhere, and then you have the extreme end where indoctrination means you are not given any other choice but what is forced on you.

Religious societies have traditionally gone the way of the extreme, so yes, it should be equated to indoctrination. As someone who has had the knife of eternal damnation held to the throat as the only alternative to not accepting God, it certainly was the experience of indoctrination, or at least, the attempt of it (obviously unsuccessful).

As someone who grew up with one parent who believed in God and another who either sat on the fence, or chose to explore other religions whilst retaining a firm stance on a scientific platform, I cannot say my upbringing was marked by indoctrination of any kind; in fact, my parents taught me to think critically without attempting to convince me one way or another. I was free to read the bible, read about science, or do whatever fuck I wanted to do with my own mind.

This kind of upbringing is called "having a choice". On one side, we have the religious society surrounding the child, holding the knife of belief to their throat with the potential consequence of being ostracised if choosing to opt out, and on the other side, we have the child's parents, telling the child to weigh the consequences of ANY decision carefully, but whatever decision is made, the child is still loved and accepted.

Calling secularism, which is basically the stance of my parents (soft secularism), a form of indoctrination is therefore absurd in the wider context of the society I grew up in, and a very manipulating way of framing something that is far more complex than the way it is presented here.

What are these false dichotomies? Let's be more specific, please, so that this discussion doesn't become another one of those where people are no longer responsible for the terms they are throwing about or making up their own definitions to suit their hidden agenda, or by making insiduously vague and cowardly arguments that the other part cannot decipher clearly.

"The term "secularism" was first used by the British writer George Jacob Holyoake in 1851. Holyoake invented the term secularism to describe his views of promoting a social order separate from religion, without actively dismissing or criticizing religious belief. An agnostic himself, Holyoake argued that "Secularism is not an argument against Christianity, it is one independent of it. It does not question the pretensions of Christianity; it advances others. Secularism does not say there is no light or guidance elsewhere, but maintains that there is light and guidance in secular truth, whose conditions and sanctions exist independently, and act forever. Secular knowledge is manifestly that kind of knowledge which is founded in this life, which relates to the conduct of this life, conduces to the welfare of this life, and is capable of being tested by the experience of this life."

Link

 

[Hadoblado]

Any propagation of idea with a prepositional premise is a form of indoctrination, either for an idealism or for a materialism. If you're ever taught on what it means to exist, as in, if you're ever taught about anything that is or what is ought to be then you are being exposed to a strain of epistemological thought, whether an idealism or a certain type of materialism.

This is what you don't seem to understand. Try to imagine it the other way around. Let's say everyone on earth was being taught creationism and that was seen as the 'secular norm'. Anything outside that strain of thought would become 'indoctrination', no? Or are both forms of pedagogy a type of indoctrination in itself? I'm getting to the core of epistemology, if you get this, everything, from materialism to consumerism, to humanism, to transhumanism will follow.

You're not getting to the core of anything. You're conflating learning/teaching with indoctrination.

Indoctrination has nothing to do with normativity.

 

[redbaron]

It's good to see that you have an ass which to pull out your fragmented understanding of what the secular is. ;-)

which parts of this are a problem for you, specifically?

 

[onesteptwostep]

Calling secularism, which is basically the stance of my parents (soft secularism), a form of indoctrination is therefore absurd in the wider context of the society I grew up in, and a very manipulating way of framing something that is far more complex than the way it is presented here.

I don't mean secularism in the context of the house, I mean it in the context of the public education system.

Indoctrination has nothing to do with normativity.

What is normal? We have to be indoctrinated with something to have a sense of a doctrine.

 

[onesteptwostep]

It's good to see that you have an ass which to pull out your fragmented understanding of what the secular is. ;-)

which parts of this are a problem for you, specifically?

What do you think secularism looks like in practice? Sure it sounds nice on paper, but secularism usually in technicality means a naturalistic understanding of the world, which usually tends to mean materialism.

 

[Black Rose]

We have to be indoctrinated with something to have a sense of a doctrine.

Any doctrine is an expression (like documents or speech) that conveys some kind of Knowlege. "This is True". "This is how reality is".

All forms of communication are indoctrination thereof. A purport of knowledge about reality.

Only certain truths are allowed in Secularism. Like any doctrine, it does this because it sees the Truths in other doctrines as false or irrelevant.

analogy:
culture is to society
what secularism is to doctrine.