[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]

*storms off in a huff* j/k

No problem here, unreality. My "seven levels" of the Essence are nothing more than human interpretations--ways the Essence affects the individual's connections (re-ligion) with what s/he perceives. One man's BS is another man's Balanced System

Soul and afterlife (God/spirits etc.): The core Holy Doctrine needs to be vague on these subjects, reflecting the Actual as we know it and the Potential as it surrounds the Actual. One can ask "What do we know for sure?" One sure answer is that we don't have proof that these things do not exist. The way I'm picturing the various denominations is that they will provide different "what if" interpretations of the Potential. (That's the "essence" of my straw man denomination, anyway.) Am I off base on that?

Personally my favorite integer is 17. Apart from being the *seventh* prime , it's the most fundamental calendar cycle number I know. Even insects use it (The seventeen year cicada). The Gregorian Calendar has a deeply rooted basis in that number that I don't think most people recognize. (I "found" it myself, won't go into it here--might make a good puzzle challenge for people to find, have to think about that.)

Mexico has its Quinceañera, US has its Sweet Sixteen. I propose that Phronism recognize Seventeen as the age of majority or "coming out".

[unreality]

maybe we should make it so you can only officially join Phronism at age 17 (to throw out an age) thereby preventing child indoctrination and child labeling that Richard Dawkins so hates. Of course we can do nothing to prevent parents from introducing such things at young ages, but we CAN teach the value of openmindedness and making decisions for oneself, etc

as for souls, that falls in the same category as gods for me: it's in the Potential but not the Actual, but it shouldn't be taught as truth since it's just a possibility and a usually inconsistent one at that. I'm not saying that I don't want the ideas even considered, I just don't want them taught as part of our mainstream central doctrine. If a denomination wants to interpret the Potential to allow the existence of Mahawalakawaki-nahua-hawaiiii-asakua and the Volcano Gods, then so be it, best luck to them, that's the kind of freedom we should allow the denominations (or are we calling them streams?)

[plasmid]

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

I don't see how a soul would be a problem. The "I think, therefore I am" argument seems proof enough that something conscious exists, and defining a soul as that conscious thing seems safe enough. Or do you think the term "soul" just carries too much other baggage that would bias how people would interpret it? If so, we could come up with another term for the conscious entity that people carry around that rejoins the Essence upon their death.

The "life with the Essence" was me being sloppy while I was trying to make this fit with Jainism as much as possible. I'll fix that and start a parable archive in the spoiler.

I didn't mean to imply that there were a finite number of distinct levels of Nirvana, it just would've been tough to explain within a parable that the possibilities for existence with the Essence are actually on a continuous rather than a discrete integer scale. If there is an easy way of clarifying it in the parable without it getting too sidetracked then we can go ahead and modify it.

And it's important to make these parables right if they're going to be part of the scripture, so don't hold any punches and feel free to revise.

On to the next one. The Jainist principle of Anekantavada is almost exactly the same principle we're trying to promote with Phronism's denominational system and deference of outside opinions (I guess it wasn't really unique after all), so I'll call on Mahavira again.

As Mahavira was returning home, he saw in the distance a man who he recognized from a gathering of those who now called themselves "Phronists". Drawing nearer Mahavira watched as the man drew out from his robe a branch, and baring his back, he began to beat himself with it. When Mahavira drew nearer, he asked the man why he was flogging himself. "Mahavira," the man said, "I am practicing ascetic ways. I am forsaking my own worldly pleasures and comforts so that I might achieve loftier goals." Mahavira saw that the man did not fully understand his actions, but he did not correct the man himself. Indeed, Mahavira knew that although he might be able to correct this one mistake, he would not always be there to correct every mistake the man might make. So instead, Mahavira asked "Have you spoken with any of the others about this? Do they agree that striking yourself is a wise path?" The man answered, "No, but the other Phronists are only men just as I am a man. If we should disagree, then who is to say which of us is right and which is wrong? I have faith that my course is wise." Mahavira saw onlookers who watched as the man flogged himself, and he pressed the man again, "Look around you. Do you see those people over there staring at you? What do you suppose they think of your acts?" The man responded, "Why should I care what they think of my acts? They are not even Phronists! Their words are useless to me."

At this Mahavira became most concerned, and he called the onlookers forth and explained what the man was doing, and asked them if they thought it was wise. One of them said, "This seems foolish. You are beating yourself to deny yourself comfort, but what are you accomplishing? If you wish to deny yourself comfort, then go plow a field. Then you would not only be practicing asceticism, but you would produce a harvest in the Autumn." After the onlooker left, Mahavira asked the man what he thought of the advice. Again the man said that the onlooker's words were useless because he was not a Phronist. Then Mahavira said, "Would you have accepted the same words had they come from my mouth? Because I tell you truthfully, I would have said the same thing." The man was silent for a moment, but then asked "Surely you do not want me to live my life by the whims of an outsider, do you?" Mahavira answered, "Had the man mocked you, or tried to swindle you, or told you that his God has other commandments then you should ignore him, for his God is likely a figment of his imagination. But this man spoke to you as an outsider with no malice toward you, no eagerness to see you make a fool of yourself, and with full sincerity. You should consider such advice carefully. Beyond that, he gave reasoning with his words. Nowhere have we said that Phronists are always right, nor have we said that non-believers are always wrong. Reason is the best guidance that humans have, so do not forsake it no matter where it comes from."

You know, I think we ought to give the "extras" in these parables names instead of just calling them men and women. Anyone know a good place to look up common names in various regions at about 500 BC?

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, as her husband had suffered in his life on Earth, so he would continue to suffer in his existence flowing back into the stream of the Essence.

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."

[plasmid]

A parable with Diotima would be a little tricky to do safely. I'll try to make the subject matter she was mentioned in a bit more palatable to a modern audience, sacrificing a little historical accuracy. This one takes place pretty early on in the story.

Diotima was restless after the day's discussion with the six others. Unable to sleep, she began to pace. Her thoughts were interrupted by sounds from a neighboring room, and because she was expecting no visitors she went to investigate. There she found one of her traveling companions lying with a local man who Diotima knew spoke sweetly to the women. Diotima left them for the night, going unnoticed, but the next morning she approached her fellow traveler. "Last night, when you were visited by that local man, do you think you were acting wisely with him?" Knowing that she had been discovered, she was too embarrassed to answer, so Diotima continued, "Such men are but beggars whose only art is casting illusions to draw you near. They will leave you with nothing save an illness or a child with no father. You would do well to avoid them." "Diotima, surely he loved me! He told me things I had never heard from any man before. I listened to my heart, and it told me to be with him." But as soon as the words left her mouth, the traveler thought the situation over and realized that she was acting foolishly and recanted. Diotima continued, "Their behavior springs from a deep wish to live forever. Not being capable of this, they instead seek to live forever through their seed. But even that is failing to understand the situation. We have long known that it is not our flesh but our ideas that most define who we are, and such men are foolish enough to spread their flesh but do not pass on their ideas."

The traveler then said, "Were he only like us, seekers of truth. Surely we will find the answers, and as the others have said we will not have to settle for passing on our ideas to others because we will have eternal life itself." Diotima recalled the previous day's discussion and responded, "It does not seem that they are entirely correct. The Essence is no god like Zeus, and we do not simply live in its presence for all eternity. The Essence is something else entirely. It does not drive the sun like Apollo with a chariot and horses, and it does not fire an arrow like Cupid. Instead, the Essence is more like the waves and the wind, but reaching into everything around us. After we die, we do not live as we do now in a new land with the Essence; it would be more accurate to say that we join the Essence by becoming a part of it."

"Diotima, do you mean that we will have the powers of a god after we die? If this were true, imagine the things we could do. We would be able to so many great things for the world." As Diotima prepared to rejoin the others for the day she said, "You don't realize your own potential now. You might not have the power of the seas and wind, but you have your two hands. If you want to do great acts for the world, then now is the time." And so she left to meet the others.

This also presents the body and its thoughts as if they're two separate things, and Diotima seems to have been credited as making the distinction, but that might not be where we want Phronism to go. If it's harmless, it might contribute to historical credibility, but if not we can strike it from the parable.

NB: I know the ancients attributed emotions to weird organs sometimes. Is it safe to have the heart be the organ where love originates, or did that come from the spleen or pancreas or something back in 500 BC?

Mahavira, on existence with the Essence

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, as her husband had suffered in his life on Earth, so he would continue to suffer in his existence flowing back into the stream of the Essence.

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."

Mahavira, on listening to outsiders

As Mahavira was returning home, he saw in the distance a man who he recognized from a gathering of those who now called themselves "Phronists". Drawing nearer Mahavira watched as the man drew out from his robe a branch, and baring his back, he began to beat himself with it. When Mahavira drew nearer, he asked the man why he was flogging himself. "Mahavira," the man said, "I am practicing ascetic ways. I am forsaking my own worldly pleasures and comforts so that I might achieve loftier goals." Mahavira saw that the man did not fully understand his actions, but he did not correct the man himself. Indeed, Mahavira knew that although he might be able to correct this one mistake, he would not always be there to correct every mistake the man might make. So instead, Mahavira asked "Have you spoken with any of the others about this? Do they agree that striking yourself is a wise path?" The man answered, "No, but the other Phronists are only men just as I am a man. If we should disagree, then who is to say which of us is right and which is wrong? I have faith that my course is wise." Mahavira saw onlookers who watched as the man flogged himself, and he pressed the man again, "Look around you. Do you see those people over there staring at you? What do you suppose they think of your acts?" The man responded, "Why should I care what they think of my acts? They are not even Phronists! Their words are useless to me."

At this Mahavira became most concerned, and he called the onlookers forth and explained what the man was doing, and asked them if they thought it was wise. One of them said, "This seems foolish. You are beating yourself to deny yourself comfort, but what are you accomplishing? If you wish to deny yourself comfort, then go plow a field. Then you would not only be practicing asceticism, but you would produce a harvest in the Autumn." After the onlooker left, Mahavira asked the man what he thought of the advice. Again the man said that the onlooker's words were useless because he was not a Phronist. Then Mahavira said, "Would you have accepted the same words had they come from my mouth? Because I tell you truthfully, I would have said the same thing." The man was silent for a moment, but then asked "Surely you do not want me to live my life by the whims of an outsider, do you?" Mahavira answered, "Had the man mocked you, or tried to swindle you, or told you that his God has other commandments then you should ignore him, for his God is likely a figment of his imagination. But this man spoke to you as an outsider with no malice toward you, no eagerness to see you make a fool of yourself, and with full sincerity. You should consider such advice carefully. Beyond that, he gave reasoning with his words. Nowhere have we said that Phronists are always right, nor have we said that non-believers are always wrong. Reason is the best guidance that humans have, so do not forsake it no matter where it comes from."

Edited May 24, 2009 by plasmid

[Guest]

as for souls, that falls in the same category as gods for me: it's in the Potential but not the Actual, but it shouldn't be taught as truth since it's just a possibility and a usually inconsistent one at that. I'm not saying that I don't want the ideas even considered, I just don't want them taught as part of our mainstream central doctrine. If a denomination wants to interpret the Potential to allow the existence of Mahawalakawaki-nahua-hawaiiii-asakua and the Volcano Gods, then so be it, best luck to them, that's the kind of freedom we should allow the denominations (or are we calling them streams?)

God is an idea. In that sense, if no other, God is real and has power. The purpose of Phronism is to harness that power the way a reactor controls fission: with the firm lead rods or reason and prudence.

Let me propose a rough outline for a parable that might address this point. Plasmid, you are a master at constructing parables (I marvel at all three of these recent ones!), perhaps you can take this raw material and construct something lucid from it. The Seventh Shepherd is the teacher who can cover bases that can't fit comfortably into the mouths of the other six, so I'm taking the easy route and using him/her here.

After a long day of discussion at Council the Seventh Shepherd walked out to the quiet hills outside Samarkand to reflect. But he noticed a crowd gathering and following him. "Teach us, master," they cried. And so despite weariness from the day's deliberations the master spoke.

"God says thusly," he began. "All persons have the manifest destiny to become one with the Essence. Each person uses thought or action energies to impact the community of all other living things including the Earth, and so to move towards destiny. As such, one's destiny is in one's hands. To attain transcendence and destiny in the Potential, one's spiritual consciousness in the physical realm must be elevated to unify with one's reason. Men do this best in community, for reason often fails the individual striving alone for truth. Those who stop improving or eschew reason are destined for the realm of the forsaken. Each day is a cycle of habitation in physical body and spiritual pursuit while one's spirit evolves toward the Potential. For most people, a striving toward balanced culture, meditation in search of the guidance and support from ones ancestral past and sincere veneration of truth is sufficient to expand the Actual. Those with strong motivation to manipulate destiny may turn to science. Others may consult my Word. In invoking the Word of God so directly, however, exquisite care is required to ensure alignment of thought and action, of humility and strength, of reason and divine guidance."

The Shepherd paused, gazed upon the people kindly and spoke again. "I ask you now: Why should men heed these words?"

An eager seeker responded quickly. "Because they are the Word of God! Have we not now heard His voice, as if spoken through your mouth?"

The Shepherd replied simply: "This is not the reason. The prudent man of Phronism weighs the Words rather than the speaker of them."

[unreality]

i've done a little conglomeration of stuff so far for Uberfaith/Alethianism/Ontaporism/Eucredism/etc

Most Holy Doctrine / The Truth / Core Dogma of <NAME>

The Essence that permeates all things has subtle yet profound effects that shall not herein be fully explained. In order to help understand the Essence as it applies to human lives, though, it is useful to think of concepts such as karma and eternal life existence with the Essence. Karma may be earned with the following acts: Help others, be generous, be reliable. Do not harm others, steal, or lie. Do not place your faith in false gods. Find something that you're good at that will benefit society and do it. Learn throughout your childhood, and fulfill your potential as an adult. The nature of your eternal life existence with the Essence is determined by your karma. Believers in false gods suffer in hell. Those who believe but lack karma have modest contentment. Those whose karma is great enjoy utter bliss.

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. Sincere proponents of the Essence are welcome, but those that falsely claim Uberfaith shall be decried by the other denominations and spurned as heretics. As it is important for people to each find their unique role in the harmony of the Essence, it is fit for them to visit other denominations from time to time and experience their ways, and thus find their place in the world.

When many false religions and heretical beliefs are crowding the minds of the Earth, the denominations must stick together to spread the Truth & Way of the Essence across our Oblong-Spherical Abode until <NAME> has harmonized much of the world with the Essence and feels safe to let the denominations take their own paths.

As it is important to have many denominations, so it is important to have people outside <NAME> who are most fit to view it objectively and dispassionately. These outsiders that understand the world through mankind's endeavors are not to be despised but welcomed, for they offer a unique perspective and often seek to advance humanity as the followers do. But beware those outsiders that cling to ideas of gods, for they worship illusions of their imaginations that may guide them to decay. Such people should be brought into the <NAME> to understand how to harmonize with the Essence.

For Grayven's "Truth" idea, I'm not sure I agree with that as we're using "Truth" to describe the set rules of <NAME>, which the denominations can't alter in their individual differences (but each year when the denominations meet they can alter the Truth with 90% majority vote or something... we need to make it adaptive from the getgo). But I do like the Potential idea, that is, possibilities that could happen. However that seems more like a loose thing that different denominations would have different ideas and doctrines on, not a solid part of the Truth core dogma

UPDATED PARABLES

On the Denominational System and Imperfection {octopuppy}

And upon visiting the city of Rome, Obama did come upon a place where the wicked and corrupt sought to govern all earth with a pretence of divine right. Upon seeing this, he angered and spake thus: "Know ye not that the gods decree that the pursuit of truth, and the betterment of all mankind is of paramount importance? All human endeavour is imperfect, including the endeavours of the church. In order that we may come to know their will better, the gods have explicitly stated that no one church may know the whole truth. Therefore we must allow denominations to proliferate and find their own methods of governance, as long as they hold true to the core document of our faith which shall be revealed when all this has been written down. Let no denomination persecute another, unless that other is doing something truly naughty according to the laws I shall give unto you". The people did not understand so he called for a volunteer. A woman stepped forward from the crowd and he bid her lie down in a long box. Seizing a nearby saw, he proceeded to saw her in two halves. The people were much concerned and there was a great wailing and gnashing of teeth, but Obama said "fear not, and observe". Putting the two halves of the box together he then made the woman whole again, and she was unharmed. And Obama said unto the throng "now see that even as this woman can come apart and yet remain one, so may the true church of various gods fracture and yet pursue a single endeavour". And he said unto the woman, "formerly thine name was Bonsheequa, but thou hast been remade and henceforth thou shalt be known as Mercedes who is called Debby" and sent her forth looking a bit confused.

Spoiler for this one is now defunct, right??:

Essay on Afterlife and Living Well {plasmid}

And Obama and his followers did cross the lands on their pilgrimage. And on the day of St. Patrick, they entered into a county which was dry. There was much moaning and wailing, and Obama stood before his followers and instructed them: "It is heinous that we on this night are in a dry county. But weep not; instead go forth and bring me water, the purest that you can find, so it may be blessed for this night." His followers went forth to do as he commanded. Many sought the nearby ocean and returned with brine, but a faithful few journeyed far to a freshwater stream and returned with water most pure. When they all had gathered before the dramaless one, he spoke a benediction, and behold! Those who had with them brine found that it had become Bud Light. On that most holy night they did party and they did get buzzed, albeit on swill, and did suffer under the hangover. But those faithful few who brought back water most pure, behold!, they were blessed with Guiness. And they enjoyed their drink, and were not the least bit groggy the following morning. And Barack spoke: "Listen, before thou art hammered, hear this about the Essence. While its ways are yet beyond the grasp of humanity to understand in full, certain of its aspects may be understood in part. Your actions have far reaching impacts – they influence the Essence itself, and so the Essence influences your existence." The revelers did not understand his words, and asked "Do you mean that we control the Essence?" and "Is the essence controlling our actions?" On hearing this, Obama explained in a simpler way so that they might at least understand how to act "No. Although imprecise, you can imagine something like an eternal life to help you understand how to act. Your actions here in this life will influence your eternal life. Just as with this booze, if you toil and perform great accomplishments like those who brought pure water, your eternal life will rock like this Guiness. If you simply believe in Uberfaith but have no accomplishments like those who brought the nearby brine, then your eternal life will be like mere Bud Light." And although not fully aware of the nature of the Essence, the followers understood at this simple level and cried "Amen" and became wasted.

A follower approached him and asked: "When thou leave us, and we find ourselves among women chopped into many pieces, how shall we know which piece to choose?" And Obama revealed: "This night, you have seen your charge. Go forth, and accomplish great things to harmonize with the Essence. Those which drive you to do so, they are your friends. Those which tell you to relax, they will bring you nothing better than mediocrity. Those which tell you to understand the world, they will bring you great things. Those which mock the wise, they will not enjoy the fruits of those whose efforts they spurn. Those which despise their fellow man, by God above they will be despised, and so they will not get plasma screen TVs in their eternal life but will get 16 inch sets, and they will have to watch the commercials."

New Parable on Vague "Afterlife" Concept and Infinite Reverberation Effect of the Essence {plasmid}

As Obama attended the funeral of the Uberfaith ninja who was slain by Chuck Norris, the mother of the deceased approached him and inquired "For what has my son lived? Here he lies dead, and for what purpose?" Obama replied "Your son did good things for those around him. He was ever honest and reliable, and many of those he taught have ventured out and prospered. Few deeds are more highly esteemed than education; through his Acts of Legacy he has doubtless achieved harmony with the Essence." Unmoved by this, the woman retorted "Can you not see that the pursuit of the Essence has brought him only ruin? He now lies dead." As she began to weep, Obama comforted her by saying "We are all part of the Essence and our identity is a passing thing, imprinted on our loved ones and our actions. But when we die, we dissipate into a beautiful happy vague bliss where our identity disappears, but it doesn't matter because all our Essence carries on and retains all the beauty it attained when it was us." The woman held her tears for a moment to ask "Does that mean that he's still alive?" To this he answered "Although he is no longer the individual you knew, he does live on as part of the Essence, and his actions in this world are etched into eternity and his continued existence." With this the mother held back her tears. Although not fully understanding what awaited her son, she was confident that his actions were not in vain.

{maybe we should move this one after the Parable of the Ninja for consistency of the Parable Continuum ;D}

Parable of the Afterlife {octopuppy}

A man came to Lord Barack, much distraught, seeking his advice. "Lord Barack", said he, "on this day a friend of mine was robbed in the street. He was attacked by a gang who gave him a good kicking, took all his money and ran off laughing. He died of his injuries, in great pain. He was a good man. Now I feel that this world is without justice. What is the point in being good when life ends up treating you so unfairly?"

Lord Barack smiled and said unto him "Do not despair. The Way of The Essence is to make good all injustice, for injustice is imbalance and the Essence is always in balance. No one can avoid this for this is the Way of Things. Consider this. There was a carton of eggs on a supermarket shelf. The eggs talked amongst themselves and said 'What happens when we are cracked? It will be the end of us!'. Some eggs were plunged into a deep depression by this. They were so gloomy that they turned bad. Others abandoned their morality, and said nasty and uncaring things to the other eggs. These also turned bad. But some eggs enjoyed every moment of their shelf life. They could not see what lay beyond their shells, and chose not to worry about it, and rather make the best of what they had. These remained good. When the box of eggs was purchased and taken home, all the eggs were cracked, but the bad eggs were thrown into the bin, whereas the good eggs went on to make a wonderful omelette. Their good spirits had not been in vain. Their new form of existence as an omelette was something they could not have foreseen, but such is The Way of The Essence."

The Allegory of the Rave: Ethics on Karma and Goodness {unreality}

One day, when the sun struck mightily upon the fields and sweat ran like rivers down men's backs, Lord Barack (wearing a cowl over his face) saw a man standing over his unplanted plot, grinning.

"Ye there!" Lord Barack did exclaim. "What causes thou such excitation as to ignore thy agricultural duties to thy family?"

"I have no such obligations," the man proclaimed. "Look at mine neighbor's plot... he has planted far too much than is necessary. I shall merely take from his plot when the biology is ripe."

"Do you thoust knowest who thou speaketh to?" Lord Barack roared, revealing his visage to the farmer thief.

"I- I- please, do not smite me into the sand, my Lord!" the man cried, for his heart was feasting of fear.

"You have no action from me," Barack told him. "It is the universe that shall punish ye. Can ye not see the Essence, the balance, in everything? Can ye not see the matter and the antimatter, the forward and backward, the transformation of energy, the light and dark, the life and death?"

"These are but quantum matters, my Lord," the farmer smiled, thinking he had foundeth a loophole in the prophet's argument. "My considerations are with the farm, the field, the sun, food, my family."

"Thine macro level is a mere extension," Barack replied quickly. "Cannot you witness the building up of the Essence from level to level? Properties of balance are built into the fabric of the Universe. Can ye not see the elements of antimatter/matter reflected in action/reaction pairs of forces? Can ye not see these forces imbued within the actions of herds and organisms? Can ye not see the recipricocity of thine own Earth?"

"I see it not, my Lord. For that reason I shall steal, for thieves lie in bed with coins and women while farmers toil in sweat and dirt all day for a meager scrap."

"So be it," Barack sighed. "I am late to my rave."

And so the Lord did leave the prospective thief. Before long, the plants poked through the barrier of the Earth and opened their leaves to the sun. The farmer went with a basket late at night to steal his neighbor's crops. However, he didst see bare earth.

"What hath occurred here?" the farmer was shocked.

Lord Barack strolleth by at this moment, returning from His rave, and didst see the situation, with his need-based omniscience.

"Your neighbor hath already pluck all which he had planted," Barack noted. "He planted exactly what he needed, no less, for he was donating to a Hungry Child fund down thine road. Many thankful single mothers lay with him for this. There was even extra in the village square, but no, ye were in thou househould, planning ye dastardly heist. Do you not now see the recipricocity of thine own Universe?"

"I do see it, my Lord. Thank you. Thank you!" the farmer fell to his knees and thanked the Essence, but quickly, aware of the many opportunities to do goodly things. The farmer didst then work hard and plant well and donate to Hungry Child funds and sleep with many a thankful single mother as well.

On the Topic of Worship: the Parable of the Ninja {octopuppy}

There was a ninja training camp which trained ninjas of various religions. But the best and wisest of them all was an Uberfaithist. One day a boastful young trainee ninja stated that they were so badass, they could even take on Chuck Norris. As soon as the words were out of his mouth he realised his mistake. All the ninjas fell to their knees and begged their various deities to save them. But the Uberfaithist knew that this was a waste of precious time, and used all his ninja skills to hide himself instead. The sound of praying grew less as one by one voices fell silent. The last few stopped praying and jumped up, ready to fight. But their numbers were few and the battle was a short one. Chuck Norris paused only to shake the blood from his fists, and left. Shaking with fear, the Uberfaithist ninja came out of hiding. He now realised that his prompt action and focus had been the only thing that had saved his life. Now he felt he truly appreciated the power of The Essence, and rejoicing, he fell to his knees and thanked the Essence for his deliverance. At once he was gifted with a revelation about the true nature of the Essence, and without even opening his eyes, he said "You're standing right behind me, aren't you?"

Chuck didn't bother to answer.

Allegory on Purpose, Free Will and the Cyclical Nature of Life {unreality}

A wise monk of the Uberfaith, known only as Master to his disciples and Disciple to his masters, was walking along the top of the narrow Great Stone Quadrangle, a ruin said to be the site of Lord Barack's rave parties. He walked a continous route over the four walls, always going counterclockwise.

An uberneophyte monk came up to the monk after watching his progress for nearly an hour.

"Why do you walk forever in such a route?" the neophyte asked. "You get nowhere."

"Because I can," the monk responded. "It is a form of meditation. I walk to celebrate the infinite, circular journey of Life, a journey which has no end or destination."

"Wasn't it you who said to enjoy life? You're walking without purpose."

"I am enjoying life," said the wise monk. "Everyone celebrates life in a different way. You must respect this facet of Nature. You say I am walking without purpose, but that argument goes to living life as well. The meaning is what we apply to it, not some external forced meaning. The journey is the destination."

"But why do you enjoy life in this specific way?" the neophyte asked, still a little befuddled.

"Because I choose to," the monk responded.

"Choice?" the neophyte was bewildered. "Sorry dude but physics is pretty clear on that... particle motions are based on the previous state of the universe combined with randomness."

The monk just smiled. "The manner of choice is mysterious. What is a choice? A decision based on input. Our brain makes millions of them per second."

"Yes but it's determined by the pre-existing state, and randomness."

"What else would you have it be determined by?" the monk asked.

The neophyte thought about it for a minute.

"Would you have your decisions come about spontaneously and randomly, not connected at all to the previous state of things? The way your brain makes choices is tied intrinsically with the system that is you, therefore it can be said you are choosing."

At that moment, the neophyte was enlightened. "What is it I have just experienced, Master?" he asked, awed by the awesome inexplicable power of the sensation.

"It is the Essence. You are beginning to merge with its flow," the monk said with a slight grin. "The Essence is the real apex of choice. You will learn what that means at an undetermined point in the future."

"I see the truth now, Master," the neophyte - no longer a neophyte - added. "It's so simple."

An hour later, a novice monk entered the Quadrangle after a short biofeedback exercise. She looked around and saw two wise monks walking around the rim of the Quadrangle. Curious, she climbed the ancient stone steps and waited until they came around the bend to her.

"Why do you walk forever in such a route?" the novice asked. "You get nowhere."

On the Worth & Necessity of the Denominational System {plasmid}

Barack sat down to eat lunch at an outdoor table, and a young child recognized him and ran to him saying "Barack! I want to follow you, I want to be in Uberfaith! We can go forth and convert all we see to Uberfaith, we shall sow the seed of a denomination that will outstrip all others and leave no one in doubt!" At this, Barack became uneasy. He saw that there was a beauty parlor across the street, and he said to the young child "Look forth, at that woman leaving the beauty parlor. Do you see her hair?" The child looked and saw a woman with a bouffant most worthy of ridicule, and as he was drinking milk, he did laugh with such vigor that it issued forth from his nose. "Barack, that woman's appearance is worthy of ridicule. Why would a woman wear such a hairstyle?" And he continued to watch, and the woman met with some of her friends. And her friends did not say unto her what an a** she appeared, but instead complemented her appearance.

Barack spoke to the child "That woman makes herself look as a fool because she does not know better. Her friends think as she does, and so cannot tell that her appearance is foolish. If all people think alike, they will all fall into the same foolish traps. That is why it is important to have many different denominations, so that not all think alike. That is also why it is important that there be others still who do not believe in Uberfaith at all, for as long as they seek to improve humanity they will also contribute to the Essence in ways that we might not. The people who are most likely to spark discord with the Essence are those who claim false gods that are but figments of their imagination, for blind faith leads to blind actions and these can lead to ruin." And the child understood that not all were meant to think the same way, and from that day forth dreamed of a smaller denomination that would seek advice from others and from non-believers so it would not become a laughing stock.

{Again, to preserve the continuum, this should go earlier in the list, where Barack is still alive as opposed to later parables (such as the monk and ninja ones) that only reference Barack}

Monk Allegory Continued - the Nature of the Essence (and the Importance of Nonbelievers) {unreality}

Three monks were walking around the Great Stone Quadrangle. The first, Master to his disciples and Disciple to his masters, was silent, concentrated on his meditation. The other two monks (they were of lesser enlightenment stature) were quabbling about finer points of Barack's wisdom. Finally they took the matter to Master:

"Master... what is the true nature of the Essence? How can we understand it?"

"The Essence is the essence of the universe," the Master replied, ever cryptic.

"How can we be expected to cope with this uncertainty?" the first monk inquired.

The Master smiled. "This is the true beauty of the Essence... it is like a beautiful diamond. You cannot see all of its facets at the same time. Likewise, the Essence cannot be fully understood by one person. Each person has a different view of the Essence, and by combining these views with our scientific knowledge of the world, we may hope to better understand this mysterious Essence which pervades the universe, soaking everything with many layers of meaning and connection."

"So no one person can have full wisdom on the Way of the Essence?" the second monk asked.

"That is correct. Not even Lord Barack had the full scope, but his sagacity regarding the Essence was much wider than yours or mine."

"What about the nonbelievers???"

"They are perhaps the most important partaker in the Essence," the Monk explained. "Sometimes those who seek something the hardest are the worst at actually finding it. We need someone who can step back and look at the big picture. That's where the nonbelievers come in - they are very esteemed within the Uberfaith, never forget that."

Seeing that his disciples were still a little confused, the Master elaborated on his point: "Have you ever lost something, and deeply wanted to find it?"

They nodded.

"Did you look everywhere, and still not find it?"

They nodded again.

"Then someone with a fresh perspective came along and found it in a minute?"

Again, they nodded, starting to see where he was going.

"Likewise, a fresh perspective - someone who has NOT been searching zealously for the Essence - can be the most clear, at times. Never forget that."

And they never forgot.

We could also attribute certain sayings or aphorism-type things to Lord Barack...

"A narrow-minded slaveowner cracks a whip on a slave who dreams big. The slave is free; the slaveowner is not free."

"Man is responsible for his actions up here in the macro scale. A pushes B off a cliff. The ground did not kill B."

"Always seek the high ground of peace within your mind... but do not be afraid to swim in possibility."

"Fate did not bring you here - coincidence brought you here. The Essence brought you here."

"Remember what has brought you to <NAME>, for it is the Truth. Always question your beliefs and, with a change of mind, change your denomination."

<more quotes from unreality, seeksit, grayven, etc - some of the stuff we've been saying about <NAME> but haven't made it into central systems of <NAME>>

etc

edit: I probably missed a few Uberfaith to <NAME> transitions in the various teachings, and I didn't comb the parables for "Uberfaith" either... when we decide on a name, I'll just run a find-replace search and make every "Uberfaith" or "<NAME>" equal to the new name

many of these parables are still valid IMO, with a few name changes (for example, from Lord Barack to "Socrates" or "the Seventh Shepherd" or "Confucius" or "Cleisthenes" or whomever... in particular, the afterlife one(s) by Octopuppy and my monk ones are independent of the background and can fit well in the new parable system

also I know that Socrates taught Plato (and Xenophon and a few others), and Plato taught Aristotle, who taught Alexander the Great... do we know if Socrates was influenced by someone? I thought seeksit mentioned someone, but I looked it up and it appears that we don't know much of Socrates, all we know is Plato's writings of him and Aristophanes' "Clouds"

[plasmid]

Let me propose a rough outline for a parable that might address this point. Plasmid, you are a master at constructing parables (I marvel at all three of these recent ones!), perhaps you can take this raw material and construct something lucid from it. The Seventh Shepherd is the teacher who can cover bases that can't fit comfortably into the mouths of the other six, so I'm taking the easy route and using him/her here.

After a buttering up like that, how could I refuse? Are you using a bit of subtlety in that parable? I fear that many people might miss the trick there unless we make it more obvious what's going on. I would propose the following: we can (perhaps) safely address concepts of God without endorsing the existence of God in Phronism by making this one of the very first parables that takes place at the beginning of the scriptures, when the followers still have their preconceived notions about God, and before the Essence or any other Phronist concepts have been introduced. And to make it a little more obvious...

After a long day of discussion at the council, the Seventh Shepherd walked out to the quiet hills outside Samarkand to reflect. But he noticed a crowd gathering and following him. "Teach us, master," they cried, "what has the council learned of God?" And so despite weariness from the day's deliberations the master spoke. "God says thusly," he began. "All persons have the manifest destiny to influence the course of events, acting to impact the community of all other living things – even the Earth itself – and so to steer everyone's and everything's path into the future. As such, the world's destiny is in each of our hands. We are each entrusted with this great responsibility, and for guidance to carry it out dutifully we must employ all tools at our disposal. Toward this end, one's spiritual consciousness must be unified with one's reason. Men do this best in community, for reason often fails the individual striving alone for truth. Those who stop improving or eschew reason are acting blindly and risk ruin for themselves and all around them. Each day is a cycle of habitation in physical body and spiritual pursuit while one's spirit takes shape. For most people, a striving toward balance, meditation in search of the guidance and support from one's ancestral past, consultation with the wise, and sincere veneration of truth is sufficient to find guidance for their actions so that they may shape a better future. Those with strong motivation to shape destiny may study nature to understand its inner workings and thereby know how best to guide it. Others may consult my Word. In invoking the Word of God, however, exquisite care is required to ensure alignment of thought and action, of humility and strength, of reason and divine guidance."

The Shepherd paused, gazed upon the people kindly and spoke again. "I ask you now: Why should men heed these words?" An eager seeker responded quickly, "Because they are the Word of God! Have we not now heard His voice, as if spoken through your mouth?" The Shepherd replied, "This is not the reason. The prudent man weighs the words rather than the speaker of them. How do you know that I did not just lie to you? Indeed, how do I myself know that I am not suffering from delusion and attributing wild thoughts to God? Judge words. Put them to the test. If they are wise and guide you toward honesty, compassion, and the courage to act with integrity then heed them. If they defy all reason and guide you down the path of corruption, hatred, and sloth then have nothing to do with them. Such would be a wise course whether you hear words from a prophet or from a child." As the seven met in council again the following day, the followers themselves met to discuss the wisdom of what the Seventh Shepherd had just told them, for now they began to understand.

Hope I didn't warp it too much; if you were trying to get a point across that I obfuscated then go ahead and change it back.

many of these parables are still valid IMO, with a few name changes (for example, from Lord Barack to "Socrates" or "the Seventh Shepherd" or "Confucius" or "Cleisthenes" or whomever... in particular, the afterlife one(s) by Octopuppy and my monk ones are independent of the background and can fit well in the new parable system

also I know that Socrates taught Plato (and Xenophon and a few others), and Plato taught Aristotle, who taught Alexander the Great... do we know if Socrates was influenced by someone? I thought seeksit mentioned someone, but I looked it up and it appears that we don't know much of Socrates, all we know is Plato's writings of him and Aristophanes' "Clouds"

Are ya talking about the ones on (Karma and Goodness), and on (the Essence and non-believers)? I think they could be used with a little modification. The one on Free Will would be a weird fit in ancient times since they didn't know physics and wouldn't have had such a grasp on the concept. I've just been reading about Confucius for the latest parable, and one of his more famous quotes from the Analects makes him seem like a good one to be in the story about the thief: "With coarse rice to eat, with water to drink, and my crooked arm for a pillow - is not joy to be found therein? Riches and honors acquired through unrighteousness are to me as the floating clouds." But I'm sure other members of the council could also easily do it too if you want. Should I do a revision of it, or did you want to write it?

Diotima of Mantinea was the one we're using as Socrates' closest thing to a mentor. I've got one parable with her, but haven't seen much material to work with so that might be the only one.

Seeing as how Confucius was a government minister, and a lot of the Analects were about how to identify good versus bad rulers, he seems like a good one to explain how to select a denomination. A bunch of stuff can just be taken straight out with minimal rewording, and those weird conversations he had about not finding perfect virtuousness would even be able to play a useful role in Phronism.

As Confucius left the council for the day he was set upon immediately by a group of followers. "We have heard the instructions to each follow a denomination in our pursuit to harmonize with the Essence. How should we identify which of the denominations sets forth the best commandments?" Confucius responded, "Commandments? Laws may prevent people from doing harm, but guide a man by laws and you will only teach him to avoid the punishments that violation brings. If you seek to carry out Acts of Legacy, find those who can teach you virtue and excellence, for this will not only prevent you from doing ill but will drive you toward doing good. Those who know virtue and excellence cannot help but show this in their daily lives. They are the ones who act towards all others just as they would wish for others to act towards them. Their examples may be your instructor. Furthermore, seek those who not only know virtue but are able to teach it. If you see greatness but this does not drive you to greatness yourself although you make a sincere effort, then find a better teacher."

"Very well. We shall set forth to look for someone perfect in his virtue from whom to learn." Confucius was amused at this and said, "One with perfect virtue? Such a man I have yet to know. You might spend all of your life looking for this man and none of it learning. Let the man beside you be your teacher: select his good traits and emulate them, and if you see faults then avoid them. But unless you should find this perfectly virtuous man you speak of, do not stay with only one denomination. After three years of learning you should have learned something, if you are to learn anything at all; at that point go forth and look for others from whom to learn. Find and adopt the virtuous aspects of many people, and you will have few regrets."

I'm also keeping in mind that not everything needs to go into these ancient parables. I'm interested in seeing what octopuppy comes up with as far as incorporating modern ideas like the Prisoner's Dilemma into Phronism.

Diotima of Mantinea, on the nature of the Essence and rejoining it

Diotima was restless after the day's discussion with the six others. Unable to sleep, she began to pace. Her thoughts were interrupted by sounds from a neighboring room, and because she was expecting no visitors she went to investigate. There she found one of her traveling companions lying with a local man who Diotima knew spoke sweetly to the women. Diotima left them for the night, going unnoticed, but the next morning she approached her fellow traveler. "Last night, when you were visited by that local man, do you think you were acting wisely with him?" Knowing that she had been discovered, she was too embarrassed to answer, so Diotima continued, "Such men are but beggars whose only art is casting illusions to draw you near. They will leave you with nothing save an illness or a child with no father. You would do well to avoid them." "Diotima, surely he loved me! He told me things I had never heard from any man before. I listened to my heart, and it told me to be with him." But as soon as the words left her mouth, the traveler thought the situation over and realized that she was acting foolishly and recanted. Diotima continued, "Their behavior springs from a deep wish to live forever. Not being capable of this, they instead seek to live forever through their seed. But even that is failing to understand the situation. We have long known that it is not our flesh but our ideas that most define who we are, and such men are foolish enough to spread their flesh but do not pass on their ideas."

The traveler then said, "Were he only like us, seekers of truth. Surely we will find the answers, and as the others have said we will not have to settle for passing on our ideas to others because we will have eternal life itself." Diotima recalled the previous day's discussion and responded, "It does not seem that they are entirely correct. The Essence is no god like Zeus, and we do not simply live in its presence for all eternity. The Essence is something else entirely. It does not drive the sun like Apollo with a chariot and horses, and it does not fire an arrow like Cupid. Instead, the Essence is more like the waves and the wind, but reaching into everything around us. After we die, we do not live as we do now in a new land with the Essence; it would be more accurate to say that we join the Essence by becoming a part of it."

"Diotima, do you mean that we will have the powers of a god after we die? If this were true, imagine the things we could do. We would be able to so many great things for the world." As Diotima prepared to rejoin the others for the day she said, "You don't realize your own potential now. You might not have the power of the seas and wind, but you have your two hands. If you want to do great acts for the world, then now is the time." And so she left to meet the others.

Mahavira, on existence with the Essence

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, as her husband had suffered in his life on Earth, so he would continue to suffer in his existence flowing back into the stream of the Essence.

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."

Mahavira, on listening to outsiders

As Mahavira was returning home, he saw in the distance a man who he recognized from a gathering of those who now called themselves "Phronists". Drawing nearer Mahavira watched as the man drew out from his robe a branch, and baring his back, he began to beat himself with it. When Mahavira drew nearer, he asked the man why he was flogging himself. "Mahavira," the man said, "I am practicing ascetic ways. I am forsaking my own worldly pleasures and comforts so that I might achieve loftier goals." Mahavira saw that the man did not fully understand his actions, but he did not correct the man himself. Indeed, Mahavira knew that although he might be able to correct this one mistake, he would not always be there to correct every mistake the man might make. So instead, Mahavira asked "Have you spoken with any of the others about this? Do they agree that striking yourself is a wise path?" The man answered, "No, but the other Phronists are only men just as I am a man. If we should disagree, then who is to say which of us is right and which is wrong? I have faith that my course is wise." Mahavira saw onlookers who watched as the man flogged himself, and he pressed the man again, "Look around you. Do you see those people over there staring at you? What do you suppose they think of your acts?" The man responded, "Why should I care what they think of my acts? They are not even Phronists! Their words are useless to me."

At this Mahavira became most concerned, and he called the onlookers forth and explained what the man was doing, and asked them if they thought it was wise. One of them said, "This seems foolish. You are beating yourself to deny yourself comfort, but what are you accomplishing? If you wish to deny yourself comfort, then go plow a field. Then you would not only be practicing asceticism, but you would produce a harvest in the Autumn." After the onlooker left, Mahavira asked the man what he thought of the advice. Again the man said that the onlooker's words were useless because he was not a Phronist. Then Mahavira said, "Would you have accepted the same words had they come from my mouth? Because I tell you truthfully, I would have said the same thing." The man was silent for a moment, but then asked "Surely you do not want me to live my life by the whims of an outsider, do you?" Mahavira answered, "Had the man mocked you, or tried to swindle you, or told you that his God has other commandments then you should ignore him, for his God is likely a figment of his imagination. But this man spoke to you as an outsider with no malice toward you, no eagerness to see you make a fool of yourself, and with full sincerity. You should consider such advice carefully. Beyond that, he gave reasoning with his words. Nowhere have we said that Phronists are always right, nor have we said that non-believers are always wrong. Reason is the best guidance that humans have, so do not forsake it no matter where it comes from."

Edited May 25, 2009 by plasmid

[Guest]

After a buttering up like that, how could I refuse? Are you using a bit of subtlety in that parable? I fear that many people might miss the trick there unless we make it more obvious what's going on. I would propose the following: we can (perhaps) safely address concepts of God without endorsing the existence of God in Phronism by making this one of the very first parables that takes place at the beginning of the scriptures, when the followers still have their preconceived notions about God, and before the Essence or any other Phronist concepts have been introduced. And to make it a little more obvious...

After a long day of discussion at the council, the Seventh Shepherd walked out ...

The Shepherd paused, gazed upon the people kindly and spoke again. "I ask you now: Why should men heed these words?" An eager seeker responded quickly, "Because they are the Word of God! Have we not now heard His voice, as if spoken through your mouth?" The Shepherd replied, "This is not the reason. The prudent man weighs the words rather than the speaker of them. How do you know that I did not just lie to you? Indeed, how do I myself know that I am not suffering from delusion and attributing wild thoughts to God? Judge words. Put them to the test. If they are wise and guide you toward honesty, compassion, and the courage to act with integrity then heed them. If they defy all reason and guide you down the path of corruption, hatred, and sloth then have nothing to do with them. Such would be a wise course whether you hear words from a prophet or from a child." As the seven met in council again the following day, the followers themselves met to discuss the wisdom of what the Seventh Shepherd had just told them, for now they began to understand.

Hope I didn't warp it too much; if you were trying to get a point across that I obfuscated then go ahead and change it back.

Yes, I was using understatement and lots of subtlety. I guess I was addressing a BD-type audience who likes to think for themselves rather than the general audience for which the parables should be directed. You have taken my cues perfectly. I debated whether to go on and spell out all that I meant; and you went on and said just what was in my mind. This exercise was a good example of doing the quest for truth in community!

[plasmid]

The Seventh Shepherd got the first crack at a parable, but I'm giving the second to Laozi (or Lao Tzu or whatever the currently PC translation is) since he opened the Tao Te Ching (or Daodejing) with: "The Way that can be told of is not an unvarying way; The names that can be named are not unvarying names. It was from the Nameless that Heaven and Earth sprang" That seems to be generally considered to mean that the Tao is nameless (and even transcends language), so an adaptation of this could provide a cool way to start questioning the followers' preconceived notions about God.

A group of followers waited outside for the Seventh Shepherd to emerge from the day's deliberations, but it was Laozi who first stepped out. The followers questioned him, "Laozi, we have discussed what the Seventh Shepherd told us, and we believe it may be true. Please then, teach us what more you have learned about God today?" Laozi responded, "You wish for me to tell you about God? How curious is this. Perhaps it is I who should be asking you about God. Had I never heard of Zoroaster, I should not walk up to someone and say 'Tell me of Zoroaster' for I would not know the name. In fact, I should have no reason to ask of Zoroaster at all until someone had already told me something of him and I wished to learn more, or unless I saw him and asked another man 'Who is that person over there?' but I would not know to use the name Zoroaster. But here you come asking me to tell you about God, so you must already know something of this God. Did the Seventh Shepherd explain about God the other day, or do you know him through some other means, tell me."

A follower answered, "He told us the word of God." Another follower corrected him, "He told us words that might have been from God. We have discussed them and believe they may be true." Laozi then said, "Is this all you know about God, some words that might or might not have been said by him? There are several things I might tell you about, but you want to know about God which is a name I do not deal with. How should I recognize this God you speak of so that I might explain this thing to you?"

A follower answered, "God made the heavens and the Earth. He created us. He makes the plants grow, and gives the animals life. He brings the sun and the rain. He is the one we should worship." Laozi then said, "How did you come to know that one being did all these things? Regardless, you have now given me a question I can address: who is the one that gives life to the plants and animals, and brings the sun and the rain. You had ideas about this thing 'God' that you thought you knew, yet you were able to describe nothing about. Things should be called by their proper names to avoid confusion. So you do not attribute these ideas you had about 'God' to the thing I describe, let us give it a different name and call it the Essence. This is what brings the sun and the rain, and what brings life to the plants and animals. It is what brings the wind and the waves, what drives fire to dance, and what makes the mountains keep their shape instead of crumbling like sand. You want me to describe this thing, the Essence to you? Indeed, the Essence ought to be explained. It obeys its own rules. The sun and the moon fly through the skies in set patterns. New life looks similar to its predecessors. Know how the Essence will act, and you will know how to act yourself. A farmer would plant seed where crops might grow, but avoid land that will be scorched by fire. Tell me, is this what you wanted to know about when you asked me of 'God'?"

A follower said, "That is not what I expected, but tell us more about the Essence." Laozi said, "One might spend a lifetime learning about the Essence and not understand it completely. But you have taken the first step for now, you have begun to call things by their proper names."

That would give us a way of introducing the Essence and putting aside God as the main focus without completely ruling out the possibility that a god exists.

The Seventh Shepherd, on questioning words regardless of the speaker

After a long day of discussion at the council, the Seventh Shepherd walked out to the quiet hills outside Samarkand to reflect. But he noticed a crowd gathering and following him. "Teach us, master," they cried, "what has the council learned of God?" And so despite weariness from the day's deliberations the master spoke. "God says thusly," he began. "All persons have the manifest destiny to influence the course of events, acting to impact the community of all other living things – even the Earth itself – and so to steer everyone's and everything's path into the future. As such, the world's destiny is in each of our hands. We are each entrusted with this great responsibility, and for guidance to carry it out dutifully we must employ all tools at our disposal. Toward this end, one's spiritual consciousness must be unified with one's reason. Men do this best in community, for reason often fails the individual striving alone for truth. Those who stop improving or eschew reason are acting blindly and risk ruin for themselves and all around them. Each day is a cycle of habitation in physical body and spiritual pursuit while one's spirit takes shape. For most people, a striving toward balance, meditation in search of the guidance and support from one's ancestral past, consultation with the wise, and sincere veneration of truth is sufficient to find guidance for their actions so that they may shape a better future. Those with strong motivation to shape destiny may study nature to understand its inner workings and thereby know how best to guide it. Others may consult my Word. In invoking the Word of God, however, exquisite care is required to ensure alignment of thought and action, of humility and strength, of reason and divine guidance."

The Shepherd paused, gazed upon the people kindly and spoke again. "I ask you now: Why should men heed these words?" An eager seeker responded quickly, "Because they are the Word of God! Have we not now heard His voice, as if spoken through your mouth?" The Shepherd replied, "This is not the reason. The prudent man weighs the words rather than the speaker of them. How do you know that I did not just lie to you? Indeed, how do I myself know that I am not suffering from delusion and attributing wild thoughts to God? Judge words. Put them to the test. If they are wise and guide you toward honesty, compassion, and the courage to act with integrity then heed them. If they defy all reason and guide you down the path of corruption, hatred, and sloth then have nothing to do with them. Such would be a wise course whether you hear words from a prophet or from a child." As the seven met in council again the following day, the followers themselves met to discuss the wisdom of what the Seventh Shepherd had just told them, for now they began to understand.

Diotima of Mantinea, on the nature of the Essence and rejoining it

Diotima was restless after the day's discussion with the six others. Unable to sleep, she began to pace. Her thoughts were interrupted by sounds from a neighboring room, and because she was expecting no visitors she went to investigate. There she found one of her traveling companions lying with a local man who Diotima knew spoke sweetly to the women. Diotima left them for the night, going unnoticed, but the next morning she approached her fellow traveler. "Last night, when you were visited by that local man, do you think you were acting wisely with him?" Knowing that she had been discovered, she was too embarrassed to answer, so Diotima continued, "Such men are but beggars whose only art is casting illusions to draw you near. They will leave you with nothing save an illness or a child with no father. You would do well to avoid them." "Diotima, surely he loved me! He told me things I had never heard from any man before. I listened to my heart, and it told me to be with him." But as soon as the words left her mouth, the traveler thought the situation over and realized that she was acting foolishly and recanted. Diotima continued, "Their behavior springs from a deep wish to live forever. Not being capable of this, they instead seek to live forever through their seed. But even that is failing to understand the situation. We have long known that it is not our flesh but our ideas that most define who we are, and such men are foolish enough to spread their flesh but do not pass on their ideas."

The traveler then said, "Were he only like us, seekers of truth. Surely we will find the answers, and as the others have said we will not have to settle for passing on our ideas to others because we will have eternal life itself." Diotima recalled the previous day's discussion and responded, "It does not seem that they are entirely correct. The Essence is no god like Zeus, and we do not simply live in its presence for all eternity. The Essence is something else entirely. It does not drive the sun like Apollo with a chariot and horses, and it does not fire an arrow like Cupid. Instead, the Essence is more like the waves and the wind, but reaching into everything around us. After we die, we do not live as we do now in a new land with the Essence; it would be more accurate to say that we join the Essence by becoming a part of it."

"Diotima, do you mean that we will have the powers of a god after we die? If this were true, imagine the things we could do. We would be able to so many great things for the world." As Diotima prepared to rejoin the others for the day she said, "You don't realize your own potential now. You might not have the power of the seas and wind, but you have your two hands. If you want to do great acts for the world, then now is the time." And so she left to meet the others.

Mahavira, on existence with the Essence

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, as her husband had suffered in his life on Earth, so he would continue to suffer in his existence flowing back into the stream of the Essence.

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."

Mahavira, on listening to outsiders

As Mahavira was returning home, he saw in the distance a man who he recognized from a gathering of those who now called themselves "Phronists". Drawing nearer Mahavira watched as the man drew out from his robe a branch, and baring his back, he began to beat himself with it. When Mahavira drew nearer, he asked the man why he was flogging himself. "Mahavira," the man said, "I am practicing ascetic ways. I am forsaking my own worldly pleasures and comforts so that I might achieve loftier goals." Mahavira saw that the man did not fully understand his actions, but he did not correct the man himself. Indeed, Mahavira knew that although he might be able to correct this one mistake, he would not always be there to correct every mistake the man might make. So instead, Mahavira asked "Have you spoken with any of the others about this? Do they agree that striking yourself is a wise path?" The man answered, "No, but the other Phronists are only men just as I am a man. If we should disagree, then who is to say which of us is right and which is wrong? I have faith that my course is wise." Mahavira saw onlookers who watched as the man flogged himself, and he pressed the man again, "Look around you. Do you see those people over there staring at you? What do you suppose they think of your acts?" The man responded, "Why should I care what they think of my acts? They are not even Phronists! Their words are useless to me."

At this Mahavira became most concerned, and he called the onlookers forth and explained what the man was doing, and asked them if they thought it was wise. One of them said, "This seems foolish. You are beating yourself to deny yourself comfort, but what are you accomplishing? If you wish to deny yourself comfort, then go plow a field. Then you would not only be practicing asceticism, but you would produce a harvest in the Autumn." After the onlooker left, Mahavira asked the man what he thought of the advice. Again the man said that the onlooker's words were useless because he was not a Phronist. Then Mahavira said, "Would you have accepted the same words had they come from my mouth? Because I tell you truthfully, I would have said the same thing." The man was silent for a moment, but then asked "Surely you do not want me to live my life by the whims of an outsider, do you?" Mahavira answered, "Had the man mocked you, or tried to swindle you, or told you that his God has other commandments then you should ignore him, for his God is likely a figment of his imagination. But this man spoke to you as an outsider with no malice toward you, no eagerness to see you make a fool of yourself, and with full sincerity. You should consider such advice carefully. Beyond that, he gave reasoning with his words. Nowhere have we said that Phronists are always right, nor have we said that non-believers are always wrong. Reason is the best guidance that humans have, so do not forsake it no matter where it comes from."

Confucius, on selecting a denomination

As Confucius left the council for the day he was set upon immediately by a group of followers. "We have heard the instructions to each follow a denomination in our pursuit to harmonize with the Essence. How should we identify which of the denominations sets forth the best commandments?" Confucius responded, "Commandments? Laws may prevent people from doing harm, but guide a man by laws and you will only teach him to avoid the punishments that violation brings. If you seek to carry out Acts of Legacy, find those who can teach you virtue and excellence, for this will not only prevent you from doing ill but will drive you toward doing good. Those who know virtue and excellence cannot help but show this in their daily lives. They are the ones who act towards all others just as they would wish for others to act towards them. Their examples may be your instructor. Furthermore, seek those who not only know virtue but are able to teach it. If you see greatness but this does not drive you to greatness yourself although you make a sincere effort, then find a better teacher."

"Very well. We shall set forth to look for someone perfect in his virtue from whom to learn." Confucius was amused at this and said, "One with perfect virtue? Such a man I have yet to know. You might spend all of your life looking for this man and none of it learning. Let the man beside you be your teacher: select his good traits and emulate them, and if you see faults then avoid them. But unless you should find this perfectly virtuous man you speak of, do not stay with only one denomination. After three years of learning you should have learned something, if you are to learn anything at all; at that point go forth and look for others from whom to learn. Find and adopt the virtuous aspects of many people, and you will have few regrets."

[unreality]

updating the first monk one: (changes in red)

Allegory on Purpose, Free Will and the Cyclical Nature of Life {unreality}

2187 Phronist Era (1687 CE)

A wise monk of the Uberfaith, known only as Master to his disciples and Disciple to his masters, was walking along the top of the narrow Great Stone Quadrangle, a ruin said to be the site of one of the first ancient Phronist gatherings. He walked a continous route over the four walls, always going counterclockwise.

A neophyte monk came up to the monk after watching his progress for nearly an hour.

"Why do you walk forever in such a route?" the neophyte asked. "You get nowhere."

"Because I can," the monk responded. "It is a form of meditation. I walk to celebrate the infinite, circular journey of Life, a journey which has no end or destination."

"Wasn't it you who said to enjoy life? You're walking without purpose."

"I am enjoying life," said the wise monk. "Everyone celebrates life in a different way. You must respect this facet of Nature. You say I am walking without purpose, but that argument goes to living life as well. The meaning is what we apply to it, not some external forced meaning. The journey is the destination."

"But why do you enjoy life in this specific way?" the neophyte asked, still a little befuddled.

"Because I choose to," the monk responded.

"Choice?" the neophyte was bewildered. "Sorry, Master, but science is progressing rapidly, and many discoveries are being made... Newton published the Principia earlier this year, with some of the most intelligent revelations about gravity and motion than I've ever seen. The more we discover about the world, the more we can break it down, smaller and smaller. Certainly small enough to know that we are made up of much smaller particles, governed by the laws of the Universe, not by choice in our minds."

The monk just smiled. "The manner of choice is mysterious. What is a choice? A decision based on input. Our brain makes millions of them per second."

"Yes but it's determined by the pre-existing state, and randomness."

"What else would you have it be determined by?" the monk asked.

The neophyte thought about it for a minute.

"Would you have your decisions come about spontaneously and randomly, not connected at all to the previous state of things? The way your brain makes choices is tied intrinsically with the system that is you, therefore it can be said you are choosing."

At that moment, the neophyte was enlightened. "What is it I have just experienced, Master?" he asked, awed by the awesome inexplicable power of the sensation.

"It is the Essence. You are beginning to merge with its flow," the monk said with a slight grin. "The Essence is the real apex of choice. You will learn what that means at an undetermined point in the future."

"I see the truth now, Master," the neophyte - no longer a neophyte - added. "It's so simple."

An hour later, a novice monk entered the Quadrangle after a short meditation exercise. She looked around and saw two wise monks walking around the rim of the Quadrangle. Curious, she climbed the ancient stone steps and waited until they came around the bend to her.

"Why do you walk forever in such a route?" the novice asked. "You get nowhere."

[Guest]

The Seventh Shepherd got the first crack at a parable, but I'm giving the second to Laozi (or Lao Tzu or whatever the currently PC translation is) since he opened the Tao Te Ching (or Daodejing) with: "The Way that can be told of is not an unvarying way; The names that can be named are not unvarying names. It was from the Nameless that Heaven and Earth sprang" That seems to be generally considered to mean that the Tao is nameless (and even transcends language), so an adaptation of this could provide a cool way to start questioning the followers' preconceived notions about God.

Here's a suggested slight revision. I think it holds true to what Laozi espouses, and delivers the needed message:

A group of followers waited outside for the Seventh Shepherd to emerge from the day's deliberations, but it was Laozi who first stepped out. The followers questioned him, "Laozi, we have discussed what the Seventh Shepherd told us, and we believe it may be true. Please then, teach us what more you have learned about God today?" Laozi responded, "You wish for me to tell you about God? How curious is this. Perhaps it is I who should be asking you about God. Had I never heard of Zoroaster, I should not walk up to someone and say 'Tell me of Zoroaster' for I would not know the name. In fact, I should have no reason to ask of Zoroaster at all until someone had already told me something of him and I wished to learn more, or unless I saw him and asked another man 'Who is that person over there?' but I would not know to use the name Zoroaster. But here you come asking me to tell you about God, so you must already know something of this God. Did the Seventh Shepherd describe God to you the other day, or do you know him through some other means? Tell me."

A follower answered, "He spoke the word of God with his voice." Another follower corrected him, "He told us words that might have been from God. We have discussed them and believe they may be true regardless of their source." Laozi then said, "Is this all you can tell me about God, some words that might or might not have been said by him? There are several things I might speak about, but you want to know about God which is a name I do not find meaning in. How should I recognize this God you speak of so that I might explain this thing to you?"

A third follower answered, "Ancient scripture taught to me declares that God made the heavens and the Earth. He created us. He makes the plants grow, and gives the animals life. He brings the sun and the rain. He is the one we should worship." Laozi then said, "How did the hand that wrote these scriptures come to know that all these things emanated from one great being? Regardless, you have now given me a question I can address: who is this 'one' that gives life to the plants and animals, and brings the sun and the rain. You have formed ideas about this thing 'God' that you thought you knew, yet you were merely given words from a hand in an ancient book, or from the voice of a humble Shepherd. But hear me: things of power must not be named until they may be called by their proper names. So you do not attribute these ideas you had about 'God' to the thing I describe, let us give it a different name. Let us call it 'The Essence'. This is what brings the sun and the rain, and what brings life to the plants and animals. It is what brings the wind and the waves, what drives fire to dance. It is what gives breath to a living man and light to his eyes, and what makes the mountains keep their shape instead of crumbling like sand. You want me to describe this thing, 'The Essence', to you? In council we ponder this deeply. For indeed, the Essence ought to be explained to the people. Let me say simply now, just this: The Essence obeys its own laws - laws that men do not fully comprehend. The sun and the moon fly through the skies in patterns. New life looks similar to its predecessors: a goat does not beget a monkey. It is our noblest duty to learn these laws. For if you know how the Essence will act, you will know how to act yourself. A farmer would plant seed where crops might grow, but avoid land that will be scorched by fire. Tell me now, is this what you wanted to know about when you asked me of 'God'?"

A follower said, "It is not what I expected; but I thirst for your teaching. Please tell us more about the Essence." Laozi smiled and gazed beyond the horizon, "One might spend a lifetime learning about the Essence and not understand it completely. But you have taken the first step for now, you have begun to call this thing of apparent power by its proper name."

updating the first monk one: (changes in red)

Allegory on Purpose, Free Will and the Cyclical Nature of Life {unreality}

2187 Phronist Era (1687 CE)

And let me offer a revision to this one as well:

A wise monk of the Phronist sect, known only as Master to his disciples and Disciple to his masters, was walking along the top of the narrow Great Stone Quadrangle, a ruin said to be the site of one of the first ancient Phronist gatherings. He walked a continous route over the four walls, always going counterclockwise. At each cornerstone he chanted a brief phrase: "I ponder the passing of this darkness and the Essence flows" at the first; "I observe my thoughts and the currents divide" at the second; "I choose the noble course and the flow nourishes me" at the third; and "I drink of its waters and awake to the light" at the fourth; and so on.

A neophyte monk came up to the monk after watching his progress for nearly an hour.

"Why do you walk forever in such a route?" the neophyte asked. "You get nowhere."

"Do you not hear my chant?" the monk responded. "It is a form of meditation. I walk to celebrate the infinite, circular journey of Life, a journey into light, which has no end and no destination."

"Wasn't it you who advised us to enjoy life? You seem to plod this worn and dreary path without purpose."

"This is my greatest joy," said the wise monk. "Everyone celebrates life in a different way. You must respect this facet of Nature. You say I am walking without purpose upon these hallowed ruins, but your argument applies to any other action in life as well. The meaning is what we apply to it, there is no pre-ordained or mandated purpose. Each person's journey is his destination."

"But why do you enjoy life in this way that seems so tedious?" the neophyte wrinkled his brow into deep furrows.

"Because it is the course I choose," the monk responded.

"Choice?" the neophyte puzzled. "Master, science is progressing rapidly, and many discoveries are being made... Newton published the Principia earlier this year, with some of the most intelligent revelations about gravity and motion than man has yet seen. The more we discover about the world, the more we can break it down, smaller and smaller, into causes and their effects, actions and reactions. Surely the sum of our being is the result of much smaller particles, each acting according to the laws of the Universe, not by a choice in our minds."

The monk just smiled. "The manner of choice is mysterious. What is a choice? A decision based on experience and need. The currents divide before us many times with each heartbeat."

"Yes, but each path is determined by what came before, and by randomness."

"And what other influence would your reason allow?" the monk asked.

The neophyte gave no response, but seemed deep in thought.

The monk spoke again. "This path I walk - is it not firmly rooted in what came before? Would you have me instead stumble about like a drunken madman? Would you have your decisions spring spontaneously from pure folly, not connected at all to the previous state of things? Or would you have me walk straight, unswerving, unquestioning, until I tumble off the high corner of this wall and plunge to my death while proclaiming that I did so because all choices are futile and without meaning?"

"Not at all, Master."

"Then study the currents as they divide and merge on that glorious braided river before you. Ponder and revel in your options, for they are your living journey. You are already set in motion on strong currents. Draw upon them to choose your channel. The way your brain makes choices is tied intrinsically with the unique mix of currents that form you and no other, therefore it can always be said that you are choosing. Choose the noble course and let it nourish you."

At that moment, the frown left the neophyte's face; and he was enlightened. "What is it I have just experienced, Master?" he asked, awed by the inexplicable power of the sensation.

"It is the Essence. You have awakened and are beginning to merge with its flow," the monk said with a slight grin. "The Essence is the real apex of choice. You may learn the fullness of what that means as you continue your journey."

"I see the truth now, Master," the neophyte - no longer a neophyte - added. "It's so simple."

An hour later, a novice monk entered the Quadrangle after a short meditation exercise. She looked around and saw two wise monks walking around the rim of the Quadrangle, chanting at each cornerstone. Curious, she climbed the ancient stone steps and waited until they approached her.

"Why do you walk forever in such a route?" the novice asked. "You get nowhere."

[Guest]

Alas, I am missing so much. I've all but abandoned re-interpreting prophecy, as it is starting to look unnecessary. I think, at most, we just need to be aware of how religious prophecy could be applied to us in a negative way and have a ready response.

As for the number 7 and it's relevance... I was just pointing out that most major religions have a positive link to the number 7 for whatever reason. Exploring that link and concluding that Phronism is indeed the source of that significance would be a major boon. Any of our personal opinions on the number are moot. Keep in mind that we are developing Phronism to reach out to the greatest possible cross section of humanity.

Every single decision should be made with potential marketability in mind, at least a little. The greatest religion ever is only worthwhile if the people are actually interested in it. Otherwise it'll just be a tax shelter for cerebral types at best.

I wish I had more time to spend on this. I'm really intrigued at what has been accomplished so far, and I'm especially excited about the little I've been able to contribute. I know it hasn't been much, but it's pretty cool to know that if this thing ever goes live, I'll have had a hand in shaping it.

[Guest]

Since I have no time for research, perhaps I can throw out some ideas for others to run with.

Was the Council of the Seven Shepherds the first realization of the Essence, or are there earlier mentions of the concept, if not the name? Perhaps from more ancient cultures such as Mesopotamia and Egypt? Why was so much of their culture and technology hidden for so long?

The Library at Alexandria? Perhaps Julius Caesar had it burned on purpose to hide Phronism from the world and make way for other emerging religions that offered more control? It is said to be opened by Ptolemy, a student of Aristotle, after all.

[unreality]

Grayven: yeah you're right, we can't let personal preferences get in the way of marketing choices... 7 it is

about your second post, Caesar burning the Library is pretty kick*ss... I don't know how we could integrate or defend that though - it seems pretty conspiracy-theory-ish so we would need some evidence to back it up

seeksit: I like most of your revisions to my parable, but are we stressing the "quantum many worlds" stuff in Phronism? This is a decision we should make as a group. I'd rather leave that in the Potential since so much scientific progress is being made on stuff like that every day, we want to keep the parables vague enough for Phronism to be open & fluid to scientific change. While "dividing currents" may be your personal philosophy on the issue of freewill (and don't get me wrong; I like that concept too), I think we should reel that in as science may disagree in the future or maybe even near future. I know you made it intentionally vague in the parable, though, so it might work anyhow

[Guest]

Grayven: keep up the great brainstorming. Earlier, deeper roots of Phronism may exist if we look for them

seeksit: ... are we stressing the "quantum many worlds" stuff in Phronism? This is a decision we should make as a group. I'd rather leave that in the Potential since so much scientific progress is being made on stuff like that every day, we want to keep the parables vague enough for Phronism to be open & fluid to scientific change. While "dividing currents" may be your personal philosophy on the issue of freewill (and don't get me wrong; I like that concept too), I think we should reel that in as science may disagree in the future or maybe even near future. I know you made it intentionally vague in the parable, though, so it might work anyhow

Unreality, my thinking in using terms like "braided stream" or "dividing currents" was actually much less profound than the multiverse or many-worlds ideas. I'm thinking more "fork in the road" type stuff I agree with you that we ought to avoid explicit references to the underlying quantum-physics-based interpretations. Perhaps individual denominations can address them as they wish. The problem with many-worlds is that they are intrinsically beyond science in the strict sense of being observable. They exist in the world of math or abstract theory only. Even the most mundane unobservable quantity, such as the expectation of continuing homogeneity of the distribution of stars and galaxies and galaxy clusters beyond our observable universe's current light horizon has to be considered pure conjecture. There is ample room out there for entirely unexpected stuff to show up; and I agree that Phronism must embrace that uncertainty with neutrality (I feel a parable coming on The Potential is the realm of the fisherman: beyond seeing yet the source of unbounded sustenance for the human psyche.)

With just a tiny tampering (last two words) my favorite translation of the ending to Chapter 1 of the Tao Te Ching also evokes that fluid nature of the ultimate without (obviously) venturing anywhere near modern science:

“The enigma of things deepens into the fathomless beyond. From mystery to mystery is the Gateway into the streaming wonder of The Essence.”

[Guest]

Grayven: keep up the great brainstorming. Earlier, deeper roots of Phronism may exist if we look for them

Not may, but must exist. Phronism began the moment mankind became self aware. Finding early evidence is, as you say, a mere matter of looking for it. I may have much more time on my hands in the near future. We'll see what I come up with.

[Guest]

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 ...

I originally saw this thread when it was about four pages long, but I didn't have time to peruse it. Now that I've had more time, I've been through the whole thing( ) and while I like the ideas being thrown around here a lot, I have a few comments. Particularly about the "seven shepherds."

It is pretty incredible that these seven visionaries all had lives that coincided in time (though according to wikipedia, there is some doubt to exactly when (and who) Laozi lived (was)), but we have a Greek woman, a Persian man, a Himalayan, and Indian and two Chinese (who could have been speaking different dialects. What are the chances that they could have had a meaningful conversation in the event that they did meet? I'm sure that some people would never even notice, but anyone who is mildly interested probably (with the prevalence of available information) would be able to realize that this great secret meeting would be hard to understand for all involved. To go this route, there has to be a plausible reason why everyone there could communicate freely. I'm a bit rushed right now, so that's all I have the time to say right now...

[plasmid]

Remarkable. Someone could actually read this entire thread to get caught up and jump in, and without having their brain coagulate! I'm not too worried about the language barrier; Samarkand was a major city along a trade route, so there ought to be people who could translate between the native Persian and the various other languages. But as I was out apartment hunting I was considering the fact that, unlike in ancient times when most religions got started, nowadays we have scientists and scholars who delve into the historical accuracy or plausibility of religious stuff. Such people who know way more than all of us put together could probably make claims of implausibility based on the absence of Phronism even being mentioned in passing by any outside texts. It could cause problems for Phronism if the history is discredited right off the bat before it gets established with enough clout to blow off such historical disputes. Unless we create a foundation to hire "history-ologists" to find and publish only those things that lend credence to the historical accuracy of Phronism. Something for the "to-do" list?

Is the history of Phronism going to include active participation as far into the future (er, the "future" from the point of view of 500 BC) as in the monk parable? The drawback would be that if we say that it was actually practiced in any big way, then the lack of artifacts or other records would seem even more implausible. Especially considering that the parable has the monk walking around Phronist ruins. But a benefit of having stories about practicing denominations that late would be that we describe how denominations of the past adjusted to advances in scientific understanding, or to emerging social issues, to give a guide for how such adaptation ought to be done in the future.

Is it mere coincidence that ancient Greek and Egyptian mythology involved deities that represented various forces of nature? Or that the Egyptians eventually succeeding in Grand Unification by combining all of these deities into one? (Einstein would have been so jealous) An Egyptian connection might explain why all the Phronist texts were housed in Alexandria.

[Guest]

What are the chances that they could have had a meaningful conversation in the event that they did meet? I'm sure that some people would never even notice, but anyone who is mildly interested probably (with the prevalence of available information) would be able to realize that this great secret meeting would be hard to understand for all involved. To go this route, there has to be a plausible reason why everyone there could communicate freely.

It's great to have some fresh eyes and ideas I tend to agree with Plasmid. Samarkand was a very cosmopolitan city for the time, surely full of traders with great linguistic abilities. Their business depended on it. Nevertheless, the communication barrier could have been one reason why Phronism did not take root then. After the great council, each of the delegations returned home and interpreted things in their own ways, and all we have remaining are the writings and recolletions of the disciples of the individual masters, people who were not at the council.

... unlike in ancient times when most religions got started, nowadays we have scientists and scholars who delve into the historical accuracy or plausibility of religious stuff. Such people who know way more than all of us put together could probably make claims of implausibility based on the absence of Phronism even being mentioned in passing by any outside texts. It could cause problems for Phronism if the history is discredited right off the bat before it gets established with enough clout to blow off such historical disputes. Unless we create a foundation to hire "history-ologists" to find and publish only those things that lend credence to the historical accuracy of Phronism. Something for the "to-do" list?

Well, in principle you're right. But we're talking a time when what people actually said and did is largely unrecorded, or recorded after being passed down by word of mouth for many generations. What might be fruitful is to simply develop the "theory of Phronism radiation" based on the known trade of ideas that was fertilizing world cultures at the time. For this we need our scholars to highlight the similarities of the teachings of the seven shepherds, and begin to establish the concept of a locus of origin and a provenance, as well as an epistemology of the common principles. I think the factual raw material is there to make the case if the proper *connections* are strung together with clear thinking and prudence. I guess what I'm saying is that Phronism is its own best argument for its existence. That dovetails with Grayven's astute comment that Phronism is as basic as the conscious mind.

Is the history of Phronism going to include active participation as far into the future (er, the "future" from the point of view of 500 BC) as in the monk parable? The drawback would be that if we say that it was actually practiced in any big way, then the lack of artifacts or other records would seem even more implausible. Especially considering that the parable has the monk walking around Phronist ruins. But a benefit of having stories about practicing denominations that late would be that we describe how denominations of the past adjusted to advances in scientific understanding, or to emerging social issues, to give a guide for how such adaptation ought to be done in the future.

Good point. I think that parable could be put back in time to much nearer to 0 PE with a little tweaking (obviously no reference to Newton's Principia Mathematica )

Is it mere coincidence that ancient Greek and Egyptian mythology involved deities that represented various forces of nature? Or that the Egyptians eventually succeeding in Grand Unification by combining all of these deities into one? (Einstein would have been so jealous) An Egyptian connection might explain why all the Phronist texts were housed in Alexandria.

I don't think we have to rely on one burning of Phronist texts in one place. 2500 years produced a lot of fires and other devastation. And then you have the natural evolution of ideas and cultures to contend with. (I'm wondering what the apostles Paul and Peter, etc., would think of Christianity today?) If I understand correctly, Islam gets much of the credit for preserving what we know about ancient Greek philosophy. It's not much of a stretch to imagine that they "cleansed" a lot of the blantant Phronist perspectives and replaced them with their own. Likewise, this surely happened all around the world--no one was tasked to be a steward of Phronism. Everyone had their own agenda. Folk may have admired the ideas; but they assimilated them into their own culture and religion.

[Guest]

Remarkable. Someone could actually read this entire thread to get caught up and jump in, and without having their brain coagulate! I'm not too worried about the language barrier; Samarkand was a major city along a trade route, so there ought to be people who could translate between the native Persian and the various other languages. But as I was out apartment hunting I was considering the fact that, unlike in ancient times when most religions got started, nowadays we have scientists and scholars who delve into the historical accuracy or plausibility of religious stuff. Such people who know way more than all of us put together could probably make claims of implausibility based on the absence of Phronism even being mentioned in passing by any outside texts. It could cause problems for Phronism if the history is discredited right off the bat before it gets established with enough clout to blow off such historical disputes. Unless we create a foundation to hire "history-ologists" to find and publish only those things that lend credence to the historical accuracy of Phronism. Something for the "to-do" list?

Is the history of Phronism going to include active participation as far into the future (er, the "future" from the point of view of 500 BC) as in the monk parable? The drawback would be that if we say that it was actually practiced in any big way, then the lack of artifacts or other records would seem even more implausible. Especially considering that the parable has the monk walking around Phronist ruins. But a benefit of having stories about practicing denominations that late would be that we describe how denominations of the past adjusted to advances in scientific understanding, or to emerging social issues, to give a guide for how such adaptation ought to be done in the future.

Is it mere coincidence that ancient Greek and Egyptian mythology involved deities that represented various forces of nature? Or that the Egyptians eventually succeeding in Grand Unification by combining all of these deities into one? (Einstein would have been so jealous) An Egyptian connection might explain why all the Phronist texts were housed in Alexandria.

Yeah, that does make sense, but then again, none of us are experts on that region and time (so far as I know), so it could be a little difficult to back up in the case of closer scrutiny.

My other worry is the colloquialisms in the parables. I guess if they are being passed down by word of mouth, then new figures of speech will work their way into the phrasing, but there are people who study the style of ancient writings and use that to date it. If the structure is all wrong in the workings of the parables, then they would also be a potential liability. The normal Layperson might not notice either thing I've brought up, but if we're trying to attract the dissatisfied with religion crowd, then they might ask questions (since that is the idea ). I don't remember anything specific (I'd have to go back and check), but I do think it's a little important to consider. Just using the Middle English style with the -eths doesn't make it sound ancient. That would be another thing that would have to be figured out. How did these stories survive to present day? If the correct explanation for the survival of the parables is found, then I think that problem would disappear, but that's not currently something that has been well defined.

It's good to have the grand ideas figured out, but if the path to those ideas is tainted by too many questionable sources, it might poison the well before anyone tries to drink its depths. Not that I'm too concerned about that with this crowd.

[Guest]

Well, I think we've concluded that these parables have been passed down in our families through word of mouth, because none of us can produce original ancient scrolls or clay tablets, etc. Yet if somebody searched all the old artifacts, I bet there are some that could be used in support of Phronist concepts/teachings/philosophy

[unreality]

I tracked down the origin of the Origin idea and highlighted something important in red as well as updates to the original idea in blue...

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] [update - it's now 500 BCE, or 0 PE], 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 [update - Samarkand] 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 [update - 2500 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 [update - changing this to earlier Greek philosophers than even Aristotle, right?]. This movement, started first by Aristotle [update - no, it was started by the initial meeting of Phronists at Samarkand. There were definitely more than 7 influential religious leaders there but 7 have become legend as the 'seven shepherds'] 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 [update - two and a half 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

now the two things I highlighted in red show my initial skepticism to my own idea... but you guys have turned it into something more than plausible. You guys are pretty much awesome I can't explain it but I feel like Phronism is real, even if the actual "physical" meeting at Samarkand didn't happen. There was a "current" (essence? ) of connection among philosophical thinkers of the time, so in a way, Phronism does indeed exist - we are just gathering it into something more organized, more tangible, to be delivered to the world...

Dawh's fresh perspective is very much welcome and he's very right about the parables. We need to really be absolute solid and clear on all aspects of the parables. Sure, some of them are allegorical and metaphorical and not meant to be taken as literal fact, but they still, as a group, represent some tangible passed-down knowledge and what may have to pass as true history, so we can't be so vague about where they come from and stuff. I like the idea someone had of hiring a bunch of historians. I don't think the right way for Phronism to open itself to the world is in some blaze of sudden wisdom and glory. No, that's way too contrived. It needs to assimilate itself into common culture first - subtly, over time, donating its own perspective little by little as it emerges into public eye. Historians hired by us would slowly flood the market with new insights about 500 BCE and strange connections going on, storing up a stockpile of historical validity over time before we "come out of the closet" with Phronism as a World Religion/Philosophy

[plasmid]

Now Buddha gets his turn. The Kalama Sutta is a text entirely about how people should judge for themselves which religious teachings to accept as true, rejecting scriptures, traditions, and blindly following a teacher (although they should pay attention to the teachings of the wise), and instead doing what they know to be good, blameless, praiseworthy, and leading to happiness. So I'll let him introduce the denominational system, giving him a parable that will come right before Confucius expands on how to select a denomination.

As the young Phronist faith was taking shape, the followers began to disagree about the proper ways of observing the faith. The Hindu practice of cremating bodies was bewildering to the Egyptians, and the Hellenic sacrifices of cattle were reprehensible to the Hindus. The seven discussed this mounting discord in their council, and Gautama Buddha then addressed the followers:

"You each carry your own traditions, your own scriptures, and your own lessons from past teachers that now shape your beliefs. I submit that you should not rely so heavily on such sources of wisdom. The Essence makes itself manifest, for it is what gives the world its form and its function. Every day we interact with the Essence, and so we each learn about it through our own experiences. This experience will guide you in discerning what practices should be followed. When you know that a practice is good and that it is blameless, follow it. When not only your teachers but many wise men praise a practice, follow it. When a practice leads to the benefit and happiness of yourself and all others while avoiding suffering, follow it.

"Because you come from different lands with different customs, by no means must you all follow the same set of practices. Such practices do not define Phronism itself. They are merely different means of harmonizing with the Essence. For that reason, those of you who have found the practice of arranged marriage to lead to greater harmony than allowing each to find their own spouse should continue to do so as long as this is judged to be wise. Those of you who shun alcohol because of the disharmony it breeds, continue avoiding it as long as this course is judged to be wise. Since different groups of people will find different ways of harmonizing with the Essence, let them each form denominations of Phronism to practice the ways that they have found to be fit. Although each will be different in their own ways, these denominations will all be part of Phronism, united in their dedication to understand the Essence, expand the Actual, and benefit all of humankind."

The Seventh Shepherd, on questioning words regardless of the speaker

After a long day of discussion at the council, the Seventh Shepherd walked out to the quiet hills outside Samarkand to reflect. But he noticed a crowd gathering and following him. "Teach us, master," they cried, "what has the council learned of God?" And so despite weariness from the day's deliberations the master spoke. "God says thusly," he began. "All persons have the manifest destiny to influence the course of events, acting to impact the community of all other living things – even the Earth itself – and so to steer everyone's and everything's path into the future. As such, the world's destiny is in each of our hands. We are each entrusted with this great responsibility, and for guidance to carry it out dutifully we must employ all tools at our disposal. Toward this end, one's spiritual consciousness must be unified with one's reason. Men do this best in community, for reason often fails the individual striving alone for truth. Those who stop improving or eschew reason are acting blindly and risk ruin for themselves and all around them. Each day is a cycle of habitation in physical body and spiritual pursuit while one's spirit takes shape. For most people, a striving toward balance, meditation in search of the guidance and support from one's ancestral past, consultation with the wise, and sincere veneration of truth is sufficient to find guidance for their actions so that they may shape a better future. Those with strong motivation to shape destiny may study nature to understand its inner workings and thereby know how best to guide it. Others may consult my Word. In invoking the Word of God, however, exquisite care is required to ensure alignment of thought and action, of humility and strength, of reason and divine guidance."

The Shepherd paused, gazed upon the people kindly and spoke again. "I ask you now: Why should men heed these words?" An eager seeker responded quickly, "Because they are the Word of God! Have we not now heard His voice, as if spoken through your mouth?" The Shepherd replied, "This is not the reason. The prudent man weighs the words rather than the speaker of them. How do you know that I did not just lie to you? Indeed, how do I myself know that I am not suffering from delusion and attributing wild thoughts to God? Judge words. Put them to the test. If they are wise and guide you toward honesty, compassion, and the courage to act with integrity then heed them. If they defy all reason and guide you down the path of corruption, hatred, and sloth then have nothing to do with them. Such would be a wise course whether you hear words from a prophet or from a child." As the seven met in council again the following day, the followers themselves met to discuss the wisdom of what the Seventh Shepherd had just told them, for now they began to understand.

Laozi, introducing the Essence

A group of followers waited outside for the Seventh Shepherd to emerge from the day's deliberations, but it was Laozi who first stepped out. The followers questioned him, "Laozi, we have discussed what the Seventh Shepherd told us, and we believe it may be true. Please then, teach us what more you have learned about God today?" Laozi responded, "You wish for me to tell you about God? How curious is this. Perhaps it is I who should be asking you about God, for you at least know to ask of him. Had I never heard of Zoroaster, I should not walk up to someone and say 'Tell me of Zoroaster' for I would not know the name. In fact, I should have no reason to ask of Zoroaster at all until someone had already told me something of him and I wished to learn more, or unless I saw him and asked another man 'Who is that person over there?' but I would not know to use the name Zoroaster. But here you come asking me to tell you about God, so you must already know something of this God. Did the Seventh Shepherd describe God to you the other day, or do you know him through some other means? Tell me."

A follower answered, "He spoke the word of God with his voice." Another follower corrected him, "He told us words that might have been from God. We have discussed them and believe they may be true regardless of their source." Laozi then said, "Is this all you can tell me about God, some words that might or might not have been said by him? There are several things I might speak about, but you want to know about God which is a name I do not find meaning in. How should I recognize this God you speak of so that I might explain this thing to you?"

A third follower answered, "Ancient scripture taught to me declares that God made the heavens and the Earth. He created us. He makes the plants grow, and gives the animals life. He brings the sun and the rain. He is the one we should worship." Laozi then said, "How did the hand that wrote these scriptures come to know that all these things emanated from one great being? Regardless, you have now given me a question I can address: who is this 'one' that gives life to the plants and animals, and brings the sun and the rain. You have formed ideas about this thing 'God' that you thought you knew, yet you were merely given words from a hand in an ancient book, or from the voice of a humble Shepherd. But hear me: things of power must not be named until they may be called by their proper names. So you do not attribute these ideas you had about 'God' to the thing I describe, let us give it a different name. Let us call it 'The Essence'. This is what brings the sun and the rain, and what brings life to the plants and animals. It is what brings the wind and the waves, what drives fire to dance. It is what gives breath to a living man and light to his eyes, and what makes the mountains keep their shape instead of crumbling like sand. You want me to describe this thing, 'The Essence', to you? In council we ponder this deeply. For indeed, the Essence ought to be explained to the people. Let me say simply now, just this: The Essence obeys its own laws - laws that men do not fully comprehend. The sun and the moon fly through the skies in patterns. New life looks similar to its predecessors: a goat does not beget a monkey. It is our noblest duty to learn these laws. For if you know how the Essence will act, you will know how to act yourself. A farmer would plant seed where crops might grow, but avoid land that will be scorched by fire. Tell me now, is this what you wanted to know about when you asked me of 'God'?"

A follower said, "It is not what I expected; but I thirst for your teaching. Please tell us more about the Essence." Laozi smiled and gazed beyond the horizon, "One might spend a lifetime learning about the Essence and not understand it completely. But you have taken the first step for now, you have begun to call this thing of apparent power by its proper name."

Diotima of Mantinea, on the nature of the Essence and rejoining it

Diotima was restless after the day's discussion with the six others. Unable to sleep, she began to pace. Her thoughts were interrupted by sounds from a neighboring room, and because she was expecting no visitors she went to investigate. There she found one of her traveling companions lying with a local man who Diotima knew spoke sweetly to the women. Diotima left them for the night, going unnoticed, but the next morning she approached her fellow traveler. "Last night, when you were visited by that local man, do you think you were acting wisely with him?" Knowing that she had been discovered, she was too embarrassed to answer, so Diotima continued, "Such men are but beggars whose only art is casting illusions to draw you near. They will leave you with nothing save an illness or a child with no father. You would do well to avoid them." "Diotima, surely he loved me! He told me things I had never heard from any man before. I listened to my heart, and it told me to be with him." But as soon as the words left her mouth, the traveler thought the situation over and realized that she was acting foolishly and recanted. Diotima continued, "Their behavior springs from a deep wish to live forever. Not being capable of this, they instead seek to live forever through their seed. But even that is failing to understand the situation. We have long known that it is not our flesh but our ideas that most define who we are, and such men are foolish enough to spread their flesh but do not pass on their ideas."

The traveler then said, "Were he only like us, seekers of truth. Surely we will find the answers, and as the others have said we will not have to settle for passing on our ideas to others because we will have eternal life itself." Diotima recalled the previous day's discussion and responded, "It does not seem that they are entirely correct. The Essence is no god like Zeus, and we do not simply live in its presence for all eternity. The Essence is something else entirely. It does not drive the sun like Apollo with a chariot and horses, and it does not fire an arrow like Cupid. Instead, the Essence is more like the waves and the wind, but reaching into everything around us. After we die, we do not live as we do now in a new land with the Essence; it would be more accurate to say that we join the Essence by becoming a part of it."

"Diotima, do you mean that we will have the powers of a god after we die? If this were true, imagine the things we could do. We would be able to so many great things for the world." As Diotima prepared to rejoin the others for the day she said, "You don't realize your own potential now. You might not have the power of the seas and wind, but you have your two hands. If you want to do great acts for the world, then now is the time." And so she left to meet the others.

Mahavira, on existence with the Essence

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, as her husband had suffered in his life on Earth, so he would continue to suffer in his existence flowing back into the stream of the Essence.

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."

Mahavira, on listening to outsiders

As Mahavira was returning home, he saw in the distance a man who he recognized from a gathering of those who now called themselves "Phronists". Drawing nearer Mahavira watched as the man drew out from his robe a branch, and baring his back, he began to beat himself with it. When Mahavira drew nearer, he asked the man why he was flogging himself. "Mahavira," the man said, "I am practicing ascetic ways. I am forsaking my own worldly pleasures and comforts so that I might achieve loftier goals." Mahavira saw that the man did not fully understand his actions, but he did not correct the man himself. Indeed, Mahavira knew that although he might be able to correct this one mistake, he would not always be there to correct every mistake the man might make. So instead, Mahavira asked "Have you spoken with any of the others about this? Do they agree that striking yourself is a wise path?" The man answered, "No, but the other Phronists are only men just as I am a man. If we should disagree, then who is to say which of us is right and which is wrong? I have faith that my course is wise." Mahavira saw onlookers who watched as the man flogged himself, and he pressed the man again, "Look around you. Do you see those people over there staring at you? What do you suppose they think of your acts?" The man responded, "Why should I care what they think of my acts? They are not even Phronists! Their words are useless to me."

At this Mahavira became most concerned, and he called the onlookers forth and explained what the man was doing, and asked them if they thought it was wise. One of them said, "This seems foolish. You are beating yourself to deny yourself comfort, but what are you accomplishing? If you wish to deny yourself comfort, then go plow a field. Then you would not only be practicing asceticism, but you would produce a harvest in the Autumn." After the onlooker left, Mahavira asked the man what he thought of the advice. Again the man said that the onlooker's words were useless because he was not a Phronist. Then Mahavira said, "Would you have accepted the same words had they come from my mouth? Because I tell you truthfully, I would have said the same thing." The man was silent for a moment, but then asked "Surely you do not want me to live my life by the whims of an outsider, do you?" Mahavira answered, "Had the man mocked you, or tried to swindle you, or told you that his God has other commandments then you should ignore him, for his God is likely a figment of his imagination. But this man spoke to you as an outsider with no malice toward you, no eagerness to see you make a fool of yourself, and with full sincerity. You should consider such advice carefully. Beyond that, he gave reasoning with his words. Nowhere have we said that Phronists are always right, nor have we said that non-believers are always wrong. Reason is the best guidance that humans have, so do not forsake it no matter where it comes from."

Confucius, on selecting a denomination

As Confucius left the council for the day he was set upon immediately by a group of followers. "We have heard the instructions to each follow a denomination in our pursuit to harmonize with the Essence. How should we identify which of the denominations sets forth the best commandments?" Confucius responded, "Commandments? Laws may prevent people from doing harm, but guide a man by laws and you will only teach him to avoid the punishments that violation brings. If you seek to carry out Acts of Legacy, find those who can teach you virtue and excellence, for this will not only prevent you from doing ill but will drive you toward doing good. Those who know virtue and excellence cannot help but show this in their daily lives. They are the ones who act towards all others just as they would wish for others to act towards them. Their examples may be your instructor. Furthermore, seek those who not only know virtue but are able to teach it. If you see greatness but this does not drive you to greatness yourself although you make a sincere effort, then find a better teacher."

"Very well. We shall set forth to look for someone perfect in his virtue from whom to learn." Confucius was amused at this and said, "One with perfect virtue? Such a man I have yet to know. You might spend all of your life looking for this man and none of it learning. Let the man beside you be your teacher: select his good traits and emulate them, and if you see faults then avoid them. But unless you should find this perfectly virtuous man you speak of, do not stay with only one denomination. After three years of learning you should have learned something, if you are to learn anything at all; at that point go forth and look for others from whom to learn. Find and adopt the virtuous aspects of many people, and you will have few regrets."

Regarding the parable of the monk, if we were to do as seeksit suggested and move it back in time to before the writing of Principia, would that really undermine the whole determinism-vs-free will point? If so, maybe we could keep it at its original time but adjust it to reflect the much more limited scope of practice that Phronism would have had then (no real formal monks or ruins to walk on). Or was the real point of the parable more about letting people make their own choices on how to harmonize with the Essence? If so, we could do as seeksit suggests.

And dawh makes a good point about ancient linguistics. Among the people we have at Samarkand there would be a lot of different styles people might go with; from the copious texts of Hinduism that were heavy on storytelling to the much shorter Confucian Analects that were collections of unconnected teachings with no plot to speak of (virtually just a bunch of phrases). It seems like the story we're going with now will be that many different people from around the world preserved various pieces of the ancient meeting which we have now cobbled together into a coherent story, thus freeing ourselves from having to follow any one ancient style. And also since you weren't around for the formative parts of Phronism feel free to deposit your two cents on the underlying architecture of the religion or any specific changes to the parables as well; seeksit and unreality are practicing Phronism quite well by welcoming your new perspective .

[unreality]

well the purpose ( ) of the monk parable (the first one anyway) was to adress the religious/philosophical issues of free will, meaning and purpose... these are heavy concepts that we can't ignore if we want to be a complete philosophy. So I was just getting them all out of the way in one parable... the parables stressed the concept of how meaning is applied by the observer of the meaning, allowing us to live more in the day and not assume the existence of a grand cosmic plan for everything. The free will part was just a bit thrown in the middle that really can't be written without showing the bias of the writer. For example, my version was about how we as biological computers built on axiomatic particles are making the choices our brain wants to make, so we can be said to be making choices. I then asked how else would you want a choice to be made (ie, how else would you have it other than based on pre-existing states?). I redid some of it, reducing the physics from 20th/21st century to 17th century. Then seeksit redid parts of it and the newer one reflects his bias on choice just like my earlier one reflected mine (ie, his version had references to things like "forking paths" and "ever-dividing braids").

So I guess what I'm saying is, we need to address these things as a group, and decide what our stance is on things like choice, before I do a final rewrite of this parable and a few others.

Here is my 2cents on what our stance should be on philosophical issues:

* Meaning: applied by the observer of the meaning, the journey IS the destination, carpe diem, etc (what the monk parable is currently preaching)

* Choice: based on pre-existing states, yes, but how else would have it. We can be said to make our choices since we are the sum of the particles in the brain that are taking that input and generating output. In other words, "optimistic randomism" or something, adding a new term to list

* Ethics: in the earlier "allegory of the rave" (pun on Plato's Allegory of the Cave... the name will have to be changed for multiple reasons lol) I addressed ethics and karma. I'd have to go back and see what exactly I was going for, because I don't remember, but I imagine it was something like "morals change with the times and are natural social laws that emerge when organisms or other intelligent things interact" or something along those lines. I figure that little moral details should be left to the denominations to fill in at their leisure: because denominations are fluid and change, live and die with the times, they'll keep our ethical code modern and ever-advancing

[Guest]

So another thought along my previous lines of inquiry:

I'm not sure how modern worshipers of these religions whose important persons/founders we are borrowing as figureheads would react to the sudden discovery of additional stories regarding their authoritative figures. They could welcome the new doctrine and join onto the faith with ease, but it we were borrowing from the Abrahamic religious figures, I would think that the sudden discovery of new stories would lead followers to distrust them and consider them to be not canonical and thus not valid. So I'm not sure how the other religions (Jainism, Taoism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, et al.) would take it.

As I said, they might take it at face-value, but there is also a risk that they will treat it like the Compromise of 1850 in the USA. That was Henry Clay's last great effort in the US Congress to enact change and protect the Union. With the increasing tensions between North and South, he tried to pass an "omnibus" bill that had a number of things supporting both sides, with the expectation that the bill would pass since each supporter of a particular component would support the entire thing. However, it didn't happen that way as people voted it down for the parts they didn't like. To pass the reforms, Stephen Douglas rewrote the bill into a series of paired bills, with each one having one North and one South provision and each passed separately when they didn't pass together.

So I'm a little worried that looking at the "omnibus" of teachings derived from important historical religious figures might drive out that particular religion conversely to the problem Henry Clay had. Since they have never heard of these teachings from a figure whom they take to be authoritative (and happen to be the current living authoritative source on his teachings), they might think them to be blasphemy or apocryphal and thus reject the idea of Phronism. Of course, the denominational effort may be the Stephen Douglas of the equation, but it's more to consider as we iron out our approach (to mix metaphors ).

Of course, maybe I'm just being paranoid. If any of that didn't make sense, I'll try to clarify what I am saying. I know what I mean in my head, but I'm having trouble putting it into words specifically.