Metaphysics as an Excuse for Crap Ethics.

in philosophy •  2 months ago

Okay, then, this post will explore the root of much of the mayhem happening on this planet. Let's start with a definition of metaphysics: I'll define it here as belief in an invisible power or force usually involved with the destiny of humans and the planet. I'm not using metaphysics here in the context of Heideggerian being.

I've asserted here that there is very little evidence for any such notions. Over 40 years of research and experience with this topic has led me to believe that there is only limited data on the efficacy of yoga and meditation. That's it! 10,000 years of religiosity and that's all we have as evidence! Now, I might add, that I do believe in the existence of subtle energy or Chi but I simply don't believe there's enough evidence about what it is to call for political systemic government premised on these ideas. Hinduism and the caste system are proof enough that such systems are destructive and abusive.  500 years of scientific investigation has led to the same conclusions that I've come to myself although, of course, I've considered scientific evidence to help me form perspectives on this issue. The best system of government developed by humans was a non-corrupted form of secular law. That billionaires have corrupted this system is not an indictment of secular human values but rather an indictment of corrupt mafia ethics! That there are those that assert Buddhist metaphysics as justification for the crimes of the billionaire class is as problematic as the metaphysics of Calvin with its ridiculous assertion that wealth was an indication of God's favor.

Let's now, then, start our deconstruction of all humanities crap metaphysics and the murderous mayhem that they most often enact. We'll begin with the mother of all insanity: Judaism. In this video, Abby Martin interviews average Israel's and it clearly elucidates the mind control and child abuse of this particular religious system. There is a Reconstructionist Jew interviewed therein so the situation isn't entirely hopeless but they are a small minority and quite often enact a code of silence enabling their toxic brethren to carry on business as usual. I'll add right off the top that Christianity and Islam fare no better and their histories are littered with murderous mayhem.

Modern epistemology easily understands what good parenting is and the clear diagnosis is that the Judaic God is a psychopath (if it existed), Reconstructionist Jews understand this.  There's really no other reasonable interpretation yet centuries of mind-control continue to persist on delusion as being real. This should be--by all modern ways of knowing--unacceptable. Yet here we are with Israel manipulating world events so they can usher in their political Messiah. 911 was, in part, the collusion of literalists within Judaism, Christianity, and Islam who have more in common with each other than they do with any healthy secular order. The endgame, here, IMO, will be the invoking of The Noahide Laws by whoever claims to be the Jewish Messiah.

And it's here we must look into the claims of Christian Gnosticism. Very many of the early Christian's were dead set against the idea that Jehovah was a good God (something clearly validated by modern knowledge). Yet the Roman Church found a way to make Jehovah be the father of Kristos--something Christian Gnosticism has always disputed. Please allow a little speculation here: look at the Whitehouse today--clearly controlled by the union of Judaic thought mixed with the power of Caesar--it's not hard to imagine that that is exactly what happened in the time of Constantine. It's historical fact that the Rabbi's wielded extraordinary influence by the time Constantine appeared on the scene and that Constantine was used by the archons to set up the next chess piece within the demiurges matrix. These machinations continue 1700 years later. I'm not arguing this as fact but it's at least a coherent view which is consistent with events and I also am adamant that Christian Gnosticism in no way asserts that spirituality should be codified into societal structures so I can hardly be accused of being inconsistent.

I believe Christian Gnosticism to be a distinct spiritual worldview which stands on its own in direct contradistinction to other less coherent types of religiosity. PIXABAY
Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  trending

Interesting analysis here, though I wonder about your definition of metaphysics that it revolves around. I don't think that metaphysics means believing in the invisible power, or even having to do with a "power" per se, but the pondering and discussion of abstract concepts. What say you?

·

Hi jessica, I do agree. I did mention my use in the first paragraph. I said ​I'm not using metaphysics here in the context of Heideggerian being. What you describe​ is an ontological view of metaphysics if i'm understanding you correctly. My use here was colloquial​ in a traditional religious sense.

·
·

Another way, perhaps, to say what I think you're saying is to analyze from the western analytical​ school of philosophy...Even so, if that's the case, I've argued that material metaphysics has turned humanity​ into objects of financial exploitation, especially under the ruse of corporate neoliberal Chicago School economics--a disaster, IMO..

·
·
·

I see your point. I think I just jumped to hear metaphysics portrayed in such a negative light, and forgot that you were referring to that more religious way. Pff and yes, it is true, all things can easily be exploited, and the new age community especially has in many ways coopted metaphysics for profit (even outside of traditional religion). Uff.

What an amazing post. Thank you for these ideas. I've been musing on the same but not been able to make that link. Don't forget the Mysteries, either - they may be key. My theory is that it has something to do with breaking the initiatory chain from its Holy source (whatever that is - in fact, I don't feel worthy to speculate on these matters). But have you noticed that Joseph P Farrell is a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church? I've no idea but sometimes wonder whether these esoteric considerations are understood by some churchmen....like him. You see, the EO Church is the only one to keep the original initiatory line through the Bishops - the Apostolic Succession. They've been arguing about it for centuries. So imho it could possibly be about the transfer of holy power - the Baptism, the initiation for true believers in the Christ/Jeshua. The EO churchmen may still have the power to pass that on. In most of the other religions, it's been blocked. But I'm no expert.

·

Thanks for dropping in healingherb and I appreciate your thoughtful comment. I do concede the esoteric/exoteric dichotomy and think mysticism is a factual branch of religiosity--from Rumi in Islam to many Christian mystics there is clear historical precedence for differing schools of thought among believers.
Of course I'm familiar with E.O. and I'll look into Farrell. The main point of this post on such issues was that the Bible's historicity isn't factual and neither is its cosmology. What I'm saying is Christian Gnosticism recognizes their narratives as false--even the crucifixion​ and Jesus as a literal​ human man--in Gnosticism he was an Aeon in human form and could never be murdered. Gnosticism asserts that the one primary lie of Christendom​ was that Jehovah was the father of Kristos. Arguably true, from a modernist perspective, the traditional Jesus and Jehovah are psychopaths. This is my position and I would argue its logically and reasonably​ sound.
I am, however, not asserting Gnosticism as fact and concede mysticism to be possible, too, and in that regard, ​I would point anyone in the direction of Ken Wilber.

·
·

Thanks so much for your lucid reply. What I understood of it was music to my ears!

On Ken W, he argues, does he not, that the nature of Enlightenment changes? (Which is not to confuse the idea of an initiatory chain with enlightenment but still...)

And you are absolutely correct, I believe, about the false narratives. I'm still a little confused and have to go away and think more but as you probably know, crucifixion is symbol of one of the "higher" initiations? Partly, it's perhaps about the idea that the Initiate is so in touch with humanity that its tortures and iniquities tear him/her apart? (That's my interpretation. If it's real, this is a stage lifetimes off for me and many others, I would suggest. Including you. Just in case any of us get any ideas....)

But wow. THANK YOU.

·
·
·

Oh, btw I have to say that I agree fully that in some cases metaphysics masks crap ethics. Brilliant observation. I do it myself. I might post about it. "Magical thinking" is fascinating.

·
·
·
·

Cool, thanks! Yes, Wilber is, in part, a process philosopher. God is a verb so to speak.
Those are mystical interpretations of the meaning of the crucifixion (something I have zero issue with) but the main historical point is that it didn't appear to have happened​; certainly not as described literally.
FYI: what I'm doing on my blog is giving Christian Gnosticism a voice. It's up to any​ individual, of course, to come to their own conclusions about this whole bloody​ mess...
And thank-you, too:)

·
·
·

thank you cheers

·
·
·

welcome...keep sharing...becoming your fan day by day...

There are a few points I found I disagreed with, but not enough to feel like getting into a debate with you about 😉.

I also think highly of the Gnostic tradition - and having studied comparative religion extensively as part of a larger degree, I'd like to offer that all the major religious traditions have what I would call a 'gnostic stream' within them.

That is, there have always been thinkers and believers within each religion that came up with similar, gnostic ideas. The criticism of the organised religion, of the ruling class... all common amongst them all.

What this suggests to me is that humans - irrespective of their culture, creed, religion - can smell a rat when its around.

I think this is present in the 'religion of atheism' and the 'religion of scientism' (as I call them). There are those who enslave themselves dogmatically to ideas, and then there are those who are violently opposed, there are those anywhere on a spectrum between, and then there are those who have the capacity to 'chunk up' and see the commonalities and differences between all belief systems.

Great article, I really enjoyed it.

·

Sincerely appreciate your thoughtful response, Peter. By all means extrapolate, if you will, your thoughts on the whole bloody mess, I'd be very much interested in your perspective, and that goes for meno, too.
I do disagree, though, with assessing science as a religion but I think I know what you mean. I'm no particular fan of scientism or reductionism but I think we have to be very careful in defining what we mean and clearly delineate contexts.

·
·

Yeah, I want to make the distinction between science and scientism.

Anyone I know who actually works in science - and by work, I mean actively earn a living from conducting scientific research, etc - will also denounce scientism as a dogmatic belief in the infallibility of science. They are the first people who will say that science cannot explain everything, and that in fact the more we discover and find out, the more we realise how little about the universe we actually know.

Scientism is an uncritical belief system, and sometimes I see stuff around the place - written by these dogmatists - which I think borders on some pretty nasty, totalitarianistic thinking... you can see how their next logical step is eugenics or the sort.

And that belief in pure rationalism leaves aside any notion of natural chaos, disruption, uncertainty, spontaneity, and so on. The stuff that makes life actually interesting. That makes us uniquely human, after all.

·
·
·

I'm finding I agree with you in sentiment but I find the use of words troublesome. I don't see using words like religion and dogmatism useful in this context. I think they are best left describing traditional religionists.
Here are the words I would use to describe reductionist materialists who end up in the scientism camp:
-arrogant
-hubris
-close minded
I'll give you my rationale. Atheist's simply have no belief in God's or God so they really are not asserting anything so can hardly be dogmatic. Saying they are practicing religion when their scientific worldview eschews spirituality isn't accurate either because, again, they are really not asserting anything positive-- just lack of belief​ in any hidden​ teleology or agents/actors driving teleology. Again, that to me is simply a dismissal of possibilities and I find no religion in that per se.
Now here is where it gets interesting for me: atheists and materialist scientists are practicing religion and they have, IMO, been duped by a cabal of Jews and Christians who ushered in the modern finance machine. I call it the God KA$H ( I linked the symbolism​ earlier in this post) who's machinations are embedded with Judean/Christian symbolism​. MONEY is monoKA$Hism. Everything now serves this​ God. As TJ Kirk points out-- it's able to convert every thought and action to its desire. No one can escape it! But what TJ Kirk won't concede and neither will any other atheist is that they are practicing religion! Yes, the Darwinism impulse​ of religiosity has simply gone from Pixies, to Angels, to Money...And some of the money masters throw E.T. into the mix of​ modernity​. Who would have thunk TJ was a theist, eh?
These are just my views and there is no particular need for you to agree with them. Just putting it out for consideration.

·
·
·
·

Yeah, I think we're both using the word religion in slightly different contexts.

For me, spirituality is something way different than religion. Religion does not have to be spiritual, and spirituality does not have to be religious.

I'm using the word religion in its original sense, involving ritual and a sense of orthodoxy.

·
·
·
·
·

Sure, I think what I'm getting at overall here as far as this posts topic is that material metaphysics(scientism) has just as crappy an ethic as pre-modern myths;​ perhaps even more so​ if we are being herded​ into a materialist dystopian​ technocracy.

Wow ! Interesting !!

·
·
·

Cheers !

911 was, in part, the collusion of literalists within Judaism, Christianity, and Islam who have more in common with each other than they do with any healthy secular order.

Excellent point, though I'm not sure collusion is the right word here.

·

How would you frame the idea?

·

thnx ...

Informative post !

nice
good post

·

I'm in a charitable​ mood today!

·
·

tamim bro আমার পস্টে একটা আপভোট দিবেন প্লিয

thanks dear for visit my blog.stay with me.
tamim

Thank you @tamim to resteem a post

truly amazing

·

I really like the trance riff here!

nice philosophy.thanks for up voted.i resteem your post.please upvote my post.

good post my friend

Bountiful post will dony

I wrote two different replies and then decided to refrain, I can say that its not that I don't agree with you. I'm probably 99% with you on your analysis.

But I am reminded of something grandpa taught me, sometimes being right doesn't mean you win. And what I think it meant, or at least to me was that even though we could try to come up with a theoretical truth, in practice it might be irrelevant.

I guess my point is that it could very well be, that it's all a lie, there is no God and thus no super natural anything. But if as a humanity we act as if there is one, does his existence or lack there of become irrelevant.

It's rough for many people to talk about these subjects, for one Religion or more accurately "Belief Systems" are so connected to our core, any questions that shake them get interpreted and treated as ad hominem attacks.

Are you by any chance familiar with Anthony Magnabosco?

·

Are you by any chance familiar with Anthony Magnabosco?

No, but a quick google search leads me to believe that I'd very much like him. I have zero qualms with atheism other than I hold a strong conviction that spiritual atheism is better for humanity in the long run than materialist reductionism which has turned humanity in objects of financial exploitation for the capitalist machine. Something skeptics and atheists wrongly dismiss as irrelevant.
On your post in general: I think it matters very much that humanity goes through the ardent struggle of separating truth from falseness. The best faculties we have for that is using logic and reason honestly.
I don't care about my cultural attachments and I've been relentless in trying to disentangle my thoughts from my ego's desires and for what I'd personally wish to be true.
All I'm saying in regards to western theism is that Christian Gnosticism offers the most plausible explanation for 3500 years of shenanigans. But it's not the only possible explanation. The Hindu Avatar​ theory is worth consideration, ​too, and it doesn't suffer the irrational and illogical premises of exoteric orthodoxy​.
No matter what you're a very brave man for considering these issues.

nice post ... follow me and upvote ,resteem my post

thnx friend
awesome you

nice post & photo

Plz help me bro. I upvote your all post you upvote my 1 post plz i request you bro plz plz just 1 upvote me bro.......

Nice post.

upvote me please

nice post i'm upvoted this @andrewmarkmusic

·

Why thank-you young lady:) Rumour has it that Hindu Nationalism is on the rise since 911 which would argue for my speculation that this old world order has no intention of giving up their power.

Well damn I missed this outside the "seven day window"
I can appreciate the fact you are clearly stating opinion here, yet are also open minded enough...
"Now, I might add, that I do believe in the existence of subtle energy or Chi but I simply don't believe there's enough evidence about what it is to call for political systemic government premised on these ideas. Hinduism and the caste system are proof enough that such systems are destructive and abusive."

Yes, i agree about Hinduism and castes
However, i Think it is a very extreme example and an exception to the rule...

·

No worries, chelsea, I have little financial motivation for the topics I write about. These are my passions:)
Maybe, but they are persistent and cross cultural boundaries. Calvinism, the modern prosperity movement, and even certain New-Age philosophies all espouse dubious economic systems. I reject that the thousands of children dying every day from starvation is because​ they couldn't attract wealth into their life. There is no justifiable evidence for such spiritual assertions​s. Today they are mainly dying from corrupt mafia driven economic systems. The legal mafias of first world nations are the most dangerous, too.

Thanks your post....

thnxx lots of for upvote my vid

Very Nice...

I follow you plz follow me @hrishikesh

Really nice post 😎

I will follow you

Always is cool read post like this, nice post, good pic :)

Look at my chic post about the Konzhakov Marathon. I want to share this miracle with the whole world, but no one really looks. Share with your subscribers, brother! For money, shit. I like to communicate!