So some impersonal entity, not me (i.e. not mine-ness), "gets reincarnated"? — 180 Proof

I would have thought you're all sufficiently informed about the reincarnation doctrine ...

To recap: A reincarnation doctrine like it can be found in Hinduism teaches that it is the soul that gets reincarnated. The soul is also who a person really is. But when the person is under the influence of maya, in a state of delusion, they don't know who they really are, and mistakenly identify themselves with their body, their mind, their feelings, or in relation to their possessions, their tribe.

So we make stuff up. — Banno

Not from scratch, though. A person born and raised into a religion that teaches reincarnation will have internalized it even before their critical cognitive faculties have developed. So such a person doesn't actually "make stuff up". Such a person conceives of themselves according to the doctrine of reincarnation: that who they really are is an eternal soul who inhabits a body, and that this body, the thoughts and feelings they have are not who the person really is, nor do they see themselves defined by their possessions, socio-economic status, tribal affiliation etc.


The bigger picture here is that who we think we are (including the abstract concept of what selfhood is) is something we have internalized long ago and take it for granted. Our notions of selfhood are something we become acculturated into even before our critical cognitive faculties have developed.

The latter is a more precise word: calm, or placid, mild, etc. — javi2541997

Opiates can give you a calm mind, too. Or alcohol, or junkfood, or a number of other things, depending on your conditions.

(A) taking customary questions and/or answers for granted (i.e. living somnambulantly)

(B) faith in miraculous answers which we do not know how to question (i.e. living religiously)

(C) contemplating fundamental questions which we do not know how to answer (i.e. living philosophically)
Your proposed "optimistic technopaganism", Bret, seems suitable for maximizing (A) & (B) – far more completely than any human religious tradition or mystical practice ever has – at the expense of minimizing / eliminating (C). Ramification of bio-physical law: paths (A & B) of least effort / action, especially when facilitated-amplified by orders of magnitude (re: OP's 'ubiquitious, continuous cognitive automation'), trump any path (C) of more-than-least effort / action; in other words, a species-wide cyber-lobotomy. — 180 Proof

Sure. And religion/spirituality has paved the way for this already.

Quite ironically, religions/spiritualities themselves sometimes criticize such an unthinking, unreflecting approach to religion/spirituality.

A.I can never have a soul or sentience. No matter what religion a person is, that idea is dumb. A bunch of 1s and 0s cannot be life — Isaiasb

Some people have great trust in technology, they trust it more than they trust people. So it's no wonder that the admiration of and reliance on technology can take on religious/spiritual connotations.

Bah.

I wonder if the past, in any sense, still exists. Or is the past utterly gone? — Art48

At least for those who still have to work and are at the mercy of employers and clients, the past very much exists.

There's a conceptual flaw in all this speculation. — Banno

And the flaw is in taking a concept (in this case, reincarnation) out of its native context.

The problem here is the same as that for reincarnation: what is it that is reincarnated?
/.../
If you returned to an earlier time, it would not be as an observer, but as that participant; nothing would or could be different.

The philosophical problem for reincarnation - and for the re-embodiment of the OP - is explaining the individuation of the self.

The Hindus have no problem with any of that. They explain that it is the soul that gets reincarnated; that thoughts, feelings, the body are not the self.

I don’t define morality with a split between society and self: I define it as simply what is right or wrong, period. I am not saying that whatever society says is the standard, nor the individual but, rather, that morality is the study of what is right or wrong (period). — Bob Ross

And with this view, how do you account for persons?

In what relation are persons to right and wrong?

Secondly, how do you explain that people disagree on what the moral facts are?

People disagree all the time. Why would that negate the possibility or existence of moral facts? — Bob Ross

It doesn't negate the possibility or existence of moral facts, but disagreement brings up problems of talking about moral facts, or anything else for that matter. Unless moral facts are somehow something that we can grasp directly, with direct insight, we probably need to learn what they are, and we do so through some kind of conversation with others.

If there is such a thing as a "moral fact", then it must exist somehow independently of persons.
How can people learn what the moral facts are?
How can people know that they have the correct knowledge of moral facts?
On the grounds of what should one person trust another to tell her what moral facts are?

I asked you what the purpose of health and happiness was, since you advocate for health and happiness.

You talk about freedom and redemption. I often ask people who talk about freedom to explain what they mean by it. One isn't just somehow "free" per se. One is free from something, or one isn't. And one is free to do something, or one isn't.
What are those things that one is free from? What are those things that one is free to do?

Don't mistake the carrot for the moon, as the saying goes. — praxis

That's a creative mix of two popular images!

If you do not yet understand that making life healthier and happier and more secure for the people living it as sufficient purpose, that video would not get you any closer to understanding it, so there's no point watching it. — Vera Mont

I'm challenging the widely held conviction that health and happiness are somehow worthy goals in and of themselves.

And, as I am not a certified philosopher, neither can I give you sufficient explanation.

Bummer.

I'm thinking of using Rashomon and As I Lay Dying as explications of the nondual perspectivist position. Both narratives give us the-world-for-characters. We never get the External Aperspectival World, and I've been claiming that such a thing is a round square, a seductive empty phrase, for we all get the world only as such characters. The world we know is the-world-for-characters. — plaque flag

I'm not disagreeing. But my worry is that such an outlook makes a person unfit for living in the world where people typically take for granted that there is an external aperspectival world (and that they have intimate knowledge of this world).

One can dismiss all those "Well, that's just your opinion but not the truth" only for so long until getting in trouble with other people.

Maybe I’ve been enclosed in my particular philosophical bubble for too long, but when I see a fundamental inquiry into the nature of things begin from “the universe” as its starting point, I can’t help but associate it with notions like flying spaghetti monster.

Shouldn’t concepts like universe be left as later constructions rather than as starting suppositions for basic philosophical questions? — Joshs

Not at all, unless we wish to suggest that we come from some other place than the universe.
Answering where we came from we can answer what and who we are and where we're going.

I don't see the ideas here as being necessarily "impersonalist." Conciousness arises from process. All process is ultimately interconnected, but we can still identify long term stabilities in process that account for different entities, and some entities are concious. When mystics talk about "oneness," they seem to be talking about something deeply personal. More "the universe in me," than the "me in the universe." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Reading your OP, I immediately recognized notions of impersonalism.

Impersonalism
A belief system that places little importance on individuals and their subjective viewpoints and experiences.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/impersonalism

Impersonalism is the notion that ultimate reality is without any personal attributes.

https://gitadaily.com/the-ceiling-of-impersonalism-is-the-beginning-of-transcendental-personalism/

The term Advaita (literally "non-secondness", but usually rendered as "nondualism",[5][6] and often equated with monism[note 3]) refers to the idea that Brahman alone is ultimately real, while the transient phenomenal world is an illusory appearance (maya) of Brahman. In this view, jivatman, the experiencing self, is ultimately non-different ("na aparah") from Ātman-Brahman, the highest Self or Reality.[3][7][8][note 4] The jivatman or individual self is a mere reflection or limitation of singular Ātman in a multitude of apparent individual bodies.[9]

In the Advaita tradition, moksha (liberation from suffering and rebirth)[10][11] is attained through recognizing this illusoriness of the phenomenal world and disidentification from the body-mind complex and the notion of 'doership',[note 5] and acquiring vidyā (knowledge)[12] of one's true identity as Atman-Brahman,[13] self-luminous (svayam prakāśa)[note 6] awareness or Witness-consciousness.[14][note 7] Upanishadic statements such as tat tvam asi, "that you are," destroy the ignorance (avidyā) regarding one's true identity by revealing that (jiv)Ātman is non-different from immortal[note 8] Brahman.

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

I suppose a core idea I wanted to get at was that this explains how our freedom as individuals can be so interconnected; how our fellow humans can empower or frustrate our efforts to be free.

But free from what, and free to do what?

Yes, I think it's just natural human diversity. Can you imagine living in a society where everyone agreed about everything?
/.../
The salient point about disagreement is that things, human experience, can be framed in various ways. Why should we expect there to be just one true way of framing things? — Janus

Disagreement is fine, as long as it is about trivial things. It's not fine once your job or your freedom is on the line.

Could she have had better results and outcomes, if she had taken wiser actions? — universeness

And what would such "wiser actions" be? Submitting to the Romans?

In particular, immerse yourself in the perspectives of those who perpetrate acts that elicit these feelings, so that they become more intelligible and predicable to you.
— Joshs

How important do you think it is that all people must do this? based on my op question:
Do you think that preparing people for such, would do more harm than good?
— universeness — universeness

The problem with such "preparation" is that the very same people "preparing" others that way are probably also themselves the perpetrators of "horror and terror". Like when kindergarden nurses beat children in order to "teach" them to be kind and not to beat children.

Such preparation could be effective only if the preparer and the prepared would be in a relationship of mutual trust. For the most part, this is not possible, though. So people learn a double moral standard from early on.

Really? I assume you are not suggesting that 4 year old humans know how to thwart the horror and terror tactics used by nefarious humans. — universeness

Small children are not yet obsessed with political correctness and denial the way adults tend to be.

Do you think that the examples you offer are scientifically rigorous and are such personal interpretations truly comparable with human notions of horror and terror and how such is manipulated?

It depends on one's agenda, I suppose.

Living. — Vera Mont

Living -- doing what?

(And I can't view the video you posted, it's not available where I am.)
No matter! You wouldn't understand it.

This is supposed to be a philosophy forum. You should be able to offer more than your moral indignation.

If anything, I see a convergence between what you call "techno-optimistic religion" and existing religions/spiritualities.
— baker

I see this happening too. It is already happening in the Pagan communities. — Bret Bernhoft

It seems to me that the technology aspect in this is actually incidental, and a symptom of a common phenomenon in religion/spirituality.

This phenomenon is the conviction that by blindly following one's guru, unquestioningly believing the teachings, mechanically performing the religious/spiritual practices, one will attain the goal of the religion/spirituality. That by zoning out like that, detaching oneself like that, one will make religious/spiritual progress. Notice how people who approach religion/spirituality that way appear very optimistic about reaching the religion's/spirituality's goal (even when the religion/spirituality itself paints a bleak picture of the world).

Technology seems to be especially suited for such an unquestioning, mechanicistic, and optimistic approach to religion/spirituality.

A free state of mind or consciousness. They want to redeem their souls. — javi2541997

What is that? What does that mean?

Is it your experience that religious or spiritual people are open to communication, good listeners, willing to cooperate, fair, goodwilled, acting in good faith?
— baker

Most are fair and goodwilled… not much different than any others that I know.
/.../
This is probably straying from the topic though. — 0 thru 9

I brought this up because in my experience religious people and especially the spiritual-but-not-religious types are like zombies, talking to them is like talking to a wall.

Another poster earlier in the thread commented that the image of the meditating robot was "grotesque". I, on the other hand, laughed, and thought what a fitting image. People "meditate" to zombify themselves, to robotize themselves. "It's all just thoughts ... let them go ... just thoughts coming and going ... let them go ... be a non-judgmental observer ... let go ..."

The modern trend in spirituality is all about robbing oneself of the vitality of being a moral agent and instead turning oneself into someone who doesn't even have opinions, who never takes a stand on anything (because that would be "judgmental"). Someone with an empty mind.

Eastern religion is heavily based on change and renewal, which allows themselves to be more open to change. — Isaiasb

Open to change in what way?

In that Christianity is one of the fastest growing new religions in Asian countries?

Wrong! Wealth-accumulation is for assholes like Musk. — Vera Mont

People who say they don't value money are naive, or just lying.

So what do people in those "more equal" societies do with all that social trust, health, wellbeing, etc.? What do they use them for? There has to be some purpose to them.
— baker

They're healthier and happier than the striving, climbing, back-stabbing people. Plus, they're not so assholish. They seem be okay with that.

You didn't answer my question.

So what do people in those "more equal" societies do with all that social trust, health, wellbeing, etc.? What do they use them for?
Sip craft beer, eat organic chips, and watch Game of Thrones?


(And I can't view the video you posted, it's not available where I am.)

If a lioness loses her cubs to a male lion who has just taken over the pride, she does not seem to seek vengeance on him? — universeness

Probaly because she understands she is much too weak to be successful against him. Not because she had no sense of vengeance.

Does anyone know of any example of human style 'vengeance,' being sought by any other species on Earth, other than humans?

I've seen cats revenge themselves against humans. I've seen a cat step in to break up an uneven fight/play between dogs. I've seen a cat step in to protect another cat from a human.
Crows team up against a larger bird of prey that hunts young crows.

Events like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Zoo_tiger_attacks
A tigress in a zoo went after the people who teased her.

Do we need to be educated on the notions and applications of horror and terror, to be able to thwart the use of such tactics to expand and aggravate conflict between peoples?

Do you have any notions about how everyday people could be 'prepared' for dealing with horror and terror tactics? — universeness

Most people seem to learn that by kindergarden. People are far more resilient than official media are giving them credit for.

What we're seeing on the news is media propaganda. Bear in mind that people (who have experienced or witnessed something terrible) are often coached by the journalist what to say and then the journalist and news editors select a few interviews which then eventually make it to the news. But they dismiss all other interviews where the people don't paint a terrified, horrified enough picture of the events.

I'm saying that I don't think religious narratives are meant for us to "understand" ourselves, but to become a particular type of people. Religions are all about how one *should* be. (Whatever narratives religions have about who we are and where we came from are in the service of how we should be.) — baker

Is not "knowing thyself" the first step to becoming something other than what you already are? I mean, you could merely pay lip service to an imposed injunction, but that would not count as being a real change, but merely an act of self-repression designed to make you appear to others (and perhaps to yourself) to be living up to some introjected ideal. It would only be by understanding or knowing yourself that you would be able to tell the difference. — Janus

Here we need to bear in mind that people who are born and raised into a religion have their sense of self shaped by the religion. They have no sense of identity apart or outside of their religion.

What you're bringing up applies to prospective adult converts. It's evident that people sometimes do internalize the idea of "who they really are" when this idea is given by someone else. The actual psychological processes underlying this seem to be rather complex.

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

Survival only ever takes place within a context. What is fit, is what fits into it's environment. Cooperation, not competition, is paramount.

Not survival of the fittest, so much as survival of what fits. — Banno

And in a fascist environment, this means ...

because in a competition they all survive, not only the fittest one. — Alkis Piskas

Those who are repeatedly outcompeted for jobs, eventually die homeless.
The point of competition (in real-life settings) is that not everyone gets to survive.

The fittest one is simply in a better condition than the rest. In a track field race, the fastest one wins and takes the golden medal, but the 2nd and 3d ones also win.

I think you're taking the sports analogy too far. Sports competitions are games, they are not the life-and-death competitions of everyday life.

(And also, sometimes in sports the difference between the first-placed and the tenth-placed is a fraction of a second or a few centimeters. In absolute terms, the difference is trivial, and yet anyone who doesn't make it to the best three is dismissed as a loser.)

Sorry, I can't edit posts from my smartphone, so please dismiss the above post due to wrong tags.

3) What consequences or implications can this this phrase have for our lives if we embrace it as a principle and let it define our actions? — Alkis Piskas

It seems that in popular parlance the concept of "survival of the fittest" is used as a heuristic for identifying the right course of action, the moral course of action, and to justify it. "Those who survive are doing things right".

In practical examples, this also means that someone who commits a crime but manages not to get caught by the justice system is "doing the right thing".

*edited wrong tags/double post*

The big picture here, if you're not seeing it, is that this tiny minority is being evicted from everywhere they go — Hanover

They are God's chosen people.

Everything else pertaining to them follows from that.

The examples listed in your linkt appear to be a combination of several formal and informal fallacies. Some candidates come to mind:

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

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

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization#Hasty_generalization

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


And esp.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

The only problem is that your teeth rot and you're not okay with it!

In other words, universal impersonalist determinism is fine as long as one isn't facing any actual problems in life. (Which are always just around the corner.)
In other words, you can tell yourself that you're stardust and you can be okay with it -- but only for some time.

Patriotism may be the ‘last refuge of the scoundrel’ (as the saying goes), but having an absolutist, inflexible, and literalist stance on any religion or spiritual belief is a close second, in my very humble opinion. — 0 thru 9

Is it your experience that religious or spiritual people are open to communication, good listeners, willing to cooperate, fair, goodwilled, acting in good faith?

I wish I see some Samurai if I go to Japan one day, as well as I watched them in Kurosawa's films. — javi2541997

(Not from a Kurosawa film)

Katsumoto : The way of the Samurai is not necessary anymore.
Algren : Necessary? What could be more necessary?

Ask yourself, what is so precious, so valuable in your culture for you from the 19th Century and earlier, that without it you will feel your spirit is crushed? — ssu

The distinction between the high and the low.

The distinction between the classy and the plebeian.
The distinction between art proper and kitch.
The distinction between the honorable and the dishonorable.

Traditional cultures typical have this kind of distinction, whereas modern consumerist culture doesn't.

Is it unbearable for you when things have changed from that time?

Unbearable ... I feel like a dinosaur.