unreality

Yeah, I'm sure it's just a coincidence Still cool though. And we pretty much proved that it eventually averaged out to log210 but you never know... ;D

nice! I hadn't considered the half-mile double-loop idea (and of course all the way down the reciprical integers)

I went back and found some of my past musings on a loose decentralized guidance system:

nice edits - and damn I didn't know "positive determinism" was already associated with something else. I'll have to think of a new term: how about enlightened cognitivism or something? I was trying to fit 'positivism' in there too but the semantics is tricky

definitely! Phronism is the pursuit of truth, the balance of chaos and order, the harmony of man, mind, Earth and Essence. Phronists value rational thought and imaginative intellect to expand their view of the Actual and Potential states of the Universe in order to harmonize with what we call the Essence. Phronism is about the belief of a current of insight, wonder and life that almost literally flows through the universe. Understanding this Essence and becoming one with it is the primary mantra. We Phronists believe in the innate spirit of arisen life and its meaning within this thing we call the universe. We believe in free-will via entity-embodiment (something akin to positive determinism). We believe in no afterlife but rather a blissful reconnection with the eternal Essence. We believe in no gods but rather the collective social force of mankind, of species in general, of life in general, of the Earth, of the Universe, of Nature, of the Essence. We believe that recipricocity is built into the universe at all levels, reflecting itself on the macro scale with a karma-esque permeation within life and a ripple-effect of the 'golden rule'. Phronism is perhaps the only 'benign' religion: it flows as does the Essence, constantly adapting to the shifting moral zeitgeist, minds of the people, scientific advancements, social advancements, etc. It has a fluid, open structure that engenders its own evolution. It has no central leadership and no basis for corruption, infighting, religious zeal/extremism or crusadism. It values the role of nonbelievers. It appreciates the insights and views of all members, and gives total freedom to its members to change around within and out of the system. It tries to take up as little time and energy as possible away from the lives of its adherents. It promotes a full, happy, opportunistic life. It is open to new ideas and opens its member's minds to think about everything around them and learn more about themselves, their friends and the universe. It is a benign religion and a true World Philosophy. I think these have been pointed out in the previous responses, but I'm interpreting each of those words separately: * Goal - to harmonize with the Essence * Mission - to appreciate and expand and positively influence the collective Humanity * Vision - a world free of tyrant religions, a world free of ignorance, a world free of unfulfilled lives. A world full of Potential and a world full of Actual... a world, a planet, a people, all harmonized with the Essence

I agree that the parables need to be rethought. Maybe we should just admit that they're bogus but should be treated as metaphors and allegories... we can point out that this is similar to the bible. Most people today think of many bible stories as just that - "stories", but stories with meaning behind them. Like fables, meant to teach a moral lesson or somesuch. We can liken the parables of Phronism to moral fables tought in modern religions. That's just a suggestion, I haven't fully thought it out yet. I'm still on the fence about the Samarkand "deception"... I think if we do go with the Samarkand meeting-of-many-cultures story, we need to be very vague and very careful... which brings me to, how would these parables, core rules, concepts, etc, be communicated? One "holy book"? A multimedia presentation? Or ideas leaked into the general public overtime or something, insinuating in the minds of the folk... before we get too in depth with how we are going to present the parables we need to get more in depth on how we would present Phronism as a whole #2 is the question that spawned this whole topic. I think we've crafted the makings of a religion that truly trumps most modern religions in terms of how fulfilling it is to the members (provided we spin everything the right way) with minimal deception (a tale of an ancient Samarkand meeting is nothing compared to, say, the Earth drowned in flood or fire or something) and system in place to avoid corruption, infighting, prejudice, and instead promote change, fluidity, flexibility and social brotherhood. I think much of the philosophy and "positiveness" that sets Phronism apart has been gone over a lot and led us to this point - we've left the theoretical and gone to the practical. I think #2 has been sufficiently answered though of course we should always be looking for ways to improve and expand our philosophy and teachings (for example our recent discussing on purpose - btw I agree with plasmid that we should purpos-ize the term "harmonizing with the Essence"). As for #1, that's something we brainstormed near the beginning of the topic and we came up with a few "religious motives" but obviously none of us are qualified enough, as you said, to be an authority on this. I think it's time to grab some external input on what we've cobbled together so far

well the purpose ( ) of the monk parable (the first one anyway) was to adress the religious/philosophical issues of free will, meaning and purpose... these are heavy concepts that we can't ignore if we want to be a complete philosophy. So I was just getting them all out of the way in one parable... the parables stressed the concept of how meaning is applied by the observer of the meaning, allowing us to live more in the day and not assume the existence of a grand cosmic plan for everything. The free will part was just a bit thrown in the middle that really can't be written without showing the bias of the writer. For example, my version was about how we as biological computers built on axiomatic particles are making the choices our brain wants to make, so we can be said to be making choices. I then asked how else would you want a choice to be made (ie, how else would you have it other than based on pre-existing states?). I redid some of it, reducing the physics from 20th/21st century to 17th century. Then seeksit redid parts of it and the newer one reflects his bias on choice just like my earlier one reflected mine (ie, his version had references to things like "forking paths" and "ever-dividing braids"). So I guess what I'm saying is, we need to address these things as a group, and decide what our stance is on things like choice, before I do a final rewrite of this parable and a few others. Here is my 2cents on what our stance should be on philosophical issues: * Meaning: applied by the observer of the meaning, the journey IS the destination, carpe diem, etc (what the monk parable is currently preaching) * Choice: based on pre-existing states, yes, but how else would have it. We can be said to make our choices since we are the sum of the particles in the brain that are taking that input and generating output. In other words, "optimistic randomism" or something, adding a new term to list * Ethics: in the earlier "allegory of the rave" (pun on Plato's Allegory of the Cave... the name will have to be changed for multiple reasons lol) I addressed ethics and karma. I'd have to go back and see what exactly I was going for, because I don't remember, but I imagine it was something like "morals change with the times and are natural social laws that emerge when organisms or other intelligent things interact" or something along those lines. I figure that little moral details should be left to the denominations to fill in at their leisure: because denominations are fluid and change, live and die with the times, they'll keep our ethical code modern and ever-advancing

I tracked down the origin of the Origin idea and highlighted something important in red as well as updates to the original idea in blue... now the two things I highlighted in red show my initial skepticism to my own idea... but you guys have turned it into something more than plausible. You guys are pretty much awesome I can't explain it but I feel like Phronism is real, even if the actual "physical" meeting at Samarkand didn't happen. There was a "current" (essence? ) of connection among philosophical thinkers of the time, so in a way, Phronism does indeed exist - we are just gathering it into something more organized, more tangible, to be delivered to the world... Dawh's fresh perspective is very much welcome and he's very right about the parables. We need to really be absolute solid and clear on all aspects of the parables. Sure, some of them are allegorical and metaphorical and not meant to be taken as literal fact, but they still, as a group, represent some tangible passed-down knowledge and what may have to pass as true history, so we can't be so vague about where they come from and stuff. I like the idea someone had of hiring a bunch of historians. I don't think the right way for Phronism to open itself to the world is in some blaze of sudden wisdom and glory. No, that's way too contrived. It needs to assimilate itself into common culture first - subtly, over time, donating its own perspective little by little as it emerges into public eye. Historians hired by us would slowly flood the market with new insights about 500 BCE and strange connections going on, storing up a stockpile of historical validity over time before we "come out of the closet" with Phronism as a World Religion/Philosophy

Grayven: yeah you're right, we can't let personal preferences get in the way of marketing choices... 7 it is about your second post, Caesar burning the Library is pretty kick*ss... I don't know how we could integrate or defend that though - it seems pretty conspiracy-theory-ish so we would need some evidence to back it up seeksit: I like most of your revisions to my parable, but are we stressing the "quantum many worlds" stuff in Phronism? This is a decision we should make as a group. I'd rather leave that in the Potential since so much scientific progress is being made on stuff like that every day, we want to keep the parables vague enough for Phronism to be open & fluid to scientific change. While "dividing currents" may be your personal philosophy on the issue of freewill (and don't get me wrong; I like that concept too), I think we should reel that in as science may disagree in the future or maybe even near future. I know you made it intentionally vague in the parable, though, so it might work anyhow

updating the first monk one: (changes in red)

As it is important to have many denominations, so it is important to have people outside <NAME> who are most fit to view it objectively and dispassionately. These outsiders that understand the world through mankind's endeavors are not to be despised but welcomed, for they offer a unique perspective and often seek to advance humanity as the followers do. But beware those outsiders that cling to ideas of gods, for they worship illusions of their imaginations that may guide them to decay. Such people should be brought into the <NAME> to understand how to harmonize with the Essence. For Grayven's "Truth" idea, I'm not sure I agree with that as we're using "Truth" to describe the set rules of <NAME>, which the denominations can't alter in their individual differences (but each year when the denominations meet they can alter the Truth with 90% majority vote or something... we need to make it adaptive from the getgo). But I do like the Potential idea, that is, possibilities that could happen. However that seems more like a loose thing that different denominations would have different ideas and doctrines on, not a solid part of the Truth core dogma UPDATED PARABLES edit: I probably missed a few Uberfaith to <NAME> transitions in the various teachings, and I didn't comb the parables for "Uberfaith" either... when we decide on a name, I'll just run a find-replace search and make every "Uberfaith" or "<NAME>" equal to the new name many of these parables are still valid IMO, with a few name changes (for example, from Lord Barack to "Socrates" or "the Seventh Shepherd" or "Confucius" or "Cleisthenes" or whomever... in particular, the afterlife one(s) by Octopuppy and my monk ones are independent of the background and can fit well in the new parable system also I know that Socrates taught Plato (and Xenophon and a few others), and Plato taught Aristotle, who taught Alexander the Great... do we know if Socrates was influenced by someone? I thought seeksit mentioned someone, but I looked it up and it appears that we don't know much of Socrates, all we know is Plato's writings of him and Aristophanes' "Clouds"

maybe we should make it so you can only officially join Phronism at age 17 (to throw out an age) thereby preventing child indoctrination and child labeling that Richard Dawkins so hates. Of course we can do nothing to prevent parents from introducing such things at young ages, but we CAN teach the value of openmindedness and making decisions for oneself, etc as for souls, that falls in the same category as gods for me: it's in the Potential but not the Actual, but it shouldn't be taught as truth since it's just a possibility and a usually inconsistent one at that. I'm not saying that I don't want the ideas even considered, I just don't want them taught as part of our mainstream central doctrine. If a denomination wants to interpret the Potential to allow the existence of Mahawalakawaki-nahua-hawaiiii-asakua and the Volcano Gods, then so be it, best luck to them, that's the kind of freedom we should allow the denominations (or are we calling them streams?)

I was just reading about Shangri-La and how it was originally coined by James Hilton in 'Lost Horizon' in which it was a utopian Himalayan society taught by the "lamasery" and living in peace, harmony, etc. It brought in the best of philosophies from the East and West and was a sort of "earthly paradise" similar to Shambhala... this caught me by surprise because I immediately thought of the congregation of greatest world philosophers at their secret meeting point (Samarkand, right?) in 500 BCE (to become 0 PE) to initiate Phronism

we're not possibly supporting the "soul" idea, are we? Our "innate connection to the Essence" serves this purpose with vagueness as being just associated with intelligence and not necessarily some ambiguous "differentness" about humans that I disagree with. There's no need for the "soul" in Phronism... I'm sure octopuppy would agree with me in this also, for "life with the Essence", this might not fit with our teachings that life is biological and in the material world, rather, when we die we enter the blissful ecstasy nirvana of the Essence and enter the stream of essenceness. Also I don't think we should have distinct "levels" of Essence nirvana, but rather have it be a sliding scale sorta: The more you do in life to be open, free, spontaneous, sensation-experiencing, helpful, sociable, etc, then the more your sense of self will be imprinted within the "current of meaning" that is the Essence other than that the parable is awesome not everyone likes the number 7 I happen to hate it. Everyone thinks it's special but that's mostly a religion-induced idea. I thought the idea of Phronism was to get away from these harmful effects - there are many cooler numbers than 7 ;D While most irrational numbers wouldn't be very useful for purposes that require an integer, a much more special number such as 5 for example, might be better. I think the golden ratio or somesuch would be best though no offense but I hate this particular idea... it also clashes with much of our "essence-lore" so far. The Essence has no "heirarchies" or easy divisions... it is a loose stream that we cannot understand - fundamentally no single viewpoint can come close to comprehending the entirety of the Essence, but working together we can understand it more from more directions. But it cannot easily be "categorized", especially in those BS categories like "village" and "veil". I really mean no offense I just really hate this idea lol. I'm loving most the awesome stuff you come up with seeksit, but not this, sorry edit ~ just realized my entire post was kind of douchey and didnt add anything constructive. Sorry guys, I must be in a bad mood or something. Anyway, I'm just cherry picking some things I disagreed with, most of it's great. Also I'll have to get around to rewriting the origin story with the new info we've been collecting, as well as revising some of my earlier parables... maybe I'll have time tonight

seeksit: Amazing find! When I get time I will rewrite my "origin story" on the previous page, incorporating all of that info you just added edit: and I love the 'Phronist Era' calendar haha

I think it should go for things like this: * be bold * be spontaneous and unpredictable * do random acts of kindness just for the hell of it * take risks, be open to possibilities and change * never turn something down without considering it etc

I have two ideas for the Origin: (ie, we can tell these to the people) (1) we tell the truth (2) we lie and come up with something along these lines: "One thousand years ago [originally I had it as five thousand, but that won't work with the Aristotle bit], many influential religious leaders from many influential religions met in secret, crossing whole continents and nations to a sacred meeting place. Wise meditators from the Oriental - who practiced arts such as Taoism, Confuciunism, Buddhism, Daoism, Shintoism, etc - met with ice-spirit worshippers in the northern plains, Western proponents of Greek philosophy as well as Judaism and other Middle Eastern religions, and Australian aborigines, and African tribes, and secretive jungle empires who sacrificed infidels at the altars of their mighty ziggurats. A handful of religious leaders within each system, who were getting fed up with the corruption, irrationality, denial of helpfulness, and denial of the sacredness of the universe that was blossoming like a dark flower in the hearts of these religions. These religious leaders met in a secret location and discussed the future of human society and faith, and meditated much, smiling inwardly and outwardly, engaging in philosophical debates and also relaxing and having fun... these people were the forefathers of what has been one of the most secretive and memberless religions for the past one thousand years. They called it Phronism, which is rooted in Greek and connected linguistically with thought, wisdom, choice, purpose, meaning and Aristotle's prudent virtue of 'phronesis'. In fact many of Phronism's concepts are based on ideas initially philosophized by Aristotle over 2000 years ago. This movement, started first by Aristotle and exacerbated by that secret meeting of fed-up religious leaders, has blossomed in its importance and relevance, and that is why it is being opened up to the world now, today. Phronism is not just a philosophical movement to replace religions that clutter your life with useless rituals and outdated ideas, it is more than that... it has become a search for truth in itself, founded on the mix of the best aspects of each of those religions that met in that secret meeting a millenia ago. One key feature that separates Phronism from the rest is its assertion in reason and truth, and its ability to adapt to new knowledge... for those wise religious leaders realized one fact: in the Essence of the continual current of truth and life that runs through the universe, we cannot know its full beauty all at once. We cannot comprehend all of the Universe's treasures in one sitting, we must experience them, think of them, learn them, adapt to them. As our knowledge of the universe expands, so does our stake in this thing we call... the Essence... this eternal current of meaning and recipricocity... we must strive to enlighten ourselves, each other, Humanity, Nature, the Earth and the Universe. That is our goal, that is our spiritual journey. We are Phronism." I think that's buyable if done right

Sure it may be just an idea, but great things come from great ideas. All fetuses (feti?) must start with the initial cell, and I think this idea has come considerably farther than you might think by looking at the surface. We've developed a pretty deep set of idealisms and concepts that we've adapted into our everyday speech within this topic, and we've discussed and discarded a lot of points while adopting others. Sure, it's inspired and casual brainstorming, but also pretty philosophical and relevant. I agree that it's much easier (a zillion times easier) to come up with an idea than it is to actually carry out the idea. To expand beyond the borders of this Brainden topic, it will need time, money and dedication. I'm not saying it will happen, I'm just saying that I noticed a shift from theoretical thinking (hey let's raise Atlantis and get Barack Obama to endorse it!) to more focused brainstorming... I'm definitely not saying we're expecting this idea to magically pull itself out of the forum, but rather we are crafting a template for a useful religion, one which could exist, and it's a very enlightening thought exercise plasmid: which parables do you think need revising?

so.... for nomenclature stuff: Name of <NAME>: I say we go with Phronism, and let each pronounce it as he or she wishes Symbol of <NAME>: I like the tilde and variations on (such as yinyang or infinity) but I also like the fertility symbol presented by Plasmid, it's very earthlike Term for Denominations: Either "denoms" or "streams" or something. Maybe we could make up a new term like "coagulates" [prounced "co - ag - yoo - lates"] (ie, as a noun instead of a verb) and make the shorthand version be "coags" [coag is pronounced "co - ag", two syllables]. But that sounds too 'metallic' or something, too corporate. I like "stream" better... although stream still sounds a bit weird. The nice thing about it, though, is that it has no previous connotation in any form, so the word "stream" would be ours to re-envision and turn into something more Term for Meeting Place: the individual denom can call it whatever they wish, from Shrine to Rendezvous to Phronastery to Art Gallery to Temple to Topless Bar... or anything in between. It really depends on the nature of the denom/stream edit ~ I agree with the Phronism Phoundation (couldn't resist ) put forth by ye wiseman Plasmid in his last past. All of it captures what we've been working on these 16 pages. It's a nice start to crafting a nice draft of our new, benign religion. I think all of us here have fancied the idea of it becoming something more than a forum fantasy... I've noticed (I'm sure we all have) a sort of shift, early on, from theoretical thinking to realism about the situation... that is, we're entertaining the notion that this can actually happen. And I think it can. Why not actually try for real? How else do these kind of things get started?

First of all, Darwin did not "make" evolution. Evolution is a name given to a naturally occurring process that has always happened and always will happen in any set that reproduces genetically (biological organism or other), regardless of where such a set came from. How evolution works How evolution works Behind the Controversy on evolution ^ some very informative links for you to conveniently ignore so your basic gist is that "religion is older than science" so religion is right??? How does that make sense? I sense that you don't understand what science is... it's just the search for information and knowledge of what we can observe about the universe. Religion in its crudest forms WAS science, for it was VERY crude a long time ago. Only in the recent half-millenia or so have people really formulated science into a reliable "method" for analyzing our world, and from there scientific discoveries (which you take advantage of every day) ballooned outward exponentially. Humans have always searched for knowledge, it seems to be our natural tendency. In early times, what other method did we have but tell fancy stories about things we knew about? Religion is old because it's a crude and inaccurate picture for understanding the universe... new viewpoints have since come up improving on the old. Dath, the religion you practice is NOT the ancient religion of our great-great-great-greatx1000-ancestor's religion... it has changed with the times, too, and is comparatively modern. And going back to the core of your argument, it's silly to think that religion is correct just because it's older. In that case, you should switch to a more barbaric view that the cavemen supported. Or at least be a Jew, since Judaism is older than Christianity. Well not according to Christianity of course - just another example about how you're operating within the confines of what you've grown up with. You need to break free dath let's face it... we're all shaped by the views of our parents, on politics, religion, whatever. You are. I am. Izzy is. We all are. The difference between you (dath) and me, is that I realize this, and I have tried very hard to view the world independently. Since my mom was religious, my dad wasn't, this gave me a lot of freedom to think for myself about the world. But who knows how much influence is still on me? But we can say FOR SURE with you is that you've been indoctrinated to be the way you are since you were born... you just don't know what else to think. To change your faith now would be to pull the whole rug out from under your feet, to break down your life and start it up in a different direction. I get that... I understand your need to protect it like this in face of rational scrutiny. But what I don't get is your unwillingness to go out and discover new things... you could at least try to see things from an objective point of view, "to entertain the impossible" in a manner of speaking. I enjoy questioning myself, and often times this self-questioning has led me in new intellectual directions. I know that religions encourage you to "question... but eventually come back to the same thing". That's not the right attitude to face life with... you should always be open to opportunity and change. When it comes down to it, dath, all we are is our sensory input. That's what you have to observe the world with. However you see the world from your brain is how you should react, but don't be afraid to step off your high pedestal and explore the rest of the world I think andromeda wanted to reverse it not for herself but for her family members

I still like the vague mystery of the infinity symbol, but what if we go even simpler? You can't beat the tilde for doodalibility as for qualities and foci of Phronism (have we decided on that name? And is it "froan" [as I think it should be] or "fronn" [which sounds weird ;D]?), we made a list a few pages back, but that was more on the key aspects and concepts that it stood for. As for what a member gains from it, adding to octopuppy's list, is a huge one: * feeling of belonging to a group that stands for clear, rational things... it's not a "false group dynamic" as you might feel in a church; it's a real sense of connection, both in the rational universe and in the Way of the Essence which encompasses all in its flow * the ideas of "vague afterlife Essence imprint nirvana bliss" and "recripricocity of the universe + your affects affect the future of Humanity, the Earth, the Essence and Everything" give purpose, drive, inspiration, meaning and importance to everything we do and see and touch and hear and feel... this already exists without Phronism or any other religion, but Phronism would allow its members to reach out and touch it, to be part of it, to revel in it * the "inner god" concept (which we can put into our current views of <NAME> by saying how the Essence flows through each of us, and we can harness that unbridled power) gives personal motivation, optimism and self-drive when one needs it most

in the earlier pages, octopuppy and plasmid and me (I think it was plasmid's idea originally) sort of mutually developed the idea of a "memetic evolution system". A few central concepts are kept within the core doctrine (things like basic concepts, idealisms, parables, systems of governing, etc) while each denomination (or "stream" or whatever, I'll call em denoms until we settle on a name) has control over more loosely related parameters, such as how best to Embrace the Way of the Essence, what kinds of morals and ethics are best in our age, what kinds of groups and activities to support and focus on, etc. This makes <NAME> very adaptive, as the denoms come and go and change with the times, while still retaining to our basic ideologies (the Core). Furthermore, as a collective group, the denoms can change the Core itself (see my ideas and descriptions of Councilday over the past couple of pages) but that's a more gradual process. Anyway, what serves as a kind of "natural selection" for the denoms? Member count! The "better" or "more popular" (and we're aware that those two things aren't always the same thing, but the overall checks and balances outlined at Councilday and general atmosphere of the collective should keep denoms in line... hopefully. It's open to debate of course) denoms will thrive while extremist, illogical or plain fake denoms will wither and die. We've been assuming this process is the way we are going for most of this thread, but it's certainly open to debate It seems to solve the "how to govern <NAME>" issue, as no central government is needed. It governs itself with the system built in at the beginning, by us