Sufi shrine bulldozed in Lybia

[Zostrianos]

By wahhabi Islamists, while the authorities watched without intervening.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19380083

A shrine in the Libyan capital Tripoli venerating a Sufi Muslim saint has been partly destroyed - the latest in a series of attacks blamed on ultra-conservative Salafi Islamists.
Residents of Tripoli said men with bulldozers attacked the shrine on Saturday, unimpeded by police.
The attack came a day after hardliners were accused of damaging the tomb of a Sufi scholar in the city of Zlitan
Hardline Salafists regard the shrines as idolatrous.
On Friday, a group attacked the tomb of 15th-Century scholar Abdel Salam al-Asmar in Zlitan, about 160km (100 miles) south-east of Tripoli. The Reuters news agency said its dome had collapsed.
Video footage showed chunks of masonry littering the floor, bullet holes pockmarking the walls and ornate Islamic tiling destroyed.
People in Tripoli say they saw bulldozers destroy part of the al-Shaab al-Dahmani mosque and Sufi shrine.
One, a student named Abdurrahman, told the BBC: "There's a large group of Salafists - they are the one with the bulldozers, and some military police are also present.
They seem to be overseeing the process, rather than preventing it... There are some bystanders who seem to approve."
He said the Salafists were also handing out pamphlets issued by a Saudi Arabian mufti from the hardline Wahhabi school of Islam.
'A crime' The destruction in Zlitan follows two days of clashes between rival local tribes which left at least three people dead.
Omar Ali, an official from the Zlitan military council, told Reuters: "The extremist Salafis took advantage [of the fact] that security officials were busy calming down the clashes and they desecrated the shrine."
Libya's Deputy Prime Minister Mustafa Abushagur tweeted: "The destruction of shrines and mosques is a crime. Those who commit these crimes will be held responsible."
In November last year, the bodies of two Muslim clerics were removed from the Sidi Nasr shrine and mosque in Tripoli and reburied according to the principles of the hardline Wahabi school of Islam.
There has recently been an international outcry over the destruction of centuries-old shrines in Timbuktu, Mali.
The shrines, revered by Sufi Muslims, were attacked by the al-Qaeda-linked Ansar Dine group which seized the city in April.


Ain't democracy great?

[Crux]

inb4 "Who cares about a shrine? Religion is bad!"

[cynicles]

What is this Lybia you speak of? If this some female body part?

Seriously though I don't care if the monument does have to do with religion, I still like them for art and histories sake. To say nothing of the fact that much of our philosophy is owed to religious figures, sufis being one of the great contributers.

[l'Enfermé]

At least it's not living sufis they're bulldozing.

Yet.

But how do we owe much of our philosophy to religious figures? Of all the greatest philosophers of the ancient and modern world, none were religious figures. The only I can think of is Thomas Aquinas and his philosophy was more stupid than the claims that he could levitate.

[Zostrianos]

At least it's not living sufis they're bulldozing.
But how do we owe much of our philosophy to religious figures? Of all the greatest philosophers of the ancient and modern world, none were religious figures. The only I can think of is Thomas Aquinas and his philosophy was more stupid than the claims that he could levitate.

Plotinus, Proclus, Buddha, Confucius, etc....

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That building was probably hundreds of years old. Fuck those bigoted vandal scum.

I don't like Islam, but I also hate the pointless destruction of things of historical value.

What the hell is up with all the paranoia over idolatry anyway? Muslim fundies seem to get it confused with "veneration" (which is what building mausoleums is, not idolatry) a lot as well.

[Zostrianos]

I'm almost starting to think that either they enjoy destroying things just for the sake of it, or they have a fetish for forcing their views on everyone. Take the Buddha statues in Afghanistan for instance: there haven't been Buddhists in the country for centuries, 99% of the population is Muslim, and no one will convert to Buddhism as a result of the existence of those statues. Yet the Taliban still destroyed them.

[Crux]

That building was probably hundreds of years old. Fuck those bigoted vandal scum.

I don't like Islam, but I also hate the pointless destruction of things of historical value.

What the hell is up with all the paranoia over idolatry anyway? Muslim fundies seem to get it confused with "veneration" (which is what building mausoleums is, not idolatry) a lot as well.
Wahabis are a particular islamic sect not liked very much by any other muslim group for their tendency to want to destroy everything they consider apostaty. They tore down what was allegedly Prophet Muhammad's, Peace Be Upon His Name, house. They are basically the muslim eqvivalent of super evangelicals.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I could be wrong about this, but this event may reflect regional tensions in Libya. The Senussis, a family group centered in Benghazi, started as a Sufi order, They were a mobilizing force for resistance against Italian fascism in Cyrenecia , eastern Libya. For a time the Senussis had enormous influence in this region.

The attack on a Sufi shrine may represent some sort of communal violence.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Hmm, must be apart of the 'progressive changes' that 'revolution' is ushering in.

[Zostrianos]

I could be wrong about this, but this event may reflect regional tensions in Libya. The Senussis, a family group centered in Benghazi, started as a Sufi order, They were a mobilizing force for resistance against Italian fascism in Cyrenecia , eastern Libya. For a time the Senussis had enormous influence in this region.

The attack on a Sufi shrine may represent some sort of communal violence.

It's possible, but this isn't an isolated incident. There's a pattern of persecution by hardline Islamists against more moderate factions and sects, not only the Sufis but also the Ahmadis, who have been viciously persecuted in recent years in Pakistan and Indonesia.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I'm almost starting to think that either they enjoy destroying things just for the sake of it, or they have a fetish for forcing their views on everyone. Take the Buddha statues in Afghanistan for instance: there haven't been Buddhists in the country for centuries, 99% of the population is Muslim, and no one will convert to Buddhism as a result of the existence of those statues. Yet the Taliban still destroyed them.
Cool broad generalization, bro.


If by 'they' you mean a Muslim then you need to rethink your approach. Or at the very least understand that reading the Koran doesn't make you a blood-thirsty monster with an insatiable lust for making total destroy.

[Zostrianos]

Cool broad generalization, bro.
If by 'they' you mean a Muslim then you need to rethink your approach. Or at the very least understand that reading the Koran doesn't make you a blood-thirsty monster with an insatiable lust for making total destroy.

I was talking about Islamists not muslims in general.

[The Jay]

Cool broad generalization, bro.


If by 'they' you mean a Muslim then you need to rethink your approach. Or at the very least understand that reading the Koran doesn't make you a blood-thirsty monster with an insatiable lust for making total destroy.

The reference was to the Taliban, not muslims in general.

[cynicles]

This is probably more of a Muslim sectarian issue with a heavy dose of politics than idolatry issues. Wahhabiists have destroyed numerous Muslim holy sites historically including the tombs of the prophets wives. Though I hate to think of what they might do to the beautifully preserved roman ruins if they get bold.
Also in regards to the religion and philosophy thing I was referring as well to early Greek philosophers who spent a great deal of time with egyptian priests and the like.

[Sea]

Ain't republics great?
That's more like it.

[Rafiq]

Plotinus, Proclus, Buddha, Confucius, etc....

Who were reactionaries, especially Confucius.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Who were reactionaries, especially Confucius.

I dunno. Wasn't he the one who said that even Emperors can lose the favour of Heaven, or something like that?

I can understand Confucius being reactionary by today's standards, though.

[Zostrianos]

The Libyan interior minister just resigned in protest after this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19386322

[The Jay]

I dunno. Wasn't he the one who said that even Emperors can lose the favour of Heaven, or something like that?

I can understand Confucius being reactionary by today's standards, though.

I dunno, but what is true is that I don't follow their philosophical lines to my knowledge, certainly not Confucius's.

[The Jay]

"Who cares about a shrine? Religion is bad!"

Like totally, I would have disagreed before Che Guevara and Chris Hitchens changed my life.

[l'Enfermé]

Plotinus, Proclus, Buddha, Confucius, etc....
The first 2 neoplatonists, which makes them worthless, Buddha probably didn't even exist, and Confucius wasn't a religious figure.

[l'Enfermé]

I dunno. Wasn't he the one who said that even Emperors can lose the favour of Heaven, or something like that?

I can understand Confucius being reactionary by today's standards, though.
Which implies that the Emperor that allegedly loses the favour of Heaven had it in the first place, comrade.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Which implies that the Emperor that allegedly loses the favour of Heaven had it in the first place, comrade.

It sounds a hell of a lot better than the "anything and everything the Monarch does is A-OK, because God put them on that throne" setup we once had not that long ago (historically speaking) in Europe. A peasant revolt in feudal Europe is an affront against the Ruler of the fucking Universe, whereas in feudal China it's a sign that Heaven thinks the Emperor is full of shit.

[Rafiq]

It sounds a hell of a lot better than the "anything and everything the Monarch does is A-OK, because God put them on that throne" setup we once had not that long ago (historically speaking) in Europe. A peasant revolt in feudal Europe is an affront against the Ruler of the fucking Universe, whereas in feudal China it's a sign that Heaven thinks the Emperor is full of shit.

That isn't the point though. Confucius's conception of "peace and harmony" is crypto-fascistic. That everyone has his or her place in society, and that is simply just some sort of obscure way of things, a natural order. At the least, Christianity did away with this concept of a natural order, and as 'god' died they were left with the holy ghost, the Christian community. In Christianity, what this meant is the 'god' that pulled the strings in everyday affairs, that regulated this natural harmonious order was dead.

Is Christianity reactionary rhetorically? Of course. Just a glimpse at the Bible would allow us to come to that conclusion.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That isn't the point though. Confucius's conception of "peace and harmony" is crypto-fascistic. That everyone has his or her place in society, and that is simply just some sort of obscure way of things, a natural order. At the least, Christianity did away with this concept of a natural order, and as 'god' died they were left with the holy ghost, the Christian community.

Actually Christian theology, especially the medieval variety, places a great emphasis on natural order as well (God is always on top, for a start). The Great Chain of Being (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_chain_of_being) derives from Plato's proto-fascist notions of state and society. This reflects the stratification of European feudal societies, which as far as I know had no equivalent to the Chinese Imperial exams; a soupcon of meritocracy which I think should be acknowledged even if it never went far enough in practice.

I would say that the social and intellectual deathgrip Christianity had upon Europe slipped because geographical and political circumstances ensured that feudalism was unstable in the long term. Whereas with China I'm thinking that the problem was one of too much stability; a civilisation with much experience of mollifying internal dissent, but whose relative isolation from the rest of the world left them playing second fiddle to the West with the advent of industrialisation. Although having said that, China has since then done a lot of catching-up and it may yet be a Chinese century.


In Christianity, what this meant is the 'god' that pulled the strings in everyday affairs, that regulated this natural harmonious order was dead.

Yeah, but it took a lot (such as the rise of science, including the discovery of evolution by natural selection, which most certainly put a kibosh on that whole "Great Chain of Being" nonsense, as well as more widespread literacy and education) before such a notion of God was embraced by a majority of Christians, and even today one finds that such concepts are more commonly held among "sophisticated" Christians and/or clergymen. There are still plenty of lay Christians who profess a belief in an interventionist God.


Is Christianity reactionary rhetorically? Of course. Just a glimpse at the Bible would allow us to come to that conclusion.

I would argue that Christianity is philosophically more reactionary than Confucianism. Whereas Confucius believed that human nature was essentially good, the Christian doctrine of Original Sin affronts the intellect with the notion that humans are evil, disobedient wretches who can only be redeemed through the torture and murder of an innocent man. Some Christian theologians take it even further and consider humanity's Fall from Grace to have implications for the rest of the universe, not just humans. So to them it's not just the people, but the whole world that is fundamentally broken.

I'll admit I'm not as familiar with Confucius as I am with Christianity, but nothing I've read on Confucius struck me as being anywhere near as anti-human as is a surprising proportion of basic Christian theological tenets.

[Zostrianos]

Actually Christian theology, especially the medieval variety, places a great emphasis on natural order as well (God is always on top, for a start). The Great Chain of Being (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_chain_of_being) derives from Plato's proto-fascist notions of state and society. This reflects the stratification of European feudal societies, which as far as I know had no equivalent to the Chinese Imperial exams; a soupcon of meritocracy which I think should be acknowledged even if it never went far enough in practice.


"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ." - Ephesians 6:5

Moreover, in late Antiquity, Pagan cults were much more egalitarian than the Church:

Both women and slaves were treated better in the Pagan cults than they were in the church. Women could become priestesses in most cults, and there were many Goddesses they could turn to. Whereas in the church, they weren't even allowed to speak. With regard to slaves, in spite of the social strata excluding them from the rest of society, they were allowed access to nearly all temples, worshipping side by side with the free, and many went on to create their own congregations ... Christian leaders….looked down on those beneath them with the same hauteur as their non-Christian equivalents” (for which see R. Macmullen: Christianity & Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997)

Concerning the suffering endured by slaves under Pagan emperors, “nothing indicates that they were made easier by Christian masters” (ibid). Additionally, in the 5th century, pope Leo forbade the admission of slaves to the priesthood, because their “vileness” would pollute the holy office.(ibid)

[eric922]

The first 2 neoplatonists, which makes them worthless, Buddha probably didn't even exist, and Confucius wasn't a religious figure.
Everything I've read on the topic of Buddha has said that most scholars believed he existed. They have found archaeological evidence, and scholars admit that the Pali Cannon contains evidence that teachings it contains were the creation of a single person, not a group. So he probably did exist, we don't know much on the details of his life, but he lived.

[l'Enfermé]

The Pali Canon was written almost 500 years after the death of this Gautama Buddha. If it's teachers are the work of a single person, that in no way implies that they are the teachings of this Buddha, comrade.

[eric922]

The Pali Canon was written almost 500 years after the death of this Gautama Buddha. If it's teachers are the work of a single person, that in no way implies that they are the teachings of this Buddha, comrade.

Yes, it wasn't written down, but it was passed orally and they did have a much stronger oral culture than us. It isn't inconceivable that the teachings were maintained accurately, especially when you consider that you had a a group of people (monks) who dedicated their lives to memorizing those teachings.

Also, Buddha is mentioned in the Jain scriptures as well, which were written down a little bit before the Buddhist ones, if I recall correctly.

This is a bit off-topic, but Buddhists don't really care all that much about proving Buddha's existence. It isn't like Christianity where the religion falls apart if the man didn't exist. Without Jesus Christianity cannot stand, Buddhism can stand without Buddha, because it is the teachings that are important, not the man . Whether Buddha lived or not (I think the evidence points that someone did live who at least resembles who we think of as "Buddha") we still have the 4 Noble Truths, which is the key to Buddhism. If they are true ( and for me they have proven true and useful) then it doesn't matter if Buddha lived or not.

[Beeth]

If they are true ( and for me they have proven true and useful) then it doesn't matter if Buddha lived or not.

Could you say how they have proven true and useful for you? PM me if you feel it is off topic.

[eric922]

Could you say how they have proven true and useful for you? PM me if you feel it is off topic.
I can answer here, I've answered this question a couple of other times on similar threads.

Here's an example of how Buddhism has proven true for me. One of the key concepts of Buddhism is impermanence. It seems a simple enough concept, but a lot of people, I'd say most people, live their lives as if the things they care about are permanent and won't change, and when that changes happens it makes them miserable. A bad breakup, a friend moves away, someone dies, etc. Buddhism has helped me deal with change a lot better. It hasn't made me not care, but it has made me deal with problems in a healthier way.

I can go into more detail if you want, I just don't want to derail the thread too much by going into a long discussion on the 4 Noble Truths and how they've helped me and why I think they are true. If you want more information feel free to start a thread about Buddhism or just PM me.

Also, mediation has helped me a lot and if you're interested I can link to some studies that show the benefits of mediation.

[Pikovski9]

This article on revleft com is bookmark worthy in my opinion It's worth saving for future reference It's fascinating reading with many valid points for contemplation I have to concur on almost every point made within this article wish you luck, bruteforex com]lighting from manufacturer

[Astarte]

But how do we owe much of our philosophy to religious figures?.

Human thought itself is much like a river. If you trace human thought, and all philosophy back to its very sources, you will find spiritual and religious ideology at the source. In the East, even before Buddha, you will find Lao Tzu and Taoism, and before the Tao you will find "Folk Religion" and the Vedas. In the West, at the very earliest, you will find the Egyptian "Maxims of Ptahhotep". Hegelianism itself was a part of a reaction against Kant - Hegel and Kant, both being idealists, ultimately owe their heritage to Plato, who had a thing or two to say about metaphysics ... of course Dialectical Materialism itself is a reaction to the Hegelian dialectic ... so, I would say you actually owe a lot of your philosophical heritage to those who did a bit of thinking about metaphysics, if not overtly "religious" matters. So, like the Taliban, you can attempt to destroy the past, but unlike material objects, the ideological heritage of philosophy cannot truly be destroyed.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

But surely the effectiveness of the naturalist approach obviates any teleological explanations of the universe or its workings?

I'd say the Buddhists struck it lucky in one respect - nothing so far as we can tell is as enduring as the universe itself. But that's an observation that can be made independently of all the other baggage Buddhism carries with it.

[Astarte]

But surely the effectiveness of the naturalist approach obviates any teleological explanations of the universe or its workings?


I think a non-materialist perspective of the universe can just as easily come to non-teleological conclusions and or explanations - an example of which would be the concepts of Logos in the West and Tao in the East - that there is some higher "force" in the universe, but that in its totality it is incomprehensible to human understanding.

It is all a matter of dogma. I think "meaning" and making "reason" of the universe is a completely subjective matter - and the way that some orthodoxies of science will at times, from the materialist outlook, purport so confidently and assuredly that there is absolutely no meaning, purpose or intelligence whatsoever in the universe that man has not yet conceived of and understood is at best juvenile and at worst as purposefully misleading as religions who claim their high prophet has direct contact with god.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think a non-materialist perspective of the universe can just as easily come to non-teleological conclusions and or explanations - an example of which would be the concepts of Logos in the West and Tao in the East - that there is some higher "force" in the universe, but that in its totality it is incomprehensible to human understanding.

If it's incomprehensible to human understanding, why study it? Surely that would be an exercise in futility?


It is all a matter of dogma. I think "meaning" and making "reason" of the universe is a completely subjective matter - and the way that some orthodoxies of science will at times, from the materialist outlook, purport so confidently and assuredly that there is absolutely no meaning, purpose or intelligence whatsoever in the universe that man has not yet conceived of and understood is at best juvenile and at worst as purposefully misleading as religions who claim their high prophet has direct contact with god.

If there's no evidence that the universe has a teleological or "spiritual" component, then why should anyone take the notion any more seriously than the unsupported assertion that the thoughts and actions of everyone on Earth are being controlled by Azathoth, the blind idiot god?

Science works under naturalist/materialist assumptions because that is what most closely accords with what evidence and experiment has to say on the matter.

As an example, take the phenomenon of lightning. It was once common to assume that lightning was the product of an intentional agent or morally valent force embodied within the universe. The gods and spirits thought to be responsible for these events were propitiated in the hopes of avoiding their wrath or their careless stomping around in the world of mortals... yet people presumably still got struck by lightning. Then later science got a much better idea of how lightning works - it does not and cannot care if you worship it, and it has no capability of judging your character. There are steps that can be taken by all individuals to decrease their chances of being struck in a storm, steps which can be taken and are effective regardless of what one believes. All of this knowledge was founded on a naturalistic basis.

If there is some kind of higher "force" in the universe, then what is it that tells us it's actually there, and not merely something we've mistakenly come to believe due to the historical limitations of our knowledge and our evolutionary heritage?

Humans have a tendency to "see" agency and intention in places where it could not possibly exist. My natural inclination is to swear at my computer when it does something that irritates me, but that does not mean that it will respond to my barrage of verbal abuse.

[James Connolly]

But how do we owe much of our philosophy to religious figures? Of all the greatest philosophers of the ancient and modern world, none were religious figures. The only I can think of is Thomas Aquinas and his philosophy was more stupid than the claims that he could levitate.
I don't know mate. I think my ancestor Maimonides was pretty significant, as he brought Aristotle to Judaism, and not to mention much of the organization of Jewish law. Ironically, he influenced Thomas Aquinas.


Great guy, too bad we're 800 years apart(and too bad I disagree with most of his philosophies.)

http://mishnehtorah.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/rambam_n.jpg

[Astarte]

If it's incomprehensible to human understanding, why study it? Surely that would be an exercise in futility?

Perhaps the same was said about the idea of traversing the Atlantic ocean once. Or the idea of Pacific tribal peoples making their way from island to island? Why traverse from shore to shore - no one knows what is on the other side, and yet still, not only could such an endeavor be futile - it may also be deadly. The reason why people study it is because they are inquisitive.




If there's no evidence that the universe has a teleological or "spiritual" component, then why should anyone take the notion any more seriously than the unsupported assertion that the thoughts and actions of everyone on Earth are being controlled by Azathoth, the blind idiot god?

People hear, yet they do not understand, thus they continue to investigate. What does Samael have to do with anything? The hearing that is experienced is evidence enough for some. No amount of communication from one individual to any other can convey the hearing of Logos, since by its nature it is beyond complete human cognition. It can be likened to hearing a sound, but being unable to identify what exactly the sound was.


Science works under naturalist/materialist assumptions because that is what most closely accords with what evidence and experiment has to say on the matter.

As an example, take the phenomenon of lightning. It was once common to assume that lightning was the product of an intentional agent or morally valent force embodied within the universe. The gods and spirits thought to be responsible for these events were propitiated in the hopes of avoiding their wrath or their careless stomping around in the world of mortals... yet people presumably still got struck by lightning.

I think this is a very broad and cliche generalization of what was meant by ancient peoples by "the gods". But we'll go with this narrow definition for the ends of your example.


Then later science got a much better idea of how lightning works - it does not and cannot care if you worship it, and it has no capability of judging your character. There are steps that can be taken by all individuals to decrease their chances of being struck in a storm, steps which can be taken and are effective regardless of what one believes. All of this knowledge was founded on a naturalistic basis.

Humans have a tendency to "see" agency and intention in places where it could not possibly exist. My natural inclination is to swear at my computer when it does something that irritates me, but that does not mean that it will respond to my barrage of verbal abuse.


I'm not sure what your point in this was? What is the correlation between this and the Tao/Logos? Do you mean that some day science will be able to explain this phenomenon? If so then I agree - and this will be the dialectical negation of both science and spirituality and their reunification at the same time. This negation will yield only new mysteries to the human experience though.

[Robocommie]

I'm almost starting to think that either they enjoy destroying things just for the sake of it, or they have a fetish for forcing their views on everyone. Take the Buddha statues in Afghanistan for instance: there haven't been Buddhists in the country for centuries, 99% of the population is Muslim, and no one will convert to Buddhism as a result of the existence of those statues. Yet the Taliban still destroyed them.

On a level the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamyan makes me sad, but really, as someone who sometimes identifies as Buddhist, I have to say that nothing could have been more Buddhist but to destroy those statues.

Impermanence, dog. Nothing lasts forever.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Perhaps the same was said about the idea of traversing the Atlantic ocean once. Or the idea of Pacific tribal peoples making their way from island to island? Why traverse from shore to shore - no one knows what is on the other side, and yet still, not only could such an endeavor be futile - it may also be deadly. The reason why people study it is because they are inquisitive.

The difference is that we have evidence that the Atlantic and Pacific oceans exist, independently of personal/written testimony. The same cannot be said for any kind of "universal force" such as this Tao/Logos of yours.


People hear, yet they do not understand, thus they continue to investigate. What does Samael have to do with anything?

Who is Samael?


The hearing that is experienced is evidence enough for some.

A schizophrenic could say the same about the voices in their head. That doesn't mean those voices have any special insights, or that they should be listened to.

I personally have experienced what felt very much at the time like I got it - everything made sense, so much so that it drove me to uncontrollable laughter. It was a transformative experience on a personal level, but it was also an experience borne out the LSD blotters I'd taken mere hours before. I felt knowing without actually knowing anything.

Of course, people have what could be called "spiritual" experiences without the involvement of drugs or mental illness. But the fact that some, if not all such experiences can be explained with reference to material phenomena (neurology, chemistry) puts the cosmological verity of such experiences under serious question. The people who have such experiences may not necessarily be mentally ill or drugged, but they could still very well be mistaken. That is why empirical evidence is so important, because there are so many ways that subjective testimony can be flat out wrong.


No amount of communication from one individual to any other can convey the hearing of Logos, since by its nature it is beyond complete human cognition. It can be likened to hearing a sound, but being unable to identify what exactly the sound was.

But actual physical sounds can be heard by multiple people, and their source can be tracked and thus an agreement can be made as to what caused it. Compare that with cosmic insights reached purely through the mind - people have many different and contradicting ideas as to what exactly the universe is telling them through their heads. Christians hear the word of their Lord Jesus Christ, Muslims hear the will of Allah, and in my case the whole universe resonated with the light of Reason. They can't all be correct because they contradict one another.


I think this is a very broad and cliche generalization of what was meant by ancient peoples by "the gods". But we'll go with this narrow definition for the ends of your example.

Lightning is only cliche because we've had a good naturalistic explanation for it for a goodly while. Before evolutionary science and modern cosmology, many Christians saw the handiwork of their God in the structure of the universe and the living things within it. But now we know that such things are so because of blind natural forces, not some benevolent creator.


I'm not sure what your point in this was? What is the correlation between this and the Tao/Logos? Do you mean that some day science will be able to explain this phenomenon? If so then I agree - and this will be the dialectical negation of both science and spirituality and their reunification at the same time. This negation will yield only new mysteries to the human experience though.

My point is that there doesn't seem to be any indication that Tao/Logos exists outside of human brains and books.

[Astarte]

The difference is that we have evidence that the Atlantic and Pacific oceans exist, independently of personal/written testimony. The same cannot be said for any kind of "universal force" such as this Tao/Logos of yours.



Who is Samael?



A schizophrenic could say the same about the voices in their head. That doesn't mean those voices have any special insights, or that they should be listened to.

I personally have experienced what felt very much at the time like I got it - everything made sense, so much so that it drove me to uncontrollable laughter. It was a transformative experience on a personal level, but it was also an experience borne out the LSD blotters I'd taken mere hours before. I felt knowing without actually knowing anything.

Of course, people have what could be called "spiritual" experiences without the involvement of drugs or mental illness. But the fact that some, if not all such experiences can be explained with reference to material phenomena (neurology, chemistry) puts the cosmological verity of such experiences under serious question. The people who have such experiences may not necessarily be mentally ill or drugged, but they could still very well be mistaken. That is why empirical evidence is so important, because there are so many ways that subjective testimony can be flat out wrong.



But actual physical sounds can be heard by multiple people, and their source can be tracked and thus an agreement can be made as to what caused it. Compare that with cosmic insights reached purely through the mind - people have many different and contradicting ideas as to what exactly the universe is telling them through their heads. Christians hear the word of their Lord Jesus Christ, Muslims hear the will of Allah, and in my case the whole universe resonated with the light of Reason. They can't all be correct because they contradict one another.



Lightning is only cliche because we've had a good naturalistic explanation for it for a goodly while. Before evolutionary science and modern cosmology, many Christians saw the handiwork of their God in the structure of the universe and the living things within it. But now we know that such things are so because of blind natural forces, not some benevolent creator.



My point is that there doesn't seem to be any indication that Tao/Logos exists outside of human brains and books.

I apologize, you have thoroughly convinced me that there is no higher force than man (besides immaterial 'blind' natural forces that can only act on the material universe, but are exclusive to such far flung ideas as Logos or Tao), there are only three dimensions and time, and that we can experience the universe objectively from outside of our own skulls and in this way know for certain that the material world alone exists independently of our own consciousness and ability to perceive it. Samael is another name for the Blind god you mentioned.

EDIT: To clarify; sorry for the bit of sarcasm above, but I doubt we will manage to convince each other of our points of view.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I apologize, you have thoroughly convinced me that there is no higher force than man

I never claimed that "Man" was a force. Humans are a particularly clever species of ape.


(besides immaterial 'blind' natural forces that can only act on the material universe, but are exclusive to such far flung ideas as Logos or Tao), there are only three dimensions and time,

Well that's what the physics says. Theoretical physicists often like to hypothesise the existence of further dimensions, but until experimental confirmation of those additional dimensions is found, such things remain conjecture.


and that we can experience the universe objectively from outside of our own skulls

Again, I never made such a claim. My claim is that we can gain objective knowledge of the universe in spite of our subjective perceptions of it. Like how we have the objective knowledge that the Earth is an oblate spheroid, despite our subjective experiences telling us (unless one is an astronaut or space traveller of some kind) that it is a flat plane (or a slightly curved one, which you can deduce by observing a moving tall object like a ship disappear over the horizon).


and in this way know for certain that the material world alone exists independently of our own consciousness and ability to perceive it.

Certainty isn't a binary thing. All knowledge gained through scientific methods is ultimately provisional, enabling us to construct models that are as close to reality as we can manage, given the available evidence. If new evidence showing our old models to be incomplete comes along (like how Relativity further elaborated on Newtonian mechanics), then we must update our models.


Samael is another name for the Blind god you mentioned.

Apparently Samael said “let us make man in our image”. Since he speaks in terms humans can understand, he can't be the same entity as the blind idiot god Azathoth. Just to make sure there's no further confusion, here's a quote concerning the entity also known as the Nuclear Chaos from an authoritative text:

“...that last amorphous blight of nethermost confusion which blasphemes and bubbles at the centre of all infinity—the boundless daemon-sultan Azathoth, whose name no lips dare speak aloud, and who gnaws hungrily in inconceivable, unlighted chambers beyond time amidst the muffled, maddening beating of vile drums and the thin, monotonous whine of accursed flutes; to which detestable pounding and piping dance slowly, awkwardly, and absurdly the gigantic ultimate gods, the blind, voiceless, tenebrous, mindless Other Gods whose soul and messenger is the crawling chaos Nyarlathotep.” (“The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath”)


EDIT: To clarify; sorry for the bit of sarcasm above, but I doubt we will manage to convince each other of our points of view.

It rarely happens anyway. I consider having the debate in a public forum to be more important, since there is the audience to consider.

[Astarte]

Apparently Samael said “let us make man in our image”. Since he speaks in terms humans can understand, he can't be the same entity as the blind idiot god Azathoth. Just to make sure there's no further confusion, here's a quote concerning the entity also known as the Nuclear Chaos from an authoritative text:

“...that last amorphous blight of nethermost confusion which blasphemes and bubbles at the centre of all infinity—the boundless daemon-sultan Azathoth, whose name no lips dare speak aloud, and who gnaws hungrily in inconceivable, unlighted chambers beyond time amidst the muffled, maddening beating of vile drums and the thin, monotonous whine of accursed flutes; to which detestable pounding and piping dance slowly, awkwardly, and absurdly the gigantic ultimate gods, the blind, voiceless, tenebrous, mindless Other Gods whose soul and messenger is the crawling chaos Nyarlathotep.” (“The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath”)



It rarely happens anyway. I consider having the debate in a public forum to be more important, since there is the audience to consider.

I think it is really a futile discussion, even for the sake of the audience, seeing as though, according to the poll "Which Religion do you follow", approximately 53% of Revlefters are atheist while roughly 36% are some sort of theist and the remaining 11% are agnostic. I really don't have the desire to engage in a theism vs atheism debate for the sake of the 11% "undecided" who may or may not be watching as it has been done in this forum before, and expressed in more precise and eloquent form than I am prepared to spend the time on crafting ... But ...

Let me at least elaborate on Samael as a blind god, and "Azathoth"; I assumed Azathoth was a alternative name for Samael/Yaltaboath/Saklas/Demiurge (there are a lot having to do with different emanations or aspects of this god), since Samael, who has many names in many different texts, is the only "Blind god" I have ever heard of, as mentioned in this piece known as "The Hypostasis of the Archons"


Their chief is blind; because of his power and his ignorance and his arrogance he said, with his power, "It is I who am God; there is none apart from me." When he said this, he sinned against the entirety. And this speech got up to incorruptibility; then there was a voice that came forth from incorruptibility, saying, "You are mistaken, Samael" - which is, "god of the blind."http://gnosis.org/naghamm/hypostas.html

Clearly, I jumped to faulty conclusions in the belief you were referencing one of those names but it is Lovecraft - I would actually be interesting in reading the story, it sounds fascinating.

[Zostrianos]

Interestingly enough, in Sethian Gnosticism, the God of the old testament (Yaldabaoth\Saklas who is seen as an evil creator in Gnosticism generally), and Satan (called Nebruel in Sethian texts) are 2 aspects of the same. One tells humans to obey certain rule or be punished, while the other encourages them to indulge their every desire. Both of them keep humanity enslaved in apparently contradictory ways. One of my favourite books put it best:

"...the world is neither good nor evil; it is only a forfeited dimension of being, where there is no causal connection between kindness and living a long and good life, between how one chooses to live and a just reward. There is further no connection between the human love of the creator god and the creator's love for us. The sciences can give us principles of what to eat, and suggest activities that are good for our health, to improve our possibilities for a long and good life. But nothing can insure us against accidental illness, death or unforseen poverty. In these matters there's nothing that indicates that the creator protects those faithful to him.
Yaldabouth and Nebroel represent the ego's constant battle against itself....like 2 sides of the same coin. Yaldabout makes rules for right behaviour, promises for eternal reward and punishment in the afterlife, while his counterpart Nebroel is the outlaw who disregards the rules, encourages worldly pleasures and a quest for materialistic fulfilment. Together they represent a mental prison; they occupy the human mind so that one cannot raise one's eyes from the polar tensions of the creation....
Yaldaboth and Nebroel are the guardians of the dream (or nightmare) that humans experience as their worldly life. Through the recognition and rectification of this dual nature, one can live in the world without being of the world. One will then not cling to false hopes and fears of what seems to be fate. Rather one will compose one's own life and consider their relationship to oneself, one's fellow beings, and the world. All that is required is that you wake up from the mythical and cultural dream."

("The Key: Sethian Gnosticism in the Postmodern world")

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think it is really a futile discussion, even for the sake of the audience, seeing as though, according to the poll "Which Religion do you follow", approximately 53% of Revlefters are atheist while roughly 36% are some sort of theist and the remaining 11% are agnostic.

That poll may not be representative, due to not being scientifically rigorous. What about all the people who didn't take part in it?


I really don't have the desire to engage in a theism vs atheism debate for the sake of the 11% "undecided" who may or may not be watching as it has been done in this forum before, and expressed in more precise and eloquent form than I am prepared to spend the time on crafting ... But ...

Fair enough, but I would have preferred it had you said so from the outset.


Let me at least elaborate on Samael as a blind god, and "Azathoth"; I assumed Azathoth was a alternative name for Samael/Yaltaboath/Saklas/Demiurge (there are a lot having to do with different emanations or aspects of this god), since Samael, who has many names in many different texts, is the only "Blind god" I have ever heard of, as mentioned in this piece known as "The Hypostasis of the Archons"

http://gnosis.org/naghamm/hypostas.html

Clearly, I jumped to faulty conclusions in the belief you were referencing one of those names but it is Lovecraft - I would actually be interesting in reading the story, it sounds fascinating.

The reason I chose Lovecraft is because I think he manages to put across what I think supernatural beings would really be like if they existed, which is partly why I'm a bit of a fan (another part is because I'm a sucker for purple prose).

It makes perfect sense if one thinks about it - existing in a state of timelike infinity is perhaps the furthest from the natural human condition that we can even begin to conceive. Why should such beings have any care for, or even awareness of, humans and their concerns?

We live in the lower layers of a vanishingly thin skein of gases surrounding an infinitesimal speck of impure iron whizzing around a tiny lump of fusing hydrogen and helium, lost in a crowd of hundreds of billions of other tiny fusing lumps. When we peer into the Great Dark we see yet more of those crowds, themselves more numerous than the grains of sand on shores billions of years old. It goes on and on and on, further than even our best instruments can take us.

Considering the above, can you blame me for looking askance at that which purports to unlock the secrets of the universe through the mind alone, considering it hubris of the highest order?

[Astarte]

Considering the above, can you blame me for looking askance at that which purports to unlock the secrets of the universe through the mind alone, considering it hubris of the highest order?

But how is this alleged "hubris" any different from the hubris of believing that our senses alone, and the instruments we have created with them can tell us, with absolute certainty, everything there is to know about the universe? The "hearing" of the Logos is not hubris because it does not claim to unlock the secrets of the universe - all it states is that there are indeed secrets to the universe that are left to be unlocked and that are beyond human comprehension. Really, to perceive Logos is a humbling experience of the highest order in that it subordinates the existence of man to a mere aspect of existence and reality itself. It seems to me atheism is hubris since it claims Science, which as only existed for a few hundred years, has thoroughly learned and investigated every aspect of the universe and there is nothing more to know. Also, its your life, don't expect me to start blaming you unless you go capitalist (lol, I know you are a solid comrade, I really don't care what you believe in terms of spirituality).

[Grenzer]

Perhaps that could be said of the 'new atheists', but not Marxists. For Marxists, science is not some metaphysical ideal that exists beyond material reality, but a process of constant enquiry, examination, and re-examination. Everything is constantly reappraised and subject to most rigorous and brutal scientific analysis in light of new information and advances in technology. A materialistic and scientific view is not really remotely analogous to religious or idealistic faith.

Really at the core of the issue is that there are two cohesive frameworks of interpreting and analyzing the world: materialism and idealism. There is no way to really have a coherent framework that allows for the objective existence of non-material forces while simultaneously say... acknowledging gravity as a definite reality. I hate to be that guy, but Lenin really did cover the matter pretty damn well in his work Materialism and Empirio-Criticism.

[Astarte]

Really at the core of the issue is that there are two cohesive frameworks of interpreting and analyzing the world: materialism and idealism. There is no way to really have a coherent framework that allows for the objective existence of non-material forces while simultaneously say... acknowledging gravity as a definite reality. I hate to be that guy, but Lenin really did cover the matter pretty damn well in his work Materialism and Empirio-Criticism.

But there is a "third way". Wouldn't it be a bit anti-dialectical to say that materialism and idealism are completely exclusive from each other as philosophical outlooks? Ancient philosophers like Heraclitus and Lao Tzu, whose whole conceptions of reality are based on the interpenetration and unity of the opposites of the material and the "ideal" have existed as this "third way", and I believe as science continues to proceed in Physics, and more discoveries are made this "third way" will re-emerge via theories like quantum mechanics and string theory. I think Lenin is useful, but by no means should be taken, forgive the pun, "Biblically".

[o well this is ok I guess]

At least it's not living sufis they're bulldozing.

Yet.

But how do we owe much of our philosophy to religious figures? Of all the greatest philosophers of the ancient and modern world, none were religious figures. The only I can think of is Thomas Aquinas and his philosophy was more stupid than the claims that he could levitate. Yo Jesus is the biggest name in western ethics.

[Zostrianos]

There's something very profound about spirituality and mysticism, a meaning and profundity that I myself can't find anywhere else. It makes man more than human in my view; there is infinite potential in that area for self-development. A few years back Î had looked through some sites where spirituality and conventional science were discussed, and saved a few excerpts. The following is especially relevant to my view:

Intelligence, instead, is merely a tool that makes awakening possible- if only we grab hold of it and apply it to that purpose. Though survival can be regarded as important, spiritual awakening arises when biological motives take a back seat to new ones. There is a new way of life possible for each of us, if only we can rise above our genetically programmed imperatives. This is the secret human potential (hidden in plain sight) that appears to have come about by accident. A summary of its evolution can be summarized thus:

1. The harshness of physical laws made intelligence necessary for DNA's
survival.
2. DNA generated said intelligence as its own way to ensure that survival.
3. Intelligence makes it possible to awaken motives that exist above survival.

Eating and reproduction may still be important, but it just might come to pass that there's more to explore than that. There are other worlds lying dormant within a human being. Intelligence may be subservient to biology, but it has the ability to transform that biology and to liberate a treasure from within.
Such an awakening has little to do with a molecule's peculiar talent for making copies of itself. But here we are now, on this planet, contemplating our own existence, wondering if there is more to life than food, bank accounts, and breast implants. A human being's intelligence can be manipulated in such a way as to bring about a mysterious transformation. There are exercises that can be utilized to make this happen. As the old saying goes, "Knock, and it shall be opened to you." Clearly, in most of us this self-liberation has not happened yet. The possibility, nonetheless, is earth-shattering.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

But how is this alleged "hubris" any different from the hubris of believing that our senses alone, and the instruments we have created with them can tell us, with absolute certainty, everything there is to know about the universe?

Like I said, the knowledge gained through scientific methods is ultimately provisional. Should evidence be found that either our senses or our instruments are unreliable for whatever reason, then that should be taken into account. The default assumption is that our senses and instruments are at least partially reliable, unless we have good reason to believe otherwise. I say partially because it is possible to come to the wrong conclusions even if one's senses are not being deceptive or one's instruments faulty. That is why experiments should be repeatable - so that others can check on one's work.


The "hearing" of the Logos is not hubris because it does not claim to unlock the secrets of the universe - all it states is that there are indeed secrets to the universe that are left to be unlocked and that are beyond human comprehension.

If these secrets haven't been unlocked, how does one know that they are beyond human comprehension?


Really, to perceive Logos is a humbling experience of the highest order in that it subordinates the existence of man to a mere aspect of existence and reality itself. It seems to me atheism is hubris since it claims Science, which as only existed for a few hundred years, has thoroughly learned and investigated every aspect of the universe and there is nothing more to know - how is the scientific method not a dogma in and of itself?

If there was nothing more to know, then all scientists would be out of a job. Clearly this hasn't happened.


Also, its your life, don't expect me to start blaming you unless you go capitalist (lol, I know you are a solid comrade, I really don't care what you believe in terms of spirituality).

Well I can't help but care. Epistemology is the basis of knowledge, and I think knowledge is important.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

There's something very profound about spirituality and mysticism, a meaning and profundity that I myself can't find anywhere else. It makes man more than human in my view; there is infinite potential in that area for self-development.

But it doesn't do anything. I have an incorrigible attachment and concern for the material world because that is where I do all of my existing. Mysticism hasn't cured diseases that plague us or moved mountains that bother us.


A few years back Î had looked through some sites where spirituality and conventional science were discussed, and saved a few excerpts. The following is especially relevant to my view:

Intelligence, instead, is merely a tool that makes awakening possible- if only we grab hold of it and apply it to that purpose. Though survival can be regarded as important, spiritual awakening arises when biological motives take a back seat to new ones. There is a new way of life possible for each of us, if only we can rise above our genetically programmed imperatives. This is the secret human potential (hidden in plain sight) that appears to have come about by accident. A summary of its evolution can be summarized thus:

1. The harshness of physical laws made intelligence necessary for DNA's
survival.
2. DNA generated said intelligence as its own way to ensure that survival.
3. Intelligence makes it possible to awaken motives that exist above survival.

Eating and reproduction may still be important, but it just might come to pass that there's more to explore than that. There are other worlds lying dormant within a human being. Intelligence may be subservient to biology, but it has the ability to transform that biology and to liberate a treasure from within.

But that's not quite correct. All the fruits of human intelligence were never "within" anything before they came to exist, except as a potentiality, and those things are only possibilities - had the dice fallen another way, we would not be here today ("we" could be anything from us two having this dialogue all the way up to human civilisation as a whole, depending on the scope of possibility under consideration).


Such an awakening has little to do with a molecule's peculiar talent for making copies of itself.

On the contrary, the self-replication of organic molecules is the very bedrock upon which intelligent life depends. Even if one accepts as I do the possibility of artificial intelligence, of meaning without flesh, that does not mean the natural evolution of organic intelligence is not a necessary pre-condition for the development of non-organic intelligence.


But here we are now, on this planet, contemplating our own existence, wondering if there is more to life than food, bank accounts, and breast implants. A human being's intelligence can be manipulated in such a way as to bring about a mysterious transformation. There are exercises that can be utilized to make this happen. As the old saying goes, "Knock, and it shall be opened to you." Clearly, in most of us this self-liberation has not happened yet. The possibility, nonetheless, is earth-shattering.

If humans have the potential to become something greater, then that potential will be realised through the scientific manipulation of the material universe that, so far, none of us have been able to escape from and be able to report back.

[Zostrianos]

But it doesn't do anything. I have an incorrigible attachment and concern for the material world because that is where I do all of my existing. Mysticism hasn't cured diseases that plague us or moved mountains that bother us.

I contend that it does, it's given a deeper meaning to life to millions of people, and this is scientifically verifiable, as , for instance, neurological studies on meditation have shown. It's the same benefits that allow, for instance, Hindu saddhus and many buddhist monks to completely transcend all suffering that would afflict most of us (the former even abandon everything, including clothes and shelter, and through spirituality they come to no longer have need of those things). Sure, it's not for everyone, I'm sure a lot of people are perfectly happy with conventional science, and being completely down to earth, but for some people, like myself, it provides something nothing else can. Much like philosophy does for some, or art for others, and so on.



If humans have the potential to become something greater, then that potential will be realised through the scientific manipulation of the material universe that, so far, none of us have been able to escape from and be able to report back.

Or the exploration of the inner workings of the human mind...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I contend that it does, it's given a deeper meaning to life to millions of people, and this is scientifically verifiable, as , for instance, neurological studies on meditation have shown.

My understanding is that scientists have determined that the practice of meditation is not without accompanying physiological effects. But this is hardly evidence of any deeper meaning; I'm pretty sure that if the Confucian practice of "quiet-sitting" were studied as meditation has been, similar effects would be observed. That wouldn't mean that Confucianism is a correct description of the universe.


It's the same benefits that allow, for instance, Hindu saddhus and many buddhist monks to completely transcend all suffering that would afflict most of us (the former even abandon everything, including clothes and shelter, and through spirituality they come to no longer have need of those things).

Are they really "transcending" suffering, or are they simply ignoring it? People quite frankly have an enormous capacity for delusion, double-think and self-deception, as well as an astonishing capacity for tolerating pain, discomfort and solitude if undergoing that sort of thing is perceived to be in the service of higher goals. As for why people would continue to do that sort of thing (to no obviously world-changing effect) for years on end if not the whole of their lives, I would consider that an example of the sunk costs fallacy (http://www.skepdic.com/sunkcost.html), with the "cost" in this case being the years devoted.


Sure, it's not for everyone, I'm sure a lot of people are perfectly happy with conventional science, and being completely down to earth, but for some people, like myself, it provides something nothing else can. Much like philosophy does for some, or art for others, and so on.

The problem as I see it is that all too often (if not all the time), religion and mysticism like to tread on science and philosophy's "turf", making claims with relevance to material beings like us that either turn out to be a load of old bollocks, or are neatly and oh-so-conveniently described in such a way as to be unfalsifiable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability).

As for art, that is a field concerned with aesthetics rather than truth claims, and is hence entirely subjective.


Or the exploration of the inner workings of the human mind...

Self-reflection is an extremely poor tool for exploring human consciousness beyond its subjective aspects. It's like trying to work out how computers-in-general work by poking around the Windows operating system, when really what you need to be able to do is look at the coding hidden behind the graphical user interface, as well as opening up the physical box.

[UO_Sadie]

L'un des forums plus impressionnant que j'ai vu. Merci beaucoup pour garder l'internet chic pour un changement. Youve a obtenu le style, la classe, la bravade. Je le pense. S'il vous plaît gardez à cause sans l'internet est définitivement manque d'intelligence.