[plasmid]

I'm curious about non-theist opinions on this matter, but theists are of course invited to participate and provide illumination as well. The almost universal development of religion in some form or other across many different cultures seems to indicate that there is a deep underlying drive to have some sort of religious experience which is embedded in many (if not to some degree all) humans. I doubt that it's purely due to primitive attempts to understand the universe before the development of science -- even with modern science and state endorsement of atheism, the Soviet Union still had plenty of believers. If religion as we know it were wiped from the face of the earth, it seems likely that it would simply resprout in some new form.

If this is the case (which is certainly open to argument) then would it not be in our best interest to fill this illogical but evident need with a religion that is as benign and perhaps even beneficial as possible? Most mainstream religions at least preach to love thy neighbor and straighten up and fly right and all that, whether or not it's actually put into practice. Christianity may stand to be improved regarding its opposition to stem cell research and discrimination against homosexuals to name a few issues. However, it was previously opposed to a non-geocentric solar system and abolition of slavery (in areas where it was profitable) and has since mended its ways, not without cost in the meantime, but the point is that it's adaptable.

Is it better to have such a mainstream religion fill the void of the masses who apparently can't do without it, or attempt to eliminate all but reason and leave open the chance for something much more uncontrolled and potentially malignant to take root in the open void (militant jihadists, or another Jonestown)? If something must fill the void but not any currently existing religion, would it be possible to design something better, bearing in mind that you have control only over the text of the holy doctrine but not people's interpretation and implementation of it, and that it must have enough of this intangible spiritualistic property that people crave in order to persist?

And the ultimate question: could you craft a doctrine to fill this need in such a way that its propagation would have an overall positive effect on humanity, and be so convinced in its potential that you would put forth whatever effort and resources were required to make it a reality? I have no intention of converting any nonbelievers into messiahs, I'm just curious what people think. Seeing as how we're on BrainDen, you can consider this a practical riddle.

Edited April 20, 2009 by plasmid

[unreality]

if we do choose Phronism, here's a possible logo:

edit: dang the left and right margins are supposed to be white, not sure why they're black

Edited May 13, 2009 by unreality

[Guest]

Connect with The Essence!

Feel Its Power, Brothers and Sisters!

Let me hear you sing:

Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound

That saved a wretch like me

I once was lost, but now I'm Phronned

Was blind, but now I see.

Halelujah, brothers and Sisters; Amen.

wait, what? No! No it doesn't. No "gateways to spiritual realms" are opened by the Essence, literally nor figuratively nor metaphorically. There are no spiritual realms in <NAME>

I remain unconvinced. To quote the OP: "...bearing in mind that you have control only over the text of the holy doctrine but not people's interpretation and implementation of it ..."

Then we read in the current version of the Holy Doctrine: "The Essence that permeates all things has subtle yet profound effects that shall not herein be fully explained". (That wording needs work - put it in terms of a positive. "Humanity struggles to fulfill our potential as it emanates from the Essence, but much remains to be learned and understood: Connecting with the Essence is an endless quest to part the veil of the unknown through reason and sober study.")

Finally we find the core doctrine specifically saying: "inexistence of god(s) but rather an omnipresent universal current, purposely vague, called the essence.

Without some further retooling of the doctrine, I see wide open, gaping gateways to spiritual realms here.

The obvious dilemma is to define the Essence in a satisfying, fulfilling way, attractive to potential converts, yet to leave the definition vague enough to avoid compromising the sensibilities of the non-believer atheists, and, add to this,, if it really is the consensus of the four posters who are largely shaping this religion, to also close the door on all spiritual connection, practice and pursuit.

What is religion without spirituality? The deniers of spirit parse the terms spirit and spirituality. Spirituality, to them, is brain cells firing (in response to a stimulus, real or imagined). If the imagined stimulus is the Essence, where do you go to explain to the believer that it's all just in their head? And do you really want to go there?

Now, if I get to form a denomination ...

[plasmid]

I had probably been the one most inclined to go ahead and include a God or at least the potential for there to be a God, mostly because I also thought that it was an important part of defining a religion and one of the biggest things that the faithful are looking for, and also because I didn't think it's really all that bad. But now I don't think that a God per se is really such an important factor in having someone adhere to a religion as I originally thought – I now suspect that culture & traditions, interacting with others in a community setting ("fitting into a group" sort of stuff), teaching basic morality, and to some degree spiritual ideas (with or without a God) are really the meat of it, and if it's not necessary to include a God then it's something we might as well avoid. We can go ahead and let people preserve the rest. I might be completely wrong in my assessment, though: I'm hardly qualified to give an expert opinion on motivations for belief. It might also vary quite a bit from place to place depending on the local culture.

As far as winning over converts, yes it would definitely be easiest if we were to just be completely liberal about it and say that anyone in religion X could become a Phronist by adding the Phronist doctrine and some stuff about the Essence onto a base of religion X, basically creating a sub-denomination within each of the major religions: there'd be Phronist Christians, Phronist Jews, etc. who don't even have to forsake their ties to their old faith because they're still in it. But then being a Phronist wouldn't change the influence that these Gods have over their thoughts and perceptions about right and wrong; there would still be Phronist Christians who don't want to have evolution taught because it conflicts with their view of God's role in creation, and Phronist Jews and Phronist Muslims fighting over land that was granted to them by their respective Gods. Granted, allowing people to keep many of their customs and traditions would also delay progress on Middle East peace and acceptance of homosexuals, but at least with Gods out of the picture there would be a better chance of resolution. (Maybe the Middle East would go from what it is now to what America was after the end of slavery. Still not pretty, but better.) As for allowing members to join first and eventually wean themselves from their old God later: My suspicion is that if anyone would agree to go onto a path that they know is ultimately targeted at eliminating their God, they might as well just get rid of the God now.

Then we read in the current version of the Holy Doctrine: "The Essence that permeates all things has subtle yet profound effects that shall not herein be fully explained". (That wording needs work - put it in terms of a positive. "Humanity struggles to fulfill our potential as it emanates from the Essence, but much remains to be learned and understood: Connecting with the Essence is an endless quest to part the veil of the unknown through reason and sober study.")

Yeah, that does sound way better. I say we go with that.

Finally we find the core doctrine specifically saying: "inexistence of god(s) but rather an omnipresent universal current, purposely vague, called the essence.

Without some further retooling of the doctrine, I see wide open, gaping gateways to spiritual realms here.

The obvious dilemma is to define the Essence in a satisfying, fulfilling way, attractive to potential converts, yet to leave the definition vague enough to avoid compromising the sensibilities of the non-believer atheists, and, add to this,, if it really is the consensus of the four posters who are largely shaping this religion, to also close the door on all spiritual connection, practice and pursuit.

You hit on the point I was dancing around when I wondered how the Essence could have made itself manifest to anyone in the first place. If we have an Essence that intervenes in our world to make itself evident, then how is that any different from having an interventionalist God? And if the Essence didn't reveal itself but was "discovered" somehow, then what's the evidence for it? Or do we just present the Essence like string theory: it's a hypothesis (using the term quite loosely because it's not provable or disprovable) that's possible and that you can choose to follow if you wish? Hardly seems like anyone would want to join if we took that last route. Would it be possible to make the religion by just saying that the Essence does exist, just kind of like a fact taken for granted without bothering to explain how we know that it does?

But to get back to your point, I don't see too much problem with letting people explore those spiritual realms to the degree that they don't conflict with science or lead to dangerous prejudices or do any other foul things. In fact, I had thought that presenting the Essence so vaguely would actually reduce the potential for misuse. Denominations are free to propose belief systems for their members to follow, but everyone in Phronism knows that these aren't set in stone in sacred documents and should be questioned if they lead to conclusions that seem to defy science or common sense. I wouldn't mind spirituality as long as outsiders are able to keep an eye on it and blow a whistle if it steps out of bounds, but I'd like to see what everyone else thinks too.

If we're going to honor non-believers of the a-theist sort, then we at least need to afford a basic respect to all non-believers - acknowledging the personal worth of individuals who are non-believers of the theist bent as well. Not to do so would seem hypocritical.

Seeksit makes a very good point. Until now, I've been saying that the followers need to respect the advice of non-believers, but beware of believers in other religions because they're subject to the whims of an imagined deity. That was actually a serious mistake which I could justifiably be called quite a bigot for making: just because someone believes in God doesn't mean they can't make a rational argument. It should be changed to say to ignore arguments that are guided by belief in deities that are figments of imagination.

Now, if I get to form a denomination ...

Do you have something in mind? Fire away!

edit: funds will be necessary of course. I'm thinking door-to-door soliciting. Does anyone know where Richard Dawkins lives?

ARGH! Reminding me of the days of being a wee little Jehovah's Witness. Bleargh.

Edited May 14, 2009 by plasmid

[Guest]

wait, what? No! No it doesn't. No "gateways to spiritual realms" are opened by the Essence, literally nor figuratively nor metaphorically. There are no spiritual realms in <NAME>

yes, we've deeply considered the idea of "conversion via subtle takeover" - that is, to adopt pagan rituals. We've made some adjustments and had some ideas about how to hijack current faiths and customs, but a few pages back I think we decided to NOT waver on one of our main points - the absence of gods. We have a bunch of bullet-pointed idealisms that <NAME> is sticking to, the points that it's founded on. Those won't waver and differ just because we need more members... we've got lots of mechanisms to get new members and hijack existing religions, I think plasmid has come up with the most good points and ideas in that area... but look back to the list octopuppy and me were creating. Those are our basic foci that make <NAME> different from the other religions, and those are foci that we're not compromising on ;D

This is exactly why I suggested the idea of "The Potential". A wonderfully ambiguous way of saying that "While <Name> does not explicitly acknowledge the existence of ghosts, leprechauns, gods, heaven, hell, reincarnation, etc., the nature of The Potential is thus that we can not discount their, admittedly unlikely, possibility."

Early on in this discussion it was said that if any version of God were to suddenly show him/herself to the world, <Name> would of course be inclined to change it's views, as there would be then be incontrovertible proof. You can't have it both ways. Saying there is no possibility that God actually exists is the same as saying the world is flat. That inflexibility is exactly what I thought we were avoiding.

[Guest]

I'm inclined to agree with Grayven. I think the official <NAME> position on the existence of gods should be that we'll believe in them if and when they give us some reason to. We are seekers after truth and therefore will not discount any possibility. But we should also be clear that no known plausible reason exists to date.

You hit on the point I was dancing around when I wondered how the Essence could have made itself manifest to anyone in the first place.

Other religions have generally relied on miracles or other such stunts to justify belief. Even a personal feat such as meditation for a very long period (ending in a revelatory state of mind where other people would have to take your word for things) might do the trick to some extent. Currently we lack any such justification, and it is a problem we must address. We are not making any major assertions so a full-on miracle is not required, but we need to engineer some suitable impressive start to the religion so that people will consider it authoritative. Belief based on authority is something we should denounce, but it helps if you have someone authoritative to denounce it. We probably need to recruit some ostensibly very wise people to put the religion forward (and give their input of course). We can present it as the result of a lot of thinking, discussing, and self-examination, which if the people involved are suitably impressive, may be enough. The next step will be to get some celebrities on board, which is where a cool symbol comes in handy (maybe something that will translate into a hand sign or other gesture, which can then be offered up to the paparazzi*). By that point we've got it made. Of course viral marketing should run in parallel.

*Hey, I've thought up a hand gesture to indicate "the middle way"!

If we have an Essence that intervenes in our world to make itself evident, then how is that any different from having an interventionalist God? And if the Essence didn't reveal itself but was "discovered" somehow, then what's the evidence for it? Or do we just present the Essence like string theory: it's a hypothesis (using the term quite loosely because it's not provable or disprovable) that's possible and that you can choose to follow if you wish? Hardly seems like anyone would want to join if we took that last route. Would it be possible to make the religion by just saying that the Essence does exist, just kind of like a fact taken for granted without bothering to explain how we know that it does?

I think the position regarding the Essence (for those that want to look into it) should be that it is a name for spiritual truth in whatever form that may exist. We do not presuppose that it exists in a strict sense, it may be simply a name for macro-effects that we observe, but even if that is the case it is a thing worthy of contemplation. Our minds are things which may exist only in a vague sense, but so what? There are some matters in life where science and rigorous proof are simply not the right tools for the job. So we rely on introspection, meditation and experience to give us the answers. <NAME> is not here to make unsupported assertions, rather to guide us in life. So everything that we say about the Essence should be taken as an approach to living rather than a scientific hypothesis. Or to put it another way, we advocate respect for truth and reason but followers of <NAME> are not generally seekers of truth, just ordinary people looking for a framework to put their lives into. <NAME> is fundamentally different from atheism because its focus is on the spiritual aspects of living, in some ways it is closer to Buddhism and I think some crossover with Buddhism may be possible. <NAME> has a structure and modernity that differs from Buddhism but there is enough common ground that we could probably coexist in a mutually beneficial way.

[Guest]

You hit on the point I was dancing around when I wondered how the Essence could have made itself manifest to anyone in the first place. If we have an Essence that intervenes in our world to make itself evident, then how is that any different from having an interventionalist God? And if the Essence didn't reveal itself but was "discovered" somehow, then what's the evidence for it?

Science has a habit of raising more questions every time it "discovers" something. The basis of the Essence ought to be that it is that next question lurking behind the newest answer. If the unknown is effectively infinite, then the Essence will be a useful construct for a very long time. If there is an interventionist nature of the Essence, it is not understood. So it, too, must be discovered, explained, and will, more likely than not, raise a new set of even deeper, more profound and mysterious questions.

I think your question was posed from a tacit point of view of "If we are going to provide the masses with this Essence that we don't personally believe exists, then how do we explain its presence." For forty years I wandered in that wilderness. Then I realized that you can answer a lot of these questions more efficiently by throwing away the stodgy, inflexible premise that nothing has concrete value unless it is fully explained rationally. So when I respond to your questions about the Essence, I am operating from the (liberating) position that it actually does exist.

I don't see too much problem with letting people explore those spiritual realms to the degree that they don't conflict with science or lead to dangerous prejudices or do any other foul things. In fact, I had thought that presenting the Essence so vaguely would actually reduce the potential for misuse.

Wouldn't it also reduce the potential to do any good? I feel that religion is fundamentally a good thing, but with a huge potential for going very, very bad when it does go bad. This is because there are plenty of people who never question their world. They have other priorities. They latch on to the "going" religion of their culture and move on to other things. So they are vulnerable to being led astray. But discarding religion to avoid the greedy and/or power hungry exploiters of religion seems to me to be "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". If phronesis is to be a tenet, if not a name for <THAT WHICH CANNOT BE NAMED, as hard as we try>, then common sense and reason as the over-riding directive ought to help restrict the abuse. The Holy Doctrine needs to be heavy on the "use your own judgement", "principled search for truth" and "don't follow <NAME> blindly" types of edicts.

As an interesting aside, I was thinking about the condemnation of homosexuality by Christianity. There actually is some (albeit misguided) rational basis there. Evolution will never favor majority homosexuality for obvious reasons. But if you don't believe in evolution, you might worry about humans going extinct if you don't suppress homosexuality.

Do you have something in mind? Fire away!

Well, I've been primarily a spectator and question asker here. But I really love this topic and the views it is eliciting from all those posting here.

I've been designing my own (intitially fictional) religion/spirituality for a book about the very distant future that I'm writing. What started out as an exercise in character development has gone far beyond, as I've found personal relevance and great depth to the ideas as they developed. So here's a quick flavor of it:

The Essence is "The Word" as mentioned in my sig (also called Logos in ancient Greece). The Essence is transmitted to our universe from beyond the "veil" or information barrier of the big bang. Just as DNA is not our identity, but a design forged by the collective experience of our ancestors back to the primordial soup, the Essece is the design of our universe - its "DNA" determined the laws and constants of physics, allowing life to develop and flourish in this universe. Before our universe dissipates ("Heaven's fading") the "DNA" will be passed on to future child-universes (through any number of physically possible mechanisms, some involving black holes, others involving quantum tunneling, etc.).

So the universe is just one big, very slowly "living" single celled creature competing for "futures"--places in the multiverse. Now, how do we humans fit in? Well, what if (just suppose) conscious thought is the currency (the Essence or current) by which the universe finds its successful path (its means of survival or thriving)? Yes, this would mean that we and the universe are mutually dependent in a reciprocal "agreement". Our collective thought (prayer) is the universe's "god" and its "Word" is our "God". In this scenario our thoughts inevitably echo "The Word", reverberations from our ancestral design beyond the observable, knowable realm of this universe. Our will to live could be symbiotic with the very slow process of growth and evolution of our entire universe. What if we therefore help design the future universes (where replicas of ourselves may have a better life than we do) in the process of living our lives by following the "noble course" as opposed to a lesser, selfish one (or some such moral code)? We collectively bequeath to a future universe a better "Word" than our own universe was born with.

(All ideas copyright 2009 by Seeksit, founder of the First Phronist Rendezvous with the Essence)

I'm being deliberately vague to allow for scenarios far beyond the explicit one I've chosen to explore in my book; and that vagueness is what can allow denominations to branch out.

[Guest]

I agree with Octopuppy and Seeksit.

Given a lack of purely scientific evidence in the area, we took a look at the myriad teachings and plethora of existing ideas dealing with human spirituality. Examining concepts and ideals that are common to all major religious doctrine ("Do unto others", for example) our "Most Exalted Think Tank" (We need to recruit some heavy hitters in the brains area for credibility. What's Steven Hawking up to?) has found a common thread. This underlying driving force for Humanity's spiritual pursuits, we call The Essence

Basically, we tell the truth. Religion in its current state is imperfect and paradoxical. It's not the fault of past philosophers, as they merely interpreted an unknown with a far more limited set of tools than we have now. It is exactly that realization that forces us to leave the option for change open to future generations. Just look at all of the science of the past century alone and how far it has brought our understanding of the universe compared to the millennia that came before. It would be arrogant and irrational to say that our current level of understanding is any less fragile.

I agree with most of what Seeksit said, but any use of the phrase "The Word" would be folly in my opinion. I'm sure you're just using the example from your own work, but that specific term is already a mainstay of the Christian faith. The concept is fine, but the name would need to be changed. That probably all didn't need to be said, as I reread your post, actually.

________

My approach to this little project has been from a marketing point of view, as that is my greatest applicable aptitude. We have determined the core demographic to be followers of existing religions. Decisions on how <Name> should look and feel, it's "market presence" if you will, ultimately must take that demographic into consideration. I think we can do that fairly easily while still staying true to our Core doctrine.

It's all a matter of spin. We're not saying there isn't a God, just that it is an unprovable theory with our current tools. So if someone feels more comfortable looking at The Essence as an intelligent meddling force, then that's OK as long as it is a choice on a personal level only. Admit it, the Essence could be a very tough concept for a Catholic, for instance. It's better to let each convert view the Essence with whichever paradigm makes them the most comfortable, isn't it? I do, however, agree that we shouldn't let any denom adopt a view more specific than The Essence as described in the Core. I think that this is what unreality was getting at?

In fact, I think we need to openly support an individual's conceptualization of the vagueness that we are setting forth with the understanding that personal exploration and questioning of that ideal is paramount. If, after their own knowledge quest, they still want to cling to a notion of said deity, it is within their rights to do so.

After all, this is supposed to be a religion of reason and understanding. Is it at all reasonable to absolutely deny that God could exist? In fact, it's quite an irrational position. That denial would be the start of exactly what makes organized religion so unpalatable to so many of us. Can we have any philosophical absolutes and still call ourselves rational? I don't think so.

My idea of breaking up The Essence into subcategories of The Actual and The Potential further helps us to maintain our Core doctrine while remaining flexible. The Actual is that small amount of what we understand about The Essence, which is infinite. The Potential is also infinite, and is The Essence less The Actual. The Potential can never be known, as that would automatically make it part of The Actual. The Actual cannot be absolute, as the Potential is limitless. Etc.

Heck, some people have even been able to brief bits of The Potential. We call them prophecies. These glimpses were interpreted within the confines of the era they occurred, so their accuracy is inherently suspect at best. Unfortunately the source material was subjective, so we can only attempt to reinterpret an already flawed interpretation.

Wow, that was quite a post. I'm sure I rambled a bit, but I will gladly clarify anything you might find interesting or useful.

[Guest]

*Hey, I've thought up a hand gesture to indicate "the middle way"!

Classic...

On the subject, how about a question mark with an equal sign through it? Simple, vague, with a sort of "What is?" feel to it? It's not perfect, but I believe it's the sort of direction we should be headed.

Unreality's bottle is cool, but doesn't cut it as a religious symbol. One key thing I noticed about religious symbols is that they are inherently easy to doodle. I know it sounds silly, but think about it for a minute and it starts to make sense. The masses will have a difficult time even wrapping their heads around the concept, let alone being able to draw that bottle.

Just take a look at some of these. All of those are easily marketable. Each one represents a specific important aspect of it's religion. It's a logo, pure and simple. Think Nike Swoosh, and you're on your way.

[unreality]

yes, by "no gods" I wasn't trying that say that gods for sure don't exist - I meant that we're not going to say anything about them in our core doctrine. Like Grayven said, that can be a personal interpretation if someone wishes - he also read my mind in that any single denom shouldn't adopt an Essence=God view either.

So, to sum up our position on the Paranatural (from gods to goblins), we can say that they are part of the Potential, but not yet the Actual as we don't have any reason to believe in them. But the option is open, and a personal journey into the Potential to harmonize with something (such as a god) is inherently a part of <NAME>'s flexibility

Btw, I still pronounce "Phronist" and "Phronism" with a "froan" cuz that sounds waaay cooler than "fronn" ;D

and Grayven is right about the Klein bottle - that could be a denom image, or something. We need a simpler drawing that can be done black on white.

Why don't we go as simple as they get?

The Essence is infinite. So is the Symbol.

The Essence is a current, a loop; it flows. So is/does the Symbol.

The Essence is simple yet inherently chaotic... as represented by the Symbol...

also I assume we're going with my Councilday idea?

[edit - typo]

Edited May 14, 2009 by unreality

[Guest]

I've decided to attack this from the other end and see what kind of hand signal we might use. Remember we want something not directly related to the religion but related to the concepts that underpin it. The sign language for a letter "E" (for Essence) is like a fist (only can be pulled out more like a tiger claw), raised with fingers facing out. I think that's a pretty good sign and the association with a tiger claw works too. It could indicate power and get-up-and-go ("Way to go tiger! What an essential move!"). The word "essential" is also a good meme to promote in that context, meaning anything which is "of the Essence".

I've tried to turn the gesture into a symbol but I'm not happy with the graphic:

but I thought I'd post it in case it gave somebody an idea. If we can tie in the gesture with a logo that would be good.

[Guest]

I've decided to attack this from the other end and see what kind of hand signal we might use. Remember we want something not directly related to the religion but related to the concepts that underpin it. The sign language for a letter "E" (for Essence) is like a fist (only can be pulled out more like a tiger claw), raised with fingers facing out. I think that's a pretty good sign and the association with a tiger claw works too. It could indicate power and get-up-and-go ("Way to go tiger! What an essential move!"). The word "essential" is also a good meme to promote in that context, meaning anything which is "of the Essence".

I've tried to turn the gesture into a symbol but I'm not happy with the graphic:

but I thought I'd post it in case it gave somebody an idea. If we can tie in the gesture with a logo that would be good.

I know we're brainstorming, and I hate to shoot down an idea early, but I tried your hand gesture, and after a long day of typing, it is definitely uncomfortable, to say the least. I don't imagine someone with arthritis could do it. Also, the imagery is similar to the black power fist, which isn't a bad thing, just something that has been done. More importantly, that gesture is a mere extension of the digits of being a Nazi salute. As for your symbol picture, I agree. Looks a bit like an ultrasound doesn't it?

Hand gestures are also often related to gangs, at least here in the US. We need to be careful not to adopt a sign of some existing gang without knowing it. That could be a deal breaker all by itself.

I like the concept, I'm just having trouble with the implementation. The idea of a hand gesture to match whichever symbol we use is good marketing, but not if we accidentally associate ourselves with a terribly non <Name> organization in the process. Too bad the peace symbol is taken, eh?

A quick look at existing symbols shows us a common thread. There is a significant turning point or story that is represented by a simple and usually geometric based shape. Jesus died on the cross for the Christians. The Star(or shield) of David is a reference to God directly protecting King David in a battle, and the rest of the Jews by proxy. (interestingly, the menorah was the original symbol of the Jewish faith, but the Star of David was adopted later. One has to admit, it's a much better logo. Was the success and simplicity of the Christian Cross the inspiration?)

In both cases, it's a symbol of how the religion will take care of you. They say "This is what <religion> did/will do for you if you become a member." That's marketing at it's finest folks. And it's no accident.

On a side note: I understand that within this thread we're using the word "denom" as an abbreviation for denomination. I just wanted to point out that at a glance it could easily been misconstrued as "demon" by the casual reader. Just something to think about.

[unreality]

on the topic of denomination (which I've been shortening to denom), I've been thinking that the name is bad for reasons Grayven said, and just because it's too long. If we're going for ease of transition, I say we drop the longer more complicated names (rendezvous, denomination, etc) and make up our better versions (that's why I like the name Phronism so much for the religion... see my post with the infinity logos in it)... did we decide on "phronastary" or something for the churches if we adapt Phronism as the name for <NAME>?

well I think that might be too long as well. Maybe phronestaries can be the special monk places for the more meditative Phronists, but maybe each denomination (coming to that) should decide how to best call itself? From "Church" to "Shrine" to "Club" to "Phronestary" to "Phrome Sweet Phrome" to "Gallery", maybe the meeting system should be left open to the denoms... we don't want to impose a central system about that I think. This is one of those things that changes with the times, so that means it's in the denom side of government and not governed from the central core doctrine. But one rule we should have in the central is that ANYONE may seek refuge/embrace the essence/etc in ANY phronism meeting place, regardless of what denomination they belong to (if any). Obviously most denoms would want that, cuz they want more members, but we need to be sure on that. No discrimination, excommunication, etc between denoms - we want to keep inter-denominational quabbling to a minimum. No drama, no hostilities

on that note, what should we call "denominations"? Keep it as denoms? Or change it to "sects" or "groups" or "clusters" or something?

edit: "Essence streams" sounds very romantic and relevant. The official name for a sub-denomination of Phronism could be "Essence Stream", shortened to "Stream" or something. We could toss in a nice parable (or edit existing ones) saying how we are part of much more complex "streams" that comprise the Essence

Edited May 14, 2009 by unreality

[Guest]

Obviously most denoms would want that, cuz they want more members..

Why exactly? What benefit does having more members give? I would think any kind of competitiveness like that would lead to corruption for sure. :shrug

on that note, what should we call "denominations"? Keep it as denoms? Or change it to "sects" or "groups" or "clusters" or something?

edit: "Essence streams" sounds very romantic and relevant. The official name for a sub-denomination of Phronism could be "Essence Stream", shortened to "Stream" or something. We could toss in a nice parable (or edit existing ones) saying how we are part of much more complex "streams" that comprise the Essence

Clusters sounds rather like a terrorist cell or something to me, but I'm not sure why. Groups is too vanilla. I really like Streams, as long as it's consistent with whatever picture of The Essence we settle on.

[unreality]

Why exactly? What benefit does having more members give? I would think any kind of competitiveness like that would lead to corruption for sure.

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

[plasmid]

Regarding the origins of Phronism, I had forgotten something very important: if we present the story of the religion in the form of a documentary, then we don't really need to explain the origins at all. If we're telling a story, we can just have the messiah walk onto the scene and start preaching. The universe works the way it does because, well, it just does in the story that we're telling. People are quite used to jumping into a sci-fi story and just kind of figuring out what the rules are as it goes along. That would go double if we use the movie format instead of the stuffy old book format. No need to get into the origins if we don't want to.

Early on in this discussion it was said that if any version of God were to suddenly show him/herself to the world, <Name> would of course be inclined to change it's views, as there would be then be incontrovertible proof. You can't have it both ways. Saying there is no possibility that God actually exists is the same as saying the world is flat. That inflexibility is exactly what I thought we were avoiding.

I'm tempted to say "There's no point in designing Phronism such that it can adapt to the existence of a God. If God were to reveal himself, then He would give the definitive word on religion and that would be the end of it." But there's the slim possibility that some quantum physicist might prove that a God must have existed to observe the big bang or something without revealing anything about him, so I guess we need to make it adaptable to that.

The Essence is "The Word" as mentioned in my sig (also called Logos in ancient Greece). The Essence is transmitted to our universe from beyond the "veil" or information barrier of the big bang. Just as DNA is not our identity, but a design forged by the collective experience of our ancestors back to the primordial soup, the Essece is the design of our universe - its "DNA" determined the laws and constants of physics, allowing life to develop and flourish in this universe. Before our universe dissipates ("Heaven's fading") the "DNA" will be passed on to future child-universes (through any number of physically possible mechanisms, some involving black holes, others involving quantum tunneling, etc.).

So the universe is just one big, very slowly "living" single celled creature competing for "futures"--places in the multiverse. Now, how do we humans fit in? Well, what if (just suppose) conscious thought is the currency (the Essence or current) by which the universe finds its successful path (its means of survival or thriving)? Yes, this would mean that we and the universe are mutually dependent in a reciprocal "agreement". Our collective thought (prayer) is the universe's "god" and its "Word" is our "God". In this scenario our thoughts inevitably echo "The Word", reverberations from our ancestral design beyond the observable, knowable realm of this universe. Our will to live could be symbiotic with the very slow process of growth and evolution of our entire universe. What if we therefore help design the future universes (where replicas of ourselves may have a better life than we do) in the process of living our lives by following the "noble course" as opposed to a lesser, selfish one (or some such moral code)? We collectively bequeath to a future universe a better "Word" than our own universe was born with.

You're just trying to get on my good side by calling it DNA, aren't you? But that seems quite consistent with the Phronist doctrine we have so far, I think that it very well could be the basis of a denomination.

This brings up a question we haven't really addressed. We've had the idea that there would be a core doctrine that each of the denominations would build on, but we've never really set ground rules on what sorts of things the denoms can and can't do. Certainly holding ceremonies and singing hymns and debating moral issues of the day to decide what constitutes moral behavior is fine, and declaring that there is an omnipotent and rather grumpy God that granted you divine right to occupy someone else's land would be more problematic. Preaching morality is important and should definitely be done, but unless it's done carefully it could demonize people who don't share your views, and such distrust if not outright hatred of outsiders seems to be one of the worst consequences of religion. Where's a good place to draw a line for the denoms and say not to cross it? Certainly some things will be judgment calls that will just need to be made on a case-by-case basis, but what are some good rules of thumb on what's appropriate and what isn't?

also I assume we're going with my Councilday idea?

I think Council Days would be a good idea. I don't know what kind of voting cutoffs we should use to do things like change core doctrine or dissolve a denom though.

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

Oh, yeah, we had been debating a while ago about how memetic selection probably wouldn't end up selecting for the desired attributes if we just let it run on its own. After all, that's been going on for the past few thousand years and has produced what we have now. The best I could come up with was trying to include instructions in a parable to the effect of "pick the denominations that drive you to perform great things". But then that parable got axed. I'd ideally like to find a better solution to drive selection anyway, but haven't been able to come up with one.

And finally, as far as a logo, do you mean something sort of simple yet vague and wildly interpretable sort of like this thing that looks sort of like a nose and eyes, and sort of like an angel dress with outstretched wings, and sort of like candles, or will we be going for something that's more readily interpretable?

[Guest]

Best symbol to date IMO but I still don't think it captures the unique qualities of <NAME> so I'll keep trying to do better

also I assume we're going with my Councilday idea?

I'm a little concerned at the whole Council idea. It seems to serve two purposes. One is to maintain cohesion within such an inherently diverse religion, but that's of questionable value.

The second and probably the main justification for the council is to correct glaring faults within the core doctrine. However, we must bear in mind that even if such glaring faults do come to light, the chances of reaching a 95% consensus of opinion on changing it are slight. My feeling is that blind conservatism will probably carry at least 10% of the vote even when something is obviously wrong. If future knowledge or morality develops in such a way as to reveal a flaw in the religion, this will result in a loss of following, and I don't think Councilday will succeed in preventing that. Perhaps it is more useful to accept the risk. We should do our best to build the core doctrine without flaws, but also try to build an element of failure management into it so that if it ever did become unworkable followers might recognise it as such and abandon <NAME>.

Not wishing to completely knock the Councilday idea on the head, it might be a good safety measure, but I suggest we make it as low-key as possible as this is not a centralised religion.

[Guest]

I know we're brainstorming, and I hate to shoot down an idea early...As for your symbol picture... Looks a bit like an ultrasound doesn't it?

Fire away. Actually I was in 2 minds about whether to put a smiley face on the top bit of the symbol . I agree that the tiger claw might not be the best idea, though your comparisons with the Nazi salute or black power fist suggest that you envisage it being used in a different context. I had in mind something much more casual, an addition to gestures like thumbs-up or shaka (think of doing it with a playful tiger swipe and a little snarl). My main concern is that it might seem a little bit cheesy, but you never know how you can change perceptions with these things. Today's cheese may be tomorrow's nicely matured cheese.

The idea of a hand gesture to match whichever symbol we use is good marketing, but not if we accidentally associate ourselves with a terribly non <Name> organization in the process. Too bad the peace symbol is taken, eh?

In principle we could hijack existing memes, it's not unusual to do that (here's a good list of gestures - who knew that the "live long and prosper" sign was copied from a Jewish blessing?) Though we'd be biting off more than we could chew with the peace sign. Still, we've only got 5 fingers so the possibilities are limited. I'm not overly concerned about similarity with a gang sign, there's so many of them it can't be avoided, they probably change over time and have limited scope for impacting on us. Bear in mind also that the hand sign and accompanying symbol are not intended to directly represent <NAME>, or suggest membership. Rather I am trying to come up with a meme that will push <NAME> concepts into the popular consciousness. The best we can do is try to make sure we don't use a gesture which means "up yours" to an entire continent of people.

[Cross and Star of David] In both cases, it's a symbol of how the religion will take care of you.

Very good point. I think the Star of David is tops for sheer doodlability, but you got to hand it to the Christians for having the simplest logo ever. And both signifying benefits of the religion and unique identifying features of it. Just goes to show that making a religion work involves a lot of things being extremely well done.

[Guest]

Regarding the origins of Phronism, I had forgotten something very important: if we present the story of the religion in the form of a documentary, then we don't really need to explain the origins at all...People are quite used to jumping into a sci-fi story and just kind of figuring out what the rules are as it goes along... No need to get into the origins if we don't want to.

We'll have to play that game to some extent, but it's an exercise in avoiding the question and will only get us so far. I don't think we can fully escape the need to explain where Phronism comes from.

I'm tempted to say "There's no point in designing Phronism such that it can adapt to the existence of a God. If God were to reveal himself, then He would give the definitive word on religion and that would be the end of it." But there's the slim possibility that some quantum physicist might prove that a God must have existed to observe the big bang or something without revealing anything about him, so I guess we need to make it adaptable to that.

More to the point, I think we've pared down <NAME> to the point where it's something we can support without an element of deception. So this is just as much about sincerity and holding true to what we believe now. Making unfounded assertions (even of the non-existence of gods) isn't a part of that.

Preaching morality is important and should definitely be done, but unless it's done carefully it could demonize people who don't share your views, and such distrust if not outright hatred of outsiders seems to be one of the worst consequences of religion. Where's a good place to draw a line for the denoms and say not to cross it? Certainly some things will be judgment calls that will just need to be made on a case-by-case basis, but what are some good rules of thumb on what's appropriate and what isn't?

A lot more work is needed on the core doctrine for this, and I think we need to elicit opinions from outside this tight little circle. But I would be inclined to put principles of rationality and reason foremost, and warn against the unwise nature of superstitious behaviour and intrinsic ludicrousness of supernatural beliefs like gods. Which would tend to rule out prayer and arbitrary beliefs such as that put forward by seeksit (which seemed to be more to do with something he was writing as fiction anyway). I think we should also state that morality is to some extent a matter of opinion, and therefore we should not judge those who see it differently. No denomination should consider their views to be unquestionable, and all members are obliged to consider other viewpoints including other denominational viewpoints.

Oh, yeah, we had been debating a while ago about how memetic selection probably wouldn't end up selecting for the desired attributes if we just let it run on its own. After all, that's been going on for the past few thousand years and has produced what we have now. The best I could come up with was trying to include instructions in a parable to the effect of "pick the denominations that drive you to perform great things". But then that parable got axed. I'd ideally like to find a better solution to drive selection anyway, but haven't been able to come up with one.

No selection process can be expected to produce anything other than denominations better equipped to survive and recruit. But the core doctrine gives us control over what that means. The core doctrine is where we define what is good, and what is desirable. We'd better get it right, but at least I'm sure we can improve over the competition.

Nyyyaargh!!!

flashback! Noseybonk is our Satan and this is his symbol. If you do not accept the way of the Essence, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ebqtTvGEog...

[Guest]

And finally, as far as a logo, do you mean something sort of simple yet vague and wildly interpretable sort of like this thing that looks sort of like a nose and eyes, and sort of like an angel dress with outstretched wings, and sort of like candles, or will we be going for something that's more readily interpretable?

That's exactly what I was getting at. This one also has a vague female reproductive organ thing going on. (aka Mother Nature) That's always been strong symbolism for nature, life, wisdom, etc. in many cultures. Did you make this one up, or did you find it somewhere?

[Guest]

I think you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned the connection with how the religion will take care of you.

Let's identify the key personal benefits of <NAME> (in relation to other religions)

The Essence gives you power and energy, enabling you to take control of your destiny. No longer are you obliged to kneel before authority.

Freedom from fear and stupid dogma that holds you back, distorts your rationality, controls and oppresses you.

Enables you to use your intelligence, and question things.

It's contemporary, merging spiritualism with realism.

Feel the connection with all your fellow human beings in a religion that promotes peace.

[edit] It provides guidance for rational, moral, wise decision making

I've bolded a few key words. I'd be very grateful if someone would add to the list. These are the things we should consider for our symbols. Personally I think freedom is probably the key selling point as it is the oppressive controlling religions that we most want to subvert.

A dolphin embodies quite a few of those characteristics. A bit cheesy and new-age, but what can you do?

[Guest]

I think you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned the connection with how the religion will take care of you.

Let's identify the key personal benefits of <NAME> (in relation to other religions)

The Essence gives you power and energy, enabling you to take control of your destiny. No longer are you obliged to kneel before authority.

Freedom from fear and stupid dogma that holds you back, distorts your rationality, controls and oppresses you.

Enables you to use your intelligence, and question things.

It's contemporary, merging spiritualism with realism.

Feel the connection with all your fellow human beings in a religion that promotes peace.

I've bolded a few key words. I'd be very grateful if someone would add to the list. These are the things we should consider for our symbols. Personally I think freedom is probably the key selling point as it is the oppressive controlling religions that we most want to subvert.

A dolphin embodies quite a few of those characteristics. A bit cheesy and new-age, but what can you do?

What about simplified compass rose? No actual directions on it, just enough to make it recognizable as such? <Name> serves as a guide to understanding the Essence without specific limits to personal liberty?

[unreality]

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

[plasmid]

have we decided on that name? And is it "froan" [as I think it should be] or "fronn" [which sounds weird ;D]?

I still gotta say that I don't like a name that sounds so close to Phony. If that's how it's pronounced, I'd lean toward Harmonism or Eucredism.

That's exactly what I was getting at. This one also has a vague female reproductive organ thing going on. (aka Mother Nature) That's always been strong symbolism for nature, life, wisdom, etc. in many cultures. Did you make this one up, or did you find it somewhere?

That's purely the result of playing around with Gimp and path editing.

Best symbol to date IMO but I still don't think it captures the unique qualities of <NAME> so I'll keep trying to do better

I'm a little concerned at the whole Council idea. It seems to serve two purposes. One is to maintain cohesion within such an inherently diverse religion, but that's of questionable value.

The second and probably the main justification for the council is to correct glaring faults within the core doctrine. However, we must bear in mind that even if such glaring faults do come to light, the chances of reaching a 95% consensus of opinion on changing it are slight. My feeling is that blind conservatism will probably carry at least 10% of the vote even when something is obviously wrong. If future knowledge or morality develops in such a way as to reveal a flaw in the religion, this will result in a loss of following, and I don't think Councilday will succeed in preventing that. Perhaps it is more useful to accept the risk. We should do our best to build the core doctrine without flaws, but also try to build an element of failure management into it so that if it ever did become unworkable followers might recognise it as such and abandon <NAME>.

Not wishing to completely knock the Councilday idea on the head, it might be a good safety measure, but I suggest we make it as low-key as possible as this is not a centralised religion.

I would argue that one of the things we need to require from the denominations is that they be able to work and play well with others. Religions are at their worst when they claim a monopoly on Truth and morality, and thereby marginalize others. And we do need to have a system where people are required to go out and actually participate with other denoms every so often to keep the selection process going anyway. That's a good point that the denoms will have vastly different ways of worshiping, so this really can't be a sacred worshiping sort of event. More like the company's annual picnic.

A lot more work is needed on the core doctrine for this, and I think we need to elicit opinions from outside this tight little circle. But I would be inclined to put principles of rationality and reason foremost, and warn against the unwise nature of superstitious behaviour and intrinsic ludicrousness of supernatural beliefs like gods. Which would tend to rule out prayer and arbitrary beliefs such as that put forward by seeksit (which seemed to be more to do with something he was writing as fiction anyway). I think we should also state that morality is to some extent a matter of opinion, and therefore we should not judge those who see it differently. No denomination should consider their views to be unquestionable, and all members are obliged to consider other viewpoints including other denominational viewpoints.

Is it time to compile everything so far and see what more we need to put in place? And also think about how this might be presented in the form of a story or documentary?

Let the food fights over how to craft the doctrine commence!

Concepts to introduce

The Actual is what we deduce from reason and scientific study. It is a description of the universe around us, past and present, and the rules by which it operates. Concepts that are part of the Actual must be testable and must hold up to scientific scrutiny. Because it is derived from human understanding, it is both finite and fallible; nevertheless, it represents the most rigorous understanding that we can achieve. Furthermore, humanity's increasing understanding of the Actual has produced tangible results by giving people the power to harness the forces of nature towards desirable ends and to anticipate the course along which events will unfold.

The Potential represents concepts that are not part of the Actual, yet do not conflict with the Actual. To the degree that humanity can delineate what parts of the Potential are Actual and which parts conflict with the Actual, a more accurate understanding of the universe will emerge. On some topics, however, there exist no suitable means to investigate with scientific inquiry. Such topics include the purpose of humanity's existence. In order to guide our lives, we are therefore forced to turn from the Actual to the Potential.

The Essence is an entity within the Potential that was selected by many of humanity's greatest thinkers (i.e. you ) to provide an answer to questions of purpose that cannot be addressed by the Actual. Like the Actual, the Essence is derived from human understanding and is therefore fallible. However, it also may produce tangible results by guiding humanity's actions toward desirable ends.

Most Holy Doctrine. This would likely be something that is said in a short, great speech near the end of the story.

Humanity struggles to fulfill our potential as it emanates from the Essence, and much remains to be learned and understood. Connecting with the Essence is an endless quest along a path that will be increasingly revealed as humanity parts the veil of the unknown through reason and sober study. While science reveals the mechanics of nature, it remains silent on our overall purpose, and for this we turn to the Essence. Purpose implies a need to act, and our Acts of Legacy will define our relationship with the Essence. To harmonize with the Essence: Help others, be generous, be reliable. Do not harm others, steal, or lie. Learn throughout your childhood, and fulfill your potential as an adult. Find something that you're good at that will benefit society and do it. Understand at all times that faith is a supplement to, and not a supplanter of, reason; it is a way to see the world that will lead to fulfillment, and its worth is measured by the degree to which it accomplishes this goal.

It is fit that there be many denominations of <NAME>, for not all people are alike, and diversity helps humanity flourish. The denominations shall each have their own customs and ways of harmonizing with the Essence. As it is important for people to each find their unique role in the harmony of the Essence, it is imperative for them to visit other denominations from time to time and experience their ways, and thus find their place in the world. 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. Outsiders that understand the world through mankind's endeavors are to be welcomed, for they offer a unique perspective and often seek to advance humanity as the followers do. But beware if outsiders bring ideas that are based not on reason but on unsubstantiated beliefs such as gods, for these are illusions of human imaginations that may guide the way to decay.

We have a smattering of parables that unreality has been keeping up, with the latest compilation here. They cover the denominational system, a couple of vague descriptions of "afterlife" with the Essence, an ethical tale on not stealing, a warning not to worship false gods, one on free will, and a couple on the importance of non-believers' opinions. Should we keep Obama as the messiah, or should we design this such that any old Joe will do? (preferably we'd have someone who's revered, but it seems prudent to have a story that anyone could star in)

Do we need some more pieces to weave into the story? Definitely one or two on choosing a denomination based on how much it drives you to accomplish, an unambiguous instruction (not just a parable) saying to visit and participate in other denoms every X years (1-3 or so?), maybe one or two more to give examples of Acts of Legacy determining your existence with the Essence (encouraging artistic and scientific and practical accomplishments). Psychadelic yet vague descriptions of the Essence might also be useful.

Then we need to decide what the overall plot of the story is going to be. Maybe have the messiah start off religious, then get fed up and try to be atheist, then decide that his life lacks purpose and meet with some wise men and develop the doctrine. Build up some followers and confront the major religions to point out some of their most egregious shortfallings, and tell them flat out that they don't hold the Truth and no one does, and they need to admit they don't and just do the best they can with what they've got, which ain't perfect but with the sum total of all the advancements of humanity sure ain't nothing either. And he should definitely have a pet bird and cat and puppy and a little baby.

Council days: The messiah should probably mention at some point that there will be rules spelled out to guide the governance of the religion, but the details can be spelled out in a separate manual.

Because the Essence represents the best that human understanding is able to produce, it should be reviewed from time to time. The council must ensure that the Essence remains within the Potential and does not conflict with the Actual, which will ever be expanding. The council must evaluate whether the Essence truly serves as a useful and effective guide for people's lives. The council must also assess whether each of the denominations is adhering to the principles of the Essence and allowing it to achieve its goals. If a new understanding of the Essence it required, it will be adopted. If denominations need to be altered to harmonize with the Essence, they will be so instructed, or will be excluded from <NAME> if they cannot harmonize. The council will evaluate new denominations and determine whether they harmonize with the Essence, and will admit those that do into <NAME> and allow them to participate in the council.

And there are also plans that aren't really part of the doctrine, like offering denoms that are rather similar to the current faiths to get started with the conversion process.

[Guest]

A few comments on the latest developments:

Council Day: How about just calling it an annual convention like every other organization, including many religious groups. There ought to be a centralized government of some kind, with by-laws. The overall organization ought to be able to apply for 501-c-3 status as a full-fledged non-profit organization in the USA. For a model of the government I'm thinking of the US Constitution - proven a flexible organization, capable of adapting to the times. We can change the constitution, but only with careful deliberation. (We could even adopt Phronism as the official Religion of the country and declare Barack Obama as its messiah )

Symbol: Random thoughts: forget the "prom dress". Put a circle around the tilde turn it 90 degrees and and you have the taijitu (the yin-yang symbol). Or you could put a yellow sunrise in the "valley" on the right and a "blue ball" earth under the "hill" on the left and you have returned to the infinity symbol.

<NAME> After some deliberation, I cast my vote for Phronism. It's simple, it's deeply rooted in Greek philosophy, and it hasn't been used by any other significant organization that I can find. I actually like the sound of the term Phronist better than I like Phronism.

Pronounciation of "Phronism": I say leave that up to the denominations. There may well be differing sensibilities between English speakers of different origin. Also there are conflicting signals in dictionary words. Phronesis, which I'm going to return to below, is pronounced with the long "o" (rhymes with throw, or Joe) according to dictionary.com. But the "o" in Phrontistery is pronounced "ah" (rhymes with frond, or Ron) in my unabridged dictionary. The definition of phrontistery, by the way, is "A place for thinking or study". Now this doesn't rule out an option for Phronism to have "phronestaries", but why reinvent the wheel?

On the origin of Phronism: This religion will get nowhere fast if you make up some "phrony" story about its origin. The truth must prevail. Four guys in an on-line philosophical discussion got the movement off the ground. But it would be wise to give Aristotle all the real credit. His writings elevated the concept of phronesis to the level of probably the highest of the four classic (cardinal) virtues. The word is rather humbly translated as "prudence", but see the wikipedia page on phronesis, and also read what Aristotle himself had to say about this virtue (From his Nicomachean Ethics, Book 6):

V. [1] We may arrive at a definition of Prudence by considering who are the persons whom we call prudent. Now it is held to be the mark of a prudent man to be able to deliberate well about what is good and advantageous for himself, not in some one department, for instance what is good for his health or strength, but what is advantageous as a means to the good life in general.

[2] This is proved by the fact that we also speak of people as prudent or wise in some particular thing, when they calculate well with a view to attaining some particular end of value (other than those ends which are the object of an art); so that the prudent man in general will be the man who is good at deliberating in general.

[3] But no one deliberates about things that cannot vary, nor about things not within his power to do. Hence inasmuch as scientific knowledge involves demonstration, whereas things whose fundamental principles are variable are not capable of demonstration, because everything about them is variable,

and inasmuch as one cannot deliberate about things that are of necessity, it follows that Prudence is not the same as Science. Nor can it be the same as Art. It is not Science, because matters of conduct admit of variation; and not Art, because doing and making are generically different, since making aims at an end distinct from the act of making, whereas in doing the end cannot be other than the act itself: doing well is in itself the end.

[4] It remains therefore that it is a truth-attaining rational quality, concerned with action in relation to things that are good and bad for human beings.

[5] Hence men like Pericles are deemed prudent, because they possess a faculty of discerning what things are good for themselves and for mankind and that is our conception of an expert in Domestic Economy or Political Science.

(This also accounts for the word Temperance, which signifies ‘preserving prudence.’ [6] And Temperance does in fact preserve our belief as to our own good; for pleasure and pain do not destroy or pervert all beliefs, for instance, the belief that the three angles of a triangle are, or are not, together equal to two right angles, but only beliefs concerning action. The first principles of action are the end to which our acts are means; but a man corrupted by a love of pleasure or fear of pain, entirely fails to discern any first principle, and cannot see that he ought to choose and do everything as a means to this end, and for its sake; for vice tends to destroythe sense of principle.)

It therefore follows that Prudence is a truth-attaining rational quality, concerned with action in relation to the things that are good for human beings.

[7] Moreover, we can speak of excellence in Art,6 but not of excellence in Prudence. Also in Art voluntary error is not so bad as involuntary, whereas in the sphere of Prudence it is worse, as it is in the sphere of the virtues. It is therefore clear that Prudence is an excellence or virtue, and not an Art.

[8] Of the two parts of the soul possessed of reason, Prudence must be the virtue of one, namely, the part that forms opinions ; for Opinion deals with that which can vary, and so does Prudence. But yet Prudence is not a rational quality merely, as shown by the fact that a purely rational faculty can be forgotten, whereas a failure in Prudence is not a mere lapse of memory.

(Dang, do I ever like Aristotle.)

Lastly, regarding octopuppy's remarks about the spiritual proposal for a denomination that I put forth. I must insist that everything I said there passes the test of being possible based on current knowledge of physics and other sciences. There is nothing "supernatural" in this belief system, rather it taps the "extra-natural" - that which has yet to find residence in the known natural world, but which is possible based on what is known. I didn't go into this before, but my gods are ancestors, all of them. Some are ancestors from previous universes. They are real and imperfect gods, but can nevertheless have tremendous power and influence. If you don't think your ancestors speak to you, then you are denying the origin of speech itself.

[unreality]

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?

Edited May 16, 2009 by unreality