by Janic » 14/02/15, 16:40
Janic wrote:
Indeed, but it can be extended to all forms of thoughts that "connect" and few, if any, escapes, it's our lot!
We must not confuse a religion and a frame of reference.
Religions are relatively well structured, while the frame of reference is informal.
Assuredly, but both are inseparable (I do not take into account the flaws inherent in any structured framework).
Thus the automobile can be considered as informal, it is a simple concept in itself, yet it must go through engineering offices, manufacturing plants, distribution and repair networks which are each, each, these frames more or less well structured. Which gives these marks all similar and different at the same time. Could we get rid of it? Part of this is likely to be handicraft, but at what cost price as much as social (in the system where we are obviously!)
Quote:
This is very theoretical, philosophical because there is a true spirituality that can abstain from its cultural, family, social, etc ... and really exceed it as some orientalists want to believe?
It is not a question of abstaining, but of freeing oneself, nuance!
In the same way that a child learns to ride a bike with stabilizing wheels: necessary for learning at first, it quickly becomes an obstacle to cycling.
The same is true of religions.
One can also consider that these religions are the pedals, the chain or the wheels, it is just a question of appreciation of the optimal utility (in fact each part plays its role as indispensable as complementary).
And this is the purpose of Awakening and Liberation.
The real release (always by comparison) is walking, without shoes elsewhere! But we are far from it, even in an impossible return.
And since you are talking about orientalists, the Indian term Jivan mukta (literally "freed alive") corresponds precisely to going beyond its socio-cultural determinism.
A little like the one who liberates himself from a blind dependence, but who would immediately replace it by another dependence, chosen or supposed such?
And according to the reading and the testimonies of observers it is not an idealistic concept.
Good for them! It is the role of any questioning which in a certain way releases what can be considered as a charge, a ball to drag; it is necessary to feel this need or even its simple reality which can only be subjective elsewhere. Thus, for example, the work may be considered as a punishment by some, but as a development for others, which does not call into question the work itself but the conditions that accompany it, very little ideal most of the time.
However, I told you that thousands, millions of people testified verbally or in writing, their experience with what you consider only as an abstract concept and therefore non-existent as a reality. Everything is about faith, belief, even self suggestion whose effects can actually be very positive. No matter, it's the result that counts!
Ahmed
Janic, you quote Paul's Epistle to the Romans: Could we not read it as a source of inspiration for transhumanists?
Contempt of the body and the value of a higher order (which would no longer be the law of God, but the instrumental rationality), the principal is there!
We are far from it! Pauline literature is often considered (wrongly in my opinion) to be negative: contempt for the body, contempt for women, contempt for mosaic laws, etc.
In this case, for the body in question, there is not the ounce of a contemptuous attitude, but only a statement of the limits of human nature who would like a perfection, never reached, and which makes the simple statement . This is a little what Sen Sen sen says: " It is clear that despite the billions of believers, very few are really turned to a truly spiritual practice! Hence this shortened quote from Paul and thus cut off from his context, more explicit.
Further, you write:
Quote:
From a certain angle, it's true! Let us take the example of medicine (a very large sector of liberal economy) that performs "miracles" permanently, better than God himself (at least in appearance), through gurus of all kinds.
Modern medicine, although criticized by many aspects, especially methodological, ensures for many of us an unexpected survival,
This is where the rub right! Indeed, these distinct aspects are related to medical techniques, humanism and affective relationships between individuals. Starting with the latter where few can support the death of a loved one (or self) and therefore are ready to justify anything to preserve this emotional relationship for others as for oneself. This dimension reinforces that of humanism
Humanism, a philosophical attitude that puts man and human values at the heart of his questions.
Which regards life (human and only) as sacred and that the laws will protect and punish its transgressors. What makes us come to the first dimension: medical techniques to ensure survival at all costs.
Excluding this "at any price" at precisely an exorbitant price (outside the financial aspect) by making individuals dependent on the pharmaceutical industry by doctors interposed. It is no longer a question of using simple, effective, non-toxic means, and this is where transhumanism comes in: being dependent on the technological devices of humans. Thus a transplanted becomes, for life (what remains of it) slave of these anti-rejects products, toxic elsewhere. Ditto for everything else: vaccines, treatments of all kinds, despite the bankruptcy of all these artificial means, short and long term.
So, as you point out, it is unexpected for many of those who would never have reached these breaking points, by better management of their lives and thus of their health (I am speaking here of real health whose education is absent, no illness).
To use the image of the automobile, it is like saying that garages provide "unexpected survival" for automobiles (which is not wrong in a certain way) whereas reasonable driving of these vehicles would have avoided many recourse to these repairers.
0 x