[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

[Guest]

plasmid:

I love your description of Actual and Potential. Only thing I'm a little unsure of is your emphasis on finding our purpose. This is a common motivator of religions but stems from an unfounded hidden assumption that things have purpose, and is exactly the sort of sloppy thinking that I'd like to discourage. Purpose doesn't exist without intelligence, so the assumption of purpose masks an assumption of controlling intelligence. Similarly references to faith are also probably not a good idea IMO.

Rather than purpose we might say that it is in the nature of the Essence to offer the possibility of a better way of living. We seek the best way to live in harmony with others and at peace within ourselves. If we as a species can come together and harness the power within us, we can do great things. By knowing the Essence we can understand the nature of life, the power of consciousness and the value of love. It shows us the path to a better world. In the turmoil of the world as it is now, taking the path requires strength of will. Humankind must outgrow destructive behaviours that stem from greed, envy, pride, bitterness, and fear, and this will not happen overnight. Instead of faith, we have fortitude, and confidence in our belief and the justness of our cause. We know that any other way leads to madness.

I think the parables we had are out of date and too jocular to be used now, though the points they made are generally valid. I don't really think it would be appropriate to find a messiah, or perpetrate any other deception for that matter. However, we need to launch this on the strength of a personality or personalities since resorting to miracles would be totally wrong, and our belief system needs authority to give it credibility until enough people believe it for that to become a source of authority in its own right. Also our belief system is intrinsically less compelling than any theistic one, which carries the superstitious hook of making you think any potential gods would be mighty p***ed off at you if you don't believe in them, so you'd better believe. But seeksit has given us at least part of the answer, in Aristotle:

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)

Absolutely gorgeous. Aristotle is a perfect figurehead, and I love the idea that we are taking this, the humblest of virtues, and re-elevating it to its true position.

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.

So does the idea of an invisible undetectable god who does miracles when he feels like it. What troubles me about the scenario you put forward is its apparent promotion of prayer as a means of connecting with or contributing to some "god" force. Like any religious proposition, it may or may not be true, but while unsupported by evidence is overwhelmingly likely to be false. Not that this is the problem with it. What matters is the consequences of the belief. This is why I object to the idea of prayer. Maybe prayer does have an effect, but there is no reason to think it does, and every reason to think that it is a way of reinforcing whatever unfounded god beliefs you have, by means of fallacious superstitious thinking where you confirm the power of prayer by selective interpretation of what occurs after. It is also a compulsive behaviour which traps you in a belief system, allows you to think you are taking action when you are not, and symbolically reinforces your submission to authority.

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.

My ancestors may have invented the wheel, but when I'm driving my car I wouldn't count on them to do the steering.

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?

I approached this strictly as an interesting amusement, but the idea has a life of its own. Who are we to deny it the chance to flourish?

[Guest]

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.

I like both of those names a lot, and would be more than comfortable with them.

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.

Is the Potential infallible? If I understood Grayven correctly, he said Essence = Actual + Potential. You seem to have transposed E and P. And in the interest of vagueness for interpretation, I'd at least avoid the issue of fallibility of the Essence. Or stick to the idea that it's just not know whether it's fallible or not.

Only thing I'm a little unsure of is your emphasis on finding our purpose. This is a common motivator of religions but stems from an unfounded hidden assumption that things have purpose, and is exactly the sort of sloppy thinking that I'd like to discourage. Purpose doesn't exist without intelligence, so the assumption of purpose masks an assumption of controlling intelligence.

You seem to be limiting your perspective to some sort of universally embedded purpose. What about more parochial purposes? We all live lives of purpose. The controlling intelligence is the individual, the village, the state, ...

... the idea of an invisible undetectable god who does miracles when he feels like it. ...

I have loads to say as response and clarification; but I suspect that it drags this thread off focus for now. For now I'll just invite everyone to visit my sect (denom, branch of the tree of the Essence, or whatever) as the Holy Doctrine insists that you do. The prime directive is to apply "prudence" (the noble course) in order to avoid the traps and pitfalls of primitive religions. If requested, I'll say more.

I approached this strictly as an interesting amusement, but the idea has a life of its own. Who are we to deny it the chance to flourish?

Well, to be brutally frank, the Phronist movement will sputter and shrivel without long hours of hard work and dedication on the part of fully committed, even driven, proponents. At this point I'm still seeing only rather casual, albeit inspired, brainstorming. The exercise has great value (at least to me), but as a developing "fetus", it's about at the four-cell stage.

[Guest]

You seem to be limiting your perspective to some sort of universally embedded purpose. What about more parochial purposes? We all live lives of purpose. The controlling intelligence is the individual, the village, the state, ...

plasmid was talking about "the purpose of humanity's existence" as an area of study which was a major drive for the religion, and I read that as being the universal variety (assigned to us by the Essence). I think it may be more constructive to think of the Essence as being like the flow of water; a driving force without purpose. Humanity may have an overall purpose that we give to ourselves, based on the fulfillment of our potential. So you could talk about "the purpose of humanity's existence" in some meaningful sense though I don't think that's what plasmid meant. It's an area where the message can get distorted so we have to be careful.

I have loads to say as response and clarification; but I suspect that it drags this thread off focus for now. For now I'll just invite everyone to visit my sect (denom, branch of the tree of the Essence, or whatever) as the Holy Doctrine insists that you do. The prime directive is to apply "prudence" (the noble course) in order to avoid the traps and pitfalls of primitive religions. If requested, I'll say more.

Sorry, I was probably a bit too dismissive. The point is that we need to select our beliefs based on their effects, and I wasn't convinced that the effects of your proposed belief system would be all positive. I could be wrong though.

Well, to be brutally frank, the Phronist movement will sputter and shrivel without long hours of hard work and dedication on the part of fully committed, even driven, proponents. At this point I'm still seeing only rather casual, albeit inspired, brainstorming. The exercise has great value (at least to me), but as a developing "fetus", it's about at the four-cell stage.

How true.

[unreality]

Well, to be brutally frank, the Phronist movement will sputter and shrivel without long hours of hard work and dedication on the part of fully committed, even driven, proponents. At this point I'm still seeing only rather casual, albeit inspired, brainstorming. The exercise has great value (at least to me), but as a developing "fetus", it's about at the four-cell stage.

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?

[plasmid]

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.

<...> 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 <...>

If we're getting rid of stuff that has no real objective basis for being plausible, then how much longer until we get rid of the Essence? After all, is it really necessary? If you wanted to go down that track, you could turn Phronism into atheism, with one important difference. It's unlike pure atheism, where there is not only no God but also no objective set of morals and no ordained purpose in life (not provided from on high anyway) and many would say no particular reason to live (at least as some Christians here on BrainDen and I'm sure many others elsewhere believe) and no community experience. Phronism would head towards becoming more like a philosophy, which supplies a set of moral principles, a feeling of purpose to life, and the whole community experience of traditional religions, just without the God. It just keeps the seemingly useful parts of religion (or at least some of those parts that the OP was getting at as being things the people just seem to need).

Then we could sell it like a "religion for grown-ups who don't need a God anymore". The attraction for religious people is that it still carries all the trappings and moral teachings of religions: most Christians in my experience have had trouble distinguishing the concepts of atheist meaning rejecting God but not rejecting morality and community and all the other things that typically go with religion. Phronism would be an extra layer of philosophy on top of atheism that at least tells religious people that Phronists have a core set of values in the common interest of humanity that they stick to, and they're not just people who rejected religion so they could go sin.

In practice I guess most Phronist issues would have to deal with the conflict between fulfilling one's own personal base desires and sacrificing to help others out for the greater good of the community. The Sunday (now known as Phronday) services would not be stories from a holy text, but stories from history books. As well as science and logic to some degree: the Prisoner's Dilemma would have to be standard teaching.

Granted, that would make it very very similar to secular humanism which, although a beautiful philosophy, doesn't seem to have caught on that well. We would have to find out why secular humanism hasn't caught on and make Phronism behave differently. I suspect (without any evidence) that secular humanism is meant to appeal to people who are already atheists and want a community experience; we would have to make Phronism geared more for people who are currently religious, but deep down feel that religion is a little silly and outdated, but don't want to become outright atheists for the reasons above. That, and secular humanism has way to many syllables, which we have fixed.

I'll close it there; the secular humanist version of Phronism route can be explored further if you wish, but for now back to the original Phronism.

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):

Actually, part of the plan would be to print out a copy of this thread when we're done and entrust it to some very wise people who would hand it down for posterity to be revealed to the world if Phronism ever starts running completely amok. When people see the bird, the cat, the puppy, and the baby talking about Barack Obama and Chuck Norris starting their religion, that would be the end of it.

\Rather than purpose we might say that it is in the nature of the Essence to offer the possibility of a better way of living. We seek the best way to live in harmony with others and at peace within ourselves. If we as a species can come together and harness the power within us, we can do great things. By knowing the Essence we can understand the nature of life, the power of consciousness and the value of love. It shows us the path to a better world. In the turmoil of the world as it is now, taking the path requires strength of will. Humankind must outgrow destructive behaviours that stem from greed, envy, pride, bitterness, and fear, and this will not happen overnight. Instead of faith, we have fortitude, and confidence in our belief and the justness of our cause. We know that any other way leads to madness.

Ok, that does seem to have a better feel to it. I like it.

Is the Potential infallible? If I understood Grayven correctly, he said Essence = Actual + Potential. You seem to have transposed E and P. And in the interest of vagueness for interpretation, I'd at least avoid the issue of fallibility of the Essence. Or stick to the idea that it's just not know whether it's fallible or not.

Oh, yeah, I guess I did just completely change that.

plasmid: which parables do you think need revising?

um, looks like most of them

[Guest]

If we're getting rid of stuff that has no real objective basis for being plausible, then how much longer until we get rid of the Essence? After all, is it really necessary? If you wanted to go down that track, you could turn Phronism into atheism, with one important difference. It's unlike pure atheism, where there is not only no God but also no objective set of morals and no ordained purpose in life (not provided from on high anyway) and many would say no particular reason to live (at least as some Christians here on BrainDen and I'm sure many others elsewhere believe) and no community experience. Phronism would head towards becoming more like a philosophy, which supplies a set of moral principles, a feeling of purpose to life, and the whole community experience of traditional religions, just without the God. It just keeps the seemingly useful parts of religion (or at least some of those parts that the OP was getting at as being things the people just seem to need).

That sounds like we'd be losing a lot of the useful parts of religion. To me the Essence is the key concept here, because it creates a sense of mysticism while not actually making any supernatural claims. We need a framework in which to put things like spirituality and community experience, which are of value and which IMO are helped greatly by a sense of mystery and awe. In a way you could say that's contradictory to the principles of honesty and rationality, but is that a good enough reason to effectively discourage whole areas of positive human experience? We have to be careful about what we say about the Essence, so that it is a hook on which you can hang your own personal positive spiritual nature, without making any claims that encourage irrational thought or unhelpful behaviour. It's still something that, if you think rationally about it, might potentially be flawed, but people given to that kind of thinking are not our target membership. It's a practical religion. Just like a sportsman may believe that he can get "in the zone" and perform better, a subject of hypnotism believes they will go under the spell of the hypnotist, or a patient may believe they will get better because they have a charismatic doctor with an air of mystique, the truth value interacts with the belief. If you don't believe it's true, it isn't, but you might make it true by believing it. On the other hand, god belief, prayer and claiming miraculous events to support the religion are all things that IMO have negative consequences either for the thought processes of followers or for the development of the religion. We've all seen on this forum people clinging to all kinds of false claims (such as the idea that creationism is just as plausible as any other theory) and getting mired in fallacious and confused thinking so that their beliefs may be maintained. When you make any false claim there is always the risk you will cause people to paint themselves into a corner like that, and the effects are very harmful. We have to walk a very fine line.

The subject of objective morals and purpose in life is an example of how we have done quite well. Phronism itself doesn't give you those things, but a denomination of Phronism might. So you feel like it gives you morals and a purpose in life, but if you really look into it you find that they are matters of opinion, what we offer is ready-made opinions for those who don't wish to form their own.

In practice I guess most Phronist issues would have to deal with the conflict between fulfilling one's own personal base desires and sacrificing to help others out for the greater good of the community. The Sunday (now known as Phronday) services would not be stories from a holy text, but stories from history books. As well as science and logic to some degree: the Prisoner's Dilemma would have to be standard teaching.

History lessons and game theory? Maybe that's part of what a religious service could give, but we mostly want simple guidance, encouragement, a spiritual lift and a little harmless hoopla. The philosophical movement you describe is dry and aimed at people who tend to think rationally. In order to appeal to ordinary people, I think we need a bit of mysticism to keep it exciting and mysterious.

[Guest]

That sounds like we'd be losing a lot of the useful parts of religion. To me the Essence is the key concept here, because it creates a sense of mysticism while not actually making any supernatural claims. We need a framework in which to put things like spirituality and community experience, which are of value and which IMO are helped greatly by a sense of mystery and awe. In a way you could say that's contradictory to the principles of honesty and rationality, but is that a good enough reason to effectively discourage whole areas of positive human experience? We have to be careful about what we say about the Essence, so that it is a hook on which you can hang your own personal positive spiritual nature, without making any claims that encourage irrational thought or unhelpful behaviour. It's still something that, if you think rationally about it, might potentially be flawed, but people given to that kind of thinking are not our target membership. It's a practical religion. Just like a sportsman may believe that he can get "in the zone" and perform better, a subject of hypnotism believes they will go under the spell of the hypnotist, or a patient may believe they will get better because they have a charismatic doctor with an air of mystique, the truth value interacts with the belief. If you don't believe it's true, it isn't, but you might make it true by believing it. On the other hand, god belief, prayer and claiming miraculous events to support the religion are all things that IMO have negative consequences either for the thought processes of followers or for the development of the religion. We've all seen on this forum people clinging to all kinds of false claims (such as the idea that creationism is just as plausible as any other theory) and getting mired in fallacious and confused thinking so that their beliefs may be maintained. When you make any false claim there is always the risk you will cause people to paint themselves into a corner like that, and the effects are very harmful. We have to walk a very fine line.

The subject of objective morals and purpose in life is an example of how we have done quite well. Phronism itself doesn't give you those things, but a denomination of Phronism might. So you feel like it gives you morals and a purpose in life, but if you really look into it you find that they are matters of opinion, what we offer is ready-made opinions for those who don't wish to form their own.

Amen! Bravo!

With little or no polishing/editing, that ought to stand as the guiding set of principles upon which this religion is based.

Fathers and Framers of Phronism* (i.e. charter members, in order of appearance):

1. Aristotle (the sage and mentor)

2. plasmid (the cat)

3. octopuppy (the puppy)

4. unreality (the sacred bird)

5. seeksit (the brook-sprite)

6. Lost in space (the eye of the ancestor [?]/the last avatar: only two posts; scaling back his BD involvement)

x. Bran (the first and only denier [to date], thus to be held in a most honored position)

7. Grayven (the innocent, the baby)

Seeksit has proclaimed the formation of the first denomination, the First Phronist Forgathering*. I offer it as a "straw man" upon which other denominations may build, and as a crucible within which the foundations of the movement might be more firmly set.

After more discussion herein, I propose to start a new thread (under "BTF>Misc.>Others") for denomination doctine, FAQ's, comments, recruting (sign-up) and further 'theo'logical/philosophical development. Any comments?

*->following the lead from the term Phronesis, an alternate spelling of fronesis, fronism, etc. is acceptable --> thus our institution may be given the acronym FFF ---> based on numerology dating back at least as far as Byrhtferð in 1011 CE, F is the sixth letter in the alphabet ----> 666 -----> (just thought a good controversy, stirring up the Christians, would go a long way toward garnering much needed publicity. There's no better way to get noticed than to have vocal, fundamentalist enemies with zeal and access to the media! ) ------> NB: within prominent doctrine, the First Phronist Forgathering shall explicitly deny and prohibit the symbol 666 to be emblazoned on any forehead or arm. It will deny the discrimination toward buying and selling based on the use of the symbol. It will emphasize the doctrine of following the "noble course of prudence" in all our actions, (obviously precluding satanic or anti-christ-like behaviors). And it will directly confront all attacks by demanding proof of appearance of "the beast" and/or any other association that the FFF might have with an anti-christ.

(Grayven--any comments on how this interpretation might mesh or conflict with your project of finding fulfillment of sacred prophecies?)

Edited May 18, 2009 by seeksit

[plasmid]

Well said, octopuppy. As for the origins, I'd still like to come up with something better than "some people came up with this on a discussion forum" if possible. The story we ultimately go with will determine the format that the revised parables will take.

For now though, I'm enjoying the weather in California while I'm looking at homes. Internet access will be hit-and-miss.

[unreality]

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

[Guest]

History lessons and game theory?

Actually I think I hadn't given due consideration to the implications of the Prisoners' Dilemma. It says a lot about what our religion stands for, valuing the needs of the whole over the immediate gains of the individual, to the betterment of all. It's very thought provoking and stuff like that definitely needs to be a part of our teaching. Which reminds me, what else are we going to teach people? Our philosophy needs a bit more substance.

[unreality]

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

[Guest]

I've been out for days and there is much to address. There is too much to quote, so I'll just wing it.

This thread has taken a turn from a tongue in cheek dissection of religion and the faithful, to what could very well be the beginnings of the next great philosophical movement.

And.... fussy baby.

Is there a good way to print a whole thread so that I could read it while I tend to my daughter. I've fallen behind, and I feel there is much that I have missed in my hasty attempts to catch up.

Never mind, I just found the print topic section under the options menu. I'll see what that can do for me.

Edited May 20, 2009 by Grayven

[Guest]

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. ... I think that's buyable if done right

I think there's some real "Potential" there ... not a lie, but rather ...

If you approach the truth from the point of view of a sketchy history gleaned from scattered clues uncovered from ancient times, you can reveal plausible, but ultimately unprovable scenarios. Here's one:

The prophet Micah, who prophecied from roughly 737 to 690 BCE predicted that we would raise up "seven shepherds and eight princes of men" to achieve the final peace (Micah 5:5).

Well, after a little more digging, it appears certain that Micah's prophesy came true!

In a secret council in about 500 BCE held at the Central Silk Road city of Samarkand (which had been freshly walled between 650 and 550 BCE), seven sages who would become and/or inspire the greatest luminaries our world had ever known, met in secret. Their host was a person who is only known with certainty as the "Seventh Shepherd". Legend of this person's origin runs the gamut from him/her being a simple local peasant from the steppe to being the prophet Malachi (who, notably, concludes the Old Testament right at the time of this secret meeting, perhaps because all his later writings were discredited by the Jewish and Christian establishment). The other six people present were Diotima of Mantinea (mysterious female Seer who Socrates credited as his teacher. Socrates in turn was Plato's mentor, and Plato taught Aristotle), Zoroaster, Confucius, Gautama Buddha, Lao Tzu, and Mahavira (founder of Jainism). Is it merely a stunning "coincidence of history" that all these great figures lived at the same time? Or was there a unifying "force" (Essence) that inspired and drove them? These seven met because they shared a great vision to enlighten the world. Unfortunately with their passing, many of their disciples failed to maintain the unified vision shared by them all. Only Diotema's students and the successors of the mysterious Seventh Shepherd sustained the vision, and this vision has been preserved in newly revealed writings ...

Candidates for the eight Princes of men include 1.) Alexander the Great, student of Aristotle, who subsequently unified lands from Greece to the Indus River, including "conquering" the city of Samarkand in 326 BCE, and 2.) Qin Shi Huangdi who first unified China 221-206 BCE. (... Six other great conquerors from the times immediately following the secret Samarkind Phronist Council of ca. 500 BCE still need to be identified. ... Perhaps some of the eight princes were actually present at, or sent envoys to the secret council: see the following notes -->) Note that 3.) in the new world, the earliest Mayan solar calendars date to around 400BCE; 4.) in the Pacific during this time the Polynesians were first spreading from Fiji, Samoa, and Tonga to the Cook Islands, Tahiti, the Tuamotus, and the Marquesas Islands; 5.) in northern Europe came the first evidence of worship of Odin (Norse pagan chief deity); 6.) in Japan, the Shinto religion was founded; 7.) in Africa the first settlers reached Madagascar; and finally, 8.) closer to the core of civiliation of the time, The Romans made the transition from a primitive kingdom to a Liberalized Republic in 494 BCE (and, just for fun we note that Phiddipides ran the first marathon in 490 BCE). All this happened within decades after the secret Samarkand conference. This was a time of incredible, indeed miraculous advancement of human culture and civilization worldwide. Are all these things merely chance coincidences? The writings of the Seventh Shepherd suggest otherwise ...

Where does this leave Jesus and Mohammed? They were "johnny-come-latelys", merely good men, inspired by Phronism, but too self-possessed to accept the greater virutes of humility and prudence that their Phronist roots demanded. Though they have provided the world with tremendous inspiration and solace, their arrogant insistence on being declared *the ultimate authority*, has also led mankind astray from the true Grace and Enlightenment of the Essence. Now it is time for man to finally emerge from the dark ages. Yes, medieval thought is still all too prevalent among the majority of religious adherents worldwide. As Phronism re-emerges, the maifestation of the true meaning of religion (re+ ligare = "re-connect" the people) shall erase the last vestiges of these primitive beliefs and replace them with the true, enlightened, Noble path of the Essence: humility, service, prudence, reason, ...

(P.S. The Phronist Calendar should add 500 to the CE date. Today is 20 May, 2509 PE (Phronist Era) )

[Guest]

virutes = virtues

maifestation = manifestation

Diotema = Diotima

prophecied = prophesied

Sorry for the typos--too late to edit

[Guest]

I think there's some real "Potential" there ... not a lie, but rather ...

If you approach the truth from the point of view of a sketchy history gleaned from scattered clues uncovered from ancient times, you can reveal plausible, but ultimately unprovable scenarios. Here's one:

The prophet Micah, who prophecied from roughly 737 to 690 BCE predicted that we would raise up "seven shepherds and eight princes of men" to achieve the final peace (Micah 5:5).

Well, after a little more digging, it appears certain that Micah's prophesy came true!

In a secret council in about 500 BCE held at the Central Silk Road city of Samarkand (which had been freshly walled between 650 and 550 BCE), seven sages who would become and/or inspire the greatest luminaries our world had ever known, met in secret. Their host was a person who is only known with certainty as the "Seventh Shepherd". Legend of this person's origin runs the gamut from him/her being a simple local peasant from the steppe to being the prophet Malachi (who, notably, concludes the Old Testament right at the time of this secret meeting, perhaps because all his later writings were discredited by the Jewish and Christian establishment). The other six people present were Diotima of Mantinea (mysterious female Seer who Socrates credited as his teacher. Socrates in turn was Plato's mentor, and Plato taught Aristotle), Zoroaster, Confucius, Gautama Buddha, Lao Tzu, and Mahavira (founder of Jainism). Is it merely a stunning "coincidence of history" that all these great figures lived at the same time? Or was there a unifying "force" (Essence) that inspired and drove them? These seven met because they shared a great vision to enlighten the world. Unfortunately with their passing, many of their disciples failed to maintain the unified vision shared by them all. Only Diotema's students and the successors of the mysterious Seventh Shepherd sustained the vision, and this vision has been preserved in newly revealed writings ...

Candidates for the eight Princes of men include 1.) Alexander the Great, student of Aristotle, who subsequently unified lands from Greece to the Indus River, including "conquering" the city of Samarkand in 326 BCE, and 2.) Qin Shi Huangdi who first unified China 221-206 BCE. (... Six other great conquerors from the times immediately following the secret Samarkind Phronist Council of ca. 500 BCE still need to be identified. ... Perhaps some of the eight princes were actually present at, or sent envoys to the secret council: see the following notes -->) Note that 3.) in the new world, the earliest Mayan solar calendars date to around 400BCE; 4.) in the Pacific during this time the Polynesians were first spreading from Fiji, Samoa, and Tonga to the Cook Islands, Tahiti, the Tuamotus, and the Marquesas Islands; 5.) in northern Europe came the first evidence of worship of Odin (Norse pagan chief deity); 6.) in Japan, the Shinto religion was founded; 7.) in Africa the first settlers reached Madagascar; and finally, 8.) closer to the core of civiliation of the time, The Romans made the transition from a primitive kingdom to a Liberalized Republic in 494 BCE (and, just for fun we note that Phiddipides ran the first marathon in 490 BCE). All this happened within decades after the secret Samarkand conference. This was a time of incredible, indeed miraculous advancement of human culture and civilization worldwide. Are all these things merely chance coincidences? The writings of the Seventh Shepherd suggest otherwise ...

Where does this leave Jesus and Mohammed? They were "johnny-come-latelys", merely good men, inspired by Phronism, but too self-possessed to accept the greater virutes of humility and prudence that their Phronist roots demanded. Though they have provided the world with tremendous inspiration and solace, their arrogant insistence on being declared *the ultimate authority*, has also led mankind astray from the true Grace and Enlightenment of the Essence. Now it is time for man to finally emerge from the dark ages. Yes, medieval thought is still all too prevalent among the majority of religious adherents worldwide. As Phronism re-emerges, the maifestation of the true meaning of religion (re+ ligare = "re-connect" the people) shall erase the last vestiges of these primitive beliefs and replace them with the true, enlightened, Noble path of the Essence: humility, service, prudence, reason, ...

(P.S. The Phronist Calendar should add 500 to the CE date. Today is 20 May, 2509 PE (Phronist Era) )

So our intellectual exercise resulted in finding a history that directly supports it? Further proof that, while the Essence does not control us, the human mind is intrinsically "in tune" with it. We had no choice but to rediscover this philosophical path once we began looking. It's just that obvious.

[unreality]

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

Edited May 20, 2009 by unreality

[plasmid]

Now you've got to admit, that sounds like it would win a lot more converts than "here's something we came up with on a discussion board", even if we don't have any artifacts to prove it.

The truth about the meeting in Samarkand has been passed down as an oral tradition, but Phronism did not emerge on the world scene. Those who knew of the faith tried to spread it from time to time, but they were quickly silenced by those in power who went to great lengths to suppress knowledge of the faith. As time passed, Phronism was remembered by only a few who remained in hiding to avoid persecution, and it was not practiced. Although freedom of religion eventually became a reality in modern times, by then Phronism had fallen into such atrophy that it was only remembered as an ancient legend and no serious attempts were made to establish it. Until now, when the Essence stirs again. Chance meetings between people from across the world who had heard similar versions of the old stories made them think it might be a reality. They pieced together what fragments of information they had, and this is what emerged...

It does require an Essence that's able to make itself known (at least to the ancients anyway) and has the drawback of potentially being contradicted if archaeological finds can somehow prove that a meeting in Samarkand would have been impossible. Alternatively, we could go with a story where Phronism appears now so it would avoid trouble with the historical record, but it would lack the sheer appeal that this story would have to a religious thinker who believes that the older something is, the more authoritative it is.

Looks like we'll have to write parables that could have happened in 500 BC.

Actually I think I hadn't given due consideration to the implications of the Prisoners' Dilemma. It says a lot about what our religion stands for, valuing the needs of the whole over the immediate gains of the individual, to the betterment of all. It's very thought provoking and stuff like that definitely needs to be a part of our teaching. Which reminds me, what else are we going to teach people? Our philosophy needs a bit more substance.

It seems like the vast majority of stuff in most religions is a collection of old stories which mostly have to do with establishing how powerful their God is, and how you should put complete and unwavering faith in him, and don't want to be on the wrong side of a fight involving him. If we wanted to make something with the "look and feel" of a typical religion, we would just need a bunch of such stories. Preferably stories that teach basic morality instead of obsequious servitude. If we need to, we can rip stuff off from the Gospels, which seems to have the most highly concentrated bunch of actually useful stuff in the entire Bible. Or if we don't want to wade through all that crap, I'm sure we can just look up "morality" in Wikipedia and turn all the things it mentions into parables.

If we want to give them a more sort of educational experience than just recounting a bunch of old stories, then along with game theory, efficiency of scale from economics could also teach cooperation. Principles of maintaining a balanced ecosystem from biology could be likened to finding your place in society to play a useful role. Giving real examples of how many people play a role in everything we do: from making and distributing goods to providing services (it really takes an entire infrastructure to do anything in a modern society) would show how interconnected everyone in the world really is and could help build a sense of solidarity. It seems like history lessons could be used in many different ways (although I'm having trouble coming up with examples right now), if nothing else by reinforcing that it's the people who actually accomplish great things who get recorded in the history books. Such stuff would probably not form the core of the philosophy, but could make for a unique trimming that most religions don't have.

[Guest]

Now you've got to admit, that sounds like it would win a lot more converts than "here's something we came up with on a discussion board", even if we don't have any artifacts to prove it.

The truth about the meeting in Samarkand has been passed down as an oral tradition, but Phronism did not emerge on the world scene. Those who knew of the faith tried to spread it from time to time, but they were quickly silenced by those in power who went to great lengths to suppress knowledge of the faith. As time passed, Phronism was remembered by only a few who remained in hiding to avoid persecution, and it was not practiced. Although freedom of religion eventually became a reality in modern times, by then Phronism had fallen into such atrophy that it was only remembered as an ancient legend and no serious attempts were made to establish it. Until now, when the Essence stirs again. Chance meetings between people from across the world who had heard similar versions of the old stories made them think it might be a reality. They pieced together what fragments of information they had, and this is what emerged...

Here's a lightly edited draft:

The Seventh Shepherd's account of the Great Council of Samarkand has been passed down largely as an oral tradition, among descendents of the original council's participants and of early disciples; but Phronism did not emerge on the world scene as an organized religion. Those who knew of the faith espoused it quietly in word and deed; but they avoided confrontations with those in power who viewed knowledge of the faith as threatening. Although freedom of religion has blossomed in modern times, by then the adherents of Phronism had spread to the four winds, so that none held any hope of formally establishing it. Until now, when the Essence seems to have gathered the long scattered ashes, and the metaphorical "Phoenix" stirs again. Chance meetings between people from across the world who had heard similar versions of the old stories gave them new hope that some of the central Potential of the Essence could once again become Actual. They began to piece together what fragments of information they had, and here is what has emerged...

It does require an Essence that's able to make itself known (at least to the ancients anyway) and has the drawback of potentially being contradicted if archaeological finds can somehow prove that a meeting in Samarkand would have been impossible.

I checked the history of Samarkand and chose it specifically because recent archaeology found and dated the construction of a complete system of new encircling walls built between 650 and 550 BCE. All evidence points to a thriving, cosmopolitan Silk Road trade center at the time of the Phronist Council. The date can "flex" plus or minus 50 years or so as required.

It seems like the vast majority of stuff in most religions is a collection of old stories which mostly have to do with establishing how powerful their God is, and how you should put complete and unwavering faith in him, and don't want to be on the wrong side of a fight involving him. If we wanted to make something with the "look and feel" of a typical religion, we would just need a bunch of such stories. Preferably stories that teach basic morality instead of obsequious servitude. If we need to, we can rip stuff off from the Gospels, which seems to have the most highly concentrated bunch of actually useful stuff in the entire Bible.

Well, I've waded through it all; and you're right. One of the most refreshing and packed-full-of-gems sections is the "Sermon on the Mount", Matthew chapters 5 through 7.

Or if we don't want to wade through all that crap, I'm sure we can just look up "morality" in Wikipedia and turn all the things it mentions into parables.

The Wikipedia article on Virtue lists 124 "examples of virtues" That ought to be a good start.

[Guest]

Now you've got to admit, that sounds like it would win a lot more converts than "here's something we came up with on a discussion board", even if we don't have any artifacts to prove it.

I'm pretty sure all artifacts have been long since tracked down and destroyed by the authoritarian religions. Ideas are a lot harder to destroy, but these ones have been effectively suppressed until now. Why, all those stories my parents told me never seemed like they could have any real consequence, but I can see now that they were just waiting for the trigger that could bring this thing back out of hiding: the information age.

It's a shame I'm in no position to devote a lot of time to this now, because what's really needed is a deep philosophical take on life as a whole. plasmid's mention of the Prisoner's Dilemma set me thinking that that is the sort of thing that ought to form much of our core document. It's not about making assertions, just shining a light on the world. Teaching this to the masses requires a new style, unlike other religious documents, but with the same kind of easy access. Not dumbed down exactly but put in terms of stories and sayings which make it easier to get to the point. Since the original source material may be lost to us, we may have to settle for consolidating the various verbal traditions of Phronism in order to rediscover the core principles and create a central document based on what we all know.

[Guest]

I think there's some real "Potential" there ... not a lie, but rather ...

If you approach the truth from the point of view of a sketchy history gleaned from scattered clues uncovered from ancient times, you can reveal plausible, but ultimately unprovable scenarios. Here's one:

The prophet Micah, who prophecied from roughly 737 to 690 BCE predicted that we would raise up "seven shepherds and eight princes of men" to achieve the final peace (Micah 5:5).

Well, after a little more digging, it appears certain that Micah's prophesy came true!

In a secret council in about 500 BCE held at the Central Silk Road city of Samarkand (which had been freshly walled between 650 and 550 BCE), seven sages who would become and/or inspire the greatest luminaries our world had ever known, met in secret. Their host was a person who is only known with certainty as the "Seventh Shepherd". Legend of this person's origin runs the gamut from him/her being a simple local peasant from the steppe to being the prophet Malachi (who, notably, concludes the Old Testament right at the time of this secret meeting, perhaps because all his later writings were discredited by the Jewish and Christian establishment). The other six people present were Diotima of Mantinea (mysterious female Seer who Socrates credited as his teacher. Socrates in turn was Plato's mentor, and Plato taught Aristotle), Zoroaster, Confucius, Gautama Buddha, Lao Tzu, and Mahavira (founder of Jainism). Is it merely a stunning "coincidence of history" that all these great figures lived at the same time? Or was there a unifying "force" (Essence) that inspired and drove them? These seven met because they shared a great vision to enlighten the world. Unfortunately with their passing, many of their disciples failed to maintain the unified vision shared by them all. Only Diotema's students and the successors of the mysterious Seventh Shepherd sustained the vision, and this vision has been preserved in newly revealed writings ...

Candidates for the eight Princes of men include 1.) Alexander the Great, student of Aristotle, who subsequently unified lands from Greece to the Indus River, including "conquering" the city of Samarkand in 326 BCE, and 2.) Qin Shi Huangdi who first unified China 221-206 BCE. (... Six other great conquerors from the times immediately following the secret Samarkind Phronist Council of ca. 500 BCE still need to be identified. ... Perhaps some of the eight princes were actually present at, or sent envoys to the secret council: see the following notes -->) Note that 3.) in the new world, the earliest Mayan solar calendars date to around 400BCE; 4.) in the Pacific during this time the Polynesians were first spreading from Fiji, Samoa, and Tonga to the Cook Islands, Tahiti, the Tuamotus, and the Marquesas Islands; 5.) in northern Europe came the first evidence of worship of Odin (Norse pagan chief deity); 6.) in Japan, the Shinto religion was founded; 7.) in Africa the first settlers reached Madagascar; and finally, 8.) closer to the core of civiliation of the time, The Romans made the transition from a primitive kingdom to a Liberalized Republic in 494 BCE (and, just for fun we note that Phiddipides ran the first marathon in 490 BCE). All this happened within decades after the secret Samarkand conference. This was a time of incredible, indeed miraculous advancement of human culture and civilization worldwide. Are all these things merely chance coincidences? The writings of the Seventh Shepherd suggest otherwise ...

Where does this leave Jesus and Mohammed? They were "johnny-come-latelys", merely good men, inspired by Phronism, but too self-possessed to accept the greater virutes of humility and prudence that their Phronist roots demanded. Though they have provided the world with tremendous inspiration and solace, their arrogant insistence on being declared *the ultimate authority*, has also led mankind astray from the true Grace and Enlightenment of the Essence. Now it is time for man to finally emerge from the dark ages. Yes, medieval thought is still all too prevalent among the majority of religious adherents worldwide. As Phronism re-emerges, the maifestation of the true meaning of religion (re+ ligare = "re-connect" the people) shall erase the last vestiges of these primitive beliefs and replace them with the true, enlightened, Noble path of the Essence: humility, service, prudence, reason, ...

(P.S. The Phronist Calendar should add 500 to the CE date. Today is 20 May, 2509 PE (Phronist Era) )

I found a bit of tricky language in Revelations chapter 17 and Rev 18 that could speak good and/or ill of this origin to Christians.

Also, the seven angels/churches/tribes is a common theme throughout both Judaism and Christianity. 7 Shepherds = 7 Angels or perhaps their successors? Where the 7 Angels from Revelations in fact the ORIGINAL Shepherds? A fact that was buried along with the artifacts?

The fact that lots of folks intuitively feel that the number 7 is lucky must mean something too. We need to explore the connection of the number 7 to The Essence.

Seeksit mentions 8 princes of men, and Rev 17 mentions the 10 kings who either fornicate with "The Mother of all Prostitutes", or rise up against her or both. It's unclear if there is a relation. Also the river that the Uber Call-girl sits upon could easily be a metaphor for the internet. It's all just rather muddy. On the upside, if you're going to be connected to any sort of prophecy, best that it be extra muddled, I suppose.

I'll keep digging.

[Guest]

I found an interesting term while looking at Wikipedias Revelations entry. Apostasy. Very interesting.

Also, take a look at the "Historicist View" section of the Revelations entry. This interpretation seems to apply to Phronism.(I think we might be Babylon)

Edited May 21, 2009 by Grayven

[plasmid]

On with re-writing the parables. With the set of people we have meeting at Samarkand, it seems like a no-brainer to make a Jainist or Buddhist talk about the "afterlife" experience as part of the Essence, since that has really strong parallels to Nirvana or Moksa. That, and apparently the teachings of both Buddah and Mahavira were passed down only through oral traditions for a few hundred years until they were recorded, a perfect setup for those related to Phronism to have been carried on by the Phronists and forgotten by others. I think I'll let Mahavira talk about the Nirvana-like experience, and leave Buddah free to talk about the middle way since it's closer to Phronist ideals than the more ascetic Jainist approach (or maybe Zoroasterism would be better yet), although Mahavira might appear again to talk about Anekantavada as it relates to a denominational system and getting views from outsiders.

Unfortunately, the Jainists got it a little wrong: everyone reaches a Moksa-like state when they die, it's just that Moksa is only truly blissful if you've led a great life and is dull if you've been a slave to your base cravings.

Mahavira came upon a woman in Samarkand who he found to be weeping, and seeking to comfort her, he asked why she wept. The woman answered that her husband had died, struck down by fever and festering boils, and she was sorrowful over the suffering he faced in his final days. But she wept most of all because, although her husband was a good man, he found little but suffering in this life. "Do you believe, then, that your husband's soul is gone? Far be it from the truth. At the end of the stream of life is a return to the Essence from which life is drawn. Do not grieve if your husband has returned." But the woman continued to lament, for she believed that her husband would only continue to suffer in his life with the Essence just as he had suffered in his life on Earth.

Mahavira asked her, "Was your husband brutal, or a liar, or a thief, or a glutton, or full of avarice?" The woman answered that he was none of these. "Then his existence now with the Essence is free of pain and disease," said Mahavira, "Now tell me: was your husband faithful, and was he wise, and did he conduct himself well at all times?" The woman answered that he was. "Then at the end of his stream of existence here, in his existence with the Essence, is a safe and happy and quiet place." At this, the woman began to wonder if her husband might have attained Moksa, and asked if he had reached a state of eternal bliss. Mahavira asked, "How had your husband lived and even perceived his life? Did he see pleasure and pursue it, and did he see pain and try to avoid it? Or did he instead see his duty, and carry it out faithfully regardless of the pleasures or pains it might bring?" This the woman could not answer. "Then I cannot tell you whether he is in eternal bliss with the Essence," Mahavira answered, "but know this: we all return to the Essence at some time, and I have told you now what must be done to achieve the ultimate state with the Essence. You yourself have the opportunity to do so if you follow this path, as do all those around you. Do so, and teach others to do likewise."

Tailored a bit to Jainist teachings, especially with the specific questions he asks her, but definitely more Phronist than Jainist since there are potentially different levels of Moksa and no reincarnation. (Writing these is kinda tougher when I've gotta keep it credible.)

[Guest]

Plasmid, I love the new parable

I found a bit of tricky language in Revelations chapter 17 and Rev 18 that could speak good and/or ill of this origin to Christians.

To help to make sense of Rev. 17, also go back to Daniel chapter 7. It appears that's where the inspiration came from. There Daniel was writing contemporaneously about events of 553BCE. It is one of the newest writings of the Old Testament. I find it fascinating that the Old Testament fell silent right at the time of the Phronist Council of Samarkand. And very interesting that Daniel's remarks seem to have bearing on the forthcoming council. It would appear that the Revelation of John was an attempt to discredit these deliberations and their threat to Christianity.

Notably, the Jews themselves seem to have decided to discredit Daniel's "prophecies". Jews do not consider Daniel a prophet! The Talmud (Babylonian Talmud, Tract Megilla, Chapter 1) states: "They were better than he, because they were prophets, and be, Daniel, was not a prophet.". This is pretty amazing, since Judaism officially recognizes 48 male prophets and seven female prophets (prophetesses?), some of whom most people have never heard of!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_Prop...hamic_Religions

Also, the seven angels/churches/tribes is a common theme throughout both Judaism and Christianity.

And Islam. Seven Heavens is another major concept (Although Christianity expunged the seven heavens theology from the final version of the bible, a reference to "Third Heaven" snuck through the censors: 2Corinthians 12:2 ). "The Ascension of Isaiah" is an apocryphal book that has a lot of Seven Heavens stuff (Chapters 6-11). The Qur'an makes mention of it twice (2:29 and 41:12).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Heavens

I recognize seven distinct levels or hierarchies to the Essense, relating to self (deepest inner currents), family, village, nation, world, universe and what I'll just call the "42ish-ness", that which is the answer to all the unanswered stuff (beyond the "veil"). Personally, I believe one's deepest inner currents flow from beyond the "veil" as well, manifesting a perfect cyclic nature to the Essence.

[unreality]

But she wept most of all because, although her husband was a good man, he found little but suffering in this life. "Do you believe, then, that your husband's soul is gone? Far be it from the truth. At the end of the stream of life is a return to the Essence from which life is drawn. Do not grieve if your husband has returned." But the woman continued to lament, for she believed that her husband would only continue to suffer in his life with the Essence just as he had suffered in his life on Earth.

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

7

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

I recognize seven distinct levels or hierarchies to the Essense, relating to self (deepest inner currents), family, village, nation, world, universe and what I'll just call the "42ish-ness", that which is the answer to all the unanswered stuff (beyond the "veil"). Personally, I believe one's deepest inner currents flow from beyond the "veil" as well, manifesting a perfect cyclic nature to the Essence.

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

Edited May 22, 2009 by unreality

[unreality]

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