Christianity

[RCSaunders]

Dualist.

Hardly dualism. Consciousness is just one of many attributes of a human being. It is not a thing, or substance, or, "entity," it is something one does. One breaths, processes nutrients, works, talks, reads, sees, hears, feels, smells, and tastes--all different things one does. Seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling and tasting, are referred to as "consciousness." Only living organism can do any of those things. A very few organisms can also consciously choose their behavior (called volition) learn and gain knowledge (called intellect) and use that knowledge to ask and answer questions and make judgments (called reason) which are collectively called the mind. They are just as much aspects of one living organism as yawning or blinking and the same single organism does them all. There is no dualism.

You're a property dualist.

If you insist in pasting some kind of label on my views, I mind that one a lot less than any others, but it is technically incorrect, because in my view there are lot more than two properties.

There are all those properties of things that are accessible to direct conscious perception which are called physical properties and are the properties of things the physical sciences study. So you can say that is."one," kind or categorie of properties, but not just one property. Then there are all those properties of things that are not accessible to direct consciousness, including life, consciousness, and the unique form of consciousness called human minds. So you can say that is another ("second," if you like) kind or categorie of properties, but not just one property. If you absolutely must put a label on that view, to be accurate you would have to call it either, "property multiplism," (because there are multiple properties) or, "property-category-dualism," and I would be the only one in the world with that label. And that is fine with me, since you are not going to able to shove my views under any preconceived philosophical category, because the philosophical views are all wrong.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Oh, I agree. Since most of the world embraces some religion or ideology, and all ideologies are in defiance of reality, the religious standards (which are the world's standards) can only lead to a life that is ultimately self-destructive resulting in disappointment and despair.

It seems to me a truer statement to say that there is no man, anywhere, who does not live within some type of structure, determined by thought and perception I would guess, that you would be compelled to define as 'religion' or 'ideology'. If there is such a man I would like to ask that he be produced for examination.

It has seemed to me that certainly Christianity in many aspects is a sort of *imposition* that is asserted against the 'reality' that you, RC, often refer to. Just above in the nascent conversation about theodicy I think an unavoidable definition about nature and the natural world comes up : it is a terrible world. It is a world that hunts and consumes itself. It is merciless and it is cruel -- by the standards of the romantic and idealistic imposition proposed certainly by Christianity's ethics.

So it could be said with an element of truth that at least many 'ideologies are in defiance of reality' insofar as they are idealistic impositions set against the way that nature is and operates.

What seems weird to me is that someone would take issue with this *imposition*. If we did not in so many different areas interpose another ethics as-against the merciless non-ethics (anethics?) of nature, it is not hard to imagine what sort of social and cultural world we would live in. Isn't this completely and unavoidably obvious?

“Take but degree away, untune that string, / And, hark, what discord follows!”

Therefore we do not have much choice except to embrace the imposition. To honor it and also to perfect it. And that is the work of ethical persuasion is it not? If the musical metaphor actually applies it is a question of getting the tuning right if it is anything at all.

So I question what you propose here. You say "the religious standards (which are the world's standards) can only lead to a life that is ultimately self-destructive resulting in disappointment and despair" does not seem to me to be truthful at all. I would assert the opposite. Abandoning, or undermining, the necessary imposition of ethical imperatives, and proposing that it is better (or even possible really) to live in natural reality, will obviously result in self-destructiveness, disappointment and despair.

The takeaway here also seems interesting. I find it amazing that people can organize entire edifices based on reasoned ideas, supported and defended by extensive arguments and presentations, which yet are completely puncturable with the introduction of an *imposed* idea -- an idea that comes, seemingly, from without (that is, from outside of the System itself, in this case nature described as 'reality' and the really and truly real).

The contrary imposition is certainly no less real! And the truthful fact is that our entire human world, in all its valuable manifestations, is made possible through the effect of the imposition.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Now you have raised for me a personal dilemma. On the one hand, I'm always delighted by other's interest in the ideas I embrace, and, because I really do enjoy others and intercourse with them, I am always willing to explain my views.

It is possible that you are just getting revved up and more will follow, but what I notice about your recent replies is that you seem to avoid explaining yourself -- except by referencing other essays that you have written. I do not get the sense that you are responding to the more important cores that are brought out.

Take for example something that IC mentioned:

We have come to think that since there is no means of arbitration among us that we will any longer recognize, the only way to settle disputes and make changes in society is by the pure flex of power.

This seems to me a way to bring the ideas we are discussing into the tangible sphere of concerns and to help the conversation to become less abstract and more topical.

So my question has to do with your use of this critical word 'reality'. You are making incisive statements about what reality is and also, of course, about what you believe to be irreal and irreality (irreal is a valid word in Spanish at least).

You say that you do not wish to convince anyone, necessarily, to see what you see and believe what you believe, yet you present your ideas in traditional rationalistic form. Therefore : they must convince. Here I am reminded that *all speech is sermonic*. (The following from a Wiki page on Weaver):

Weaver found that language has the power to move people to do good, to do evil, or to do nothing at all.

He grounded his definition of "noble rhetoric" in the work of Plato; such rhetoric aimed to improve intellect by presenting men with "better versions of themselves". He also agreed with Plato's notions of the realities of transcendentals (recall Weaver's hostility to nominalism) and the connection between form and substance. For instance, Weaver admired the connection between the forms of poetry and rhetoric. Like poetry, rhetoric relies on the connotation of words as well as their denotation. Good rhetoricians, he asserted, use poetic analogies to relate abstract ideas directly to the listeners. Specifically emphasizing metaphor, he found that comparison should be an essential part of the rhetorical process. However, arguments from definition—that is, from the very nature of things (justice, beauty, the nature of man) -- had an even higher ethical status, because they were grounded in essences rather than similarities. Arguments grounded in mere circumstance ("I have to quit school because I cannot afford the tuition") Weaver viewed as the least ethical, because they grant the immediate facts a higher status than principle. Finally, Weaver pointed out that arguments from authority are only as good as the authority itself.

In Language is Sermonic, Weaver pointed to rhetoric as a presentation of values. Sermonic language seeks to persuade the listener, and is inherent in all communication. Indeed, the very choice to present arguments from definition instead of from consequence implies that one of the modes of reason carries greater value. He also considered rhetoric and the multiplicity of man. That is, he acknowledged that logic alone was not enough to persuade man, who is "a pathetic being, that is, a being feeling and suffering". He felt that societies that placed great value on technology often became dehumanized. Like a machine relying purely on logic, the rhetorician was in danger of becoming "a thinking robot".

So it seems to me that we must confront a terrifying problem and I see that problem as the one that IC refers to -- the issue of pure power asserting itself and determining human affairs because so many people, at a core level inside themselves, cannot find a solid base for their own ethical impositions. Or they have lost track of the core principles (?) They cease believing themselves, isn't that how it works? So it seems to me that what is around them -- pure, unmitigated power in the sense that Nietzsche saw it -- rises up and determines things because they, themselves, go missing. It begins to (literally) interpose itself within them. It seeks inroads and channels to control them. First in the realm of ideas but then mechanically and perhaps eventually chemically. These are right on the verge of taking form and becoming active, are they not?

So what I would say is that we can see what results from what you are proposing is needful and necessary and about which you are trying to convince me to see, believe and adopt: your assertion that it is right and proper to abandon these ideologies which, you say, make us miserable and unsatisfied.

[henry quirk]

I imagine each of us believes his particular take on things isn't served well by the language.

[Immanuel Can]

Now you have raised for me a personal dilemma. On the one hand, I'm always delighted by other's interest in the ideas I embrace, and, because I really do enjoy others and intercourse with them, I am always willing to explain my views.

So what I would say is that we can see what results from what you are proposing is needful and necessary and about which you are trying to convince me to see, believe and adopt: your assertion that it is right and proper to abandon these ideologies which, you say, make us miserable and unsatisfied.

Here's the problem.

"Power" is always "power FOR" something. And that "something" may be good, or it may be very bad. The increasing of the power being employed in a given situation does not transform a bad goal into a good one. In fact, the more power one grants to a bad goal, the worse off we all are.

So to say that the basic fact of human existence is "power" or "the will to power," as Nietzsche said, is not to tell us anything about what the power is to be legitimately employed to do. Power itself is merely potential until it's put into kinetic action: and that means a direction is chosen. Power with no direction, by definition, is only potential power, not kinetic power. The potential ability might be there, but it's latent and inert; nothing is being done.

That's why we can't "abandon ideologies" in a situation of power, because the ideology you hold is going to determine what you use the power for. There is no ideology-free application of power. It only goes kinetic when it's given direction. And that direction is decided by what you, the holder of the power, think is the right or legitimate use of the power you have. If you engage your power at all in any dynamic task, what you already believe about questions like teleology, purpose, meaning, goals, values and so on will cause you to use power in the way you assume is legitimate.

If I recall, it was Joseph Conrad once said something like, "It is necessary for a man to know what devils lay claim to his soul." That's a very wise thought. Whatever ideological "devil" actually has you in its grip, you'd best know what it is. If you imagine yourself to be free of belief, of assumptions or of ideology, that doesn't keep you from being driven by such a "devil": it just prevents you from understanding what its identity really is. A person in that state becomes extremely self-righteous, because he sees the ideologies driving others, but thinks none at all drives him. He imagines he's stunningly original, a free thinker, his own man, devoid of bias, the paragon of impartial reason, the lone voice of simple truth.

And he has power. But he doesn't even know that the direction he's employing it is in service of his "devil." He thinks he's "master of his fate" and "captain of his soul," when he's really just a passenger on somebody else's ship.

Or as the great philosopher Bob once put it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wC10VWDTzmU

[RCSaunders]

RCSaunders, if there were a good God then He would have put in place that all men are subject to their own perspectives. Only if all men are subject to their own perspectives can men learn from each others' experiences and thereby stand a chance of approaching closer to either ultimate reality or a workable consensus.

There isn't any god, so the point is moot.

[RCSaunders]

Oh, I agree. Since most of the world embraces some religion or ideology, and all ideologies are in defiance of reality, the religious standards (which are the world's standards) can only lead to a life that is ultimately self-destructive resulting in disappointment and despair.

It seems to me a truer statement to say that there is no man, anywhere, who does not live within some type of structure, determined by thought and perception I would guess, that you would be compelled to define as 'religion' or 'ideology'. If there is such a man I would like to ask that he be produced for examination.

What you are describing as, "some type of structure, determined by thought and perception," is what I'd call an ideology or some kind of, "-ism." If you only mean one's own understanding of the nature of reality and their own nature (not simply embraced because it is what they have been taught or everyone else believes), that could hardly be called a religion or ideology. I do not embrace any ideology, for example, and I am not alone in that. (H.L. Mencken is one other well known example.)

It has seemed to me that certainly Christianity in many aspects is a sort of *imposition* that is asserted against the 'reality' that you, RC, often refer to. Just above in the nascent conversation about theodicy I think an unavoidable definition about nature and the natural world comes up : it is a terrible world. It is a world that hunts and consumes itself. It is merciless and it is cruel -- by the standards of the romantic and idealistic imposition proposed certainly by Christianity's ethics.

So it could be said with an element of truth that at least many 'ideologies are in defiance of reality' insofar as they are idealistic impositions set against the way that nature is and operates.

What seems weird to me is that someone would take issue with this *imposition*. If we did not in so many different areas interpose another ethics as-against the merciless non-ethics (anethics?) of nature, it is not hard to imagine what sort of social and cultural world we would live in. Isn't this completely and unavoidably obvious?

“Take but degree away, untune that string, / And, hark, what discord follows!”

Therefore we do not have much choice except to embrace the imposition. To honor it and also to perfect it. And that is the work of ethical persuasion is it not? If the musical metaphor actually applies it is a question of getting the tuning right if it is anything at all.

So I question what you propose here. You say "the religious standards (which are the world's standards) can only lead to a life that is ultimately self-destructive resulting in disappointment and despair" does not seem to me to be truthful at all. I would assert the opposite. Abandoning, or undermining, the necessary imposition of ethical imperatives, and proposing that it is better (or even possible really) to live in natural reality, will obviously result in self-destructiveness, disappointment and despair.

The takeaway here also seems interesting. I find it amazing that people can organize entire edifices based on reasoned ideas, supported and defended by extensive arguments and presentations, which yet are completely puncturable with the introduction of an *imposed* idea -- an idea that comes, seemingly, from without (that is, from outside of the System itself, in this case nature described as 'reality' and the really and truly real).

The contrary imposition is certainly no less real! And the truthful fact is that our entire human world, in all its valuable manifestations, is made possible through the effect of the imposition.

I have no idea how to respond to the rest of what you wrote. You seem to take as a premise that the ultimate purpose of ethics concerned with, "what sort of social and cultural world we would live in." It is not possible to make any society what you would like it to be. If there is such a thing as ethical principles their only purpose can be a guide by which individuals live their own lives successfully. The purpose of principles and value is to provide a basis for making right choices--only individual human beings have the ability to make choices. What societies do (and are) is only the sum of all the choices and actions of the individuals that make up that society.

[RCSaunders]

Now you have raised for me a personal dilemma. On the one hand, I'm always delighted by other's interest in the ideas I embrace, and, because I really do enjoy others and intercourse with them, I am always willing to explain my views.

It is possible that you are just getting revved up and more will follow, but what I notice about your recent replies is that you seem to avoid explaining yourself -- except by referencing other essays that you have written. I do not get the sense that you are responding to the more important cores that are brought out.

Take for example something that IC mentioned:

We have come to think that since there is no means of arbitration among us that we will any longer recognize, the only way to settle disputes and make changes in society is by the pure flex of power.

This seems to me a way to bring the ideas we are discussing into the tangible sphere of concerns and to help the conversation to become less abstract and more topical.

So my question has to do with your use of this critical word 'reality'. You are making incisive statements about what reality is and also, of course, about what you believe to be irreal and irreality (irreal is a valid word in Spanish at least).

You say that you do not wish to convince anyone, necessarily, to see what you see and believe what you believe, yet you present your ideas in traditional rationalistic form. Therefore : they must convince. Here I am reminded that *all speech is sermonic*. (The following from a Wiki page on Weaver):

Weaver found that language has the power to move people to do good, to do evil, or to do nothing at all.

He grounded his definition of "noble rhetoric" in the work of Plato; such rhetoric aimed to improve intellect by presenting men with "better versions of themselves". He also agreed with Plato's notions of the realities of transcendentals (recall Weaver's hostility to nominalism) and the connection between form and substance. For instance, Weaver admired the connection between the forms of poetry and rhetoric. Like poetry, rhetoric relies on the connotation of words as well as their denotation. Good rhetoricians, he asserted, use poetic analogies to relate abstract ideas directly to the listeners. Specifically emphasizing metaphor, he found that comparison should be an essential part of the rhetorical process. However, arguments from definition—that is, from the very nature of things (justice, beauty, the nature of man) -- had an even higher ethical status, because they were grounded in essences rather than similarities. Arguments grounded in mere circumstance ("I have to quit school because I cannot afford the tuition") Weaver viewed as the least ethical, because they grant the immediate facts a higher status than principle. Finally, Weaver pointed out that arguments from authority are only as good as the authority itself.

In Language is Sermonic, Weaver pointed to rhetoric as a presentation of values. Sermonic language seeks to persuade the listener, and is inherent in all communication. Indeed, the very choice to present arguments from definition instead of from consequence implies that one of the modes of reason carries greater value. He also considered rhetoric and the multiplicity of man. That is, he acknowledged that logic alone was not enough to persuade man, who is "a pathetic being, that is, a being feeling and suffering". He felt that societies that placed great value on technology often became dehumanized. Like a machine relying purely on logic, the rhetorician was in danger of becoming "a thinking robot".

So it seems to me that we must confront a terrifying problem and I see that problem as the one that IC refers to -- the issue of pure power asserting itself and determining human affairs because so many people, at a core level inside themselves, cannot find a solid base for their own ethical impositions. Or they have lost track of the core principles (?) They cease believing themselves, isn't that how it works? So it seems to me that what is around them -- pure, unmitigated power in the sense that Nietzsche saw it -- rises up and determines things because they, themselves, go missing. It begins to (literally) interpose itself within them. It seeks inroads and channels to control them. First in the realm of ideas but then mechanically and perhaps eventually chemically. These are right on the verge of taking form and becoming active, are they not?

So what I would say is that we can see what results from what you are proposing is needful and necessary and about which you are trying to convince me to see, believe and adopt: your assertion that it is right and proper to abandon these ideologies which, you say, make us miserable and unsatisfied.

What do you think I'm proposing? As far as I know, I've only explained how I understand things for those who might find those explanations useful to their own understanding. Whatever they choose to do with it is up to each individual. I have no program or agenda to put over. Evangelism is for the religious and ideological.

If you think I'm proposing something, tell me what it is. It is certainly not my intention.

In reference to Weaver, no rhetoric or language can cause or make anyone do anything they choose not to do. Only those who allow their emotions, desires, feelings, irrational fears or prejudices to influence their thinking can be swayed by rhetoric. Those who only allow reason to determine what they think and do cannot be influenced by language alone. As Oliver Wendel Holmes, Jr. said, "you cannot argue a man into liking a glass of beer."

[RCSaunders]

I'll just address two things you worte. The first is:

Something that you write in the essays you posted made me remember what Richard Weaver wrote about those *metaphysical dreams of the world* that all men have. Can one actually operate without a *metaphysical dream*? I have concluded that one cannot. There must be, in each person, some overarching Idea about what the world is and what its purpose is, and thus what our purpose is, in this world.

Of course everyone, implicitly, if not explicitly, has their own world view of what reality is and what their place in it is, but Weaver's suggestion that the ulltimate purpose of one's life must be something outside the individual's own life is a fundamental mistake. It places the purpose of an individual's existence in something else, such as God, society, the future of mankind, nature, or some mystical manifest destiny, but there are no purposes, values, or meaning except those those conceived by individual human beings. Sans individual human beings, there are no purposes, values, or meaning. It is one's own life and the successful pursuit of it as a human being that is the purpose of one's life and key to all that is worth living for.

The second is:

So when you say "everyone is different and has their own mind which they must use to the best of their ability to understand the truth" I cannot but agree, in a general sense, except insofar as if everyone has their private, personal view that is as tendentious as they may be, how will they communicate? and how will they ever arrive at agreements?

If we cannot arrive at agreements on these larger levels, my assumption is that mechanisms created for the purpose of managing people and systems will inevitably be given the power to *unify* but through mechanisms of control, not of freely chosen use of will.

I have never understood why people think disagreement is a problem or why they think there is any difficulty in individuals finding agreement. On most things that are important to human intercourse their is enormous agreement. Everyone who uses the same language, buys and sells using the same currency, shops for clothing and goods at a mall, or does almost an job for which others pay them do all those thing with tacit agreement in endless areas.

It seems to me, disagreement which does not involve any kind of aggression or uninvited interference in anyone else's life is never a problem.

I can see no problem of agreement. I see a huge problem in those who believe that anything justifies forcing others who happen not to agree with them to behave in a way they would like. It is that belief that is the cause of all government oppression.

[Alexis Jacobi]

That's why we can't "abandon ideologies" in a situation of power, because the ideology you hold is going to determine what you use the power for. There is no ideology-free application of power. It only goes kinetic when it's given direction. And that direction is decided by what you, the holder of the power, think is the right or legitimate use of the power you have. If you engage your power at all in any dynamic task, what you already believe about questions like teleology, purpose, meaning, goals, values and so on will cause you to use power in the way you assume is legitimate.

This makes sense to me.

What you are describing as, "some type of structure, determined by thought and perception," is what I'd call an ideology or some kind of, "-ism." If you only mean one's own understanding of the nature of reality and their own nature (not simply embraced because it is what they have been taught or everyone else believes), that could hardly be called a religion or ideology. I do not embrace any ideology, for example, and I am not alone in that. (H.L. Mencken is one other well known example.)

I think we are in fact talking about different things. I will try to phrase what I believe you are talking about to see if I am getting it right. When you refer to *ideology* you are referring, I gather, to defined structures of thought that could be inculcated, or in a sense forced upon, someone by a type of social coercion. So certainly we can all recognize *ideologies* in this sense. And they must definitely be questioned, challenged and confronted when we see that they determine outcomes that we recognize as bad or simply less-than-good.

I am -- fairly quickly I believe -- coming to view your core idea, the one you say you are not invested in communicating to others in the sense of convincing them that you are right, as nearly completely flawed. How can I possibly become convinced of such absurdities? But instead of saying that I do not have a will to convince you of a different set of propositions it is really that I lack the energy.

Oddly, what you have done (if I perceive correctly) is constructed an ideological position out of what you say is a non-ideology. But in the strict sense of idea + kinetic power (to use IC's recent term) you have defined an extremely reductive ideological position. I can't see a way around this.

This is interesting to examine:

If you only mean one's own understanding of the nature of reality and their own nature (not simply embraced because it is what they have been taught or everyone else believes), that could hardly be called a religion or ideology.

First, it is nearly completely impossible, as I see things, not to be influenced by what others perceive, state, and believe even if one absorbs any of that by social osmosis. Show me the man who is not influenced in one degree or others if you think your point could be proved.

So we are all taught in one degree or another and there is no way not to be taught. I will mention the interesting case of feral children since, as it seems, they might exemplify what you seem to propose as possible and also (?) as desired: to become independent of 'idea' that concretizes into idea + kinetic power.

While I certainly agree with you that both religion and ideology, in their cruder and more reduced forms, are often received by people who can't or do not have the time, energy and will to examine them critically, and thus to make an actual moral choice, it seems absurd to me to assert that one could do without either idea, ideology and going further religion.

So it seems to me that a productive route, if also a contrarian one, would be to interrogate you about your own ideological predicates that you deny having. Because in this specific sense you did not simply appear out of the nada. You are an outcome of specific trends in ideation and thus of ideology.

Curiously -- if I am right -- you work with an ideological structure (another sort of *imposition*) that is potentially analogous to the religious ideology that you desire to oppose and contradict.

I would suggest that this process -- defining the world through attempts to make truthful statements about it and its nature, and thus about you, about us, about life -- leads directly to a religious perspective [3. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion].

[Middle English religioun, from Old French religion, from Latin religiō, religiōn-, perhaps from religāre, to tie fast; see rely.]

So it seems to me inevitable that we have to use what perceptual means are available to us to define an overarching perspective about existence, life, being, etc. And if the Latin definition *to tie fast* is the right etymological one, you will have no choice but to concretize your views into one that acts as a religious view does and must: to determine actions and choices in life.

If you only mean one's own understanding of the nature of reality and their own nature (not simply embraced because it is what they have been taught or everyone else believes), that could hardly be called a religion or ideology.

I see what you are trying to get at and it seems to me that you are looking for something like *greater freedom* or to contrive a space for yourself where your thinking could be less constrained by determined rules.

But my view is that, one way or the other, we have to define our sets of ideas and we have to make choices based on them. You say 'this could hardly be called a religion or ideology' and here I would disagree but with some caveats. In the best of cases (I assume this is why you admire those whom you do admire) one operates more freely and creatively within the idea-sets. And if that is a 'value-assertion' (to be more free and creative) I would not disagree.

[RCSaunders]

That's why we can't "abandon ideologies" in a situation of power, because the ideology you hold is going to determine what you use the power for. There is no ideology-free application of power. It only goes kinetic when it's given direction. And that direction is decided by what you, the holder of the power, think is the right or legitimate use of the power you have. If you engage your power at all in any dynamic task, what you already believe about questions like teleology, purpose, meaning, goals, values and so on will cause you to use power in the way you assume is legitimate.

This makes sense to me.

What you are describing as, "some type of structure, determined by thought and perception," is what I'd call an ideology or some kind of, "-ism." If you only mean one's own understanding of the nature of reality and their own nature (not simply embraced because it is what they have been taught or everyone else believes), that could hardly be called a religion or ideology. I do not embrace any ideology, for example, and I am not alone in that. (H.L. Mencken is one other well known example.)

I think we are in fact talking about different things. I will try to phrase what I believe you are talking about to see if I am getting it right. When you refer to *ideology* you are referring, I gather, to defined structures of thought that could be inculcated, or in a sense forced upon, someone by a type of social coercion. So certainly we can all recognize *ideologies* in this sense. And they must definitely be questioned, challenged and confronted when we see that they determine outcomes that we recognize as bad or simply less-than-good.

I am -- fairly quickly I believe -- coming to view your core idea, the one you say you are not invested in communicating to others in the sense of convincing them that you are right, as nearly completely flawed. How can I possibly become convinced of such absurdities? But instead of saying that I do not have a will to convince you of a different set of propositions it is really that I lack the energy.

Oddly, what you have done (if I perceive correctly) is constructed an ideological position out of what you say is a non-ideology. But in the strict sense of idea + kinetic power (to use IC's recent term) you have defined an extremely reductive ideological position. I can't see a way around this.

This is interesting to examine:

If you only mean one's own understanding of the nature of reality and their own nature (not simply embraced because it is what they have been taught or everyone else believes), that could hardly be called a religion or ideology.

First, it is nearly completely impossible, as I see things, not to be influenced by what others perceive, state, and believe even if one absorbs any of that by social osmosis. Show me the man who is not influenced in one degree or others if you think your point could be proved.

So we are all taught in one degree or another and there is no way not to be taught. I will mention the interesting case of feral children since, as it seems, they might exemplify what you seem to propose as possible and also (?) as desired: to become independent of 'idea' that concretizes into idea + kinetic power.

While I certainly agree with you that both religion and ideology, in their cruder and more reduced forms, are often received by people who can't or do not have the time, energy and will to examine them critically, and thus to make an actual moral choice, it seems absurd to me to assert that one could do without either idea, ideology and going further religion.

So it seems to me that a productive route, if also a contrarian one, would be to interrogate you about your own ideological predicates that you deny having. Because in this specific sense you did not simply appear out of the nada. You are an outcome of specific trends in ideation and thus of ideology.

Curiously -- if I am right -- you work with an ideological structure (another sort of *imposition*) that is potentially analogous to the religious ideology that you desire to oppose and contradict.

I would suggest that this process -- defining the world through attempts to make truthful statements about it and its nature, and thus about you, about us, about life -- leads directly to a religious perspective [3. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion].

[Middle English religioun, from Old French religion, from Latin religiō, religiōn-, perhaps from religāre, to tie fast; see rely.]

So it seems to me inevitable that we have to use what perceptual means are available to us to define an overarching perspective about existence, life, being, etc. And if the Latin definition *to tie fast* is the right etymological one, you will have no choice but to concretize your views into one that acts as a religious view does and must: to determine actions and choices in life.

If you only mean one's own understanding of the nature of reality and their own nature (not simply embraced because it is what they have been taught or everyone else believes), that could hardly be called a religion or ideology.

I see what you are trying to get at and it seems to me that you are looking for something like *greater freedom* or to contrive a space for yourself where your thinking could be less constrained by determined rules.

But my view is that, one way or the other, we have to define our sets of ideas and we have to make choices based on them. You say 'this could hardly be called a religion or ideology' and here I would disagree but with some caveats. In the best of cases (I assume this is why you admire those whom you do admire) one operates more freely and creatively within the idea-sets. And if that is a 'value-assertion' (to be more free and creative) I would not disagree.

No comment!

[Alexis Jacobi]

Of course everyone, implicitly, if not explicitly, has their own world view of what reality is and what their place in it is, but Weaver's suggestion that the ultimate purpose of one's life must be something outside the individual's own life is a fundamental mistake. It places the purpose of an individual's existence in something else, such as God, society, the future of mankind, nature, or some mystical manifest destiny, but there are no purposes, values, or meaning except those those conceived by individual human beings. Sans individual human beings, there are no purposes, values, or meaning. It is one's own life and the successful pursuit of it as a human being that is the purpose of one's life and key to all that is worth living for.

Weaver's ultimate purpose? Hmmmm. That is an interesting question to ask. And a good one. I suppose I would off the cuff say that if he has a purpose it is to make it plain that ideas have consequences. A simple statement but one that leads to all sort of self-examination. It is the *ultimate question* to ask, wouldn't you say?

Outside, inside -- where are the precise limits?

But I believe I grasp what you are getting at. If for example I take it as being captured by cult-thinking or any of the overtly captivating ideologies that we could name (the stuff of 'the true believer').

I find this statement odd and problematic:

It places the purpose of an individual's existence in something else, such as God, society, the future of mankind, nature, or some mystical manifest destiny, but there are no purposes, values, or meaning except those those conceived by individual human beings.

You are saying that an individual's purpose when focused in these areas or toward these things, as objects, results in a 'fundamental mistake'. But you will have to state just what you imagine, or believe to be, the right and proper use of one's self.

You then say:

Sans individual human beings, there are no purposes, values, or meaning. It is one's own life and the successful pursuit of it as a human being that is the purpose of one's life and key to all that is worth living for.

You are making an overtly ideological statement here. You have taken a specific idea, or some specific ideas, and have molded it into an activist's position -- unless I am seeing this incorrectly.

Your statemet has elements of truth, to be sure, but it is I think badly organized and lacks other elements that would harmonize it.

With "It is one's own life and the successful pursuit of it as a human being that is the purpose of one's life and key to all that is worth living for" you remind me of some of Mark Twain's essays! These kinds of statement are important because they are true, but they are not the full picture.

[Alexis Jacobi]

No comment!

A non-comment comment is a more accurate phrasing!

[Belinda]

RCSaunders, if there were a good God then He would have put in place that all men are subject to their own perspectives. Only if all men are subject to their own perspectives can men learn from each others' experiences and thereby stand a chance of approaching closer to either ultimate reality or a workable consensus.

There isn't any god, so the point is moot.

You yourself said it in a subsequent post, that there is nothing wrong with disagreement in itself.

Disagreement generates learning and creativity. Thesis : antithesis: synthesis. Hegel.

If Jesus, and Socrates, had had nothing to disagree about in their respective societies they'd not have had any reason to kick against the pricks.

[Immanuel Can]

"kick against the pricks."

Misplaced metaphor.

To "kick against the pricks" is an antiquated expression from the KJV. It means "to resist the goads used to herd animals into position," and is ordinarily understood to mean "to resist the pangs of one's conscience or sense of guilt," as the context suggests. You would be implying that Socrates or Jesus had a bad conscience, then.

I think you mean that Socrates and Jesus would have had no reason to contradict the trends of their day, or something closer to that, don't you?