LIFE

[Shaker]

... and not forgetting those who work in the field of armaments developing techniques and weapons that will improve out death chances.

...which people do merely in order to turn a profit, not because they are "endeavouring to explain the workings of the universe to us all." So, like Walter, I fail to see the relevance.

[torridon]

A philosophy (I use the word loosely) clearly underpinned by his patent aversion to the animality or animal-hood or animal-ness of the human species, the desire to get away from our status as one of millions of species of creature on the planet.

Yes, I'd see Sriram's concept of spiritual evolution - a progression from a base nature through successive reincarnations towards a higher nature - as a metaphor for distancing us from our (distasteful) animal nature.  I'd see this as an Eastern equivalent of the Judeochristian doctrine of salvation which could be seen as a metaphor for our being rescued from our animal nature and blessed with a divine nature instead.  I think it one of humanity's deepest psychological discomfitures to recognise our animal nature, we'd really rather forget about it, it is a source of embarrassment and humiliation.  Many old world religions (and new ones) are popular because they act as constructs to serve our twin denials (the other being mortality).

[Shaker]

I think it one of humanity's deepest psychological discomfitures to recognise our animal nature, we'd really rather forget about it, it is a source of embarrassment and humiliation.

To Sriram, certainly; he can't prevent this embarrassment and humiliation from colouring his writing often.

Not everyone feels the same way, however; and I'd go so far as to suggest that it's those amongst us who are informed about and literate in evolutionary biology to whatever degree, those who recognise the kinship and oneness of all life on Earth at a deep level, who are less likely to think in this (basically and fundamentally religious) manner and to regard life on Earth in the round with none of this "higher" and "lower" nonsense that even Darwin warned himself against in his notebooks.

Life, we can demonstrably know, is one. You either get on board with this fact, or you latch onto (or concoct) a personal mythology which gives you the permission you want to pretend otherwise.

[Walter]

You are again doing exactly what I mentioned above. Two boxes.  Many people during that period seem to have been programmed that way and can't seem to help it.

Sriram

if you are genuinely interested in how the universe works why don't you start and study it properly. There is no hidden agenda , no one is trying to trick or fool you, there are no 'two boxes'. I admit sometimes it is very difficult to understand and requires a great deal of thinking to get your head round the complicated stuff but you don't even have to do the experiments or observe the sky yourself. Somebody has already done it for you.
Once you are familiar with how science works you can then maybe test the ideas you have by devising methods and experiments to evaluate them.
Any results you get can then be checked by other scientists to verify them. Or not.

You maybe onto something but until the experiments are done and the results are in you might as well piss into the wind.

[Sriram]

Yes, I'd see Sriram's concept of spiritual evolution - a progression from a base nature through successive reincarnations towards a higher nature - as a metaphor for distancing us from our (distasteful) animal nature.  I'd see this as an Eastern equivalent of the Judeochristian doctrine of salvation which could be seen as a metaphor for our being rescued from our animal nature and blessed with a divine nature instead.  I think it one of humanity's deepest psychological discomfitures to recognise our animal nature, we'd really rather forget about it, it is a source of embarrassment and humiliation.  Many old world religions (and new ones) are popular because they act as constructs to serve our twin denials (the other being mortality).

torridon,

Hinduism is probably the oldest 'religion' and philosophy that recognized the continuity between animals and humans. Hindus are not against nor antagonistic to animal life.  Vegetarianism, respect for animals and other forms of life, ecological interdependence and so on are ingrained in Hindu life. Much of it is being recognized by the western world only now....who have otherwise treated animals as only accessories.

I have also mentioned many times the uncanny parallel between the Dasavatars and the Theory of Evolution.

(For those who haven't read that, it is available at https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2012/07/03/evolution-and-spirituality/ )

We believe that all humans were earlier born at various levels in the animal world as part of their spiritual development. It is a spectrum with the lowest forms of life at one end and humans at the other. Even among humans there is a spectrum with some near the animal level and some near the Divine level.

Our consciousness has developed only through this process. We cannot and should not go back to a lower level of consciousness...or equate ourselves with that.

It is like different classes at school. Once you are out of the primary school, you should stop behaving like primary school children. Merely because you were at one time a child you cannot continue to behave like one.

Hindus are not embarrassed of their animal past. Its all about moving forward instead of continuing to take our cue from the animal world. Continuing to associate with our earlier levels of consciousness is wrong and is considered as bad karma because it goes against the natural flow of life and its development.

So, the relationship of humans to animal life is nothing new in Hinduism and it was understood as a normal part of day to day life long before Charles Darwin.  Spirituality is about developing and moving further.

Cheers.

Sriram
 

[Sriram]

torridon,

On a second point, you really should stop treating ideas of spirituality as metaphors. You don't KNOW that! You just believe that. 

The laws of science do not in any way prohibit spiritual development and evolution. Nor is there any conflict with the concept of Prana. They may conflict with certain religious mythological beliefs but the fundamentals of spiritual philosophy are very easily compatible with Science and its theories.

I mentioned the two boxes that many of you have in your minds. For a start you people should  try introducing one more box into which you dump all those ideas and philosophies that are neither hardcore material science nor religious beliefs.  It will broaden your outlook and help in assimilation of certain philosophies that you will find are quite enriching. Mainstream science is also spreading its tentacles into these areas lately.

Don't box yourselves in with only what hardcore material science has to offer. It only looks at one part of life.  As I have mentioned elsewhere, spirituality is also a Science with its theory, methodologies and predictions. It works!

Cheers.

Sriram

[Walter]

torridon,



.

  As I have mentioned elsewhere, spirituality is also a Science with its theory, methodologies and predictions. It works!

prove it or stop lying

Cheers.

Sriram

[ekim]

A philosophy (I use the word loosely) clearly underpinned by his patent and almost phobic aversion to the animality or animal-hood or animal-ness of the human species, the desire to get away from our status as one of millions of species of creature on the planet.

I don't think Sriram's post 54 supports that view.

[torridon]

torridon,

Hinduism is probably the oldest 'religion' and philosophy that recognized the continuity between animals and humans. Hindus are not against nor antagonistic to animal life.  Vegetarianism, respect for animals and other forms of life, ecological interdependence and so on are ingrained in Hindu life. Much of it is being recognized by the western world only now....who have otherwise treated animals as only accessories.
...

Yes, I accept that.  By referencing christian salvation and Eastern spiritual development I think a common denominator of a desire to distance ourselves from our animal origins is something that is a subconscious human angst that is often repressed in a way that Freud would have recognised and the old world religions offer a narrative that justifies our journey out of the animal kingdom.  I think this angst goes deeper than a merely religious phenomenon, I would suggest that humanism, essentially a derivative christian idea with god removed, often features a similar narrative in terms of the ascent of man, of secular progress, and a progress toward something is also a journey away from something less desirable, namely our 'base' animal past.

[Shaker]

I don't think Sriram's post 54 supports that view.

I do - the fourth and fifth paragraphs, for example. Furthermore, a great many more of his posts do too. If I were on my laptop rather than my phone it would be a job of moments to collate all the references he has made to supposedly having to get away from (or rise above - there's definitely a higher-lower thing going on) our animal nature.

[SusanDoris]

Yes, I accept that.  By referencing christian salvation and Eastern spiritual development I think a common denominator of a desire to distance ourselves from our animal origins is something that is a subconscious human angst that is often repressed in a way that Freud would have recognised and the old world religions offer a narrative that justifies our journey out of the animal kingdom.  I think this angst goes deeper than a merely religious phenomenon, I would suggest that humanism, essentially a derivative christian idea with god removed, often features a similar narrative in terms of the ascent of man, of secular progress, and a progress toward something is also a journey away from something less desirable, namely our 'base' animal past.

I seldom - hardly ever - quibble with anything in your posts, torridon, but I do wonder whether you have anything from the Humanists which implies that?

[Bramble]

Yes, I accept that.  By referencing christian salvation and Eastern spiritual development I think a common denominator of a desire to distance ourselves from our animal origins is something that is a subconscious human angst that is often repressed in a way that Freud would have recognised and the old world religions offer a narrative that justifies our journey out of the animal kingdom.  I think this angst goes deeper than a merely religious phenomenon, I would suggest that humanism, essentially a derivative christian idea with god removed, often features a similar narrative in terms of the ascent of man, of secular progress, and a progress toward something is also a journey away from something less desirable, namely our 'base' animal past.

I've banged on about this before but I think the Axial Age religions, of which Sriram's 'spirituality' is one, are essentially a response to the psychological and social challenges of living with what we've come to call civilisation, which is founded upon the move from hunter-gatherer lifestyles to farming and a shift in perspective from being part of nature to waging war with it (and ultimately with ourselves). Civilisation thus came to be underpinned by a new three part narrative comprising the myths of human separation/isolation, centrality/specialness and progress/transcendence. The religions of the Axial Age (apart from the honourable exception of Daoism) simply took these myths as foundational and sought 'salvation' from the consequences of them through taking them to their logical extreme, which involved trying to 'overcome' our animal and material nature and connect instead with some kind of transcendent divinity/consciousness. The ecological (and indeed spiritual) damage this has caused is now plain to see and yet we plough on regardless, seeking ever new ways of realising our fantasies through technological progress. Many expressions of humanism (though not all) simply carry on with this where religion left off. It brings to mind the saying that insanity is keeping on doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

[Walter]

I've banged on about this before but I think the Axial Age religions, of which Sriram's 'spirituality' is one, are essentially a response to the psychological and social challenges of living with what we've come to call civilisation, which is founded upon the move from hunter-gatherer lifestyles to farming and a shift in perspective from being part of nature to waging war with it (and ultimately with ourselves). Civilisation thus came to be underpinned by a new three part narrative comprising the myths of human separation/isolation, centrality/specialness and progress/transcendence. The religions of the Axial Age (apart from the honourable exception of Daoism) simply took these myths as foundational and sought 'salvation' from the consequences of them through taking them to their logical extreme, which involved trying to 'overcome' our animal and material nature and connect instead with some kind of transcendent divinity/consciousness. The ecological (and indeed spiritual) damage this has caused is now plain to see and yet we plough on regardless, seeking ever new ways of realising our fantasies through technological progress. Many expressions of humanism (though not all) simply carry on with this where religion left off. It brings to mind the saying that insanity is keeping on doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

well you've got a lot of fancy sounding words in there but I haven't got a clue what you're on about.
I must have been off school that day ! 

[Sriram]

Yes, I accept that.  By referencing christian salvation and Eastern spiritual development I think a common denominator of a desire to distance ourselves from our animal origins is something that is a subconscious human angst that is often repressed in a way that Freud would have recognised and the old world religions offer a narrative that justifies our journey out of the animal kingdom.  I think this angst goes deeper than a merely religious phenomenon, I would suggest that humanism, essentially a derivative christian idea with god removed, often features a similar narrative in terms of the ascent of man, of secular progress, and a progress toward something is also a journey away from something less desirable, namely our 'base' animal past.

Most of all...evolution is doing it!  You missed that one.  We ARE branching off from other animals (never mind what classification scientists label us with) ...and we are never going back. We ARE going to develop more and more our humanistic,  intellectual,  universal,  cooperative attributes as we evolve.... which are all counter to the competitive and self oriented traits. 

Our move towards humanism and civilization have been possible only due to the thrust on such qualities by religions over the centuries. As I have said in another thread on the role of religions, it is religions that have again and again emphasized altruism, cooperation, love, showing the other cheek,  charity, patience and other such 'higher' level 'human' qualities.

So...its all matching up.  Evolution, religions, spiritual theory, humanism, civilization ...they are all moving in tandem promoting the same set of qualities and eliminating the same set of qualities. 

 

[Shaker]

Most of all...evolution is doing it!  You missed that one.  We ARE branching off from other animals (never mind what classification scientists label us with) ...and we are never going back. We ARE going to develop more and more our humanistic,  intellectual,  universal,  cooperative attributes as we evolve.... which are all counter to the competitive and self oriented traits.

It's the Great Chain of Being all over again

Our move towards humanism and civilization have been possible only due to the thrust on such qualities by religions over the centuries. As I have said in another thread on the role of religions, it is religions that have again and again emphasized altruism, cooperation, love, showing the other cheek,  charity, patience and other such 'higher' level 'human' qualities.

When they're not maiming, torturing and murdering, anyway ...

[ekim]

I do - the fourth and fifth paragraphs, for example. Furthermore, a great many more of his posts do too. If I were on my laptop rather than my phone it would be a job of moments to collate all the references he has made to supposedly having to get away from (or rise above - there's definitely a higher-lower thing going on) our animal nature.

I wouldn't class that as an "almost phobic aversion to the animality" though.  I think that he's just passionate about man aspiring to rise above a psychological state partly derived from what is shared with the rest of the animal world.  Anyway, enough about Sriram, he is quite capable of defending himself from any ad homina if he chooses to do so.

[Sriram]

When they're not maiming, torturing and murdering, anyway ...

Is that all you know about religion..Shaker?!   

[Sriram]

I wouldn't class that as an "almost phobic aversion to the animality" though.  I think that he's just passionate about man aspiring to rise above a psychological state partly derived from what is shared with the rest of the animal world.  Anyway, enough about Sriram, he is quite capable of defending himself from any ad homina if he chooses to do so.

Thanks a lot ekim! 

[Shaker]

Is that all you know about religion..Shaker?!   

Far from it, but why would I sugarcoat the plain truth to make it false?

[Bramble]

I wouldn't class that as an "almost phobic aversion to the animality" though.  I think that he's just passionate about man aspiring to rise above a psychological state partly derived from what is shared with the rest of the animal world.  Anyway, enough about Sriram, he is quite capable of defending himself from any ad homina if he chooses to do so.

I'm sure Shaker will defend himself, but I think he makes a perfectly valid point. The so-called 'human' qualities Sriram lists are not exclusively human. They are qualities found elsewhere in the animal kingdom too - perhaps most famously studied in chimpanzees. Thus they are animal qualities found in humans amongst others. They do not mark us out as different from or 'above' the animals but rather represent our common bond with other animals. The human preoccupation with imagining ourselves 'better' than other animals is, perhaps, the thing that makes us unique in the animal kingdom and it is not something to be proud of. Perhaps a little honesty and humility on our part would give us pause before crowing too loudly about our 'higher' virtues. It is we who are Earth's problem child.

[Shaker]

It is we who are Earth's problem child.

Goodness me ... [TwilightZone] do de do do, do de do do ... [/TwilightZone] ... for Christmas I got Michael McCarthy's beautiful, lyrically written but horribly sad and intensely depressing The Moth Snowstorm, which uses exactly that phrase. Is that where you got it from?

[Bramble]

Yes, it is. As you say, a beautiful but depressing book.

[Sriram]

I'm sure Shaker will defend himself, but I think he makes a perfectly valid point. The so-called 'human' qualities Sriram lists are not exclusively human. They are qualities found elsewhere in the animal kingdom too - perhaps most famously studied in chimpanzees. Thus they are animal qualities found in humans amongst others. They do not mark us out as different from or 'above' the animals but rather represent our common bond with other animals. The human preoccupation with imagining ourselves 'better' than other animals is, perhaps, the thing that makes us unique in the animal kingdom and it is not something to be proud of. Perhaps a little honesty and humility on our part would give us pause before crowing too loudly about our 'higher' virtues. It is we who are Earth's problem child.

I have not mentioned anything about exclusivity. In fact, I have specifically talked of 'continuity'.   It is a spectrum with all life forms fitting into it. There are no clear demarcations  or lines drawn with one side animals and the other side humans.   Just as biological  changes happen gradually, so also changes in consciousness happen gradually.

There are many human qualities in other life forms and many of their qualities in humans.   It is a progression from certain qualities to certain other qualities.

There is no doubt that this kind of a change and progression  in consciousness is happening.  This is a fact that we can observe.  It is only about 'why' it is happening that the spiritual evolution hypothesis becomes relevant instead of the usual...'its all due to random variation and natural selection'... song and dance.

[torridon]

Most of all...evolution is doing it!  You missed that one.  We ARE branching off from other animals (never mind what classification scientists label us with) ...and we are never going back. We ARE going to develop more and more our humanistic,  intellectual,  universal,  cooperative attributes as we evolve.... which are all counter to the competitive and self oriented traits. 

Our move towards humanism and civilization have been possible only due to the thrust on such qualities by religions over the centuries. As I have said in another thread on the role of religions, it is religions that have again and again emphasized altruism, cooperation, love, showing the other cheek,  charity, patience and other such 'higher' level 'human' qualities.

So...its all matching up.  Evolution, religions, spiritual theory, humanism, civilization ...they are all moving in tandem promoting the same set of qualities and eliminating the same set of qualities.

Humans are still evolving, yes, I'd go along with that, although our biological evolution is slowed having developed technologies to protect ourselves from pruning by natural selection. Humans are becoming more 'civilised', in a sense I could go along with that; we treat criminals with a view to rehabilitation rather than punishment for instance. On the other hand we still have wars going on just as always in history, we are inducing future climate instability for our descendants and we are the cause of one of the greatest traumas to befall life in the history of this planet, often termed the sixth mass extinction event and the rest of the biomass of this planet would be enraged at our self-congratulatory mirage of human progress were they capable of understanding it.  The conceptual divide here is between biological evolution and cultural evolution.  The ways in which we are becoming kinder, gentler more compassionate people are in the domain of cultural evolution, but cultural evolution is just a froth on top of the far more profound biological evolution.  At base we are still cavemen with tools, starting from flint handaxes and arrowheads we have now progressed on to thermonuclear warheads, so much better for obliterating all the bad people with.

[SusanDoris]

At base we are still cavemen with tools, starting from flint handaxes and arrowheads we have now progressed on to thermonuclear warheads, so much better for obliterating all the bad people with.

Just a brief comment - the fact that we have these means that the 'bad people' are far less likely to try and obliterate us first.