thinking of the atheist versus christian conversations going on here and elsewhere in the world today
...
i think that the "has morals" versus "does not have morals" kinds of questions are perfect examples of how utterly flattened the dialogue has become.
for which i dont blame people, per se...but the mainstream language routines and habits of the day ...and their prisons of meaning
because morality develops through multiple stages...not only in individual lives, but also in larger, slower cultural waves
the only people who dont have morals are very young children, and children and adults in various states of arrested development and psychosis
the morals/ethics/values of "christianities" and "atheisms" span the entire spectrum of development
and to try and reduce either one to some simple single moral condition is like trying to label melting objects that are moving by on a conveyer belt
what is almost always missing from the mainstream arguments of "atheism versus christianity" (and visa versa) these days,
is an acknowledgement that both "I" and "we" are moving through stages of moral development
not constantly, but more like: pause...leap....pause....leap...pause...leap
and while the majority of mainstream Christianity lives at the mythic stage these days,
(which seems natural considering that is was a mythic era in which the religion was founded on Jesus)
and the majority of Atheism lives at the rational stage,
(which seems natural considering that it was a rational era in which the "Enlightment" occured)
"Christianity" also exists at every stage of moral development
- magic...Christ is about my needs and wants
- mythic...Christ is about my family's needs and wants
- rational...Christ is about history and experts and reason
- pluralistic...Christ is about collective individual freedoms for all
- nondual and beyond...Christ is about dying, silence, stillness and experience that transcends language...saints, apostles, mother T, MLK, contemplatives, etc...
Likewise, "Atheism" also exists as every stage of moral development
- magic...Atheism is about my needs and wants
- mythic...Atheism is about my family's needs and wants
- rational...Atheism is about history and experts and reason
- pluralistic...Atheism is about collective individual freedoms for all
- nondual and beyond...Atheism is about dying, silence, stillness and experience that transcends language...Spinoza, Einstein, Arthur Young, etc...
a real zinger is how each stage of moral development, while imperfect, provides essential moral lessons that are best carried with us into latter stages
in other words...
there is a good and enduring reason why children and humanity moves through a magic wave...we learn to value the self
and a good and enduring reason why children and humanity moves through a mythic wave...we learn to value culture
and a good and enduring reason why children and humanity moves through a rational wave...we learn to value truth
and a good and enduring reason why children and humanity moves through a pluralistic wave...we learn to value truths
etc...
but its not until AFTER the pluralistic wave that we are able to value ALL previous waves like this
which allows an even greater compassion than pluralism
A large change in my life post TWI that seems to fit with this thread( in a way) is how I deal with what I see as problems with the world we live in. For so long, my emphasis was on changing people by getting them to agree with what I thought and to act like I act(TWI doctrine etc). That proved to be futile in the long run. Once you decide you can and should change people you figure out that others think they can and should change you.
Now I put my energies toward circumstances I can change, not people... I can donate time and food to the food bank, for instance, or help out an elderly co worker wth yard work, or stay home and take care of my own family and home. Many things seem too small to matter, I guess, but they are conscieous on my part and I know of others who are quietly making similar decisions. The stone in the pond affect, perhaps... But then I now see practical matters as being part of the spiritual, not some separate activity that must be done so I can work the Word or whatever.
Bramble, I think this fits great with this thread. Your first paragraph seems to illustrate a focus on those 2nd person ("getting them to agree") and 3rd person ("and to act like I act") perspectives.
Then your second paragraph seems to make a shift to a 4th person ("i put my energies towards circumstances") perspective...seeing the value of your role and impact in systems.
And I know that what you wrote is a summary that leaves out much. My summary of your summary assumes so, and does the same (leaves out much).
But I think its cool how we can all see, in general, how we make these bigger moves in life in light of how we shift our focus through specific perspectives. But not in how "perspectives" is often used to mean "one's own view," but in how 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th person perspectives and beyond ARE "one's own view."
Belle...yeah, the busy wave is a fun one. By "fun," i am thinking of how a clown-filled car pulls off some reckless stunt that wrecks the car and scatters the clowns all broken and bashed...but they crack up laughing cuz they are still alive...and simply amazed at the stunt they just pulled off.
something you wrote stuck out...
I wonder if we're trying to categorize or classify something that really has none - ya know, kind of like, if we were to try to write a process chart for life and how & why folks act, believe and think the way they do, there would be so many variables that it's just impossible to get a global viewpoint on how to even start.
In part, i think yer right. There are so many variables, is it impossible to get the ultimate view.
One thing that helps...is to realize that all words and labels and charts and maps we create are NOT the same as the territory they are pointing to.
"All men are liars" points to this notion. Languages we use are merely maps. They are not to be confused with that which they describe.
This position frees us to make very detailed maps, and create languages. Even though not everyone realizes if we take this position with our own maps and languages.
We can even use maps to transcend maps...such as by leaving "here be dragons" at the borders to remind ourselves that MYSTERY reigns. We are ultimately fools who don't know what we don't know...AND we can be smart about what we do.
And we can make very good, detailed maps and languages. The fields of psychology, biology, linguistics, phenonemology, etc... are all full of maps maps maps and more maps.
All the world's great spiritual traditions and literatures made maps ...(Book of Rev, Mandalas, Dante, Chain of Being, etc...)
but religion quite often gets "trapped in a map" by getting attached to it
just as science can get "trapped in corners of maps"
What we need is a map/language that ties all maps together in a meaningful way. Specialists get lost in highly detailed but very small corners of maps.
science often unscientifically rejects interior data.
religion often unreligiously rejects exterior data.
...
The map of perspectives i started this thread with helps a lot, i think. And addresses your point quite well.
A map is a thing. 3rd person IT.
Map making processes are things...4th person ITS.
The 1st and 2nd person perspectives of the map makers can be mapped in a way, but the perspectives are ultimately located OFF the map.
The moment I try and map my perspective, or our perspective...I create a map. Which puts it in a 3rd person IT again.
I dont want to mistake the map of my interior for my interior.
And i want to be free to burn the map and start over again. We are reminded in the jewish traditions that we are always at liberty to shatter a cracked pot and rethrow a new one from the shards.
But how I experience realities is a non-thing ("the potter"). Our interior subjective perspective is described as leading to a "great clearing" and "invisible witness" and "unseen experiencer" of all that we map.
In a sense..."I" and "we" is defined by boundaries that move as subject becomes object...over and over again.
Recommended Posts
sirguessalot
thinking of the atheist versus christian conversations going on here and elsewhere in the world today
...
i think that the "has morals" versus "does not have morals" kinds of questions are perfect examples of how utterly flattened the dialogue has become.
for which i dont blame people, per se...but the mainstream language routines and habits of the day ...and their prisons of meaning
because morality develops through multiple stages...not only in individual lives, but also in larger, slower cultural waves
the only people who dont have morals are very young children, and children and adults in various states of arrested development and psychosis
the morals/ethics/values of "christianities" and "atheisms" span the entire spectrum of development
and to try and reduce either one to some simple single moral condition is like trying to label melting objects that are moving by on a conveyer belt
what is almost always missing from the mainstream arguments of "atheism versus christianity" (and visa versa) these days,
is an acknowledgement that both "I" and "we" are moving through stages of moral development
not constantly, but more like: pause...leap....pause....leap...pause...leap
and while the majority of mainstream Christianity lives at the mythic stage these days,
(which seems natural considering that is was a mythic era in which the religion was founded on Jesus)
and the majority of Atheism lives at the rational stage,
(which seems natural considering that it was a rational era in which the "Enlightment" occured)
"Christianity" also exists at every stage of moral development
- magic...Christ is about my needs and wants
- mythic...Christ is about my family's needs and wants
- rational...Christ is about history and experts and reason
- pluralistic...Christ is about collective individual freedoms for all
- nondual and beyond...Christ is about dying, silence, stillness and experience that transcends language...saints, apostles, mother T, MLK, contemplatives, etc...
Likewise, "Atheism" also exists as every stage of moral development
- magic...Atheism is about my needs and wants
- mythic...Atheism is about my family's needs and wants
- rational...Atheism is about history and experts and reason
- pluralistic...Atheism is about collective individual freedoms for all
- nondual and beyond...Atheism is about dying, silence, stillness and experience that transcends language...Spinoza, Einstein, Arthur Young, etc...
a real zinger is how each stage of moral development, while imperfect, provides essential moral lessons that are best carried with us into latter stages
in other words...
there is a good and enduring reason why children and humanity moves through a magic wave...we learn to value the self
and a good and enduring reason why children and humanity moves through a mythic wave...we learn to value culture
and a good and enduring reason why children and humanity moves through a rational wave...we learn to value truth
and a good and enduring reason why children and humanity moves through a pluralistic wave...we learn to value truths
etc...
but its not until AFTER the pluralistic wave that we are able to value ALL previous waves like this
which allows an even greater compassion than pluralism
not just BIG heart
...but BIG heart + BIG mind
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
Bramble, I think this fits great with this thread. Your first paragraph seems to illustrate a focus on those 2nd person ("getting them to agree") and 3rd person ("and to act like I act") perspectives.
Then your second paragraph seems to make a shift to a 4th person ("i put my energies towards circumstances") perspective...seeing the value of your role and impact in systems.
And I know that what you wrote is a summary that leaves out much. My summary of your summary assumes so, and does the same (leaves out much).
But I think its cool how we can all see, in general, how we make these bigger moves in life in light of how we shift our focus through specific perspectives. But not in how "perspectives" is often used to mean "one's own view," but in how 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th person perspectives and beyond ARE "one's own view."
Thanks for the post.
Todd
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
Belle...yeah, the busy wave is a fun one. By "fun," i am thinking of how a clown-filled car pulls off some reckless stunt that wrecks the car and scatters the clowns all broken and bashed...but they crack up laughing cuz they are still alive...and simply amazed at the stunt they just pulled off.
something you wrote stuck out...
In part, i think yer right. There are so many variables, is it impossible to get the ultimate view.
One thing that helps...is to realize that all words and labels and charts and maps we create are NOT the same as the territory they are pointing to.
"All men are liars" points to this notion. Languages we use are merely maps. They are not to be confused with that which they describe.
This position frees us to make very detailed maps, and create languages. Even though not everyone realizes if we take this position with our own maps and languages.
We can even use maps to transcend maps...such as by leaving "here be dragons" at the borders to remind ourselves that MYSTERY reigns. We are ultimately fools who don't know what we don't know...AND we can be smart about what we do.
And we can make very good, detailed maps and languages. The fields of psychology, biology, linguistics, phenonemology, etc... are all full of maps maps maps and more maps.
All the world's great spiritual traditions and literatures made maps ...(Book of Rev, Mandalas, Dante, Chain of Being, etc...)
but religion quite often gets "trapped in a map" by getting attached to it
just as science can get "trapped in corners of maps"
What we need is a map/language that ties all maps together in a meaningful way. Specialists get lost in highly detailed but very small corners of maps.
science often unscientifically rejects interior data.
religion often unreligiously rejects exterior data.
...
The map of perspectives i started this thread with helps a lot, i think. And addresses your point quite well.
A map is a thing. 3rd person IT.
Map making processes are things...4th person ITS.
The 1st and 2nd person perspectives of the map makers can be mapped in a way, but the perspectives are ultimately located OFF the map.
The moment I try and map my perspective, or our perspective...I create a map. Which puts it in a 3rd person IT again.
I dont want to mistake the map of my interior for my interior.
And i want to be free to burn the map and start over again. We are reminded in the jewish traditions that we are always at liberty to shatter a cracked pot and rethrow a new one from the shards.
But how I experience realities is a non-thing ("the potter"). Our interior subjective perspective is described as leading to a "great clearing" and "invisible witness" and "unseen experiencer" of all that we map.
In a sense..."I" and "we" is defined by boundaries that move as subject becomes object...over and over again.
...
rambling on...
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.