Kharkovli

[Tiassa]

Some may recall that I've been feeding a recent fascination with Sufi philosophy. All of that aside, I'm trying to scrub this citation of its religious specifics; I submit it as a general consideration of religions. Boldface marks my accents, and [bracketed] words are my edits:

The conception that "[This] is the inner component of religion," too, should be acceptable enough if it is seen from enough examples that religion is often mainly an accretion of superficialities around an ancient core which may be reclaimed; but the corollary, that "social and emotional activity actually disturbs higher perceptions" is unlikely to pass unchallenged, especially by those who believe themselves to be imbibing spirituality with every prayer or operatic aria. Naturally, such a people will be less likely to assail this contention than to ignore it, to the detriment of future valuable research on the subject.

The much-repeated theory (for we can see it only on that level until it is verified by experience) that "virtues" are not keys to heaven but essential steps which clear the way to higher understanding, is perhaps the most attractive of all [religious] statements. There has been, both in the East and the West, an uneasiness about believing that something done from fear or hope should be rewarded by paradise; or that ordinary human duties, carried out even by the most primitive peoples, should be represented as things which a highly-evolved religious system proclaims as part of advanced religious thinking.

This involves, of course, rethinking many of the values to see whether they are not, indeed, pitched at too low a level, rather than, as fashionable theoreticians affirm, too high. "The best that we have" in institutions may be insufficient, not a matter for self-congratulation. This applies to various forms of human relationship which might have been in the past regarded as sublime, but which research might well show to confirm the [religious] claim that they are valuable but only on a lower level. (Adilbai Kharkovli, Those Astonishing Sufis)

Background, or, Why I've Scrubbed This Citation: To be honest, it's merely an attempt to cut down on distractions. Believe me, we can argue Sufism 'til we're blue in the face and our fingers fall off, but there's few points that can be legitimately made about it, though I think that's part of the grander point of Sufism. But, such as it is, never mind.

Every religion inspires ideas which can be applied to society; if we sanitize the Sufi apologism from this passage, and view it in a different comparison, there might indeed be a grain of truth or two to consider.

Superficialities: Every religion has its superficial side. It's what we teach our children in lieu of spiritual understanding: prayers before dinner or bedtime, Sunday school indoctrination that stresses names and acts and not spirit ... as we grow into adulthood, we see a rigidity quite apparent to any observer of Western religions whereby the appearance of a faith is more important than its effects. History is loaded with this consequence. Fundamentalist Islam is, of course, the glaring example for Americans, but our pagan neighbors will note this of any fundamental religion. But I would tend to think the author had Catholocism in mind when he wrote of accretions of superficialities: Catholics have had a long time to tack on that extra baggage. Any demonstrative religion, really, where the ceremony itself becomes more important than its produce.

Virtues: The idea of virtues as tools toward higher understanding is not new; of course, neither is Sufism. We see in the Bible early practical measures prescribed by God toward the benefit of His Chosen People. Prohibitions against homosexuality, tattoos, and other practices carried a practical weight: wasted seed (recreational sex), disease (sex again, as well as tattoos and scars), and other negative factors served only to hurt the wandering tribe. Such practicality also serves much toward understanding prohibitions concerning defecation, menstruation, and a host of bodily functions. Superstitious, yes, but practical in their effect. Yet there are rituals and ideas throughout the Bible which do not serve so overtly practical an idea. Why to burn this or that animal? Why poison your wife when you're "unhappy" with her? By the time we reach the Christian version of such standards, they have lost their practical appeal and are largely upheld as standards of God. These accreted rituals and standards, in the Christian scheme, exemplify what Kharkovli may have meant when he wrote of an uneasiness about believing that something done from fear or hope should be rewarded by paradise. Forgetting the original reasons for certain standards within a religion, the faithful cling more to the superficial aspects of "pleasing God" when what pleases God is the increased understanding of doing what is right or wrong. Such an idea speaks much toward observed dysfunctions in religion: radical Islam seems more oriented toward creating God's justice on earth than in trusting God, and thus the produce of such righteousness is human harm; Christians, seeking God's favor, pray and genuflect and affirm their faith in ceremonies that have only sentimental value. Consider a modern Christian fight taking place in the US: on one side is a conservative Christian bastion that claims the power and validity of Old Testament law--God forbids homosexuality; on the other side is liberal infidels and liberal Christians who recognize Jesus' message of compassion and understanding, and who will not use the state to force this change. Where one faction seeks force of law, the other hopes for the power of demonstration; in other words, to trust in God and hope the "sinner" receives revelation. The former philosophy recognizes the accreted ritual superficialities of faith; the latter recognizes the influence and intent of the religion--a righteous state comes only from the embodiment of God's will: in the Christian case, the compassionate harmony of Jesus. We might also look at ordinary human duties: does the imitation of everyday duties really constitute advanced religious thinking? Symbolically, the communion ritual among Christians seems to make some sense; is this reminder of sacrifice really as advanced as Christianity gets? We put a great deal of weight on ritual and symbolic acts in Western religion; is this as advanced as it gets, or do the faithful merely muck around in imitation because they're too lazy to explore their faith more fully?

Rethinking: To reconsider values to ensure a proper aim or goal is not necessarily new. In this case, I think the author is generally noting the lack of this process among many faithful from many religions. What is striking is the suggestion that we should check against aiming too low. Even the Craft, at its simplest, encourages this inherently; once one realizes that standards are artificial, it becomes fascinating to watch them develop. Oftentimes, we find our highest aspirations for a practice fall short of our expectation or goal. This, of course, raises the issue of the best that we have.

The Best: America, love it or leave it. Sound familiar? That or some similar sentiment comes up every time we're at war. A common American-conservative defense against the inquiries of liberalized politics (e.g., Socialism, Communism, Anarchism) is simply, Where are you gonna go that's better than this? Well, indeed it's oft-regarded as the all-around highest standard of living, but the problem comes when we're satisfied with that sentiment. The US also bears the highest unwed-teen pregnancy rate. A rough crime rate, a massive prison culture, and divisions ripping through society mark the present age. Is this mess really the best we can do? We might also consider a rhetorical standard of Sciforums' Christian posters: often, to be "equal" to that they protest is good enough. Thus, endowed with the spirit of God, the faithful are satisfied to be merely as civilized as the savages they denounce. Inconsistent, incomplete theology compels believers to irresponsible action, yet we whitewash those actions because they come from "the best". Lon Mabon, World Church, Falwell, Robertson, Sir Loone ... is this really the best we can expect of Christianity? We can put the same question to anyone who claims to have or be the "best". Take a look at heterosexual marriages in the US--are they really the "best" option? All politics being equal, why get married except to save and then lose a buck? With abuse, vice, and divorce running rampant among American marriages, why not skip the lawyers, skip the priest, and keep on with the vice? Aspire to something higher? Why divert yourself with the marital concept?

Human Relationships: Marriage is the obvious target here, so I'll leave that last bit about marriage to stand here, as well. But there are certain human functions defined by their accreted rituals: friendship, marriage, teacher, &c. To be dedicated to a friend, for instance, is a noble state. But is it really that high of a state in the scheme God puts before us? As even Christianity must face the idea of the individual relationship with God, does that friend eventually become extraneous to the equation? Who comes first, your wife or your God? (No point in being careful how you answer, either one will find out eventually.) The accreted authority we assign a teacher often preempts actual learning in favor of memorization and acceptance. Consider our debate on evolution: there is no doubt that many evolutionists accepted what they were taught in school; procedural differences aside, however, the authority assigned a teacher creates an issue in later considerations. And just as the evolutionist trusts the teacher, as the example goes, so do Christians trust their own teachers who tell them about a graven image of God called the Bible, and why evolution doesn't work. It's a matter of accreted distractions that prevent people from seeing the true issue at hand. In our evolution/creation debates, it seems to be either Christian Creation or phantasm evolution (assumed evolutionary theory assembled almost solely from data snippets objected to by creationists) ... but there is no center to work from. How did we limit the debate to these two options? By trusting the authority of those who taught us. Other people can only help us so far, but we must shed certain considerations of social standards.

The end point that I, personally, am leading toward is a restatement concerning the reexamination of our values.

1) Do our social standards aim too high, too low, or just right?
2) Are your personal relationships more important than your idea of God? (Would you leave your wife for God? Abandon your best friend?)
3) Is the best we have really the best we can do?

It's not a quiz or anything, of course. But I needed some sort of question to warrant this diatribe, so there you go.

thanx all,
Tiassa

 

[Xev]

Tiassa: This sparks me interest more than the other topic does, get to that later.

The conception that "[This] is the inner component of religion," too, should be acceptable enough if it is seen from enough examples that religion is often mainly an accretion of superficialities around an ancient core which may be reclaimed; but the corollary, that "social and emotional activity actually disturbs higher perceptions" is unlikely to pass unchallenged, especially by those who believe themselves to be imbibing spirituality with every prayer or operatic aria. Naturally, such a people will be less likely to assail this contention than to ignore it, to the detriment of future valuable research on the subject.

This core is presumably the existance of God, according to the author?

Well and good. You should be able to anticipate my objection....

Why should we believe in this core?

That out of the way.

But I would tend to think the author had Catholocism in mind when he wrote of accretions of superficialities: Catholics have had a long time to tack on that extra baggage. Any demonstrative religion, really, where the ceremony itself becomes more important than its produce.

This reminds me of Orwell's criticism in Politics and the English Language of words that "did one's thinking for one".

Orwell argued that trite phrases corrupted one's ability to think clearly.

"The sole aim of a metaphor is to call up a visual image. When these images clash -- as in The Fascist octopus has sung its swan song, the jackboot is thrown into the melting pot -- it can be taken as certain that the writer is not seeing a mental image of the objects he is naming; in other words he is not really thinking. "

Where I am going with this is what seems to be a desire to be led. Neitzshe spoke of the Master-Slave mentality. There are those who would prefer not to think, and would rather follow than lead. These, I think, are the people who will follow blind ceremony, and the manipulation of such people is the purpose of ritual.

Honest faith? Does not that take honest questioning?

And how many people have either the balls to question their faith or the inclination?

He who does not question will be led.









As for your questions:

1) Do our social standards aim too high, too low, or just right?

They aim too high in the wrong direction. They aim towards conformity and what is, in my veiw, a wrong sort of hedonism.

 

[Tiassa]

Xev

I, too, would much rather devote efforts to such topics as this ... we'll find a way there, I'm sure. We are humans, after all, and if there's one thing about human pride, it's that we are the goddamned human species, and we will figure it out if we choose to.

Eternal optimism, or something. But then again, just ask AIDS or spinal disorders ... we'll get it.

But I digress.

To be honest, having recklessly thrown this topic at you, I must spend some time today with the original essay by Mr Kharkovli in order to directly address the vagaries I left open with limited citation. You're in no way, shape, or form, "wrong". Rather, now that I have the discussion I wanted before me, I might as well be ready for it.

In the meantime, be good, or bad, or whatever. Perhaps we can build enough ground for a lasting peace. And that would be lovely.

We're not flying. We're not flying. We're not flying--just naming all the stars. (Floater, Tracks Across the Snow)

thanx much,
Tiassa

 

[Adam]

The idea of virtues as tools toward higher understanding is not new; of course, neither is Sufism.

Just an old saying to consider: "Honour is virtue's reward."

 

[Tiassa]

Well, finally I get around to it ....

I have, finally, managed to read back through the essay; I apologize for the delay, as I've been about on the move for a couple of days. Obligations, obligations ....

This core is presumably the existance of God, according to the author?

But some I think I can address directly from the text.

... (T)he phrase Sufism is the inner aspect of religion can quite easily be seen as meaning: Sufi teachings, over a period of time, become covered by social, emotional and other accretions which are stabilized into religions. The living tradition of the Sufis, however, continues. Viewed from the religionist's standpoint, of course, the Sufi element is the inward component, and the rest is the balance of the religion.

In the topic post, I had scrubbed the word Sufism and other Sufi references because I had initially intended to examine the topic separate from Sufi advocacy--in the long run, I am an acutely inadequate advocate for Sufism.

But two more parts from Kharkovli's text to consider in relation to the core itself:

Self-realization is the Sufi goal. What is this self and how is it realized? First, the Sufis are operating in the field of religion which means that they are committed to a belief in a meaning for human life, the existence of a divine power, and a transmission of the knowledge of that meaning, that power and certain opportunities for mankind.

And here there must be an important distinction addressed. The "divine power", you'll notice, stays undefined. One cannot necessarily point toward the Sufi alignment toward the Koran, because at the Sixth Stage, El Nafsu-l-Mardiyya,

"the aspirant knows that he is now free totally to abandon all religious observances, whether Sunni prayer or Sufi Dikhr. He has no further need of them. Some, however, keep on some of these practices. If he uses the Dikhr, the Name commemorated is LATIF! (Kind!) (Gairdner°).

Thus the divine power still escapes limiting identification. It is important, when considering Sufism, to consider the nebulous nature of the godhead. To attach an image or name to the godhead would be to necessarily limit it, and thus subject the inner core to the accretions of religion noted above. Bearing this in mind, we might look back to Kharkovli's clarification of the inner aspect question, and consider that he continues:

Put even more succinctly, the Sufi is saying: Sufism is a teaching designed to re-establish a link of humanity with the divine. From time to time this is revitalised when religious systems have become too covered with accretions to operate as teaching entities and have subsided into organisations of social action, power-seeking or mere panoply.

So in the end, I would respond to

Why should we believe in this core?

by saying that the advisable should derives from the frequency with which human beings address the core. People, for some reason look back to certain concepts and values which they find important. Sufism pursues the essence of these concepts and values. Technically, I would say that the inner component, the core itself, is not something to be believed in; it is in its own right self-evident. The use of the word divine in relation to it only comes about because when we strip away the accretions of sentiment and ritual common to religion and church institutions, the whole purpose of the concept of the divine seems to be the examination and elevation of these concepts. Harrow the word Redemption. Strip from it the religious tale of the soul going to Heaven or Hell. Redemption as an idea, the condition that justifies all other conditions ... this is part of that inner core that people pursue. To attach superstitions to it seems to be a human tendency that we need to get past. People search for meaning in life; certes, the Sufis acknowledge on faith that such a meaning exists in the first place. People tend to see a certain relationship 'twixt the meaning and the divine, but they are, in a sense, one and the same, a realization which, to the Sufi, might lend toward the abandonment of religious observances and the transformation of prayer into a strictly psychological function.

Think in terms of Douglas Adams: Well, that's alright, then.° It is, essentially, the same concept--something which makes the rest of it make sense. To wit, Kharkovli notes:

The equation of humor with frivolity and hence lack of "seriousness" is more difficult for us to understand. But if it is true that our culture has lost its way in labeling humor as superficial or unimportant, we shall have to understand it sooner or later. The contention about re-establishing a contact between a human "real self" and the Divine is also easy enough for us to grasp in theory, though the realization that what we have assumed to be the major "self" might in fact turn out to be at least in part a social artifact, might be more difficult to swallow even theoretically, for members of a culture that at least until recently has assumed that it is superior to all others precisely because it has taken such an interest in this secondary self as the primary aspect of man.

Being right or correct is only important insofar as the action or state of being is right and correct. Beyond that, Kharkovli presents the issue of pride as it might damage Sufism--despite centuries of cohesion, Sufis are well aware that they still might be wrong.

Honest faith? Does not that take honest questioning?

I hope that has been addressed at least by example; practical result is a different matter, we all understand. But that's humanity for you, or so it generally seems to be.

Where I am going with this is what seems to be a desire to be led. Neitzshe spoke of the Master-Slave mentality. There are those who would prefer not to think, and would rather follow than lead. These, I think, are the people who will follow blind ceremony, and the manipulation of such people is the purpose of ritual.

I think the Sufi would agree with you. The Sufi might even go farther and declare that this condition of following is wrong, as it prevents the individual from discovering that all-important secondary self. As Kharkovli noted, certain opportunities for mankind. If the act of following can be shown to be an emotional, social, or other accretion which diverts the individual from the path of discovery, it would be condemned as a poor, perhaps immoral circumstance.

They aim too high in the wrong direction. They aim towards conformity and what is, in my veiw, a wrong sort of hedonism.

An interesting take that I will not disagree with. And thus, without opposition, I raise the questions of the identification of that hedonism as well as the conclusion of its wrongness.

As an analogy: The kitchen is on fire. Throw water on it? What if the fire is caused by an electrical issue and you electrocute yourself watering the fire?

In other words, while I wouldn't have said it quite that way, and while I agree with it nonetheless, the broader consideration also involves our identification and value-judgment processes. It does, in fact, relate somewhat to that meaning of life, and thus the inner core.

Beyond that, I can only await your reply.

Notes

• Kharkovli, Adilbai. "Those Astonishing Sufis", ed. Hafiz Jamal. From Sufi Thought and Action, assembled by Idries Shah. London: Octagon, 1990. (pp. 167-177)

• Gairdner, W.H.T. "Theories, Practices, and Training-Systems of a Sufi School". From Sufi Thought and Action, assembled by Idries Shah. London, Octagon, 1990. (pp. 139-163)

• Douglas Adams: This is most likely paraphrased, as I cannot locate my copy of So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish. Anyone familiar with the five-book trilogy will recognize the concept.

thanx much,
Tiassa

 

[tony1]

Re: Well, finally I get around to it ....

*Originally posted by tiassa
...in the long run, I am an acutely inadequate advocate for...*

Agreed.

*People, for some reason look back to certain concepts and values which they find important.*

Oddly enough, that is true.
Why is that?
It seems so difficult to understand why people would value things they consider important more than things they consider unimportant.
You, yourself, are a marvelous illustration of the results of looking back to unimportant concepts.

But never mind me, you just go on valuing the unimportant.

*Sufism pursues the essence of these concepts and values.*

Hence, the utter valuelessness of Sufism.
Essentially, what you're saying is that Sufism consists of valuing the unimportant.

*Technically, I would say that the inner component, the core itself, is not something to be believed in...*

I'd be in complete agreement with that.
I don't believe it either.

*Harrow the word Redemption. Strip from it the religious tale of the soul going to Heaven or Hell. Redemption as an idea, the condition that justifies all other conditions ... this is part of that inner core that people pursue.*

True, but Sufism has nothing to do with that.

*People search for meaning in life; certes, the Sufis acknowledge on faith that such a meaning exists in the first place.*

Well, duh.

*Beyond that, Kharkovli presents the issue of pride as it might damage Sufism*

A misplaced concern, since inanity is what damages Sufism.

*--despite centuries of cohesion, Sufis are well aware that they still might be wrong.*

Well, that's a step in the right direction.

* The Sufi might even go farther and declare that this condition of following is wrong, as it prevents the individual from discovering that all-important secondary self.*

All important secondary self?
One would be tempted to think that a primary self might be all important, but only a backward thinker such as yourself would think of a secondary self as primary, oh, excuse me, important.

*What if the fire is caused by an electrical issue and you electrocute yourself watering the fire?*

Bummer.

*In other words, while I wouldn't have said it quite that way, and while I agree with it nonetheless, the broader consideration also involves our identification and value-judgment processes. It does, in fact, relate somewhat to that meaning of life, and thus the inner core.*

?
Were you making some kind of point here?

 

[Xev]

Welcome back, Tony1. I'm, ah, unsure of what the point of your last post was. Could you perhaps clarify it for me?

Tiassa:

Thus the divine power still escapes limiting identification. It is important, when considering Sufism, to consider the nebulous nature of the godhead. To attach an image or name to the godhead would be to necessarily limit it, and thus subject the inner core to the accretions of religion noted above. Bearing this in mind, we might look back to Kharkovli's clarification of the inner aspect question, and consider that he continues:

This is very well and good, and I understand the rationale, but where exactly does that leave Sufi?

God exists. What is God? God is God.

I realize that this is an oversimplification, but I hope that my point is clear. The reasoning seems a bit circular.

Of course, we could say the same thing for mathematics, the only difference being that we can see actual representations of numbers.

It reminds me of the philosophy of Giordano Bruno, or of Unitarian Universalism.

Sufism pursues the essence of these concepts and values. Technically, I would say that the inner component, the core itself, is not something to be believed in; it is in its own right self-evident.

Okay, two questions:

What are these concepts and values?
Do not concepts and values differ from culture to culture? Why ascribe them a common origen?

I am afraid I have more questions than opinions at the moment.

The use of the word divine in relation to it only comes about because when we strip away the accretions of sentiment and ritual common to religion and church institutions, the whole purpose of the concept of the divine seems to be the examination and elevation of these concepts. Harrow the word Redemption. Strip from it the religious tale of the soul going to Heaven or Hell. Redemption as an idea, the condition that justifies all other conditions ... this is part of that inner core that people pursue.

The inner core being the meaning of life? What evidence do we have that life has meaning?

Think in terms of Douglas Adams: Well, that's alright, then.° It is, essentially, the same concept--something which makes the rest of it make sense.

So according to Sufism, God is that which makes the universe comprehendable?

Rather like a grand unified theory?

And now I'm all confuuuuused.

 

[Tiassa]

(Insert Title Here)

God exists. What is God? God is God.

This does seem to be the issue, doesn't it?

Best if I get back to you on that, but I'll try to do so in this post. At least, I think it can be done. We'll see.

Of course, we could say the same thing for mathematics, the only difference being that we can see actual representations of numbers.

An interesting perspective that I'll have to think on.

What are these concepts and values?

Generally speaking, humankind finds the willful destruction of human beings by human beings to be a bad idea. In order to allow that destruction ... well, did you notice the word allow?

Among the common traits of enlightenment, self-actualization, or self-realization are communal perspectives, the idea that the individual is not a wholly independent force. It can be, but its perpetuation, which seems instinctive, often depends on dependency.

Why are we not running in clans, stealing each others' women, and destroying everything in our paths? Sure, we do it to some degree, but I didn't go on a raiding party against a rival clan on the other side of town last night, and I'd be willing to bet that you didn't, either.

Think of any Mad Max scenario ... why do we consider that condition a reduction of the human being? Why is it only permissible in the face of catastrophic change?

Among the occasional anti-religious accusations is the notion that religion is a device for social stabilization and authority. How many of the prominent religions of the world ever actually did end in autoapocalypse? Certes, the Christians look forward, after a fashion, to the end of the world, but the ideas of order and cooperation, while equaling dogmatic conformity, aim toward a peaceful, prospering human condition. The exclusionism of religions seems to be one of the emotional and social accretions laid upon the ancient core.

Any number of concepts claim to lend toward a "free", "enlightened", "prosperous" potential for the human endeavor. Perhaps the chance to cement ourselves in the Universe, to transcend those petty issues that fracture the collective human spirit. If we spread out across the stars, well? What one catastrophe can extinct us? To exist until the end of the Universe ....

The most economic, sensually pleasing living experience that allows for the growth of the human endeavor, the securing of the species in the Universe ...

If the whole of the human endeavor is a learning process?

The real result is that as long as the individual prospers, the species survives. It is not good for the species if the individuals prosper according to detrimental processes. It's why we have words like "barbaric", "savage", and so forth. So the Nepalese Maoists captured scores of police officers, stripped them naked, beat them, taunted them, tortured them, and murdered them. So what? But we do call it barbaric, among other things. Why?

Do not concepts and values differ from culture to culture? Why ascribe them a common origen?

If we look in terms of survival of the fittest, and grant what might be self-evident, that the hypocrisy of purging in the better interest of society is based upon the presumption that those doing the purging are the fittest and therefore meant to perpetuate the species, we can perhaps see a glimpse of what those diverse cultural phenomena pursued. After the purge, after the violence, humanity carries on in a "godly" state, and other less religious ideas can be found in history that reflect the same notion, that the removal of the "unfit" leaves the "fit" to carry on unfettered. The core truth has to do with the necessity of cooperation among the species, that we function better together than we do independently, or, as I think it was Franklin (correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't my Bartlett's these days) noted, "We must all hang together, or else we shall surely hang separately." The method and sentiment of that union are among the accretions of the idea stabilized into a religion, hence we see the cessation of a religion as a teaching device and its installation as an organization of social action, power-seeking, and panoply.

The inner core being the meaning of life?

The meaning being part of that core. The nearest I can express the core is to imagine the purest, most ideal, most economic, most progressive, inexpressibly definitive life you could possibly live, and when that vision coincides with the greatest potential contribution you can make to the present and future of the human endeavor, the components of awareness--the specific knowledge you encounter, and the perspective that knowledge creates, and the function that knowledge serves, among other ideas--form the inner core. The inner core is essentially the knowledge or ideas that lead to human progress.

What evidence do we have that life has meaning?

Well ... why do we come together in society? I had always figured species perpetuation was self-evident, but I have, in the past, been called self-centered for saying the collective is more important than the individual, so ... yeah. And though that's actually a true tidbit, the more important part is that if you ask me, species perpetuation seems to be self-evident; I'm aware that this is not as common a perspective as I would have expected.

If you ask the Sufi ... well, I'm not sure entirely how the question would be answered. But we can look to the idea that we have no actual evidence that life has any meaning whatsoever. Toward that notion, one of the points from Kharkovli we've previously examined:

Self-realization is the Sufi goal. What is this self and how is it realized? First, the Sufis are operating in the field of religion which means that they are committed to a belief in a meaning for human life, the existence of a divine power, and a transmission of the knowledge of that meaning, that power and certain opportunities for mankind.

The existence of a meaning or purpose of life seems to be a faith point. I would go so far, however, as to ask those who would oppose the notion that everything must necessarily have a reason for existing as it does to consider whether or not they are applying an inflated sense of importance to that reason for existing. That is, at some point we do climb the mountain simply because it's there, and the mountain is there simply because it had to be somewhere. If an asteroid's purpose is to do what asteroids do--fly blindly around space and occasionally crash into stuff--well, it's still a purpose, no matter how mundane. Why are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness self-evident? By that point, we're pretty far down the ladder of presumption, but since human beings do, at the very base of their existence, recognize a positive and negative in terms of good and bad--e.g. pain/pleasure?--and given that pleasurable things tend toward our benefit by their very nature and the painful toward our detriment and reduction and our death, we have accepted as a species that certain things are worth better efforts than others, and again we get back toward the core of human necessity becoming bogged down with caked-on justifications of sentiment and crap.

But yes, that life has any particular meaning does seem to be a faith point. I'm quite sure that as my Sufi library grows, I'll find some asserted objectivism toward the meaning of life, but I wouldn't be surprised if they, like I, simply say, "It seems self-evident, doesn't it?"

On the one hand, Sufis are often confused by what they interpret initially as the idiocy of people. To the other, a proper Sufi will eventually figure out to attempt a different manner of communication, and perhaps discover that they are not so much idiots. So if to say it seems self-evident sounds arrogant, well ... yeah, I'm aware of that.

But it really, really does look that way to me.

Rather like a grand unified theory?

Ummm ... yeah, I think ... check this out--an old, old topic, but hey ... er ....

And now I'm all confuuuuused.

Well ... frankly, good. Confusion isn't necessarily good, but remember that if you meet the Buddha walking down the road, kill it.

There's a reason so many people insist on calling it God. There really is no other word for it than one we specifically designate to indicate it. And when it confuses you, well, you're probably closer to the idea of God than when you think you know.

Nothing that has to do with God is ever entirely what it looks like. Sometimes I think that's the point of it.

And that's why it was best to get back to you on what, exactly, God is. Not much more can be said than God is.

Who knows, who knows?

I feel like there's something more that should go here. Really, I know it's a cheap ending, but it's what I've got at the moment.

So let's do the Oscar Wilde ending:

Either the wallpaper goes, or I do.

thanx much,
Tiassa

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by Xev
Welcome back, Tony1. I'm, ah, unsure of what the point of your last post was. Could you perhaps clarify it for me?*

Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
(Proverbs 26:5, KJV).

*This is very well and good, and I understand the rationale, but where exactly does that leave Sufi?*

Looks like you understood my point just fine, seeing as you're making the same point.

*What evidence do we have that life has meaning?*

The existence of the word "why" should be a strong indicator.

*Originally posted by tiassa
Sure, we do it to some degree, but I didn't go on a raiding party against a rival clan on the other side of town last night, and I'd be willing to bet that you didn't, either.*

You're on a raid against Christianity.
In the past, such raids were very physical; today, not so physical.
Nothing has changed.

*Certes, the Christians look forward, after a fashion, to the end of the world, but the ideas of order and cooperation, while equaling dogmatic conformity, aim toward a peaceful, prospering human condition.*

I'm not looking to the eotw, I'm looking past it.
This other thing you mention, while sounding good, isn't going to pan out.
Why?
Because you persist in taking part in those raids mentioned earlier, and such raids are inconsistent with the idea of cooperation.

*The core truth has to do with the necessity of cooperation among the species, that we function better together than we do independently, or, as I think it was Franklin (correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't my Bartlett's these days) noted, "We must all hang together, or else we shall surely hang separately."*

I think it is rather interesting the way you make statements that are actually true, yet completely demolish the point you are making without realizing it.

That "hang together" thing is why all of the opponents of God will be thrown together into the lake of fire.
That way you can "hang" together.

*If you ask the Sufi ... well, I'm not sure entirely how the question would be answered.*

Not at all, based on your grasp of Sufism.

*Confusion isn't necessarily good, but remember that if you meet the Buddha walking down the road, kill it.*

The Buddha's in the crapper.

*Who knows, who knows?

I feel like there's something more that should go here. Really, I know it's a cheap ending, but it's what I've got at the moment. *

I.e., nothing.
We know.

 

[Xev]

Bumping this back to the top:

Tony:

Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

HEY! You're not supposed to answer a fool according to his folly!

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

(Proverbs 26:4)

Oh, and aren't you risking hellfire (Mat 5:22) for calling Tiassa a fool?

The existence of the word "why" should be a strong indicator.

Sorry Tony, I don't think that works. I mean, humans ask a lot of things - at least the smart ones do. Questioning is in our nature.

I really can't see a purpose to life. I mean, evolutionarily, one could say that "The purpose of life is to perpetuate one's genes" - but that's rather unsatisfactory and kinda silly, IMO.

The Buddha's in the crapper.

The odd thing is that Prince Siddhartha (AKA Buddha) would likely have applauded this statement.

Tiassa:

First, forgive me, for I shall tie this all into the philosophy of Fredrich Nietzsche. Here I stand, I can do no other.

Think of any Mad Max scenario ... why do we consider that condition a reduction of the human being? Why is it only permissible in the face of catastrophic change?

It goes back to the way our ancestors did, does it not? Consider the behavior of the Vikings, or of the Jews in the OT.

It really goes back to how large the social organism is. Modern society is larger, and thus able to withstand more non-conformity. Dilute and conquer. I did not slip into this and play Sigrid the Haughty, nor will Tony1 break out the faggots and start hunting witches.

Why? Well, because we're decent human beings, I suppose. But really, the only thing that keeps our multi-religious society from self destructing into a mass of persecutions is the fact that it is large enough to dilute such differences.

None of that may make sense. I'm thinking faster than I type.

Among the occasional anti-religious accusations is the notion that religion is a device for social stabilization and authority. How many of the prominent religions of the world ever actually did end in autoapocalypse? Certes, the Christians look forward, after a fashion, to the end of the world, but the ideas of order and cooperation, while equaling dogmatic conformity, aim toward a peaceful, prospering human condition. The exclusionism of religions seems to be one of the emotional and social accretions laid upon the ancient core.

I have yet to see evidence for such a core. I strongly suspect that religion is only a means of social control.

When my ancestors the Jews went on rampages against the "uncircumsized" in the name of their God, were they really doing anything but using religion as an excuse to attack those who were different. When my ancestors the Vikings killed Christian missionaries, were they really doing anything but using religion as an excuse to maintain social cohesiveness against the threat of Christian infiltration and cultural perversion?

I once made a list of the number of people "killed by religion". I see now that I was mistaken in doing so.

I submit that religion is merely a social glue.

The most economic, sensually pleasing living experience that allows for the growth of the human endeavor, the securing of the species in the Universe ...

I like that meaning of life very much. And it does tie in to the evolutionary/Darwinian/too tired to dig out Dawkins "meaning" of life that I mentioned above.

Of course, Nietzsche would say that the meaning of life is to strengthen one's posession of power, to cross the bridge to the ubermensch. But I have before tied the Will to Power into evolutionary psychology.....

I suspect that these two "meanings" and "purposes" could be merged.

But would the merging be a rational and provable result, or simply an assertion?

The real result is that as long as the individual prospers, the species survives. It is not good for the species if the individuals prosper according to detrimental processes. It's why we have words like "barbaric", "savage", and so forth. So the Nepalese Maoists captured scores of police officers, stripped them naked, beat them, taunted them, tortured them, and murdered them. So what? But we do call it barbaric, among other things. Why?

*Smiles wryly*
We call it barbaric because we are not Nepalese Maoists.

I'm not a moral relatavist, though.

The inner core is essentially the knowledge or ideas that lead to human progress.

Creation. Power is gained through creation.

The pursuit of power in such a way as to benefit the species? To benefit the herd?

It makes sense, but Freddy would spin in his grave if he heard this.

Well ... why do we come together in society? I had always figured species perpetuation was self- evident, but I have, in the past, been called self-centered for saying the collective is more important than the individual, so ... yeah. And though that's actually a true tidbit, the more important part is that if you ask me, species perpetuation seems to be self-evident; I'm aware that this is not as common a perspective as I would have expected.

Oh okay, that makes sense. I had misinterpreted you, sorry.

I'm no longer confused, but the thoughts are coming a mile a minute and I must bid you adieu.

 

[Tiassa]

Various stuff

First, forgive me, for I shall tie this all into the philosophy of Fredrich Nietzsche. Here I stand, I can do no other.

I'm not going to complain about that. ]Quite frankly, you're going to see the word accretion quite a bit in this response. Hopefully, it won't stand as a mere flick of the wrist.

It goes back to the way our ancestors did, does it not? Consider the behavior of the Vikings, or of the Jews in the OT.

My first reaction is that it's more primal than that. It applies in some sense to the basic needs of the organism.

For instance, is what our ancestors did the only important thing, or is there some nugget of value that can be extracted from examining the questions of why and how those acts occurred?

It really goes back to how large the social organism is. Modern society is larger, and thus able to withstand more non-conformity. Dilute and conquer.

Yet, looking back a couple of posts in the specific vein that leads us to this point, "Non-conformity", as such, is conformity.

By that I point back to your question: What are these concepts and values (related to the "core")?

We tend to bear among diverse societies a certain taboo against the killing of other human beings. Yet "non-conformity" toward this declared principle is quite obvious in history; we see modern hunts against human equality (homophobia, misogyny, &c) among American Christians; this is a watered-down version of the same old dominion quest that led to witch-trials, Inquisitions, and other methods aiming toward such an end. In the modern period we have wars and executions. Killing is not a good thing, according to declared human principles; we simply find excuses to avoid facing this simple point.

In terms of society withstanding non-conformity, though, I find it difficult to accept the notion of society withstanding arbitrary human destruction. Non-conformity toward expressed principles is the common result; there will be much less for society to withstand when the declared principle (e.g. that killing is wrong) is adhered to.

I don't actually argue with you at this point, but merely see the application in different terms. Technically, you're correct, but in a different context than I'm after. Such is perspective. You're not "wrong" by any stretch of the word.

Why? Well, because we're decent human beings, I suppose.

Decency, as such, is an accretion. It is a flexible term. Decency to one person means lending a quarter to a guy who's down on his luck; decency to another might be to yell at the guy, tell him to get a friggin' job, and to go on feeling satisfied with one's righteous outrage. Decency is subject to the ideological accretions of apparent necessity.

But really, the only thing that keeps our multi-religious society from self destructing into a mass of persecutions is the fact that it is large enough to dilute such differences.

Or our multi-political society, or our multi-economic society.

None of that may make sense. I'm thinking faster than I type.

It makes perfect sense; I only wonder about the context. That is, and as kindly as you can possibly receive it: great points, but for another topic. Here I'm a little unsure what to do with them. It's one of the reasons I didn't see much to answer in this post. I keep figuring that the connection will occur to me, but it's tenuous at best and I end up filling in the blanks, and perhaps incorrectly. However, I could well be wrong about your context, too, so ... yeah.

I have yet to see evidence for such a core.

Do humans have any common values?

Imagine a vegetarian. Most I know actually look awful, but that's likely coincidental with the amount of drug use in my corner of the Universe. But a vegetarian often asserts that it's a healthier way to live. Fair enough; my most profitable diet involves red meat and lots of starch. But then I look over at a friend of mine who was taught vegetarianism as religious dietary law (I can't explain Seventh-Day Adventist "logic" ... it's flabbergasting in its own right). So what is the difference between two vegetarians? One does so because they believe it healthiest for them; another does so because they believe God says so. And yet, for some, being vegetarian can be definitively unhealthy.

Not that vegetarianism should be included in the "core". Rather, though, "health" might included in the core. Theological assertions aside, why not pork? Well ... in the environment such as relevant dietary laws were established, pork could be a really bad idea.

But what of health and longevity? Longevity is not necessarily part of that core; it is a result of health, and the desire we have toward longevity, while perhaps instinctive, is also an accretion. A piece of wisdom from cigarette smokers: For the most part, the time I lose with this cigarette will be time I wouldn't enjoy living, anyway. A little narrow, yes, and somewhat apocalyptic in its own right, but it does lend to a specific point. Health stands a better chance of being among the core because longevity can also include withering away on an IV in a hospital bed for years waiting to die of old age.

Life itself? A friend of mine is pregnant and chose to carry to term (or, at least, try) on the grounds that she's 30 and doesn't have many chances left. I also know someone who reproduced--who begged her husband to agree to having children--because it was what her mother told her to do; without raising children, this woman had no idea what her purpose was in life. I also know a number of accidental pregnancies that were kept for reasons of sentiment. I think of McMinnville, Oregon; watching my college girlfriend's sister graduate from high school, I was taken aback at the number of visibly pregnant graduates. High school, to them, was a distraction. Making babies was what a woman was for.

And in all of these cases, the justifications can be called accretions. In none of these cases were the parents "ready" for a child.

So "family" is an accreted value to me, for these and other reasons. Kin selection be damned, in a way; if it had such influence on life, family would not be as subject to the accreted societal values that tear families apart. But "life" itself ... well, that's sort of the point of life existing, isn't it? We need not pretend that God made us because "He" loved or needed us. Life simply is. What it does is perpetuate itself. However it gets there, so be it.

Mind you, I'm merely speculating. One of the things about the core is that it is not yet a starting point. It must be defined and recognized before it can become a starting point. That will require much education, much obliteration of accretions ... just like bacteria and disease: people have to be able to see before they will see.

I strongly suspect that religion is only a means of social control.

In the modern day, you'll find general but not complete agreement from me.

It's like parenthood being a method of social control. Well, yeah, but ....

So tribal leader says, "Don't go there. Fire gods are angry." It might be good advice; the leader may not be able to describe the physics of fire, but s/he can, in fact, make the connection that fire can kill you, and engaging it while it's swirling and screaming out of control can be deadly.

As a side question, have you ever had a "wise leader" in anything, be it family, school, community, road trip, whatever? I've been fortunate enough to have a couple in my time. However, as with the tribal leader with the best intentions (before intentions were even recognized), one who is jealous is usually jealous of the demonstrative aspect of an abstraction. To be a leader is an abstraction until the authority of being a leader is applied. Thus, some who see the wise leader envy the leader's authority, and not the wisdom. It starts a snowball effect that is almost impossible to estimate.

Throw in another line from cigarette smokers: There's a difference, you know, between knowledge and wisdom. For instance, I have knowledge that these cigarettes will significantly contribute to my death; as for wisdom, well ... I still smoke, don't I?

Such an offhand comment actually proved to be a boon to my philosophy. The reason why is barely relevant, but, well ... yeah. Have you ever felt like an idiot because you acted on bad information?

Knowledge may be a road to wisdom, but what is knowledge? I am constantly surrounded by plenty of people with great knowledge and little or no wisdom.

Can wisdom be put with the core? I throw it in, but there's still a question since wisdom is an overarching idea. Wisdom can, at some level, be described in a fashion that includes the core beneath its umbrella.

The core is simply the living process as it relates to human beings and our nature. To eat, sleep, defecate, and procreate is not merely enough to mark as the core. These functions also bear certain intrinsic relationships to our ability to recognize abstract concepts like morality, ethics, or any other reflection of "right" and "wrong".

When my ancestors the Jews went on rampages against the "uncircumsized" in the name of their God, were they really doing anything but using religion as an excuse to attack those who were different. When my ancestors the Vikings killed Christian missionaries, were they really doing anything but using religion as an excuse to maintain social cohesiveness against the threat of Christian infiltration and cultural perversion?

They were reacting to a perceived threat; whether you or I recognize that sense of threat is only relevant if we choose to sort out the "propriety" (a situational accretion dependent on social structures) of the act. From there it's a matter of what's important. Even tigers like to laze about on a Sunday afternoon, you know? They can't always be scarfing, zonking, crapping, and boinking.

But think back to the era when humans, like tigers, spent most of their time directly engaged in the pursuit of these four necessities: sustenance, sleep, excretion, and reproduction. The cats are on the prowl, so you scrabble up a rock and sit in the sun, watching the game cats circle and wait, hoping that more appetizing prey comes along to draw them off.

Now skip forward only a short period, into a more sedentary, stabilized, agrarian mode. And it's Sunday afternoon, per se, and the crops are harvested, the berries picked, and the stock protected. So you climb up that very same rock, stare up at the clouds, feel the rock beneath you, and wonder about the earth and the sky.

If the tiger had the same brain functions as humans do related to abstraction and "higher thinking", I guarantee you that the tiger would have its own questions about the earth and sky, and would form its own abstractions about how those things relate to the essential necessities of eating, sleeping, excreting, and reproducing.

And there's where the accretions come from.

In the case of the Jews on rampages, it would go something like this: Certain factors (not enumerated here because I can't) lead the people to share specific associations between the abstract and the real--that which they can conceive, and that which they perceive. These associations include the anthropomorphization of abstraction, such that the factors lead the people to conceive of the idea of God as the Hebrews knew it. It becomes a matter of priorities. Whereas primitive people might have fought for food or water, societies often (generally) award such necessities lower priority than abstractions. The rampages aren't much different in that sense from food wars, except that the priority moving the people to war is a stupid accretion.

So how do the accretions become hollow? Quite simply: data loss and compression. Consider the whole of your life. Can you program a child with all of that data, or must you compress it? Can you give the child the book or the book review, essentially?

The Vikings may have been even more basic. The Milesians sought what would become Ireland because they had no home, no permanent food supply, no good source of drinking water. But, as with human combat, the process gets more complex after that first, basic insurgency. I can't speak for all marauders everywhere except to say that these acts and the rewards they bring are the highest priority to them.

I once made a list of the number of people "killed by religion". I see now that I was mistaken in doing so.

Those are usually fair lists. But I think the actual number tends to be much lower than people generally estimate. I won't go so far as to include the gang-bangers with big gold crosses around their necks as they shot up Tacoma for several years. But some people I know do, in fact, count those victims.

But in that sense, wars are usually economic, and religion is the ... well, there you go, the glue that holds the people together.

I submit that religion is merely a social glue.

As evidenced above, I won't argue with that at all.

Of course, Nietzsche would say that the meaning of life is to strengthen one's posession of power, to cross the bridge to the ubermensch. But I have before tied the Will to Power into evolutionary psychology.....

I find Nietzsche to be far too focused on individuals in a certain sense.

Generally speaking, I know of nobody who reads Nietzsche and qualifies themselves with the "mere" men.

But as I'm hardly an expert on dear ol' Freddy, the most I can say is that I rarely, even on those occasions that I do engage Nietzsche, find evidence of any greater goal; Nietzsche, to my limited experience, seems to work to justify the old ways of doing things and to strip away the accreted labels of it. The stripping away I support, but Nietzsche seems to use metaphors that lend toward continued division 'twixt people, and seems to tend toward acceptance of a divided condition among humanity. However,

I suspect that these two "meanings" and "purposes" could be merged.

I'll leave that to you. When it comes to Nietzsche, I'm a little less qualified than I am with others. But I admit it would be an interesting attempt.

But would the merging be a rational and provable result, or simply an assertion?

It's all assertions. The only thing about provable results is that they're proven within confines. Those confines, as we know, can be exceptionally useful. However, just as I complained of a fanatical degree of objectivism damaging my godless period, I find that uniform application of any confine, boundary, or classification to be quite detrimental.

But I think it's all assertions. Little if anything is definite. Much like the old paradox of proving to another that you actually exist as a definitive fact and not a conventional agreement.

We call it barbaric because we are not Nepalese Maoists.

Fair enough.

I'm not a moral relatavist, though.

Moral relativism is an accretion. And it's a priori. It assumes that morals exist and further allows those morals to be presumed according to individual need.

Creation. Power is gained through creation.

The pursuit of power in such a way as to benefit the species? To benefit the herd?

I'm guessing that you're referring to power as social authority. Correct me, please, if that's wrong.

The pursuit of power is a limited benefit. At some point, social authority must be renounced. Demonstrably, however, society isn't there yet.

It makes sense, but Freddy would spin in his grave if he heard this.

I should ask how, in your opinion? To continue my criticism of Nietzsche, I do find among Nietzschan philosophers a certain insistence on individuality to the point of fostering division. This is limited and experiential, though, and may only reflect accretions on Nietzsche.

Oh okay, that makes sense. I had misinterpreted you, sorry.

I'm no longer confused, but the thoughts are coming a mile a minute and I must bid you adieu.

Another reason why I took a while in answering you; following back through from this point, I wasn't sure what questions or issues were left on the table. As you see, much of the present post is running commentary, and some of it even seeks issues to comment on.

The upshot is that I didn't use the word accretion nearly as much as I thought I would.

I recall the word "deconstructionism" became quite popular among a certain brand of "new atheist" (e.g. similar to my path when I became an atheist) in the 1990s. Well, at least where I was. I never paid attention to deconstructionism because it was held up as a word demanding respect. "I'm a deconstructionist" was supposed to make the girls go "Ooh! Aah!" in the same way as "I'm a pagan" was supposed to at about the same time in Oregon. (Nowhere at home goes the phrase.)

But, bearing "popular deconstructionism" in mind, consider Adam's input: Just an old saying to consider: "Honour is virtue's reward."

What is honor? What is virtue? Can any version of that proverb be constructed which does not reflect accretions? I would definitely assert honor to be an accretion, but I'm not entirely sure about virtue.

But take those terms apart: honor, virtue.

What do the foundations of such ideas tell us?

One last note on the core ... consider the Seven Deadly Sins. Take God and sin out of it and suddenly you've got a pretty good overview of aspects of poor conduct. While I don't throw my vote behind them, the 7DS are candidates for inclusion in the core.

I've never gone through them one by one and picked them apart. I really, really should.

(Maybe I will.)

thanx,
Tiassa